Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Is the following paragraph SYNTH?

Hi. I have been trying to add this paragraph on the history of the race and intelligence controversy article:

Most recently, genome-wide association studies have succeeded in finding statistically significant correlations between some genetic loci and traits like educational attainment. These correlations may reflect causal effects, or they may reflect population structure due to assortative mating. Once one corrects for population substructure by using within family polygenic scores the data is virtually absent of signs of natural selection. Moreover, since more than 70% of genome-wide association studies are done using samples of European ancestry, polygenic scores for educational attainment are not good predictors of the potential of individuals of different ancestry. Research attempting to use European ancestry derived polygenic scores to different populations has yielded highly inconsistent results, and is confounded by problems such as linkage disequilibrium. There is evidence that polygenic score expressivity, specifically for general cognitive ability and educational attainment, is lower in populations that were historically and are currently disadvantaged.

But I keep being told in the talk page [1] that it is synthesis for inconsistent and, honestly, false, reasons.

They say that I make claims not explicitly in the articles, but I do not, and no one has pointed to a claim I have made that is not in the articles.

They also say that the articles are not about Race and Intelligence, but as far as I can tell that is not part of the criterion to determine whether something is synthesis or not. Moreover, I have provided direct quotes from each of the articles showing there is an explicit discussion of race and intelligence (or ancestry and cognitive ability, which are just synonyms).

I am relatively new to the site, so any help clarifying why exactly this is synthesis with quotes from the policy page as well as a specific example from my contribution would be appreciated. 98.153.62.223 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not quite an accurate summary of the discussion. I will direct interested parties to Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy#Reversion. The claim is that only two of the cited sources are germane to the topic of the article, and that these may not be DUE on their own merits. The rest have been cobbled together by the IP to make a claim about race and intelligence that is not present in the sources. Furthermore, ancestry is not a synonym for race, but I'm not sure that needs to be litigated here. Generalrelative (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the claim about race and intelligence not present in the sources? Could you please lay it out explicitly and in quotation marks for us? I am actually a geneticist and I can tell you we do not speak about race in the field, we speak about ancestral populations, it is formal technical term that gives a rigourous definition of the slippery modern day parlance "race" 98.153.62.223 (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The claim you are making by adding this material is an implicit one: that these statements have to do with the history of the race and intelligence controversy, which is the topic of the article. That controversy, as the article details in excruciating detail, surrounds the now fringe claim that group-level differences in intelligence exist between racial groups. By including discussion of these sources in an article about a topic not covered in the sources, you are including an original synthesis, i.e. constructing an implicit claim by cobbling sources together. This has been explained to you a number of times on the talk page, and MrOllie explained it well: One way to tell that synthesis is occurring is that the citations are not about the same thing.

On the subject of "race" versus "ancestry", see the discussion of the David Reich snafu in one of your own sources: [2] (p. 424): Why the uproar? Despite stating that race and ancestry were distinct concepts... Or see this piece by Ewan Birney et al. with an entire section on how Human population structure is not race: Some ‘human biodiversity’ proponents concede that traditional notions of race are refuted by genetic data, but argue that the complex patterns of ancestry we do find should in effect be regarded as an updated form of ‘race’. However, for geneticists, other biologists and anthropologists who study this complexity, ‘race’ is simply not a useful or accurate term, given its clear and long-established implication of natural subdivisions. Repurposing it to describe human ancestry and genetic structure in general is misleading and disingenuous. The term ‘population’ is used in many contexts within the modern scientific literature to refer to groups of individuals, but it is not merely a more socially acceptable euphemism for race. (emphasis added) [3]. 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Generalrelative (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Commenting as an uninvolved editor, Generalrelative is correct that the paragraph is original synthesis. When included in an article about race, the statement "Moreover, since more than 70% of genome-wide association studies are done using samples of European ancestry, polygenic scores for educational attainment are not good predictors of the potential of individuals of different ancestry" also implies that racial categories are genetically meaningful. There is a broad consensus that race is a social construct, see Race_(human_categorization)#Defining_race. These repeated attempts to promote a WP:FRINGE genetic interpretation of race are disruptive. Tristan albatross (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Tristan albatross, that is a different point. That claim came from this quote from the article: Given that greater than 70% of GWAS participants are of European descent (Need and Goldstein 2009; Popejoy and Fullerton 2016; N. A. Rosenberg et al. 2010), the implications of this problem of portability are that PGS for EA and IQ are more likely to misidentify the outcomes of individuals of non-European ancestry who were historically and are currently disadvantaged in American classrooms. If you wish to say my contribution is fringe, you can open a different section to discuss it, this is about whether it is synthesis or not. This quote, this article, are clearly about race and intelligence, and the claim matches perfectly with the source. It is therefore not synthesis by any stretch of the imagination. 98.153.62.223 (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

By adding this paragraph to the History of the race and intelligence controversy article, you are promoting the WP:FRINGE claim that the term "individuals of non-European ancestry" refers to one or more racial groups, without citing any sources which say that. This has been explained to you by many other users, yet you refuse to WP:GETTHEPOINT. Tristan albatross (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Tristan albatross: Actually you are the only one who has made this claim so far. Ironically you seem to be admitting that the article IS about race and IQ, which ultimately undermines Generalrelative's and MrOllie's already very dubious case for synthesis. 72.17.88.210 (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone besides IP 72.17.88.210 understand what this comment is trying to argue? Generalrelative (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The IP does not seem to understand WP:NOR and exhibits WP:IDHT when other editors explain it. For example, see [4], where they are arguing that an article that discusses educational attainment but does not mention the word intelligence is still really about intelligence, because intelligence and educational attainment are correlated. NightHeron (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Include large RCT as primary research in text (RFC)

We have a discussion whether a large clinical trial should be mentioned in the flavan-3-ol text, even though it is primary research. Any comments to reach a consensus would be appreciated. There is no dispute whether the study is primary research - it is whether it meets the criteria specified in WP:MEDPRI to permit inclusion.

Lavender Oil Capsule Research

Lavender_oil#Uses current wording:

• A 2021 meta-analysis included five studies of people with anxiety disorders. All five studies were funded by the manufacturers of the lavender oil capsule used, four of them were conducted by one author of the meta-analysis,[13] and blinding was not clear.[14] In this analysis, an oral 80 mg dose of lavender oil per day was associated with reduced anxiety scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.[13] Due to the limitations of these studies, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.[11]

Where [13] is reference to (von Känel, 2021), [14] is (Generoso, 2017), and [11] is (NCCIH info page, 2020)

• Explanation of this wording choice by its author[5]

• Arguments that this is not WP:OR[6][7][8]

• Arguments that this is WP:OR[9][10][11]

• Current talk-page section: Talk:Lavender_oil#Anti-anxiety_content_and_sources_-_revision

• Background talk-page discussion: Talk:Lavender_oil#RfC_on_adding_more_sources_for_anxiety_treatment_section_and_summarizing_their_findings

Thank you for helping out.

Discussion of content provided that does not exist in cited sources

Hello, in the article BMW G 310 R, we are discussing the possible use of original research. The editor who added it states that information not found in a source, is true because it isn't found in a source. I'm pretty new so I may be wrong but I believe this is original research based on Wikipedia's core content policy. The discussion can be found here and additional expert input would be appreciated. Talk:BMW G 310 R#Not Feature Lists containing original research. A third opinion was obtained and they are in agreement that it is original research but the original poster is adamant it is not. Advice would be appreciated if this is original research.

Unverifiable WP:NEO

• Apostasy in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearcut case of disruptive reverting, with editor refusing to recognize our core policies: WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. My removal of unverifiable explicit terminology, "Islamic death penalty", which is employed within the context of two sentences (also in at least one other article), is reverted twice 1, 2, with explanation which is irrelevant to the problem. Terminology (construct which in my view sounds almost racialized), employed in very excessive and unnecessary way in the context of those two sentences, if used without validation in RS is, then, blatant WP:NEO based on original research. Parallel to my edits I asked editor in TP (1, 2, 3) to offer exact quotation from RS with page number(s), where the specific terminology is utilized, so that I can validate existence of such peculiar construct, however, they failed and only supplied numerous references and more original research as an explanation and justification. They also removed my warning template from their user TP with condescending edit summary, claimed that I am accusing them of edit warring when they did, and refused to revert themselves when asked.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of disruptive editing simply because they disagree with your edits is a self-evident case of WP:BADFAITH, and you know it very well, so stop doing that. I didn't revert my own edit for the following, simple reasons:

1. The discussion is still open and other editors can join it, if they want to do so;
2. I have provided the evidence that you desperately asked for on the Talk page and you refuse to read the aforementioned sources, while accusing me of disruption, racism, and other ridiculous stuff with repeated hostile aggressiveness which nobody else on this website ever told me in the last 6 years..... never.
3. For the time being, there's no WP:CONSENSUS to apply the changes that you proposed;
4. Multiple academic, secondary, reliable references already cited in the article, which have been undisputed for several months, cannot be qualified as original research as you claim, for obvious reasons (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY);
5. You keep bothering me by posting several warnings on my Talk page while the discussion is still open.... there's no need to say that this kind of behavior doesn't help at all;
6. If I were you, I would have asked for a third opinion about the ongoing discussion, instead of continuously bothering me on my Talk page with your warnings, insults, and accusations of all kinds of ridiculous stuff, as you did both here and on the Talk page for everyone to see. GenoV84 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

   Please quotes and page number(s). Please tone down your arguments expression, and I am not sure why are you deleting your TP, you can't remove all the blocks and warnings from your talk page because they are archived in History for scrutiny. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is not the proper venue for this discussion. If there is a question about the policy or how to implement it, please ask without reference to another editor’s motivations or actions.

If the issue is the actions of another editor, the place to raise that is WP:AN (the Administrator’s Noticeboard). Thank you both. Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Should someone move discussion as it is - is there a way to move it? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I see that a discussion has been opened at WP:AN… so no need to formally close or “move” anything… just let the discussion here die (ie don’t respond to further posts). Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Are these self-sourced edits to Bernard Lonergan OR?

[12] Doug Weller talk 17:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Toutatis

Julienor94 has recently rewritten the article about the Celtic god Toutatis to make him a 'Ligurian god'. They base this entirely on their own (mis)interpretation of one ancient text. I provided several modern, reliable, academic sources from experts in Celtic studies and linguistics, who all call Toutatis a Celtic god. There is no academic debate over this. Experts note that his name is linguistically Celtic, and he is named in inscriptions from various parts of Celtic Europe. My version can be seen here.

The editor has been asked by myself and Escape Orbit to show us any modern academic sources that call Toutatis a 'Ligurian god', but they have not done so. The discussion can be found here. ~Asarlaí 18:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is the problem :

1 - The only text mentioning Teutates is Lucan's account. In this account Lucan writes very explicitly that Teutates is a Ligurian god. There is no possible interpretation. I put the text with the reference in the page.

2 - There is no ancient text that speaks of a Celtic god. If not which one?

3 - There is no archaeological evidence of a Celtic god if not where?

4 - Celtic is not a defined language, it was a multitude of dialects. Moreover, there is no trace left because the Celts could neither read nor write. We cannot therefore study this language and even less a pseudo Celtic proto language. Thus it is impossible to say that Teutates would come from the Celtic language.

5 - The writings on wikipedia take turns constantly and downright base myths that never existed on the Celts.

6 - when asking for proof User:Asarlaí dodges by quoting contemporary individuals who would have said this or that according to who knows what. Individuals who call themselves scholars but who have nothing serious.--Julienor94 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Every one of your points is wrong. I've shown you how they're wrong on the talkpage, and if you look up the references here you'll also see how they're wrong. But my post above was just a notice for other editors, the discussion should be continued on the talkpage. ~Asarlaí 20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:OR. (1) ancient writers used "Ligurian" as both an ethnic and geographical description (4) ancient Celtic speakers could write their own languages with Old Italic, Greek, and Latin scripts. (3) Toutatis is also attested on an inscription from Britain (Marti Toutati; CIL VII 84), where no Ligure is known to have lived. cf. Euskirchen, Marion (Bonn) (2006), "Teutates", Brill’s New Pauly, Brill, doi:10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e1205840. Alcaios (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

State collapse and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State collapse

The article on state collapse strikes me as having serious WP:SYNTH/personal essay problems: a lot of cobbled-together news stories from various points/countries, including random or dated commentary/speculation. Has very little in the way of academic sources explaining the idea as a unified concept. It’s at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State collapse, where I think it’s a WP:TNT case. However, if kept, it certainly needs cleanup to remove the synth. More eyes welcome at both the article and the AfD. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Differentiation of Serbs and Montenegrins in Albania

• Serbo-Montenegrins in Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Serbs in Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Montenegrins in Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

More eyes on these pages would be appreciated; the latter two are both recently-created stub-forks of the Serbo-Montenegrin article. Cited sources are inconclusive as to whether there is differentiation between these groups, and I was unable to find an obvious answer from additional Scholar searches. Sources cited at Montenegrins in Albania and Serbo-Montenegrins in Albania seem to suggest that these terms have historically been used interchangeably; the record on "Serbs" is less clear. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Trump bio — Iran mistakenly shot down airliner

In the section Talk:Donald_Trump#Airliner_shot_down there is

An item about an airliner in the section Iran violates Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. It is the second part of the following sentence.

Iran retaliated with ballistic missile strikes against two U.S. airbases in Iraq and mistakenly shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 after takeoff from Tehran airport.^[399][396]

The cite that is about the airliner is the first one.

399. Fassihi, Farnaz (January 10, 2020). "Iran Says It Unintentionally Shot Down Ukrainian Airliner". The New York Times. Retrieved October 4, 2021.

The airliner part of the sentence violates WP:NOR, which states in its first paragraph,"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article..." The given source is not directly related to the topic of the article, which is Trump.

I can add here that the given source does not even mention Trump.

In response, one editor User:SPECIFICO said it was a misinterpretation of NOR and another User:Zaathras said it was a misapplication of policy, both without explanation. I would like the opinions of editors here. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That is original research. The source mentions Trump, but not in relevant context: there's an infobox about "More on U.S. Armed Forces", which also mentions Biden. The source would be suitable for neither Trump nor Biden bio, with the exception of that one paragraph about policy changes. I'm also wondering how it would even be possible to retaliate "mistakenly"... Politrukki (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your well thought out response. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Periodization of the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia and related articles about individual battles

• 2001 insurgency in Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vaksince Attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vaksince offensive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Operation MH-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gajre ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lisec ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ambush near Tanuševci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vejce ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd appreciate more eyes on Talk:2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia#Proposed_merge_of_Vaksince_Attack_into_2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia, where we are discussing a proposal to merge some articles about individual battles to broader articles about the conflict. The discussion has uncovered additional similarly small-scoped articles, and raised the possibility that we are dealing with walled gardens of partisan portrayals of various battles on either side of the conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Homophobia and people of color -- original research or synth?

This is the second paragraph in the lead at Homophobia in ethnic minority communities:

Different regions of the world and different nations have unique conceptions of which groups are considered ethnic minorities. In many Western nations where people of color (POC) are seen as ethnic minorities, homophobia that is not usually associated with the nation's dominant culture may arise as a result of that ethnic community's norms.

This is very vaguely written, so it's hard to tell exactly what it's trying to convey, but my interpretation is that it means that communities of color may be more likely to be homophobic than the white majorities in Western countries, based on the following sections in the main article detailing how non-white people are uniquely homophobic.

My problem with this is that there doesn't appear to be a single citation in the article that supports this extreme overgeneralization. Further compounding the difficulty of verifying the sources is that many of the citations lack page numbers, especially in the Black community section.

While there are individual minority cultures that are often described as uniquely homophobic, consider that I have also posted several examples of sources that contradict this view where it occurs. Those examples can be found at this talk page discussion. These sources suggest that the idea that black people (for example) are uniquely homophobic is inaccurate and basically an unhelpful racial stereotype that is projected on to black Americans by the white majority. So it's a contentious idea -- but none of these sources are currently in the article.

All outstanding claims need outstanding evidence. I'm not seeing anywhere in the main body of that article where a citation says that communities of color in general may be uniquely homophobic in white societies, or that white societies are generally not homophobic. It seems to be an original research synthesis based on the citations pertaining to many different ethnic groups in the US and UK.

In other words, because there are citations for every major minority group in the US and UK detailing instances of homophobia within those groups, however contentious some may be, the author has assumed from this compendium of citations that minorities are just plain homophobic relative to white culture. To me that's a huge violation of WP:OR and SYNTH, and it should be removed in absence of a citation that explicitly says communities of color may be uniquely homophobic in supposedly non-homophobic western societies. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:891:D96:5E15:4083 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)