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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

OR/SYNTH issues?[edit]

The contentious part:

Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni. As a result hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta. (Tsoutsoumpis, 2015) Thus, the members of the Muslim community were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state. (Baltsiotis, 2011)

The three sentences above, seem, at least to me clearly suggest that Muslim Chams were treated as enemies by the Greek state because they raided villages as far north as Pogoni. While this is not explicitly stated by either sources, Alexikoua that maintains "it's obvious". On the other hand, I have argued that Muslim bands can not be equated with Muslim Chams since the region was home to other Muslims as well, and that unless explicitly stated by the sources, the treatment of Muslim Chams on the eve of the first Balkan wars by the Greek army can not be correlated with the activity of Muslim bands.

Cited material
  • "The tensions that had been building in the area finally exploded during the Balkan War of 1912-1913. The war took the form of brutal guerrilla fighting, waged primarily by local civilians who were armed by the Greek and Ottoman governments. In the autumn of 1912, Muslim bands raided villages as far north as the area of Pogoni in Ioannina; resulting in hundreds of Greek peasants abandoning their homes and seeking shelter in Corfu and Arta. Atrocities were widespread and no prisoners were taken from either side. Greek irregulars responded in kind from January 1913 onwards." (Tsoutsoumpis, 2015)
  • "Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors." (Baltsiotis, 2011)

There's an ongoing discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians#Balkan_Wars_-_OR_.2F_POV DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear DevilWearsBrioni, you are once again trying to justify your POV and turn a blind eye to the sources by proving something you can't prove. One of the sources (not cited here, but on the relevant page) clearly states that the Cham Albanians commited atrocities against the Greek populations in the region, and burned the Greek villages. The Greek irregular bands, formed by the Greek villagers who fled their burning villages and survived these atrocities, were armed and enlisted by the Greek government, and then responded to these Cham Albanian atrocities 'in kind'. Furthermore the other source states that the Greek Government considered the Cham Albanians to be a threat. With simple words, the Greek state treated the Cham Albanians as enemies and also it armed the Greek villagers against them. Both sources cover the exact same period - the very late Ottoman period and the onset of the First Balkan Wars. To insist of your part that this is SYNTH or OR, and to imply that the Greek army didn't response to the Cham Albanian bands by arming the Greek villagers, and that the one event is unrelated to the other event, clearly constitutes POV and you are trying to manipulate the sources. Your argument that the Greek government's arming of Greek villagers was done for other but unknown reasons (?), and the Greek government's treating of the Cham Albanians as enemies, was, again, done for other but unknown reasons (?), which are not explicitly stated in any sources, clearly constitutes POV and goes against Wikipedia's rules. If you believe that the Cham Albanian actions are unrelated to the Greek policies against them, and you believe that it is a mere coincidence that both events happened during the same time period, then, please, could you at least provide us with any sources confirming this? That could be great. Unless you provide us with sources backing your personal opinions regarding the historical events of that time, Alexikoua's edits will stay. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I presume you’re referring to the dissertation by Pitouli-Kitsou as one of the sources ”not cited here”. In case it’s not obvious, it was not included here because it's not used as an inline to support the contentious part. Also, the source in question states that Muslim Chams had fought against the Greek army, setting fire to villages in the region. What you continiously fail to acknowledge is that burning of villages were carried out by both sides during the war. If the narrative is to justify the treatment of Muslim Chams by the Greek army, then I can understand why it would make sense to highlight that Muslim Chams burned villages while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the Greek army engaged in similar activities. Moreover, the burning of villages described by Pitouli-Kitsou occurred during the war which leads me to the following: you wrote that "The Greek irregular bands, formed by the Greek villagers who fled their burning villages and survived these atrocities, were armed and enlisted by the Greek government, and then responded to these Cham Albanian atrocities 'in kind'". Care to provide the source, in English?
As to why the Greek state considered Muslim Chams to be a threat, it's probably a multiple of reasons, and certainly not just as simple as a consequence of the activity of some Muslim bands. Baltsiotis never explicitly states why, but maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with the situation prior to annexation, a subject Tzanelli also touches on. And maybe, just maybe, it's connected to Greek policy during the Balkan wars which sought to cleanse the region of Muslims? Do you see where I'm getting at, and why original research opens a whole new can of worms?
Accompanying sources
  • "When part of the Albanian elite proposed to King George of the Hellenes a plan for an Albanian-Greek Federation in Epirus, a region the Greek state wanted to annex, Italy incited Albanian nationalism in the region and cancelled further negotiations. Consequently, at the beginning of the 1880s the Greek press openly incited anti-Albanian hatred, associating the Albanian irredentists with Turkish anti-Greek propaganda, and baptizing them Vlachs and ‘Turkalbanian brigands’ (Ai.n, 10 and 14 July 1880; Palingenes.a, 3 April 1881). The nationalist subtext of this definition became clearer: those ‘Vlachs/Albanians’ wanted to plunder and de-Hellenize territories belonging to the Greek nation – even though the Greek state continued to use brigand bands as irredentist forces to claim European territories of Turkey. At the dawn of the 1880s, the Greek ‘ethnic truth’ began to support the reverse logic: non-Greek (Vlach/Albanian) national enemies were represented as brigands (The Times, 14 August and 7 September 1876)." (Tzanelli, 2008)
  • "Contemporary Greek political discourse has adapted the nineteenthcentury formula of Albanian exclusion hermeneutically. Like its antecedent, it is structured around conflations of physical boundaries with symbolic borders (criminality, deviance, dirt, disease) and promotes a fictional preservation of racial purity against ‘alien contamination’,feeding Greeks’ desire to claim direct racial and cultural continuity from antiquity." (Tzanelli, 2008)
  • "During the Balkan Wars there was a policy of driving the Muslims living in the areas which after 1913 became part of Greece and Bulgaria towards death or exile. This policy was carried out by military and paramilitary troops from both states and continued during the First World War." (Katsika, 2009)
  • "The existence of a region (Chamouria) whose population was roughly half Muslim and almost entirely Albanian speaking was considered a serious problem for the Greek state, which had to be confronted both practically and discursively. Every pro-Albanian movement in these areas had to be eliminated by all means. [For example, the impartial, otherwise known by Greeks as “moderate” president of the Albanian Club of Yanina was assassinated in the summer of 1912, probably after an order of the pro-Greek League Ipirotiki Etairia (see L. Embirikos…, op. cit., p. 162)]" (Baltsiotis, 2011)
DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear DevilWearsBrioni, may I ask why you have posted just now a question on my Talk Page that is relevant to the ongoing discussion in the Administrator's Noticeboard (ANI)? Please, by no means, try do divert the discussion from the ANI to other people's Talk Page, even if they are mere questions, and I recommend that you stick to the Administrator's Noticeboard and any questions you have, are posted here instead. This allows us to keep the discussion as compact as possible. Thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no ongoing discussion on ANI. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, the sources in the article about the Cham Albanian Expulsion, confirm that the Chams were EVENTUALLY treated as enemies by the Greek state, but none of the sources has yet confirmed that this was unrelated to the war's events or before the war's events. None of the sources ever confirmed that the Greek Army was outrightly killing any Cham Albanian on its way just for fun or just because there was animosity between the two sides, the Chams and the Greeks. None ever claimed this. Everyone agrees that each side had its mistrust and negative sentiments against the other side, but also everyone agrees that it is the actions that marked the war, the actions that shaped the events in the war, not the people's personal feelings. Can you provide me with any sources that the framing of the Chams as enemies was pre-set already from the very onset of the war, and for whatever reasons other than the Chams siding with the Ottomans and raiding Greek villages? Because if there is a such source, we will need to see it. Can you provide us with any reliable sources that back your POV theories and claims that the Greek Army treated the Chams as enemies for other reasons besides the events that marked the war? Can you prove that the Greeks labeled the Chams as enemies, not for siding with the Ottomans and raiding the Greek villages, but for another reason which was not stated yet?
You don't seem to understand how this works. I provided the two sources which are used as inlines for the contentious part. I even provided further sources, for the sake of discussion, to provide some context with regards to the Greek state's view on Muslim Chams. I don't need to provide evidence of how the Greek army treated anyone before the war, you need to provide evidence that the Greek army treated the Muslim Chams as enemies as a consequence of the activity of Muslim bands, because that's what the wikipedia entry reads. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
First of all, according to the sources, as soon as the Balkan Wars started and conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Greece erupted, the Greek state attempted to approach the local Cham representatives in order to discuss the possibility of a Greek-Albanian alliance. However, many of the Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia. Pitouli-Kitsou confirms that the Cham Albanians have ALREADY formed their irregular bands when the war broke at Autumn 1912, and they sided with the Ottomans, fought against the advancing Greek army and burned the Greek villages. But the thing which you fail to catch here, dear DevilWearsBrioni, is that according to Pitouli-Kitsou, the Greek government made efforts to NEGOTIATE with the Cham community, not make outright any wars with them. None of them, not even Baltsiotis, ever stated that the Greek state had them labeled as enemies from the VERY VERY start. There are no sources stating that the Cham Albanians were labeled as enemies BEFORE they sided with the Ottomans and opposed the Greeks. Even Baltsiotis used the term NEVERTHELESS, not IMMEDIATELY. This is the key difference, dear DevilWearsBrioni. You recall Baltsiotis sources, but you fail to see that Baltsiotis stated how nevertheless, in the war, the Chams remained as the Greek state's enemies, while the Greek state enlisted local villagers against them.
The thing is, I am not the one failing to grasp the facts, DevilWearsBrioni. Is you. That the Greek army treated the Chams as enemies is a fact. None ever disputes this, and especially not me or Alexikoua or everyone else. However this does not mean that we will pretend that the sources mean otherwise from what they state. I am sorry but we can not tolerate source manipulation to prove or maintain something that is not stated by the sources in the first place. Wikipedia's rules are crystal-clear on this. No one should try to manipulate the sources as if they were saying that the Greek government labeled and treated the Cham Albanians as enemies before the events during the Balkan Wars.-- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of manipulating sources, this is what Pitouli-Kitsou actually says: "Among the beys of Epirus, mostly Labs and Chams, who had strong anti-Greek feelings, had already formed militias and fought against the Greek army and the Greek forces, burning villages in the areas of Paramythia and Fanari. As early as October 17th Athens had entrusted Spyromilios to confer with their beys, in order for them declare submission as soon as possible, assuring them that the Greek authorities would respect the life and property of Muslims and that the Greek government would take care of their moral satisfaction, depending on the services that would be offered."
According to the soure, Muslim Chams had set fire to villages during the war against the Greek army. According to your interpretation, "Greek state attempted to approach the local Cham representatives in order to discuss the possibility of a Greek-Albanian alliance. However, many of the Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia." This implies that Muslim Chams had set fire to villages before Spyromilios had approached the Muslim beys (October 17, the day Greece declared war). What's your excuse for distorting the source?
Baltsiotis states "Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies" which essentially has the same meaning as "Muslim Chams were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek army even though they were reluctant to fight on the side of the Ottoman army". No amount of mental gymnastics can change this. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It's more than obvious that 'Muslims' refers to "Muslim Chams": the Muslims of Thesprotia. In Tsoutsoumbis the specific section is labelled: "The land and the people" and it begins with a geopolitical analysis: "Thesprotia is located in north-western Greece, .....During the early 20th century the population was a little over 65,000 one-third of whom were Muslims". Everyone can conclude that this was the Muslims community involved in the events.
This was also discussed by third-part editors here: with a similar response [[1]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you show that these Muslim bands weren't Turks from Macedonia? Or Greek muslims from Epirus? Maybe Muslim Albanians from Macedonia? Muslim Labs? Why doesn't Tsoutsoumpis refer to them as "Muslim Cham Bands"?
Also, care to explain what the "similar response" (similar to what?) was? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This is POV! Please stick to the facts here. Any assumptions like "the Muslims who burned the Greek villages in Thesprotia weren't Chams but other Muslim people from other parts of the Balkans or the world", is just that: assumptions and unproven claims. Nothing more. This is not how Wikipedia works. Please, do you have any sources to back your claims? Because so far, I have failed to see how your POV statements and theories are proven true. According to sources and estimes in Wikipedia about the demographics in the Vilayet of Janina (which includes Thesprotia), the vast majority of the Muslim community in the region consisted of Cham Albanians (210,000-315,000 Cham Albanians - over 94% of total Muslim population in the region), with the Turks representing only a small portion of it (10,000-20,000, which is a mere 6% of total). If you want to make changes to the article, feel free to do so, but only if you have sources backing your claims. Otherwise do not expect your POV edits to be accepted by the community.
I am sorry but I think you are once again trying to deny the reality and the facts and even push a certain narrative here, in accordance with your POV. Otherwise I can not explain your theories about other muslims from other parts of the world coming to Thesprotia. If you believe that you can proceed with WP:Fringe theories, then you are wrong. I am sorry but your claims are not accompanied with any sources, and, by looking at the overall picture, I fail to understand how all this proves your position right in your complaint on ANI about fellow other users, such as Alexikoua maintaining narratives. It looks like you came here to report a non-existent OR case, but, I feel this whole discussion being turned out into a Fringe and POV case? My apologies for saying that, but I am very very confused, dear DevilWearsBrioni. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I never claimed that "the Muslims who burned the Greek villages in Thesprotia weren't Chams". The inline says "Muslim Bands", you interpret it as "Muslim Chams". What I'm saying is that the onus is on you to show that "Muslim bands" = "Muslim Chams". In other words, if a court asks you to provide evidence that someone is guilty, their request does not imply the belief that the person in question is innocent. Second, the vilayet of Janina stretched almost as far up as Tirana. The majority of its population were not Cham Albanians. In fact, contrary to what you confidently assert, only a fraction of its population were Muslim Cham Albanians. For example, Tsoutsoumpis states "Thesprotia is located in north-western Greece, and before its incorporation in the Greek state it was a part of the vilayet of Ioannina. During the early 20th century the population was a little over 65,000 one-third of whom were Muslims". You clearly haven't even bothered reading some of the sources, evident by your lack of understanding of who even Muslim Chams were at the time. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Simpleshow foundation[edit]

A brief video summary about Michael Jackson.
A simple video explanation of German reunification.

I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

As I think there are other (if not bigger) issues than NOR, can I suggest this thread be closed in favor of the parallel thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Simpleshow foundation? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FYI comments regarding this have been posted at the original thread here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Simpleshow foundation. IMO the WP:COI and WP:SELFPROMOTIONal aspects of these videos make them problematic at best. I concur with Rhododendrites assessment of where this should be discussed. MarnetteD|Talk 01:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's OR. There's no indication that this foundation consists of anything more than the typical self-publishing source. There is zero evidence that this foundation has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require. Just because it's in a video format doesn't change the problems with it; if this was still graphics, it would be more obvious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Not sure if this is a reply to Moxy to say that it's a problem or a reply to me to disagree about venue. Regardless, my point wasn't that OR is unrelated; it's that there are also COI issues, the question of what media is "encyclopedic" per image use policy/wp:video/whatnot, WP:RS, etc.... In other words, if the videos cited reliable sources, say, there wouldn't be much to say about OR, but the other problems would still be there. That's why I suggested having the discussion elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I certainly endorse Rhododendrites' attmept to close one of these discussions. There seems to be more activity and commenting over at ANI. The videos are an important issue, and the discussion needs to happen in one place preferably.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This probably belongs on WP:COIN, but I agree these videos are not appropriate for Wikipedia for several reasons. Should be banned/blacklisted. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:OR does not apply to pictures and by extension it does not need to apply to videos. It would be better if the videos contained references at the end. I am sure those form the foundation would be happy to add them going forwards.
    • With respect to COI, no that does not apply. The video is about the topic in question, it is not about the SimpleShow Foundation.
    • The videos does not even mention the Simple Show Foundation at the beginning. Mentioning at the end for a second or two is not a big deal IMO. And people are free to remove that bit as they are under a CC BY SA license.
    • This user should definitely not be banned or blocked. Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree with Doc James; the videos are kind of basic, but I don't think OR applies to pictures or videos. The Simpleshow videos used on some medical articles add to the article, which is the whole point of media. Honestly, there are some things that are just hard to describe in words, and that's where a video comes in handy. I wish they'd make one for the dressage article. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
        • The idea that OR doesn't apply to a video like this seems crazy to me. Of course OR applies. We're not talking about an illustration or example of a subject. We're not talking about a supplement to the article. These videos are substitutes for the content of the article. That the words are inside a file rather than in the article does not grant a free pass to dismiss content policies like WP:OR. It cites no sources, isn't being used a source in itself, and, although I know I'm beating a dead horse here, isn't serving to illustrate article content but to stand in for it. I also don't understand this argument that COI doesn't apply. If you work for an organization that produces videos, then creating an account specifically to insert those videos into articles is pretty textbook WP:COI and is not dependent on the subject of the article. I don't think the user should be blocked, and as I commented at the ANI thread, I think there are ways to work with Simpleshow, but I don't get these arguments from experienced editors. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Review of genre" on "Interactive fiction"[edit]

The Review of genre section seems to be a highly biased "review" of the genre from one individual, and entirely without any references. There are probably also many factual errors. --Curiousdannii (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Curiousdannii: It's an unsourced 14k block of commentary added several months ago. Don't know that it needs to be discussed here, as I can't imagine removing it being controversial. I went ahead and did so, moving the text to the article talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Review source[edit]

There's an extinct ethnic group called Harla that supposedly spoke a semitic language by the vast majority of sources but it says semitic or Cushitic. The source being used to label it Cushitic has no mention of "Cushitic". [2] or [3] Looks synthesised and original research. Editor opinion needed. Kiziotherapy (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Aptronyms[edit]

There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving original research and reliable sources at Talk:Aptronym#Original research and lack of sources. Sundayclose (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The question, as I read it, is effectively "Should we use Wikipedia's policies of WP:V and WP:NOR?" and some people are actually answering "no", saying that consensus on the talk page is all that matters. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Untitled section[edit]

The article Friedrich Nietzsche's views on women can probably be deleted as obvious WP:SYNTH. Parenthetically, it's also grossly incorrect.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: This was posted months ago, but was not placed inside a section so has been sitting at the top of the page, unarchivable, since then. Given it didn't get any responses (as it seems nobody saw it) I'm moving it to the bottom. @AllGloryToTheHypnotoad: Does this still need attention? Also, please remember to add new threads to the bottom, and to start with a new heading. The easiest way to do this is to click the "new section" tab at the top of the page.Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's prudent to claim an entire article is WP:synth. If you have a specific claim in that article that you believe violates WP:OR then feel free to quote it. That being said, I don't know why there is an entire article about Nietzsche's views on women. I think there is an argument to be made that whoever wrote/started the article was making Nietzsche's views on woman more prominent than they need to be. There's no reason this can't be trimmed down into section on the Nietzsche article.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)