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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Post-progressive[edit]

"Post-progressive" is a term that appears in a few books on progressive rock, sometimes in quotes or in sentences like "X could be termed post-progressive". I am not sure if it should be considered a music genre. In the books that I have access to, it is used as an adjective, while the author of the article uses it as a noun (eg. Post-progressive's beginning may be located to the year 1978). He also placed it in infoboxes in a number of articles (eg. jazz or ambient music), again as a noun. Nearly all edits I made on this topic ended in edit wars, so I decided to put this here. Chilton (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This user has had similiar discussions before Mlpearc (open channel) 17:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
There is absolutely no similarity here. A totally irrelevant discussion on whether Pink Floyd should be called a "rock band" or a "progressive rock band", along with a misunderstanding (on Mlpearc's part) on how WP:VERIFY works.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The true story is that they had to distinguish themselves from the other start up gig in town. Since that group was Blue Floyd, they adopted the name Pink Floyd. Therefore, "Pink" is an adjective in this useage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the partial offtopic (I'm just hoping that the matter will get more exposure), but he also did some bad things (involving "post-progressive" and deleting most of the text) to the experimental rock article, as I described here. Chilton (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Please be careful not to mislead others. As explained there (and on Talk:Experimental rock), I rewrote the article from scratch because it contained virtually no references for 7+ years. I sourced as much as I could. There is now arguably more substance in the article than there was before.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment — There is no original research in the Post-progressive article. A cursory glance at sources will tell you that "post-progressive" refers to a style of rock music that is not unlike "post-punk" and "post-rock". "Post-progressive" has been consistently used in numerous reliable sources to refer to a strain of rock music which emerged after the decline of "classic" or "vintage progressive rock" in the late 1970s. Chilton strongly believes that the opening sentence of Post-progressive should say it "refers to a term" invented by authors Paul Hegarty and Martin Halliwell. This is wrong for 2 reasons.
1) Those authors did not coin the term. It's been around since at least 1982.
2) Per WP:UMD:
Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction to a Wikipedia article. For example, the article Computer architecture once began with the sentence, "Computer architecture refers to the theory behind the design of a computer."
That is not true: Computer architecture is the theory. The words "computer architecture" refer to the theory, but the article is not about the words; it is about the theory.
Thus it is better to say, "Computer architecture is the theory behind the design of a computer."
The aforementioned definition of "post-progressive" music is not contradicted by any of the sources. It has been distinguished from "neo-progressive rock" – and even referenced with post-rock – on repeated occasions (I'm sure Chilton would agree that "neo-progressive rock" and "post-rock" are genres).
Chilton has been removing as many references to "post-progressive" in articles as he can, citing his personal belief that it is "not an established genre" He has not offered a single source to support his assertions. With emphasis added, I will demonstrate that it is an established genre of music. Observe below.
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Before anyone writes anything else, I just want to notice how skillfully you avoided the noun-or-adjective question. Also I never wrote or even suggested that the term "post-progressive" was coined by Hegarty and Halliwell. Chilton (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I eagerly await you to make the same "noun-or-adjective" case against post-rock, new prog, punk rock, psychedelic rock, and oh yes, progressive rock. And if your implication wasn't that they invented it - then why bother with WP:INTEXT? No other music genre lead uses in-text attribution to explain a genre's rudimentary qualities.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Related discussions[edit]

Most of these discussions are centered around Chilton's grasp on the difference between progressive rock music and prog rock (the cited authors distinguish both terms). From what I understand, the only thing Chilton has reasonably challenged is whether "post-progressive" should be listed in the infoboxes for King Crimson, Talk Talk, and David Sylvian. This is because only one RS can be found which calls them "post-progressive" artists. (He ignores the fact that literally every other genre listed in those article's infoboxes are also referenced to only one RS.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chilton: My superficial reading of this thread leads me to believe you don't know how to proceed when you have a content dispute. Please see WP:Dispute resolution. I'm especially troubled by your frustrated statement, "how skillfully you avoided the noun-or-adjective question". Please see WP:AGF and try to discuss content and sources rather than behavior. Maybe someone interested in arts and culture would agree to play the role of WP:THIRDOPINION.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was hoping that someone else will join the discussion and give their opinion.. What would you recommend I do? Chilton (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Using original research to removed sourced material[edit]

The WP:OR policy states that original research which is prohibited "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". However, the rest of the language and examples all refer to cases where {{WP:OR]] is used to add material to the article. My question is, can original research be used to removed well-sourced material from reputable sources? Suppose an academic who is a recognized authority in a field publishes research in a peer-reviewed academic journal, whose main thesis is "I've researched X, and my conclusion is Y". This material is then used in an article to say that the named expert researched X, and concluded Y. Can an editor perform his own research on X, conclude that the result is actually not Y, and then use his personal research to remove the sourced material from the article on that basis? Epson Salts (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No. If an editor removing material says that it's based on their own research or analysis, then they have violated the policy. Remember that the core policies work in concert with each other. In the hypothetical that you describe, the person removing material may also be violating WP:NPOV by suppressing relevant material. - MrX 19:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
If original research doesn't appear in the article, its not a violation of the original research policy. The choice not to include untrusted sources or unimportant claims is part of what editors are here to do. They have to be able to convince other editors of their reasons, however. Rhoark (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Please re-read the hypothetical - we are not talking about "untrusted sources "- we are talking about academic sources, research by acknowledged experts in the field. Of course material can be excluded on other basis - WP:UNDUE etc.. , but my question is if otherwise suitable material can be removed based on a editor's original research. Epson Salts (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

<- To evaluate and comment on the actual case in question, see Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Naughty_Dr_Brawer. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather establish the principle first, then apply it t specific cases. Epson Salts (talk)

Epson Salts brought this dispute here without notifying the other parties , and the "hypothetical" version does not match the actual situation. It is not a matter of researcher X concluding Y, and not a matter of an editor's opinion differing from an expert's opinion. What actually happened was that researcher X misquoted a source and Epson Salts wants to keep the misquote in the article without comment, even though everyone can see the original source and nobody at all is arguing that X quoted it correctly. Since NOR doesn't prescribe what can be omitted from articles, the question editors should ask is "Would the article be better with a misquote or without it?" and I believe all good editors would prefer the latter. Incidentally, the article in question is a BLP and the misquote shows the subject of the BLP in a negative light, so I believe the misquote is actually forbidden from the article no matter what NOR says. Everyone, except Epson Salts afaik, is happy to report X's opinion without using the misquote explicitly. Zerotalk 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no 'dispute' here that requires notification of other parties - I am asking a question about policy, in general. As you can see from the first response, by @MrX: what you presented to me as clear policy does not enjoy the support you imagine. Once we establish the principle, we may apply it to specific cases, at which time you will be duly notified, if required. Epson Salts (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Zero has summarized the issue correctly. Argument on the talk page about what to keep in the article and what shouldn't is not WP:OR - it is editorial judgement. The policy refers to not inserting original research by editors in the articles - which is not the case here. Kingsindian   01:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's hear from uninvolved editors, shall we? We already know your position Epson Salts (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Your question is not about original research; it is about faithful interpretation of the source. Still, answering your question, I can easily list several scenarios when the answer may be "yes" and several when the answer is "no". The simplest case is that the meaning of "Y" was changed over time. Tnterpretations/summarizing of the source may be disputed, but this is not related to WP:NOR policy and must be done in relevant article talk pages. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It actually is about original research . Take your scenario- sure, the meaning of 'Y" could change over time - but is it enough that an editor conducts original research to say that the meaning of 'Y" has changed? I think we'd need a reliable source to say that the meaning has changed, not a wikipedia editor. Epson Salts (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In the hypothetical case, Wikipedia should not be giving much weight to primary research results in the first place, and no weight at all (even in discussion) to experiments done by an editor. In the actual case, it's not only acceptable but essential that editors use some common sense and due diligence investigating the sources being used in articles, or else we would have no idea which are reliable. A source that includes obvious factual inaccuracies can be excluded from an article, and it's totally fine for editors to look into a source's own sources to make that judgement. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Political positions of Donald Trump[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Original_researchCFredkin (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

OR violation at Priyanka Chopra[edit]

Priyanka Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relevant discussion at: Chopra as "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" is not supported by sources

On 14 September 2016 a user changes the original text description of Chopra at the lead from "one of the highest-paid actresses in Bollywood" to "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world", using highly enthusiastic edit-summaries indicating a particularly strong POV. The problem is, s/he did not supply a source for "one of the highest-paid actresses in the world" but for "one of the highest-paid TV actresses in the world" using this list by Forbes. In fact, the actual 2016 Forbes list of the highest paid actresses in the world does not include Chopra.

Now this user is edit-warring changing Chopra's description at the lead to "one of the highest paid actresses" but using the Forbes TV actress list to support it. His/her reply at the talkpage: Oh I forgot, TV actresses have horns on their head. LOL. with edit-summary ROFL indicates that s/he has no understanding of WP:OR or WP:V.

I find using the Forbes list for "highest-paid TV actresses" as reference to declare Chopra "one of the highest-paid actresses", which is a completely separate and different list in which Chopra is not found, to be very misleading original research since there is a clear distinction between TV actors and cinema actors and two different lists for their compensation. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis and context[edit]

Have I improperly synthesised a new conclusion here? Can 'suitable for classroom and age-appropriate' be faithfully interpreted as 'may include some sexual instructions or explicit content' in this specific circumstance? I believe its the same thing, not a new conclusion or something taken out of context, considering that the context is a review of a government funded anti-LGBTI bullying program in the national spotlight occurring as a direct response to claims by politicians that the program was overly sexualised. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)