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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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 notice: Synthesis in 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to the request for comment, at which the issue of synthesis has been raised. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from editors with some familiarity with our WP:SYNTHESIS policy are respectfully requested. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Several commenters to the RfC have cited WP:SYNTHESIS in their statement of position. Attention from editors with some previous experience in identifying and explaining WP:SYNTHESIS is respectfully requested. The RfC question proposed content is a one-sentence addition, a summarization of multiple sources including The Washington Post. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our WP:SYNTHESIS content policy remain in the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


This article has a long history and was even featured from 2006-7, but as far as I can tell, it's entirely spurious. It ought to redirect to Offensive (military). The article makes a mighty effort to define "invasion" as a distinct concept worthy of independent study, but it just isn't. An invasion is simply a military offensive that crosses some physical or political frontier; all the information about logistics and securing lines of communication and civil-military relationships and so on is just duplicating topics that are better covered elsewhere. Nothing about these military questions depends on whether the operation is an "invasion" or not. The word "invasion" (invade, invader, invading) isn't even used in the DoD dictionary of military terms, let alone defined. ADP 1 and ADP 3, the two "capstone" manuals of US Army doctrine, use "offensive" on practically every page and "invasion" not at all. Any article on "invasion" is necessarily original research because "invasion" isn't recognized in relevant sources as an independent concept. It's just a word that happens to exist in English. TiC (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest filing a merge request at WP:AFD. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You can do that? I thought that AFD was only for when the nominator really wants the page deleted. TiC (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

Adding together census figures for different parts of the UK[edit]

Many of the articles in Category:Immigration to the United Kingdom by country of origin make use of country-of-birth data from the 2011 UK census. Because of the way in which the census is managed, this data is reported separately for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I haven't been able to find a source that reports a total figure for the UK as a whole. Is it legitimate for Wikipedia editors to add together the three figures to get to a total for the UK for use in these articles, or would that be original research? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CALC states:
  • Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations.
I think what you are talking about fits that description, and so should be OK. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Blueboar, that sounds like it covers what I had in mind. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sophisticated original aggregations[edit]

In the article Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, there is a table that not only contains several (sourced) surveys ranking U.S. Presidents, but also an original attempt to aggregate these in a sophisticated manner, which by no means can be called a "routine calculation". It is my contention that its presence is not appropriate for several reasons, but don't feel completely comfortable claiming it to be inappropriate synthesis because no particular position is being advanced per se. However, I do feel it goes against the spirit of forbidding original research, because any aggregate is bound to imply an idiosyncratic "overall" picture. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Fucking A" - plot analysis[edit]

I found this yesterday: Fucking A. It is an article about a play that contains large quantities of what looks like original research. I'm on a slightly unreliable wifi connection and not much time to edit. Just wondering if someone with more time and patience could go at it with a scalpel and remove the original research. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Definitely needs work. There is a difference between a plot summary and a plot analysis. If this is supposed to be a plot analysis then it needs to cite sources that analyze the plot (doing so ourselves is OR). If this is supposed to be a plot summary, then it goes into way to much detail. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia?[edit]

Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)#RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia? .-M.Altenmann >t 05:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)