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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

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

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)

Big body theory[edit]

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)

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)
I too am very concerned about this article. I really wanted to slap a Speedy on it as OR or a Hoax. Instead, I did ask DGG on his talk page about his take on the article. He is smarter than me about these things. Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Body Theory. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously going to be snow deleted, but matches no speedy category. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The article Big Body Theory is a clarification of an important theory that has been out there for quite some time, although perhaps the definition is clarifed in this well referenced piece. I recall taking part in a discussion on the theory way back in the early 90's, and I think it is a quite useful and accurate way of perceiving our human predicament. Schumacher's book "Small is Beautiful" is an earlier articulation, so is Lewis Mumford. Even Max Gerson's monumental research on curing cancer, is echoed in this theory. It clarifies some very important ideas which should be easier to find. If Google fails to find anything on "Big Body Theory" then I would fault Google. Yahoo can find it. Carol Brouillet) 10:42, 26 September 2015

Max Gerson was a cancer quack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
We have an article on Max Gerson. Anyone referring to Max Gerson's work as "monumental research" is probably wrong about whatever he's arguing. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, just confirming ...we also have an article on Galileo. At what point did we decide Galileo was not a quack and in fact had contributed some monumental research? Just checking on what brand of lodestone you're using to definitively pass judgement on the value of this article? evox
Right, if indeed Gerson was wrong about some things (diet is still an important factor in health and healing), it does not make Lewis Mumford, Shumacher or Big Body Theory wrong. No guilt by association here. I think BBT is an important clarification and naming of a concept that has been with us a very long time which has been identified as a problem for humanity. As Sophocles said, "Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse." Those seeking solutions are talking about Network Governance and Ecological Monetary Systems all of which speak to the importance of democracy. I don't see how naming such a concept could be considered a hoax nor delving into it with deeper explanations not considered original. It would seem that the very fact that you cannot find much on it in a cyber-search would be evidence that it was indeed original. Greenmemenastics
You are breaking Rumpole's First Law: Never Plead Guilty. I think you've conclusively demonstrated this doesn't belong here. Anmccaff (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help - Is this OR and should it be added/removed?[edit]


I have an issue that has been on my mind for some time and don't know whether it should be remain on the article Tomorrow the Green Grass. A song by the band Jayhawks called 'Pray for Me' very clearly uses verses from the 19th century poem (now public domain) 'Beloved it is Morn' by Emily Henrietta Hickey, see here: [1] Hickey was never given credit for the song nor is it mentioned that they used her poem as a basis, only that the songwriters were "Olson/Louris". I added to the article Tomorrow the Green Grass: "The song "Pray for Me" contains verses from the 19th century poem Beloved, it is morn by Irish author Emily Henrietta Hickey. "Pray for Me" contains lines such as 'Beloved it is morn/ Deeper yellow on the corn/ Deeper red on the thorn" that correspond with Hickey's "Beloved, it is morn!/ A redder berry on the thorn/ A deeper yellow on the corn.'"

Should this be kept? See the two poems below. There's no doubt just by looking at the two works the Jayhawks used her poem as a basis for their song, if not outright copied it with minor changes. It would be unfair to the dead poet not to mention their use of her poem at all. But I feel this may be original research. I would like your opinion on this matter.

Jayhawks song "Pray for Me"

Pray for me that I may keep
Faithful to you in my time
Beloved it is morn

Deeper yellow on the corn
Lovers work as children play
Beloved it is morn

One fine day I walked to town
No love like yours to be found
Idle days, idle days

Heart and soul are full of light
Heart and soul untired always
Beloved it is morn

One fine day I walked to town
No love like yours to be found
Idle days, idle days

Pray for me that I may keep
Faithfull to you in my time
Beloved it is morn

Deeper red on the thorn
May God keep you in His sight
Beloved it is morn

Unknown steps before me fall
No love like yours to be found
Idle days, idle days

Heart and soul are full of light
Heart and soul untired always
Beloved it is morn

And this Hickey's poem:

Hickey's "Beloved it is Morn!"

BELOVED, it is morn!
  A redder berry on the thorn,
  A deeper yellow on the corn,
For this good day new-born.
    Pray, Sweet, for me
    That I may be
    Faithful to God and thee.
Beloved, it is day!
  And lovers work, as children play,
  With heart and brain untired alway:
Dear love, look up and pray.
    Pray, Sweet, for me
    That I may be
    Faithful to God and thee.
Beloved, it is night!
  Thy heart and mine are full of light,
  Thy spirit shineth clear and white,
God keep thee in His sight!
    Pray, Sweet, for me
    That I may be
    Faithful to God and thee.

Gugvista (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hell, yes, it should be kept. It's something which is dead obvious to anyone aware ot two sets of facts. If, on the other hand, you had claimed plagiarization, deliberate borrowing, or that the words had passed through oral tradition &cet, &cet,ad naus, that would require sourcing or disclaimer. Anmccaff (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The allegations of plagiarism was the one I was concerned about as well, so I tried to word it carefully (after several edits) not to imply anything of the sort, though admittedly I initially wished to do so when I saw that there was no credit to the original author, Hickey, anywhere on the album's page or the band's website. I thought my edit walked a fine line between original research because no other source has identified it as such as using the poem's material, but considering the two share almost the same verses/expressions, tit for tat, with minor alterations I believe it is worth mentioning on that article page that it does use verses from the poem. If someone else has something else to add or feel it can be better worded please do say something, I just wanted another's opinion or an admin's judgement if this should have be kept. Otherwise, I wish to consider the matter resolved at least for now. Gugvista (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It's surprising how many things in the folk canon, and how many hymns and religious poems are assumed to go back centuries to Anon, when some of them are even still in copyright. I think this is quite likely what you are seeing here, rather than theft. I doubt most drunken fratboys credit Eliot when they sing Columbo, either....assuming drunken fratboys still sing Columbo. Anmccaff (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we cannot make such a claim without third party reliable source making the claim. We can only summarize what is in a reliable source, we cannot make comparisons from A to B and say "yep, same" -particularly when doing so implicates a living person in unscrupulous acts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What claim, aside from visible similarity, do you see made? As for "unscrupulousness", I've heard Diglake Fields, The Lads of the Fair, and "Farewell to Sicily all ascribed, in good faith, to "Anon" or his cousin, "Trad". Anmccaff (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
insinuating that a person cribbed material from somewhere else and claimed it as their own creation. that is "unscrupulous" behavior. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
But that is your conclusion, not mine. Honi soit qui mal y pense, in other words. I think it's entirely possible the borrowing was either completely accidental, or one which the writer assumed would be seen as an homage. That ain't "unscrupulous." Anmccaff (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
My edit in question on Tomorrow the Green Grass has been removed by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom for original research. As much as I would like to have it kept, since there is no published source to state the poem was used as a basis for the lyrics, I am unable to take up the issue any further per wikipedia rules. Thank you for the discussion. Gugvista (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It is synthesis because it takes material from two primary sources to present an implicit conclusion not found in either of the sources. By implicit I mean you do not actually say the poem was copied but present evidence in such a way that the average reader would reach that conclusion. You say that you tried to word it carefully so as not to imply plagiarism, but what you mean is that you worded it so that you did not explicitly claim it. But if you did not wish to imply that there would be no reason to present Hickey's poem.
There is also a BLP issue. We cannot make accusations about individuals, only report accusations that have been made.
TFD (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Please could someone could look at this. OR has been being restored (eg here) (and a good RS[1] removed altogether) in the place of reliably-sourced content. Having spent time and energies today trying to improve [2] (to this) a page that, to me at least, was largely unintelligible and was tagged to be completely rewritten [3], I now do not feel disposed to enter a potentially tricky and damaging talk-page discussion with a regular of the page (User:Pintade), whose gf comments I find somewhat hard to understand anyway. Hence this request. Thank you, (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cyrille, Dominique; (with Kuss, Malena; Gerstin, Julian) (2007). "Martinique". In Kuss, Malena (ed). Music in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Encyclopedic History. Volume 2: Performing the Caribbean Experience. University of Texas Press. p. 305. ISBN 978-0-292-78498-7. 

Pioneer anomaly[edit]

Pioneer anomaly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My removal of original research was reverted.

The section in question is sourced completely to papers that cannot possibly address the scientific consensus solution for the anomalous acceleration because they were written before the solution was published. As such, I think it highly irresponsible that Wikipedia include this kind of argumentation.

jps (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it OR to translate an Anno Mundi date into a possible BC/BCE date?[edit]

This[4] is the edit being reverted by an IP. The reasoning given at the talk page for the edit is that most readers won't have a clue was to when an AM date might have been. We could, if it isn't OR, give both the Hebrew calendar and the Byzantine calendar dates. Doug Weller (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are several different Anno Mundi time scales, so it is original research to decide which one applies (or whether one used in an ancient manuscript or ancient oral tradition is an entirely different scale). Also, in the time under consideration, 3rd millennium BCE, the Hebrew calendar depended on observations of the moon and decisions about when to intercalate a month, so it is not possible to determine what a date stated in the ancient Hebrew calendar corresponds to in any other calendar. Finally, you linked Byzantine calendar and our article says that is a variant of the Julian calendar, which wasn't created until about 2 millennia after the period under consideration. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Our article on the Byzantine calendar says it uses AM year dates. I don't know what the point of your comment about that is, I was asking whether we could give the reader any clue as to what the AM date means or if we have to leave them to research it themselves. But forget about that, the Hebrew calendar uses AM, so why can't we use that as an example date? My old university library has a link to a converter down towards the bottom of this page. There are others. Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
In addition to what Doug has ably argued above, using the AM date is quite useless to our readers (and to us editors, BTW!). We need some sort of milieu for context. Student7 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I consider the whole section to be original research because the location of the claim within the Book of Jubilees is not cited, so the citation is inadequate. If someone were to fix this problem, one would then have to find a reliable source that evaluates the statement in the Book of Jubilees to calculate what the date is in some modern notation. The editors of the version of the Book of Jubilees that would be cited in the repaired article might or might not provide that information. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been reverting a Til Eulenspiegel sock there but have now, after reading the above, removed the section. It's not just NOR, there's a WP:UNDUE question also - whether this is discussed in reliable sources. I'm looking. Doug Weller (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)