Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:No original research

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cordless Larry (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 23 September 2015 (→‎Big body theory: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcuts
    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    • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

    RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".

    See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

    Carly Fiorina

    A discussion about the appropriateness of possible juxtaposition/SYNTH of certain numbers and figures, related to employees fired and employees hired, is taking place at Talk:Carly Fiorina#Original research regarding jobs at HP. Comments from uninvolded editors would be welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion about it here in this noticeboard section would also be welcome. This seems to me to be a situation where some editors would like the lead to announce that the BLP subject fired 30,000 people without mentioning the very well-publicized (and juxtaposed) fact that she also hired tens of thousands of people. Here is the material at issue in the lead, which I think is perfectly appropriate:

    [1]Rushe, Dominic (March 29, 2015). "Ex-HP chief Carly Fiorina sets sights on Clinton as she nears presidential run". The Guardian.

    [2]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010).

    [3]Abcarian, Robin. "Profits may not equal success", The Los Angeles Times (May 20, 2010): "According to HP's government filings, the company had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. Together the two companies would have a total workforce of 148,100. But in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports. And in 2005, when Fiorina was fired, the company reported a worldwide workforce of 150,000."

    [4]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010): "According to SEC filings, HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. That comes to a total of 148,100 workers. In 2005, just after her departure, HP's worldwide workforce reached 150,000. Net gain? In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'….It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad."

    [5]Kessler, Glenn. "Carly Fiorina's misleading claims about her business record", The Washington Post (May 8, 2015): "[T]he number of [HP] employees was 84,800 in 1999 and 151,000 in 2004, according to the 10-K reports. On paper, that certainly looks like an increase in jobs. But before the merger with Compaq, HP had 86,200 employees and Compaq had 63,700 employees. That adds up to 149,900. HP’s filings show that the combined company had 141,000 employees in 2002 and 142,000 employees in 2003. By 2005, the number was 150,000. In other words, the number of employees barely budged from the pre-merger total–and people lost jobs as a result. The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees. Indeed, Fiorina has acknowledged firing more than 30,000 workers in the wake of the Compaq merger."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The last source above nails it pretty well, but without that context, a juxtaposition is OR. We should not connect any dots, we need to let our sources do that. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you're referring to. Look at the quoted stuff above from the last source (Kessler's report in WaPo). He talks about both the 30,000 fired and the 8,000 hired via acquisition, which you say is synth in our lead. Plus he compares the combined employment at HP and Compaq before and after the merger, which you also say is synth. Same for the other sources quoted above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand. Using a source to draw the conclusion that that source explicitly states is not WP:SYNTH; but pulling a fact out of a source and using it to imply a conclusion that isn't in the source is WP:SYNTH. Therefore, we can cite the Politifact and WaPo sources to conclude that Fiorina fudged the numbers to make misleading claims about her business record and that she fired large numbers of people during her tenure; we cannot cite them (as you seem to want to) to make a statement that seems to imply "it was fine, the number of employees was about the same as the pre-merger total." That technically repeats a fact from the sources, but alters its context in a way that changes the meaning. That would be WP:SYNTH. You say in the talk page that this "seems simply to be a situation where some editors would like the lead to proclaim that she fired thousands of people while deliberately omitting that she also hired thousands." But what the sources say is that she actually merged companies (acquiring the people who already worked there) and then fired people as a result, not that she hired people; taking that out of context to say "look, she hired people!!" is clear WP:SYNTH. If you want a source extolling her virtue for hiring people, you need to find one that says it explicitly rather than trying to read it into sources that are unequivocally saying the opposite. --Aquillion (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so fast... citing the Politifact and WaPo sources for a conclusion that Fiorina fudged the numbers might pass WP:OR... but I don't think they pass WP:NPOV if stated as fact. The conclusion that she fudged the numbers is opinion, and should be phrased as such (and attributed). That opinion can be balanced by stating the opinions (with attribution) of other sources that draw a contrary conclusion.
    That said... I don't think any of this belongs in the article's lead. Putting it in the lead give the entire issue UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing it all from the lead would be fine with me. As long as it's in the lead, it should be neutral, which is what I've tried to ensure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    vasectomy-Ideological issues; contains original research

    The last paragraph under the idealogical issues in the article on vasectomy appears to contain original research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy#Ideological_issues

    paragraph in question is included below:

    "An alternative view-point of contextualizing vasectomy debate is the evolutionary "battle of the sexes" conflict of interest. From a Darwinian stand-point, males may increase their genetic fitness by mating with multiple women over the course of their lives (see Sexual Conflict). As a woman's reproductive capacity reduces significantly with age towards menopause, eventually ceasing while a male partner is still able to reproduce (see Age and Female Fertility), she benefits in evolutionary terms from her partner undergoing vasectomy - eliminating or greatly restricting his ability to mate with other women in the future, thus helping to ensure or protect her partner's investment and resources for herself and any progeny. Vasectomy may in this way be advantageous to female reproductive strategy (after a threshold number of children are born), and detrimental to the male reproductive strategy, if viewed in generalized evolutionary fitness terms alone."

    While there are links to other wikipedia articles related to the 'alternative viewpoint' being mentioned. There are no citations about who is making this viewpoint other than the editor writing it. To me this would classify as original research because the editor is drawing their own conclusions and making up a point of view that is loosely based on a concept discussed in another article that is not directly applicable to this modern form of permanent birth control (vasectomy) End of unsigned post

    This was blatantly original research and I removed it. The fact that it has no sources shows that it must be OR. (That is, if this wasn't OR, the author would know exactly what source the theory came from.) Are there other articles that have similar original research? Roches (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ranking of living supercentenarians

    The table in List of oldest living people lists supercentenarians and their ages. The majority of the table is sourced to the GRG's Table E of validated living supercentenarians. The GRG table also ranks these names in descending order by age. If entries are added to the Wikipedia article table that are not sourced to the GRG, is it WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to rank all entries in the article regardless of the sources, given that the ranking is determined solely by age? The opposing argument is that since the GRG ranks the names, Wikipedia must rank the names the same way, and that to rank all entries by age (aka provide our own ranking) is WP:OR and violates WP:NPOV.

    This is related to the World's oldest people wikiproject.

    Thank you for your help and insight. Ca2james (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The point here is that it's not for Wikipedia to determine who the 27th oldest person in the world is or whatever. Information like that has to be sourced to an outside agency, such as the GRG. My suggestion is to have two separate tables: one with ranked, verified entries sourced to the GRG, and another which is unranked, with people who have been reported on in other sources, such as newspaper articles, but are not included in the GRG's tables. That way, different viewpoints are represented fairly in accordance with WP:NPOV and there's no need for original research. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the presentation of validated (by the GRG or similar agency) vs unvalidated table entries is being discussed in this RfC, and the question of whether specific sources are reliable for birth dates and age is being discussed at RSN. I'd appreciate it if this particular discussion could focus on the question of whether ranking entries according to age is OR. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple answer is yes if the ranking is not sourced. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to the question is no, it is not OR per WP:CALC. Ollie231213 your remarks here are adding to the pile of evidence that will be useable at an MfD to shut down the World's oldest people wikiproject. You cannot exclude reliable sources outside of GRG; Wikipedia is not an extension of the group's work. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" ---> WHICH THIS SUGGESTION IS NOT. There's a difference between, as the guideline states, "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age" and deciding that any given person is the Nth ranked person in the world. Your comment is a totally unwarranted attack and totally off-base. This is nothing to do with excluding sources outside of the GRG, it's about following Wikipedia's core policies: No original research and neural point of view. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying X is greater than Y is greater than Z is WP:CALC. I suggest you think very hard about the stance you are taking. It is going to lead the community to shut down your project and/or eventually topic ban its members. Your project is not a walled garden. There is not much rope left for you all. I really mean that. You have got to stop trying to make GRG the sole legitimate source for age. Period. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please calm down and think for a moment about what you are saying. If the issue were just saying that 1 January 1900 comes before 2 January 1900, that would be one thing. But it's not. The issue is whether the age claimed is validated or not. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are arguing that GRG is the only reliable source for age within Wikipedia. This is not true. Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not at all what I am arguing and you know it. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I will take your bait. What are other reliable sources for validating age in WP other than GRG? Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Guinness World Records and the International Database on Longevity both deal with the validation of supercentenarians, but it just so happens that the GRG is far more widely-recognised than the others. But again you missed the point. The reason organisations like this exist is because anyone can just claim to be "115" or whatever, so if you want to create databases of the oldest people, you need to prove their ages are true. Newspapers typically just report the claim, and don't attempt to verify the ages of the people they report on. That's not to say that we can't include claimants sourced to newspaper articles but not verified by an organisation dealing with age validation, but it should be acknowledged that their ages have not been independently verified as true.
    Having two separate tables gives users the opportunity to see a list of the oldest verified people, along with a list of claims. That presents different viewpoints as per WP:NPOV and Wikipedia doesn't create its own rankings and violate WP:OR. Furthermore, not all reliable sources are of equal validity - given that the GRG is considered an authority on the oldest people in the world (by Guinness World Records as well being frequently cited in the media) whereas individual newspapers are not, this should be taken in to consideration as per WP:NPOV. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Think first about the people who will actually use the information. Splitting the table up into GRG-sourced and unranked tables, or splitting it into verified and unverified tables, does nothing but settle a talk page argument. It would make the article much harder to use.
    The table draws from multiple sources. Ranking a list of entries that comes from multiple sources is not original research. The dates are sourced and the ages are calculated from the dates, so a ranking would be linked to the sourced dates. If a person is 27th on the list, they are "the 27th oldest person in the world, according to Wikipedia's List of oldest people." If that same person is 26th on the GRG table, they are "the 26th oldest person in the world according to the GRG." Again, the sourced data determines the ranking.
    If you were to "source" the rankings from the GRG table, you create a problem that probably is original research and non-NPOV. You're deciding that only one source is reliable for rankings, which is the same thing as saying that only one source is reliable for dates. Roches (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not taking in to consideration that this is not a question of whether one age is greater than the other, it's also about which claims are verified. If the GRG ranks people, and one person is not on the list, you have to ask why not. It's because their age has not been validated (proven to be true). There's a big difference between citing a source which has a reputation in the field, which validates cases, and which creates a table of the oldest people, and between a source that is a news reporting agency and has just reported on a claim individually. That's why it's a problem if Wikipedia has a ranked list.
    "If a person is 27th on the list, they are "the 27th oldest person in the world, according to Wikipedia's List of oldest people." ---> It is not up to Wikipedia to decide who the 27th oldest person in the world is. It's like Wikipedia deciding who the 27th best golfer in the world is.
    "You're deciding that only one source is reliable for rankings, which is the same thing as saying that only one source is reliable for dates." ---> That's because only one source actually has rankings. Creating a ranking by compiling cases from other sources is different.
    "If you were to "source" the rankings from the GRG table, you create a problem that probably is original research and non-NPOV." ---> What happens if we have someone who claims to be older than the official Guinness World Records titleholder? Do you just ignore GWR and rank the other person above them? No, you have the official titleholder ranked #1 and the other person listed separately as a claim. Otherwise you're violating WP:UNDUE by not giving the correct weight to sources (because clearly Guinness World Records is the more reliable source in this case). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very aware of what I am saying. And I am saying that every time you write you here, you are providing more evidence that you are trying to create a little GRG walled garden within Wikipedia. This is not OK. It. is. not. OK. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposal (returning things to how they were previously) is based on policy and is not in any way a "walled garden". No one would accuse the FIFA football rankings of being a walled garden. Your accusations of bad faith and attempts to intimidate me is a form of Wikibullying and I suggest you stop or I will take this further. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments such as this one are disrespectful and non-contributive. What evidence do you have that Ollie is trying to create a "GRG walled garden"? To me it seems more like he is trying to keep the reliability of these lists at a reasonable standard. 930310 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unbelievable how you continue to build evidence against yourself. FIFA is the only source for rankings within the walled garden that is FIFA. Wikipedia is not a walled garden and GRG is not our only reliable source. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And what evidence is that? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The way things were before with World's Oldest People articles was a GRG walled garden full of articles that were that didn't comply with policies and guidelines. Wanting to go back to that is therefore an attempt to recreate the GRG walled garden where all articles reflect only what the GRG thinks is important and only grg-approved sources are used. The goal of all this work is to bring down the walls in this walled garden and to bring the articles into light of Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk)`
    • OK, so at this point, Cajames and I are making the Wikipedia policy-based arguments as to why it is not OR to rank people based on age, based on reliable sources say, per WP:CALC. The only dispute here appears to be what constitutes a reliable source for age. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what constitutes a reliable source needs to be determined. Some editors feel that the GRG is the only reliable source (since Guinness only names the oldest person world-wide and the IDL doesn't actually publish a list of names) but I (and others) don't think that way. I've reached out to the broader Wikipedia community asking whether specific sources are reliable for a single entry in the table at List of oldest living people over at RSN. When both these discussions have close, I expect to start an RfC to determine whether rankings should be included on the oldest living people article at all - knowing whether or not we can rank them based on age and WP:CALC is important to know. I know this is all using a lot of community time but I get tired of arguing in circles. If it takes getting community input for these wikiproject members to believe my policy-based arguments, so be it. I very much hope that once consensus has been established for this article, we won't have to repeat these discussions at other articles. Ca2james (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some editors feel that the GRG is the only reliable source" ---> Think about what the GRG actually does. It's a completely different type of source to newspaper articles - it's not just reporting on one individual, it actually validates the ages of longevity claimants and has a ranked list of the oldest validated people in the world. Creating the List of oldest living people article on Wikipedia is not a simple question of just throwing a load of names from various sources in to one list - which it would be if nothing like the GRG existed - because an organisation outside Wikipedia is attempting to do the same thing. So, if people reported on in newspapers are not featured in the GRG's list, you have to ask why not. If an organisation trying to create a list of the oldest people has not included a particular person, why should Wikipedia? It's not a question of the GRG being some "super reliable source", it's about giving due weight to the sources that exist. By all means list them separately ("according to this source, person X is 112 years old" or whatever) but don't mix them in with the GRG lists and rank them because it violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng's response to this, which you copied to WT:WOP, is quite good. Ca2james (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have refuted your policy-based argument by pointing out that your interpretation of WP:CALC is completely wrong. These are not routine calculations because it's not just as simple as "this person is older than the other person". WP:OR, "in a nutshell" states this: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." ---> If Wikipedia creates its own ranks, it's not only original thought but it's synthesis of published material. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My take

    • Lists should be "List of people over X years old", not anything like "List of oldest people" -- and certainly not "...in the world" -- because that puts the idea in the reader's mind that it's meant to be complete or nearly so. Plus, even though lists are almost always implicitly incomplete unless there's some way to know we've got a handle on the whole population (of commercial jetliner models, walks in space, and other rarefied stuff) the very first sentence of the list must emphasize that it's highly incomplete, possibly having as few as 10% of qualified people.
    • If there's a "rank" column, it should be "Rank among persons listed here", again with a footnote/fine print reinforcing how incomplete the list is, and that this should not be interpreted as the oldest, second-oldest, etc. person in the world, or even oldest "verified" in the world (because verified is neither a standardized term, nor one the reader can readily give real meaning to) -- should probably just say oldest persons "reported by reliable sources" or something like that.
    • To in any way give or imply rankings, or that X is the oldest person in Place Y, without hedging such statements in with very strong disclaimers like that really would by SYNTH, because it implies that by cobbling together reports of old people from various sources (reliable though those may be for the purpose of reporting those individuals as individuals) we think we know enough to conclude where those old people stand in the world population as a whole. Again, since we know 90% of people are missing, we can't possibly do that. To repeat: we probably cannot report the "oldest person" or "oldest known person" in the world, and all this stuff about who was the oldest between date X and date Y should be jettisoned.
    If, in contrast, the US Social Security adminstration, in conjunction with the Census Bureau (let's say) feels they've reached the point where they can say with confidence that X is the oldest person in the US, then we might report that, because it's conceivable they're able to do that (someday, though that day isn't here yet), and they're in a position to judge honestly the reliability of their own work along those lines.

    EEng (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bubsy reception sections

    I'm a little concerned about Bubsy in Claws Encounters of the Furred Kind#Reception, Bubsy 2#Reception and Bubsy in Fractured Furry Tales#Recption. I remember playing the first two games back in the day, and enjoying them -- word of mouth among my friends, and in the magazines I read at the time, was pretty good. And it seems the articles, when they cite early reviews, are pretty positive. But the character and the franchise have developed a bad reputation in recent years because of the later 3D game and the animated series that I didn't even know existed. Particularly the article on the first game says the game has received a negative reception in later years, but the article linked is clearly a retrospective on the character, and focuses most of its ire on the later iterations -- it's not a review of the game in question.

    Posting it here rather than RSN (the fact that the sources are all opinion pieces apparently randomly cherry-picked means RSN might have been a good place for it) because citing sources that aren't actually about the subject in question but about a related subject seems problematic. Discussion of how the early games in the franchise were received at the time, and how opinions on the franchise as a whole have changed in recent years belongs in the hub article for the series, when no recent negative reviews of the individual games can be located. That reception section is currently only two lines long, and is incredibly negative, given how our articles on the earlier games all specify the games were better received in the years immediately following their release.

    Thoughts?

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Big body theory

    The article Big Body Theory has recently been created. I'm concerned that the term returns precisely zero results on Google Scholar, and very little on a general Google search. At first inspection, it is impressively references, but I am concerned that there is synthesis and original research going on here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that "big body" barely appears in the titles of the sources or in the quotes in the references section, and "big body theory" does not appear at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=682460080"