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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Draft:Environmental issues in Brunei - OR or not?

I'm having a discussion with myself. Is this past the borderline of OR? I am about to review it and wish to get it right. Please ping me on your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs)

Adding parts not found in the cited source

Article Vlachs, entries 1 and 2, text: He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia could not be verified in the source(s). On discussion page the editor failed to provide with clear quotes from the sources that sustain his synthesis of the material, including the naming of provinces added in his edit. Please advise.

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Television Series: Adventure into Fear

There is a discussion going on at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series regarding the cancelled television block known as Adventure into Fear. This conversation is long-lasting and has been at a perpetual standstill, as the page and several other pages designate Adventure into Fear as having been developed for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Some eyes examining the conversations and the sources would be very much appreciated. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Bumping -- this is a debate that's been going on for several months. A lack of objectivity is hindering it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Bumping again due to lack of feedback. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data

At the AfD in March 2023, there was consensus that entries of this list need to be cited to secondary sources rather than online satellite maps to avoid WP:OR, but people continue to ignore this rule, possibly because the in-page comment at the top of the list is not visible to those using the markup editor in a continent subsection. Should we create an editnotice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data, which would be visible in all subsections and the only sourcing-related editnotice in mainspace? ({{RS and OR editnotice}} is intended for use on talk pages of protected articles.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a little bit ago I went through all the removed USian locations on that list, as well as all the locations I could find in articles online, and came to the conclusion that there are no censored areas on the whole of Google Maps in the US (or at least no areas that anybody online seems to know about). jp×g 08:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Treaty of Old Crossing

Browsing around tonight, I arrived at this page from the Red River Valley page. Im not familiar enough with the topic to dive in too far with edits of my own, but section headings in the article of A legacy of fraud, A legacy of self-deception, A legacy of incestuous connections and self-interest and a prominent Conclusions section, all without sources using those terms (and in some cases denigrating sources for NOT reaching those conclusions: [...]are largely understated in most of the literature that has developed around the treaty) makes it seem like someone's class essay being published as OR. Just hoping for some eyeballs. Like I said I don't know enough to be certain myself. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the headings are non-neutral and the text following the headings presents opinions in the voice of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed some of the most egregious NPOV violations, including all of the unsourced content and WP:SYNTH conclusions in the legacy sections, as well as some of the loaded language (lots of sentences beginning with "It was John Doe who..." or "The same John Doe..."). The legacy sections themselves have also been combined under a single header simply titled "Legacy"; the "Conclusion" section was deleted because the only remaining content after Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) removed two unsourced argumentative paragraphs, was also unsourced. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Industrial and organizational psychology

When I look through the article, I am seeing a lot of, sometimes entire paragraphs without citations and random bits added on the tail end of cited contents that appear to be possible WP:SYNTHESIS or interpretation and explanation by page editors rather than mechanical summarization of information supported by cited sources. Graywalls (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Qatar Grand Prix

I am looking for a third opinion on what I believe is a violation of WP:SYNTH over at Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#Unverifiable_information. Thanks! Cerebral726 (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Certified Organic Sunscreen

I'm looking for additional opinions on this page to understand if it can be considered an original research (or an original synthesis). As I wrote in the talk page, the page is based mainly on primary sources and I found different references that were not really supporting the sentences for which they were used. Thanks! LostMyAccount (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Hi, after what's happened in Israel recently there's been a wee bit of recently activity at List of Islamist terrorist attacks. The article has some heavy problems with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which me and another editor have been slowly working on for a little while after I failed to WP:TNT it. I'd appreciate if I could get the eyes of some experienced editors on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Re_add_"2001_Indian_parliament_attack" and Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#WP:SYNTH_editing threads. As there is an editor who's not getting it and the commentary from others might help. TarnishedPath^talk 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the editor above is demanding sources must specifically use the phrase “Islamist terror”, and removing reliable sources that state Hamas is Islamist, and that the attack was a terror attack, because they don’t use that phrase. Specifically, the editor above rejected a reliable source that described the perpetrators as “Islamist militants” and the event as a terror attack, because the demanded phrase wasn’t included. Drsmoo (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Drsmoo, taking sources that say two different things and then combining those facts is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not what’s being discussed though. The issue is that the use above is demanding a particular phrase, and that phrase is rarely used in English. Drsmoo (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Were there such a thing as an “Islamist terror attack” that differed materially from a “terror attack committed by Islamists”, that would be one thing, but that is not the case. An “Islamist terror attack” is nothing more than a terror stack committed by Islamists, which is attested to in reliable sources. If one disagrees, please explain the difference between an “attack by an Islamist terrorist group“, and an “Islamist terror attack”? Drsmoo (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Here you go again thinking that "Islamist militants" cuts it. It doesn't. Please have a read of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 09:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in the talk page, and issue with the edit I removed was that it used one article to establish that Hamas was a Islamic terrorist organisation and another to establish that they committed the attack. Neither article by themselves could establish that Hamas was a Islamic terrorist organisation which committed the specifically named attack. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You’ve made your opinion clear Drsmoo (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's Wikipedia policy. TarnishedPath^talk 14:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not and you’re approaching an accusation of WP:GAMING if a bit more patience and research are not conducted before making these assertions. That Hamas is an Islamist organization is not only well-attested, it is explicitly an Islamist organization as per its own Charter.

Mistamystery (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been explained slowly and clearly what the synth problem is. The problem is WP:IDHT. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please go read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 23:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has asked "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. A review of sources they've proposed to support such edit reveals that none of them specifically name "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 23:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hickory Wind

• Hickory Wind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eldanger25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ThaddeusSholto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a content dispute that I am referring from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Draft_versions_of_authorship_controversy_section. Does the following paragraph constitute synthesis or other original research?

A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002, profiled Sylvia Sammons, a 42 year old blind female folk singer from North Carolina who local city officials were concerned was panhandling in a Mt. Dora, Florida, public park; the article described Ms. Sammons as having been "a professional singer and guitar player for 12 years on the coffeehouse circuit," or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds.

The arguments for and against the inclusion of the paragraph are found in the discussion in DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

To reiterate my argument here: The paragraph beginning with "A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002" shows that this is SYNTH. You cannot use an article which precedes the 2002 claim to refute the 2002 claim. This is original research on the part of the editor who added it. References must explicitly state what is being claimed in the article and this reference does not do that because it cannot. It cannot refute what hadn't yet happened.

WP:SYNTH specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." This is exactly what is happening with this paragraph. The editor even adds their own conclusion with "or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds." This is not in the 1993 article because that article has nothing to do with Hickory Wind or its authorship.

It is also OR to even claim this is the same Sylvia Sammons. There is no way to know that as the 1993 article about Sylvia Sammons and the 2002 article about Sylvia Sammons describe people of different ages; Eldanger25 even admits on the article talk page that it is "circumstantial evidence that it is the same person" which is definitely WP:OR. Again, the policy states that an editor cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This section – which over multiple paragraphs discusses a 2002 claim of alleged plagiarism of a 1968 work of art (the named author died in 1973) – should be deleted as a minority viewpoint from a single source.

As an alternative, the 2002 claimant’s prior inconsistent statements in a reliable 1993 source should be included. I understand there is a concern that the subject of the 1993 article does not confirm herself to be the subject of the 2002 article, although they share a first and last name; unique disability; profession; specialization within that profession; and region of the United States. I believe that is addressed in the language chosen in the proposed paragraph.

I am not aware of any policy indicating that data relevant to a “controversy” may only be included if it comments on, and therefore post-dates, the controversy (particularly when one half of the controversy, Mr. Parsons, was dead for 30 years before the controversy arose). The proposed paragraph is drawn from a single source, and uses simple calculations, which are allowed, in evaluating relevant data points between that 1993 source and its neighboring 2002 source. Again, this is a so-called “controversy.” If the late-arriving claimant made disqualifying, inconsistent, statements about herself at a time well after the song had been published in 1968, and before she publicly surfaced her claim in 2002, that is relevant data.

Finally, I’ll restate an example I used in the “talk” page: If I gave an interview today claiming to have written the first draft of the screenplay for "Ghostbusters" in 1982, which I claim Dan Aykroyd then stole from my briefcase in a coffee shop a month later (I never made a criminal report or civil claim, and nothing exists supporting my authorship claim until my 2023 interview 40 years after the movie came out), and it turned out that someone with my same name; profession; region of the country; and identifying medical condition had given a newspaper interview 10 years ago, in 2013, stating they’d just started writing screenplays in 2005, and had never been to Hollywood but was excited to visit one day, the biographical consistencies and inconsistencies in the 2013 article are relevant to, and should included in, the 2023 "controversy" (if such "controversy" should even be included at all), even though the 2013 article did not – and naturally could not – comment on the 2023 claim. Eldanger25 (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The relevant policy indicating that "data relevant to a 'controversy' may only be included if it comments on, and therefore post-dates, the controversy" has been linked repeatedly: WP:OR. The relevant sections are WP:PRIMARY ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation") and WP:SYNTH ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source") ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The WP:OR policy, as I understand it, would have been violated if the proposed paragraph ended with: "Therefore, she did not write the song." The proposed paragraph does not render such a conclusion; it simply sets forth data drawn from the 1993 news article that is reasonably relevant to the alleged controversy, and then engages in simple numeric calculations.

"Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research."

"What matters is that all material in Wikipedia is verifiable, not that it's actually verified. By this we mean that it is important that a suitable reliable source that supports this material has been published in the real world. . ."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not Eldanger25 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)