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 The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 8 November 2020 (→Bright or shining, is it OR?). 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    • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

    SYNTH, NPOV

    Steele dossier - I'm requesting input regarding what appears to me to be a classic case of noncompliance with WP:NOR (SYNTH), and WP:NPOV. I am also of the mind that if one issue is resolved, the other with possibly self-correct. I'm going to focus on a single paragraph from a rather lengthy and detailed lead in a topic area I just know all editors and admins love to edit. You can thank me later. 😎

    Contrary to a conspiracy theory[1][2] pushed by Trump,[3] Fox News,[4] and many of Trump's congressional supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign.[5][6] It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page[7] in terms of establishing FISA's low bar[8] for probable cause.[9]

    I realize we can state several facts in a single sentence citing different sources as long as we don't reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources; however, the various sources that were cited in that paragraph were used to not only form an absolute conclusion but to justify stating it in WikiVoice, which is not only SYNTH, it is noncompliant with NPOV.

    The CBS News report that was cited for "probable cause" in the last sentence of the above paragraph also states: "However, the Horowitz report is not the final word on the origins of the investigation. U.S. Attorney John Durham is leading a separate review of the FBI's investigation, and after Horowitz released his findings, Durham also questioned the conclusions." There is no mention of this important fact. It is also a known fact that the IG is limited in both scope and reach outside the department which the IG report and Horowitz himself admitted - again, no mention. Durham's probe is a criminal investigation, and it includes information from outside the Justice Department, to include testimony from witnesses outside the US. There is also the AP report published by PBS News Hour that corroborates the information, and like the CBS report, is neutral and presents all relevant sides, which is what WP articles are supposed to do.

    Sources

    1. ^ Blake, Aaron (January 2, 2018). "Republicans' Steele dossier conspiracy theory was dealt a big blow this weekend". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 6, 2019.
    2. ^ Shear, Michael D.; Benner, Katie; Fandos, Nicholas (August 17, 2018). "Embracing Conspiracy Theory, Trump Escalates Attack on Bruce Ohr". The New York Times.
    3. ^ Kruzel, John (July 23, 2018). "Trump falsely says Steele dossier triggered Russia probe". PolitiFact. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
    4. ^ Rupar, Aaron (March 22, 2019). "Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation". Vox. Retrieved March 23, 2019.
    5. ^ Mueller, III, Robert S. (March 2019). "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
    6. ^ Goldman, Adam; Savage, Charlie (November 22, 2019). "Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts". The New York Times. Retrieved November 23, 2019.
    7. ^ Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice (December 9, 2019). "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" (PDF). justice.gov. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
    8. ^ Sanchez, Julian (December 11, 2019). "The Crossfire Hurricane Report's Inconvenient Findings". Just Security. Retrieved December 23, 2019.
    9. ^ Herridge, Catherine; Hymes, Clare; Segers, Grace; Quinn, Melissa (December 9, 2019). "Justice Department watchdog releases report on origins of Russia investigation". CBS News. Retrieved December 10, 2019.
    1. Is it SYNTH?
    2. Is it compliant with NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:19, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

    Discussion

    2020 United States presidential election WP:SYNTH/WP:CALC

    I started a discussion at Talk:2020 United States presidential election to try to achieve a consensus well before the election about how we are going to update the map and infobox. Most of the !votes at that discussion are in favor of waiting until 3+ reliable news sources project a state before adding that state to the map and infobox. I demonstrated that even under this proposal, it would be possible for us to call the race for a candidate as the winner (projected president-elect) even before any reliable news organization projects that a candidate has won. Due to this, another user said that this specifically would be a WP:SYNTH violation. I said that it would likely be fine due to WP:CALC, but they disagreed. I pointed out that if WP:CALC does not apply with regards to calling the race before the media does- then WP:CALC probably still wouldn't allow us to say a candidate has for example "266 electoral votes" based on combining projections from news organizations, when no news organization's tally has the candidate at 266 electoral votes. I suggested an Associated Press only infobox/map (since many news organizations rely on the AP) as a possible alternative that could alleviate WP:SYNTH concerns, but so far there hasn't been much support for that suggestion. If any experienced users here could help us determine to what degree WP:SYNTH applies vs. WP:CALC, that would be most helpful. Thanks! Prcc27 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See also wp:NOTNEWS and wp: CRYSTAL: why are you even trying? Surely you should wait until we can record the reality rather than the prediction? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John Maynard Friedman: Can you please elaborate on what you mean by that? When a state or the race as a whole is projected for a candidate, it is not just a prediction. A projection means there is mounds of evidence that a candidate will win that race, and it's very uncommon for a candidate to lose a race once it's projected for them. You are welcome to bring up WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL at the talk page, but I specifically came to this noticeboard for WP:SYNTH and WP:CALC concerns, so it would be helpful if you could address that in addition to other concerns you have with the proposals. Prcc27 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My challenge is this: why are you even here asking this question? I repeat, wp:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is just about arguable that we may report the consensus of the Reliable Sources' projections as projections. But if you start adding those up to 'calculate' your own projection of the outcome, then you are definitely in a SYNTH vio. It would be far more sensible to back off, let events take their course and, when you have solid facts to report, then and only then should you report them. To summarize, you are asking yourself (and us) the wrong question at the wrong time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • These projections have important lasting historical significance, especially a projection that a candidate has won the election. I do think that election projections are notable enough for WP:NOTNEWS & WP:CRYSTAL to not necessarily apply. While a 3+ source criteria may be WP:SYNTH, an AP only infobox fixes that concern. And AP projections tend to have a significant amount of weight. So, since I don't think WP:NOTNEWS & WP:CRYSTAL apply, I do think that this discussion belongs here, so we can hash out the WP:SYNTH concerns of the discussion at the talk. Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What concerns me is that if we pick and choose which projections to use, then we may have a different set of projections, which would be OR. I understand that waiting until all the individual races are certified will take weeks, since there are lots of mail in ballots to open and count. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it would not make sense to not report the results for weeks after the election. I propose that we agree on a single source, such as AP, for projections.
    Also, see 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida#Background. Based on information from an AP organization, the networks declared Al Gore the winner in Florida, then changed it to too close to call, then declared George W. Bush the winner, then reverted to too close to call for the next few weeks. Whoever won Florida would win the election. I believe it was Fox that first declared Bush the winner. I would rather say "according to AP, this is the result in Florida" than "Wikipedia editors have examined the calls made by various sources and in our opinion these are the results."
    TFD (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with John Maynard Friedman en.wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If the news predictions could be called into question on election night rather wait until official figures are released. Don't even waste time trying to synthesise the result for a given state from multiple news agencies. Surely it is a well established practice on en.wikipedia to not release election results until their official announcement by this point. The internet will be full of media websites detailing predictive estimates for each state's result on election night and in the week/weeks thereafter, en.wikipedia is not required to follow this herd. If it takes weeks for any official data then it just takes weeks, readers are not going to die if en.wikipedia does not have detailed election results for the entire US on day 1. There are plenty of other places for that. We operate with accurately sourced information. Now for the presumptive victor of the election, once the RS's become clear and are in agreement in designating one candidate or the other for the victory then we may report it as such (with citations, naturally), but this designation does not necessarily need to broken down into individual data values here from the moment the first estimates and announcements occur in the news. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. To underline the risk of en.wiki rushing into this minefield where reliable sources fear to tread, Here be dragons. I recommend 'Red mirage': the 'insidious' scenario if Trump declares an early victory: we don't want to become part of that, however it plays out. People don't visit Wikipedia for rolling news, but for a summary of the dispassionate analyses of RSs after the event – long enough after the event to be dispassionate. But I accept that it does seem reasonable to say that x, y and z weeks before the election, AP was forecasting result X, Y and Z provided we do it with no further comment. (and maybe even α, β and γ days after election day, results Α, Β and Γ! Heaven forefend!) -John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I already brought the WP:NOTNEWS concerns up at the article's talk page. But I think per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, there is nothing wrong with having an infobox with projected results. And an AP only infobox takes care of the WP:SYNTH concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Guy Macon's suggestion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I vehemently disagree with their suggestion. But I have a question about what exactly they are proposing.. What would we do once the 24 hours are up? Would we be able to update the infobox then? Or would we still have to wait until the electors have actually voted and/or until all major media organizations unanimously agree on every states' and districts' projections? Prcc27 (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially inappropriate use of personal communication

    There is a policy application discussion over at Talk:List of largest empires#Empire of Japan. The question is whether a particular instance of using personal communication with an author to assess the reliability of a source for a specific piece of information found within is appropriate. Complicating the matter is the fact that the source in question is not the original source of that particular piece of information; an earlier source which is not reliable when it comes to this particular subject matter per WP:RSCONTEXT has been found, and it contains the same piece of information while citing an even earlier source which we have been unable to locate (and thus may or may not be reliable).

    The discussion on the talk page has stagnated, and I would like input from more editors weighing in on this. I was unsure if WP:RSN or WP:NORN was the more appropriate place for this, so I posted it to both. TompaDompa (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    European Court of Human Rights

    There is a new editor on this page who does not like it that the article states that ECHR is the most effective international human rights court in the world, even though it is cited in line and several sources are quoted on the talk page to support this statement. The editor has not cited any sources that have a different assessment, but keep changing it based on their subjective opinion that this is not the case. Since they refuse to engage on the talk page, I am at my wits' end dealing with this editor. Any help is appreciated. (t · c) buidhe 17:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MfD of possible interest

    This template seemed like original research to me, but you may have information that shows otherwise. Please comment.

    jps (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Input requested at Talk:Confucius Institute‎

    I would appreciate input at Talk:Confucius Institute‎ regarding material recently added to the article by GrandmasterLiuHu. Specifically, one of the references that he or she added was written in the late 19th century but the article is about an institute founded in the 21st century. Another reference that was added is to a general philosophical encyclopedia article that makes no mention of the subject of the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello ElKevbo! In regards to your first question, as I've repeatedly pointed out on the Talk page, the citation is on the topic of mass surveillance and not specifically Confucius Institutes. The source material discusses the use of mass surveillance and it's psychological effects regardless of their context, but especially in the context where the observed is aware of the observation. It is not currently in dispute that the Confucius Institutes are accused of mass surveillance, and in the fields of ethics and psychology it is also not in dispute that well known mass surveillance automatically generates intimidation. It is also only one of several sources provided, all of which are independent sources not related to each other. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Original research map

    Can someone please look into [1], this is a user-generated map that is not based on any reliable source. I have removed it from Ajuran Sultanate per WP:OR guidelines. Was the removal appropriate? Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kzl55: The description at File:Ajuuraan & Adal map.png says that it is based on
    which would be a reliable source. I haven't checked the book itself to see if the map is actually based on it. — MarkH21talk 20:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkH21:, many thanks, I am aware of this book, and the map does not appear to be based on it. Would it be correct to assume in the absence of reliable sources the map remains OR? Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not actually based on the book as claimed, then it is probably OR. There is nothing in the book that resembles this map? — MarkH21talk 21:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @WanderingGeeljire: What is the map that you created based on? A specific page number in the book would be helpful. — MarkH21talk 21:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nothing in that book resembles that map. There is a map on p. 140 of the area but it has nothing to do with the subject of Ajuraan altogether. To answer your question MarkH21, the map is based on an older file that is also not based on any reliable source [2], it cites the same Cassanelli source without providing any further information. I think that settles it for me, I just wanted a second opinion, many thanks @MarkH21:! --Kzl55 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Musical score

    --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Headbomb has explicitly violated NOR with the statement "you have to be deaf not to hear it".[3] On Wikipedia, we are not required to listen to music in order to write about it. Instead, we summarize what is already written. When someone insists that we listen to music, you can be assured there is original research happening. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment was addressed to me. At the time, I took no notice of it. Mathsci (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The score is a primary source, and should only serve as an illustration for the work itself. Adding the score as an illustration (or "proof") to the Morricone section, is WP:OR, unless the sources for that section also cite the primary material—which they do not; they only mention the name of the work. It's not ours to tell our readers "look at score, listen to the excerpt, this is where the pieces are similar". That's the job of secondary sources; our job is to cite from the latter. WP:NOENG is unrelated to the issue of OR. –Austronesier (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Austruneiser's comments completely. The musical quotation is in the current article in the section on "Musical structure". Using the quotation as "proof" of anything at all seems like original research. Stelvio Cipriani was not directly involved in producing the film (per IMDb): the film music was composed by Morricone, with Bruno Nicolai as conductor. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another problem with the edits proposed here is that the blog entry (a.k.a. "received wisdom") and the excerpt from France Musique does not match up with the musical score. As can be verified on the archived film The Sicilian Clan (available on archive.org or in the video clip here at the Institut Français in Edinburgh), the musical score starts with the theme (15 sec)—a sustained melody performed as a whistle by Alessandro Alessandroni—with amplified electronic jew's harp twangs; then (55 sec) the ostinato starts on the guitar; then (1 min 24 sec) the whistling theme resumes now with a soft accompaniment in the ostinato; then (1 min 55 sec) the whistle is supplemented by a vibraphone (?); the ostinato is heard in the guitar and a mandolin (?); and then the credits end and the script begins. The original score and orchestration of the Morricone/Nicolai version is quite different from either Stelvio Cipriani's score or the excerpt from France Musique. Introducing either seems like a red herring. Mathsci (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thus far only one secondary source came to light. It is appended as a footnoted reference to the paragraph where I'd place the proposed content. This is that reference:

      "Ennio Morricone: 10 (little) things you may not know about the legendary film composer". France Musique. 2 August 2019.

      The relevant passage on that web page reads:

      The influence of "serious" classical music is present throughout Ennio Morricone's musical output, and the composer often amused himself with these serious references, often citing and arranging works from the classical repertoire in his film scores: for example [...], and Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan (1969).

      (See also discussion at Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543#Bach's Prelude BWV 543) I see no problem with adding a bit more precision to the rather vague "citing and arranging" (which of these applies to the BWV 543 example?) based on primary sources, that is, a rather straightforward application of the "plot summary" guidance (in particular: MOS:PLOTSOURCE), and the WP:PRIMARY policy (in particular, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." – assuming that "reading music in Western notation" is rather something "that can be verified by any educated person" than an issue of "specialized knowledge", i.e. not different from, say, the education one would need to read a primary source in a foreign language, which is not considered "specialized knowledge" in the sense of this policy, per the WP:NOENG provisions of the WP:V policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (added sig: 09:13, 3 November 2020)[reply]
    • In the sections of the article on the musical structure of the Prelude BWV 543, I have used the books of Peter Williams and Richard D. P. Jones (mostly the former). Williams' 2003 text is the most authoritative and encyclopedic book on Bach's organ works. The score of Ennio Morricone was mentioned on the talk page of the article en passant. On that talk page I made it quite clear that the section about Morricone is what would normally be placed in a section entitled "In popular culture." That happens for example for BWV 582, Bach's Passacaglia, which has been used in films (the baptism in The Godfather), ballets, etc. As far as "The Sicilian Clan" is concerned, I've watched it quite recently on archive.org when I could hear the whole original score. (Other concert versions exist.) The only comment about the score that I would make here, is that is has a recurring "ostinato" (played off-beat over a 4/4 or 6/4 theme). In the case of the Prelude BWV 543/1, there is no "ostinato". The opening running semiquaver figures are described as disguised or latent two- or three-part counterpart with a descending chromatic scale in the lowest voice. That is what Williams writes. The musical quotation was used here:
    to illustrate exactly what Williams wrote. The beginning of the Prelude is described as Toccata-like, in the stylus phantasticus, typical of the northern seventeenth-century style of Dieterich Buxtehude. In the article, almost all of the edits to the text and images are due to me (I checked the edit history, particularly for statistics). The relevant musical quotation here appears in the section on "Musical structure," as appropriate. As explained in the article, there are two versions of the Prelude: the earlier BWV 543a/1; and the later BWV 543/1. The later is the one used. I have used a miniscore which fits onto one line; I had to find an appropriate source and then use GIMP to edit and scale the image. There is also an early 19th-century manuscript of the Prelude from the Leipzig University Library in the article.
    Apart from the "ostinato," I know that the film begins with a creepy melody on the jew's harp accompanied by unnerving guitar (??) twangs. Quite different from Johann Sebastian Bach. Mathsci (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow up on BWV 543 and BWV 565

    While researching content on Morricone and Bach, I found four sources related to the Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565. I added that content:[4]

    The Oscar-winning Italian composer Ennio Morricone, well known for his association with Spaghetti Westerns, took inspiration from the score BWV 565/1 for his 1965 film For a Few Dollars More, starring Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and Gian Maria Volonté and directed by Sergio Leone. Morricone used the trumpet musical theme "La resa dei conti" ("Sixty Seconds to What?") for the opening baroque mordent of J. S. Bach's Toccata. The cowboy shootout takes place in a deconsecrated church, turned into a pigsty, where the theme is heard on the organ at full blast. According to Miceli (2016), "It is [...] hard to establish what led the composer to quote Bach—perhaps the shared key of D minor led to the idea of the organ, whereas the small church might have at most accommodated nothing more than a run-down harmonium. In any case, for a classically trained musician such a glaring reference to one of the most hackneyed commonplaces of Western art music—certainly the most hackneyed within Bach's output (although its authorship has long been disputed)—clashes with the alleged intention of paying homage to the Eisenach maestro." In his autobiographical book written with De Rosa (2019), Morricone wrote that, "The death ritual carried out in a church convinced me to use the Bach quotation and the organ. Volonté's gestures in that sequence reminded me of some paintings of Rembrandt and Vermeer that Leone was fond of. Those artists lived in an epoch close to Bach, and with my music I decided to look at that kind of past."


    Then, without asking for permission, User:Francis Schonken copy-pasted my references above, appropriating a lot of effort (for the Italian book I paid for google play & translate), and then substituted two short sentences which do not convey the sense of the two quotations above:

    Ennio Morricone's film music for For a Few Dollars More (1965) takes inspiration from the Toccata. According to Morricone, "The death ritual carried out in a church convinced me to use the Bach quotation and the organ."

    Without any attempt at discussion, he stated that his edit was to restore balance." It is possible that I could shorten some of the quotes above, but would have to be careful to preserve the sense. "Bach reception" is a respected musical discipline. It is used for individual pieces or whole sets of pieces, e.g. Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence. It usually involves carefully judged prose, not disjointed lists. These are not useful for the reader.

    It was in researching the sources for BWV 543 that I discovered that the B-A-C-H theme was hidden in one of the main themes (B flat, A, C, B, but not in that order). That material is tricky to write about because, as Morricone writes, you would need sufficient musical expertise to sort out the puzzle: that would be original research. Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bright or shining, is it OR?

    Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran

    Discussion:Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Operation Shining Sun

    During Iran-Iraq war, People's Mujahedin of Iran carried out an operation against their own soil, i.e. Iran. The name of the operation is "Persian: تابان". There are some sources calling it "Operation shining sun" with at least one other calling it "Operation Bright Sun". Both "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation shining sun" are the translations for the original title of the operation, i.e. "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "Persian: تابان" (see the Google translate results). Now, would it be an original research to use the "Bright Sun" source without mentioning this difference? --Mhhossein talk 07:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Aren't "bright" and "shining" synonyms? Must be referring to the same thing, so I don't see an issue if you use the words "Bright Sun" without mentioning the difference. Maqdisi117 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's fairly common for writers to use different terms to refer to the same thing and to translate phrases differently. So long as they are referring to the same thing, it's fine. TFD (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=987599384"