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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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


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)

Asteroid impact avoidance; statement fails verification?[edit]

Article contains the statements: "The results of this study indicated that a single employment of this "option can deflect NEOs of [100-500m diameter] two years before impact, and larger NEOs with at least five years warning". [1],[2] These effectiveness figures are considered to be "conservative" by its authors as only the thermal X-ray output of the B83 devices was considered, while neutron heating was neglected for ease of calculation purposes.[3],[4]."

Are these (primary) sources sufficient for the highlighted sentence? My reading of the source is that the authors say one of their figures in the report is conservative because they rounded down the potential yield of the bomb. Geogene (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Geogene (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This additional source has also been proposed on the Talk page [5]. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
What I find disruptive is that user BaundaryLayer takes the reported estimations as a gospel of literal salvation, and using the word "could help" is heretic and fear-mongering, according to him: a WP:FUD. Cheers, ==BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Caricatures-included, I don't take anything as "gospel", I'm simplying summarizing the results and limitations of the NASA studies in their own words. Why is this a problem? That you have antipathy towards this suggests you have an WP:AXE to grind with me, as your comment is, in no way even related to the issue of finding original research. Which is the forum we're in.
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The process here is (1) Boundarylayer hunts down a lot of primary sources from nuclear weapons labs about blowing up asteroids with nukes (2) Boundarylayer interprets these primary sources to say that we can completely destroy asteroids with nukes, no problem (3) anyone that challenges their interpretation, including by saying "could" instead of "would", (as in "would destroy the asteroid") is in some way a fearmongerer/propagandist/anti-nuke/anti-Boundarylayer. But that's Wikipedia's problem, not my problem. This specific point is an example that I found particularly frustrating, but nobody's interested. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You could add something along the lines, A study from 2007 by the NSS claims ... But it is a primary source and it seems questionable to derive general conclusions about effectiveness, since NEOs compositions varies, and it has never been tested yet. It is unclear what exactly is considered OR here, since the part cites the conclusion from the NSS 2007 study. The part which begins with These effectiveness figures are considered.., appears to be to much info.prokaryotes (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina[edit]

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) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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)

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)
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)

Editor claiming Syrian Maronites are "Lebanese"[edit]

There is an editor at the "Lebanese people in Syria" article who has repeatedly added that Maronites in Syria "are Lebanese". He has not provided any source:

"It is correct for all Maronites in Syria and Cyprus. Provide source that says otherwise."[6][7][8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How is this an original research issue, and not a mere content issue? GregJackP Boomer! 20:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So what is the appropriate noticeboard? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
An unsourced statement is original research. Rhoark (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor adds OR to aprox 6 articles, about an alleged Scientific consensus[edit]

  • 14-15 December 2010, Pathogen5 adds "Although there is now broad scientific consensus that GE crops on the market are safe to eat..." - 25 user edits, last were the addition of the supposed consensus to Genetically modified food controversies He cited a report by NAS - however, there is no mention of a scientific consensus. Additionally he adds a study which is summed up here Séralini affair.
  • 02 September 2012, Jytdog copies the statement from editor Pathogen5 1:1 (including Séralini) to Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (Edit summary: added paragraph referencing controversies and referring to controversies article) -
  • 26 January 2013, Jytdog adds the statement "While there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food" to Genetically modified food - All references he uses here do not support the claim that there is a scientific consensus. The editor stated in his edit summary, "added sentence requested in talk to the lede, which now has basis in the body of the article". If we look at that talk page discussion we can read in the first paragraph "The problem is that strictly speaking those sources do not really prove a scientific consensus", and the first reply there comes from Jytdog where he defends the reference discussed there (Namely AAAS Board, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society). The discussion was brief and only between Jytdog and editor Kmhkmh.

There have been various reverts by editors on all affected pages to remove the unreferenced consensus statement, but Jytdog always reverted them back. The discussion RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it, from July 2015 pointed out that the statement is in error. However, Jytdog didn't updated his page edits. When i removed a few of the references at Genetically modified food, Jytdog reverted me. In the following talk page discussion i pointed out that these references do not contain the information of the statement. Editor Petrarchan47, Tsavage, Jusdafax and SageRad seemed to agree with my arguments there. Yet editor Jytdog is not responding to these arguments, except Genetically modified food, all other articles still claim that there is a scientific consensus, per Jytdog's POV/OR. prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems very clear to me that Prokaryotes does not understand what "scientific consensus" means, and what "consensus" means when referring to our behaviour here. For the record, the scientific consensus is as Jytdog portrays it, he does not appear to be indulging in WP:OR at all. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you read this discussion: RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it prokaryotes (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I read that ages ago, and more than once thanks. Doesn't change what I stated above. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Then apparently you ignore Wikipedia community and don't understand how scientific consensus work, see for instance authorities like the WHO state that GMOs must be tested on a case per case basis, and none of the cited sources speaks of a sc. Stating that there is a sc violates OR.prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The scientific consensus statement went through an RfC in 2013 that upheld the statement and yes, it is in several articles that deal with GM food controversies. That statement went through a 2nd RfC that was closed in July of this year, that found no consensus. We have been working at Talk:Genetically modified food to reach consensus on a new statement. When we do, we will probably have to have another RfC on it, and that is the one that will replace the old one. The discussion on new language is still in progress; things take time to work out. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
My impression is that the current version is a good start, and this can be used to update the sc versions. However the sources still only in part connect to the new version.prokaryotes (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought about doing that, but that seemed to be rushing ahead of consensus and it seemed better to me get something stable before propagating it. Since you yourself are still contesting some of the sourcing at the GM food talk page and here in this thread, it does not appear that we have something stable yet. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • While there were RFC's, no RFC can override OR. This is a huge synthesis where the sources themselves do not make the specific claim, though one comes close. We cant add up all the sources and come to a conclusion. AlbinoFerret 13:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Unclear what your point is. The first RfC accepted the statement and its sourcing and found no policy violations; the 2nd RfC simply found no consensus. We are working on new language on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean that the RFC is stalled because of your objections there.prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog, I dont know about the first RFC having not looked at it. The most recent RFC on the statements was closed no consensus and the closer as I remember did not address the OR problem, though it was raised in the RFC. That does not mean it doesnt exist. The guidelines are clear, synthesis of sources to come to a conclusion they all do not state is OR. AlbinoFerret
Nor does it mean that OR exists. The lack of attention to the OR claim in the close, and the prior RfC that found everything fine, makes it unlikely that the community would agree that there is OR. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You misrepresent, since the part “broad scientific consensus” is no longer supported per RFC. prokaryotes (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── i was clear that the 2nd RfC found no consensus and we are working toward new language. I also noted that you yourself are raising objections here and elswhere. Just because you are claiming OR does not mean you are correct. (btw it is very unlikely that this unfocused posting is going to generate any meaningful feedback to help guide our work on the talk page) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

More related OR[edit]

These edits are supported by the source, and in fact move the article closer to the tone of the source. Rhoark (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Please explain where exactly the source states "Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis to ensure that concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity, possible gene transfer to humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms are satisfied" -- Source statement = "This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods" Source prokaryotes (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
we summarize, we don't plagiarize. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

OR dispute at Lavrentiy Beria[edit]

I am currently engaged in an OR dispute over at Lavrentiy Beria with User:Radyanskysoldativ regarding the identification of a man in the background of a photograph who is obscured. Much more detail can be found on Talk:Lavrentiy Beria#Person in the background in photo with Svetlana, redux. This is actually a kind of tricky gray area I think, because I think it's pretty clear that Radyanskysoldativ is engaged in OR, but his circumstantial arguments are not wholly unconvincing -- perhaps WP:IAR is appropriate? We are at the moment the only two people who have weighed in on this issue, and I would like some other points of view.

BTW, he's a bit combative in tone, but in the interest of fairness and full-disclosure, we did have a minor edit war over this, and I did revert him twice. I hope his arguments and mine can stand on their merits. Eniagrom (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)