Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 28 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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:


mentioned wrong history on bhumihar[edit]

history on bhumihar written on the article is not correct. the content is abusive and sprading a wrong message in the community so please give your attention on this topic because wikipedia common for collectin the information. so you should give your attention on the credibility of wekipedia.

i am giving you the genetic report of NCBI on bhumihar , which prove that bhumihar and brahmin have same genetic. thank you link:- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:a0c2:55a7:f17a:3ace:1c33:9029 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Cowboy bedroll[edit]

The Cowboy bedroll page seems to have rather a lot of original research, particularly in "The traveling cowboy" subsection which spends quite a long time criticising a source without providing any supporting material. The editor who added this analysis seems to have done a lot of research themselves and I don't necessarily doubt their conclusions, but would the NOR policy cover this? It makes it very hard to take the article at face value because it's clear the editor has performed their own analysis and isn't citing their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.176.28 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Impact of the privatisation of British Rail[edit]

This article - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail - has the tone and content of a white paper for a think tank, rather than an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.22.31 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Ahbash[edit]

Original research is likely here regarding Al-Azhar in the article. Would like input regarding this RFC [1]

Origin of the Romanians[edit]

This is about [2], namely about what WP:PRIMARY means in respect to WP:MEDRS, WP:HISTRS and WP:SCIRS. Origin of the Romanians#DNA / Paleogenetics seems exclusively based on primary sources, no reviews are cited. See Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. It's not our task to write reviews of primary scientific literature. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that people are confusing "secondary source" with "MEDRS-compliant source". The sources in question are secondary sources since the actual definition of the term is A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. - you may notice that it says nowhere "of other publications". However, they don't meet MEDRS and I'd ask for a stronger, MEDRS-like source i.e a meta review or such here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles.
  • A secondary source is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include literature reviews, systematic review articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and white papers by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed. University presses and other publishing houses known for publishing reliable science books will document their review process. Do not confuse a scientific review (the article/document) with peer review (the activity).
  • A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Encyclopedias, general textbooks, popular science books, and tables of values are tertiary sources.
From WP:SCIRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
1) What the OP editor considers WP:PRIMARY in the DNA section mentioned is debatable. A cursory look at one such DNA study mentioned will show that it actually references several other previous studies, thus presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. That's the very definition of a secondary source, as according to the Wiki definition, "in some fields, a secondary source may include a summary of the literature in the Introduction of a scientific paper." These DNA studies also introduce new information but that's par for the course, so the classification here is not obvious, although I'd argue it leans towards these studies being secondary sources.
2) These DNA studies also comply with WP:MEDRS, as "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies."
3) These DNA studies also comply with WP:SCIRS, as ""Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge."
4) Anyone (including the OP) is free to post (other) secondary or tertiary sources in that section, if any are available at this time.
5) There are countless Wiki pages dedicated to DNA studies of various populations and they all contain such sources as are "in question" here. If somehow we create a precedent where we deem these type of sources "unreliable" then we'd need to delete all those Wiki pages and completely remove all DNA studies from Wikipedia, which would amount to nothing short of a travesty.
In summary, I believe we should keep all the info in the section and if the OP (or anyone else) has anything to ADD in the way of secondary or tertiary sources, he's welcome to do so. That would improve the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: As per WP:CLAIMS, what exactly are the sources that you find inappropriate?Cealicuca (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean: all sources which are neither literature reviews nor treatises, handbooks and such. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: What I meant is for you to list the sources that are not, according to you, appropriate.Cealicuca (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps with the exception of the first sentence, everything else is based only on primary scientific literature in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Copy/pasted from WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean: being a Romanian is not a disease so, strictly speaking, it is not a biomedical claim. But for all other purposes such research in human genetics is primary literature in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: What I meant is for you to have listed the sources that are not, according to you, appropriate. You haven't done that. Instead you chose to re-iterate a WP:RULE. I would like to remind you that "one of the poorest attempts at unsubstantiated claims is to merely suggest a situation violates a list of Wikipedia acronyms, but give no evidence, as merely "WP:THIS or WP:THAT or WP:THEOTHER". Such a list of WP acronyms is often a warning sign to beware that there is no significant basis to the claims" accodring to WP:CLAIMS.Cealicuca (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I reiterate my point: except perhaps the first and second sentence in that section, everything else is sourced to primary scientific literature in biology. I mean: everything else, prove me wrong if you can. You cannot, because there is no other secondary scientific literature in biology there. Don't WP:Wikilawyer to hammer your point, I have been clear enough. E.g. no other source is called "review", "treatise" or "handbook". Oh, yes, Pinhasi et. al. seems a review, and so is apparently Renfrew (although we cannot be sure about the later). These two sources are used to verify the first two sentences, in that section these two sentences only serve as introduction to the topic, the positive findings of these two sources about Romanians and their ancestors are not in any way used in the article. So, only lip service is paid to secondary scientific literature in biology, there is no use made of their positive findings, although per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS the secondary literature should supersede every other source cited in that section. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It's good that you reiterate your point. You started by dismissing the whole section. I think you should reconsider. I don't have to prove you wrong, and neither anyone else, when you don't back up your claims. I am disheartened by your aggressiveness on this matter. I don't understand what's so hard - simply post the sources that you consider are not appropriate.Cealicuca (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean the whole section has no positive information about the origin of Romanians sourced to any secondary scientific literature in biology. I the areas I have edited, this has been often seen as a problem, not as a virtue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
So you are able to take the time to re-iterate the same idea, but don't have the time to do a simple copy-paste and list the exact problems? You find the time to copy-paste from WP:POLICY but (again) avoid naming those sources? It's a small section, it's not the entire article - an article which, by the way, contains a section Evidence that you seem to have no problem that it uses sourced statements in a context contrary to what those sources meant, or that it lists sourced statements without any connection/relevance to what the article itself designates as being mainstream theories. Otherwise - you use some generic statements that may be true. Everyone can agree to that...Cealicuca (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
As they say, all it takes to show that all swans aren't white is one black swan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
They might say that - and thank you for the insight - but it is irrelevant to the current debate. However, since you insist on playing logic: Wow... You're actually expecting *other* people to "disprove" a negative statement that you make? "They" actually say that showing a swan is black is all it takes to prove that not all swans are white. There's a huge difference. When you state that ALL swans are black, and later on admit that there's some white among them, it seems only natural to actually revise your original statement (ie. instead of "all swans are black" -> "some swans are black") as well as actually pointing out which swans are black. Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The two sources which could be construed as secondary literature are not used for positive statements about the origin of the Romanians, they are used for paying lip service to the greatness of genetic studies. I have consulted those two sources, and they don't have anything to say about Romanians in particular. Pinhasi has concerns about contamination of Ancient DNA. A common denominator of the literature in the field is that it is hard to differentiate among European populations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh well... since you can't seem to be bothered to do it, I'll do it. You're talking about "From molecular genetics to archaeogenetics. PNAS, Colin Renfrew, 2001" and "Pinhasi R, Thomas MG, Hofreiter M, Currat M, Burger J. The genetic history of Europeans. Trends in Genetics. 2012 Oct;28(10):496-505. PubMed PMID 22889475. Epub 2012/08/15. Eng". Those two sources being related to the following: "The use of genetic data to supplement traditional disciplines has now become mainstream. Given the palimpsest nature of modern genetic diversity, more direct evidence has been sought from ancient DNA (aDNA)." Both those statements clearly refer to the general setting of genetic data and modern genetics - they don't even pretend to do something else. The fact that we have that in a "DNA / Paleogenetics" section is not hurting, but actually adds context to whatever other content is added. Considering the parent section is labeled Evidence (without establishing what are the sourced statements evidence for, that despite the sources themselves stating that...) I see no problem with establishing, with two statements, the general credibility of genetic research or the fact that genetic research is relevant to the study of the origin of a population.Cealicuca (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that it would be irrelevant. Fact is that from that section any positive information about Romanians and their ancestors is only based upon primary scientific literature in biology. And that in most WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS areas is a big sign of unreliability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────And... it gets increasingly odd and silly... all living Europeans had the same European ancestors 1000 years ago, see [3]. Back then I had the same European ancestors as the Queen of England. See also [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on Wikipedia:Interviews[edit]

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay:

  1. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
  2. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
  3. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
  4. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
  5. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#RfC: Explanatory supplement and links from policies and guidelines. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 18:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This request for comment has been withdrawn. Thank you for your feedback. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor trying to insert their own literary analysis into an article[edit]

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:John Grisham#RfC on 'recurring themes' section regarding whether or not a section of unsourced 'recurring themes in the author's work' (eg "Grisham's books show the writer's manifest dislike of mega law firms" with no references) falls foul of WP:NOR. Input there appreciated. Amisom (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The Notion Club Papers - unsourced mention of "an odd coincidence"[edit]

I deleted[5] the mention of an "odd coincidence" between a mention by Tolkien in the story the article is about of a great storm in June 1987 and an actual storm, the Great Storm of 1987 in October 1987, with the edit summary "unsourced speculation". User:GwydionM reverted me with the edit summary "Undid foolish revision. The storm is a fact, and so is the mention of it." I pointed out to the editor on his talk page that he should know about our policy on original research - I'm not the only editor to have done so. I reverted Gwydion with the edit summary "It's policy that we would need at least one reliable source making the link, otherwise it's original research." His response was to reinstate the text saying "This can be seen as an odd coincidence" with separate sources for the existence of the mention in the story and the existence of the storm and the edit summary "If you insist on a source for the complete bloody obvious, OK". This seems to be classical original research. Note that our article coincidence clearly states "From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively." To even mention this concidence seems WP:NPOV as well as OR, to call it an odd one would require good sourcing and probably attribution. Note that I haven't reverted, I'm still at 1RR. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious SYNTH. I'd leave it out even if there was a source making the link because it is a rather weak coincidence (not even the right month). Zerotalk 12:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
In the Guide to Middle Earth, Colin Duriez writes, "Interestingly, there was a great storm - a hurricane - in Britain that Autumn which had a devastating impact!"[6] One could mention that Duriez made that connection but it is obvious OR for editors to make the connection. TFD (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Christopher Tolkien (as editor of Sauron Defeated) makes an explicit reference to the (real) storm. I don't have the page number handy, I'm afraid, but would this be an adequate source? Tevildo (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status as described in published sources[edit]

In the article Warsaw Ghetto boy, an anonymous World War II photograph, a published source states that the image is public domain as well as NARA and the Institute of National Remembrance, which hold the photograph. Another user has recently edited the page to portray the public domain-ness of the image as equivalent to claims by Corbis Corporation and later Getty Images that the image is under copyright. The same user has used a news story about Corbis Corporation's archives being acquired by Getty Images to imply that this particular image was acquired by Getty at that time. Anyway, I would appreciate if someone could help sort it out. Catrìona (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced summarisation of reviews for "Kill the Moon"[edit]

Hi. We have been discussing "the episode received polarising reviews" statement on the article's talk page. There is no consensus, yet editor AlexTheWhovian keeps adding unsourced info and claims "summarisation is always beneficial". I just wanted to hear other opinions on this. Sebastian James (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so. -- AlexTW 12:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the term is meaningful. Shouldn't it be polarized? TFD (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)