Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Evidence for David's Kingdom[edit]

At Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) there is the claim "There is archeological evidence for the existence of a Davidic Kingdom" which is not supported by any source. Even the source quoted in its support does not support it (it says there is evidence for David's existence, not for David's Kingdom). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What the cited source says about David's Kingdom is this: "Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale." Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And what "Davidic Kingdom" even means? Does it mean David's Kingdom of Kingdom of the House of David? Big difference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know there is not a single real (solid, certain) proof of David ever having ruled over a kingdom. Anyway, nobody seems to able to name any. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hokkien, Hoklo, and Minnan people in the United States[edit]

Few, if any sources describe Hoklo/Minnan/Hokkien people, a Han Chinese subgroup, in the United States. However there are many sources that discuss this group's migration to parts of China, Southeast Asia etc, as well as Chinese immigration from these parts of the world to the United States. Is it original research to conclude that Hoklo/Minnan/Hokkien people are in the United States?--Prisencolin (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

of course. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Terminology and WP:Synthesis[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Slut-shaming#Scope. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The matter concerns whether or not we should stick to sources that use the term slut-shaming and if not doing so can be a WP:Synthesis violation. How do we judge what is on-topic or is not synthesis if sources don't use the term slut-shaming? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is about a topic, not a word. I see from the talk page that for some of the sources being disputed, there are other secondary sources that say those are relevant to the topic of slut-shaming, so that's an open-and-shut case. In other instances, there may just need to be a consensus that the claim serves to improve the reader's knowledge about the topic. Rhoark (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Rhoark, there is no need to state "A Wikipedia article is about a topic, not a word." This is not a WP:Not a dictionary matter. This is a matter concerning whether or not it is acceptable to take sources that do not make it explicitly clear, in words, that the topic is about slut-shaming and then using those sources to make claims about slut-shaming. Using sources in that way is WP:Synthesis, as has been shown repeatedly on this site. An editor at the talk page is thinking about broadening the scope of the article; I am being clear that broadening the scope beyond sources using the word slut-shaming to identify slut-shaming is WP:Synthesis. The way that we judge whether or not sources are about the topic is whether the sources explicitly call the topic by its title. Since editors can have different opinions about what is or isn't the topic, or a part of the topic (such as what is or isn't slut-shaming), we do not make judgement calls about whether a source is about a topic. We do not leave such matters open to interpretation. We know this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (Frankfurt School)[edit]

There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving WP:SYNTHESIS at Talk:Frankfurt_School#RfC:_Does_the_lede_of_the_.22Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory.22_section_follow_WP:NPOV_and_is_its_claim_supported_by_cited_sources.3F Last Contrarian (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Same-sex marriage[edit]

Probably could use some uninvolved folks to evaluate the discussion occurring at SSM, before things escalate into a full on ANI crap show. TimothyJosephWood 22:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering how entrenched the positions seem to be, an "ANI crap show" might actually be the best solution here, assuming certain editors keep up their antics rather than continuing the DR process. (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: There's quite a wall of text there. Are you up for summarizing the basics of the dispute you're referring to? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the ping. I guess I didn't watch the page. We hashed out a rewrite of the religious views section after an RfC overcame intransigence. The user then went off on a bit of a tangent, insisting that there are two distinct forms of same sex marriage: civil and religious, and this requires a significant rewrite of the section, or (in the case of three attempts made by the user), the section should be deleted until their standards are met.
This distinction seemed to make sense intuitively on some level, but repeated (I think seven or eight) requests for sources eventually ended up with them admitting there are none, and basically, everyone would accept their personal taxonomy if we just weren't so darned dumb.
Pages if IDHT later they've apparently resolved to do as they please (their words). Changes based on their personal preferences are apparently incoming. TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the article does say "Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting." That does lend itself to drawing a distinction, but sources about specific positions would have to draw that distinction, too, to include in that context. More often than not the issue of "same-sex marriage" tends to assume a single concept that one is for/against. If someone wants to get into the details of positions of particular religions, we have entire articles about that. This shouldn't do anything other than summarize what those articles (or just religious views of same-sex marriage).
But all of this seems like it might be beside the point. If the problem is a single user edit warring and repeatedly inserting original research, ANI might be the better venue, but it looks like things have died down a bit in the last few days? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a sporadic user. They don't operate in real time. They also don't seem to edit anything but this article, at least not lately, so it seems unlikely they've forgotten or moved on.
What's actually going on, is that the user wants the section deleted entirely. That's not an assumption of bad faith; they've argued for it repeatedly, and done it repeatedly. The lead refers to a difference in ceremony, which is plenty backed up by sources and common sense. This does not seem to be the distinction the user is pushing. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, And there we go. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein political positions[edit]

Article: Jill Stein#GMOs and pesticides
Sources: Green Party Platform,[1] "Anti-science claims dog Green Party's Jill Stein," CNN[2]

Which of the following phrasing is preferable:

1. Stein supports GMO labeling and a moratorium on new GMOs until they are proven safe, and would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown, as well as the pesticides used on them.

2. Stein's official platform calls for a "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe."...Stein later clarified that her moratorium proposal would apply to "new" GMOs until they are proven safe (though her official platform calling for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides" remains unchanged) and that the US should "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown.

I prefer the first, which states the position Stein says she supports. In my opinion, the second version wanders into OR by implying that Stein is misrepresenting her own platform or has revised it rather than merely clarifying it. We should not make that judgment, per "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources": "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

TFD (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the second phrasing. A compromise that fits all sources and avoids OR is to say:
  • "Stein's official platform calls for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe" (cite: her platform + this Washington Post story[3]). She later clarified that her proposal would entail a moratorium on "new" GMOs and that she would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown (cite the CNN source)".
When candidates propose vague and contradictory policies, and later modify them while retaining some ambiguity, we should note both. Imagine if Clinton's official platform up until July 2016 stated that she "favored a $15 minimum wage" but later in an August 2016 interview she clarified that she only "favored a $15 minimum wage in select cities and regions". Wouldn't it be reasonable to phrase her position on the minimum wage as "Clinton's official platform calls for a $15 minimum wage. Clinton later clarified that she supported favored a $15 minimum wage in select cities and regions."? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If external observers say that in reliable sources then we can report it, otherwise it is synthesis. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." Your conclusion is that Stein proposed "vague and contradictory policies," but that is specifically prohibited by policy. TFD (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
(i) The sources are not combined to imply a conclusion that is not mentioned by either of the sources (WaPo cites the platform, CNN cites her old claims and then her recent clarifications); (ii) I'm not proposing to say that she proposed "vague and contradictory policies." Please address the substance. I'm as clear as can be about what the third proposal is: "Stein's official platform calls for "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe" (cite: her platform + this Washington Post story[4]). She later clarified that her proposal would entail a moratorium on "new" GMOs and that she would "phase out" GMO foods currently being grown (cite the CNN source)". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"When candidates propose vague and contradictory policies, and later modify them while retaining some ambiguity, we should note both....I'm not proposing to say that she proposed "vague and contradictory policies." Well you just said it. You want the article to imply that her positions are vague and contradictory, which is why you want to note that she "clarified her position." That is implied synthesis.
Correct me if I am wrong. You think that Stein's clarification is actually a change in her position. You think the article should, if not actually say that, at least present the two versions and let the reader decide. Certainly that is fair and informative. But that is not how policy says articles should be written. And while your judgment may be correct, the policy prevents the injection of incorrect judgments as well. For example, Clinton is reported to have said, "We're Going to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class".[5] We could add that to her political positions to imply they are vague and contradictory. Fortunately we have reliable secondary sources that have addressed the apparent contradiction, something we lack in Stein's case.
TFD (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see either phrasing being an OR problem, they both would be acceptable, however I prefer the first because it is more succinct. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)