| Revision as of 18:55, 20 June 2013 editSrich32977 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers301,222 edits →WP:OR/Synth argumentation in biography: Wishing I could figure this notice out← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:36, 22 January 2025 edit undoLunaEclipse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions8,276 editsm Reverted edits by 103.167.40.190 (talk) to last version by RosguillTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp- |
{{pp-sock|small=yes}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 52 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(28d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}]] |
}}]] | ||
| ] | |||
| __TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 28 |collapsible=yes}} | |||
| == |
== Edits to “Game Science” == | ||
| Discussion regarding ] has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at ]. ] (]) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In the article ] an editor at 15.211.201.82 noted the phrase "''Observations now prove that it also contains ] and ]''" is an "Extraordinarily claim despite unsettled science". I did a cleanup changing "''Observations now prove''" to "''Observations indicate it may also contain''" based on ] and ] being "hypothetical"() (as stated in their WP articles). Another editor basically reverted the edit () claiming "Nothing extraordinary at all about the claim that outer space contains dark matter and dark energy; it's the overwhelming consensus of astronomers based on the observations." The sources being used say "implying" and "evidence for" and "Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is"... so do not seem to support "proven" or "'''are''' the dominant components of space" (tried pointing out that the sources being cited do not contain a definitive statement but the editor kept reverting ). The editor's main premiss seems to be "''its ok to boil down theoretical work to "facts" since its a boiled down lead summary and astronomer A and B are pretty sure it exist so it can be a presented as a fact''" (I would also note the article body presents ] and ] as fact). To me "astronomer A being pretty sure" and "astronomer B being pretty sure" should not be joined together to imply a conclusion C "prove" or "are" or "90% of the mass is in an unknown form" or "is the dominant component of space" per WP:SYNTH. Also seems obvious to me theoretical work should not be presented as "fact" in any part of Misplaced Pages. Same editor has expressed these opinions before per: . ] (]) 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jackal (character) == | |||
| :Editor Fountains of Bryn Mawr, you are on the right track here. Keep it up. I would go further than you have already gone: I would favour a form of statement such as 'Speculative theoretical interpretations of observations suggest that ...'] (]) 23:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't claim in article space that the overwhelming consensus of astronomers is that dark matter exists; I used that to explain my edit. I've checked the four astronomy textbooks which I've had handy in the last few days (Freedman & Kaufman: Universe; Zeilik & Gregory: Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics; Sparke & Gallagher: Galaxies in the Universe; and Binney & Tremaine: Galactic Dynamics), which are, respectively, a non-major undergraduate textbook, an undergraduate major introductory textbook, an upper level undergraduate/lower level graduate textbook, and a graduate textbook. All state the existence of dark matter as a fact but that its nature as unknown. Therefore, I don't think that stating its existence as a fact is original research or unsupported by the sources at all. | |||
| ::In response to the objections raised and after further thought and reading, I modified the debated sentence in the lede of ] to read "In most galaxies, 90% of the mass is in an unknown form, called dark matter, which interacts with other matter through gravitational but not electromagnetic forces.", with a citation to the Freedman & Kaufman textbook. (This is my second edit cited by Fountains of Bryn Mawr.) What about this wording, or any wording in the article, is original research? | |||
| ::Part of the issue here is that there is a disconnect between whether dark matter exists and what it's made of. The former is well established; the latter is very much unknown. The objections to stating that dark matter exists as a fact largely, to my eye, come from conflating those related by separate statements. Again, I tried to clarify that in my last edit to outer space. However, this is all a content dispute, and bringing the discussion here (instead of ]) just fragments the content discussion. | |||
| ::Certainly, the details about the evidence leading astronomers to this conclusion merits considerable attention, as it has on ]. However, I think that weaseling the ''existence'' (not the nature) of dark matter gives readers the wrong impression of both reality and what the sources say. | |||
| ::Of course, the Misplaced Pages articles cited above are not reliable sources; the textbooks and journal articles I'm citing are. —Alex (] | ] | ]) 03:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The existence of dark matter is fairly well settled at this point, but we can always phrase things a bit cautiously. ] (]) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The article ] seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the {{oldid2|1263622722|most recent edit as I'm writing this}}, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. {{oldid2|1263534172|An edit}} I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character {{oldid2|1263602067|was reverted}} by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. ] (] • ]) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since there is a scientific consensus that dark matter exists, any qualification would cast doubt on this and therefore be POV. ] (]) 23:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: ]. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be ] to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the ] could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is ]. My two cents. ] (]) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Men's rights movement == | |||
| :It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. ] (]) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == SYNTH-edits at Team Seas == | |||
| There is some disagreement over the ] policy as it applies to ] (MRM). Two editors argue that we should use sources that don't deal with the topic of the article, i.e., the men's rights movement. To give you one example: An editor added about custodial sentencing. The source – a parliamentary debate and speech by ] – doesn't say anything about the MRM or any of its representatives. There is also no indication that Davies is a men's rights activists or someone who speaks for the MRM. So there is no connection. The editor who added the section argues that it ] (I assume he meant "men's rights movement") and that sources need not say anything or make the connection to the men's rights movement. Similarly, another editor argued that it isn't against the WP:OR policy to use generic statistics on alimony and divorce from sources that do not discuss the MRM (]) | |||
| There's an ongoing thread ] on a contested edit to the article. The in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that {{tq|This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing).}} There is clear consensus of a ] violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are ] any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --] (]) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Can uninvolved editors clarify if it is or is not a violation of WP:OR and WP:Synth to add statistics from sources that say nothing about the topic of the article (examples of stats and conent copied from other articles )? For instance, men's rights activists make claims about alimony, rape, dowry laws and a variety of other issues. Is it okay to add alimony, rape and dowry death statistics from sources that don't deal with the men's righs movement at all and do not make that connection? Can we just transfer the statistics from ], ] and ] etc. to ], ], and ]? --] (]) 20:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :See also ] ] (]) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me guess... another case that hinges on defining exactly what the "Men's rights movement" actually is... yes? ] (]) 20:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Clearly SYNTH; also ] by this point. I've left ], which I hope will help resolve the situation. ] (]) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) {{nacc}} | |||
| :::When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not ] on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ] (]) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::There are many scholarly sources which define the men's rights movement and discuss the claims in relation to several issues. It's just that some editors believe that it isn't necessary that sources say ''anything'' about the topic and that we should fill the article with generic statistics about anything that editors think might be related. For example, they state that it would be nice to have a prison section in the article and use sources about sentencing although the sources do not discuss sentencing in connection with the men's rights movement, e.g. what the MRM thinks or does about it. --] (]) 22:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Misplaced Pages. I thought I knew but reading ] from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.] (]) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership == | ||
| Editors are invited to comment at {{section link|WT:WA|Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership}} on item (2) as to whether the statement that "Merivale are on the traditional land of the Njunga" is synthesis. ] (]) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research == | |||
| I.e, is it a reasonable summary of the following sources to say the publication '']'' is to be a ]?<br>New editor quoted at publisher's website:<blockquote> ... is to be model in part on ]. We’re going to chronicle and assess the field, in other words, not contribute to it in terms of original scholarship. It will be a place where scholars and other interested readers can quickly, conveniently find great minds engaging one another about the current and future state of several fields.</blockquote>City newspaper's religion reporter:<blockquote> "At this point, the biggest challenge might be trying to keep up with the variety and volume of scholarship about Mormonism. ... will provide an overview and analysis of all the publishing in the field...."</blockquote>Student newspaper at the university affiliated with the publisher:<blockquote> is to help fill a void within the ever-growing field of Mormon studies. The Review will include reviews of books, essays and other scholarly publications related to Mormonism and the field’s growth and development. The first issue of the Review is expected to be available this coming winter. .... The executive director of the Maxwell Institue, M. Gerald Bradford, is eager to see the Mormon Studies Review take its place in the field of Mormon studies. ... I expect it will soon become a major voice in tracking and commenting on developments in the growing area of Mormon studies.".</blockquote>altho WP is not an RS, here's a quote from the WP article on review articles<blockquote>'<u>]s are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic. They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results. </u> They come in the form of systematic reviews and literature reviews and are a form of secondary literature. Systematic reviews determine an objective list of criteria, and find all previously published original experimental papers that meet the criteria. They then compare the results presented in these papers. Literature reviews, by contrast, provide a summary of what the authors believe are the best and most relevant prior publications.</blockquote>''Sources are linked to on talk page.''--] (]) 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Mystery solved? - Tho the 3 sources above speak in terms presuming interlocutors think, ''ah, a review journal'', frustrating-to-a-WP contributor, they decline to #!@&$ say the d*mned term. But alas! at long last informed commentary has beached up on the sandbed of my iPod from someone who didn't get the memo they weren't supposed to pronounce the actual technical term. The journal's publisher had announced, "Benjamin E. Park, a PhD candidate in history at the University of Cambridge, will serve as associate editor...." And here are the words of Ben, himself: :<blockquote>There have been an explosion of journals covering the field, to the point that one could say there is more quantity than quality. We have seen an increase in quality books, with many more to come. There are conferences throughout the nation (and lately, to a very limited extent, world), and academic chairs and programs cropping up at prestigious universities. </p><p>That’s where the Neal A. Maxwell Institute comes in. In a (sub)field seemingly so decentralized, the Institute is trying to establish a geographic core. This will primarily be through their new journal, The Mormon Studies Review. Aimed, in part, to be a Mormon version of Books and Culture, the annual journal will offer book reviews, review essays, and discipline, methodology, and topical articles that assess recent trends in the many different disciplines that live under the eclectic umbrella of “Mormon studies.” Written for educated lay readers as well as experts, it finds one of the last remaining niches left in the Mormon studies world: a review journal that is a mix between New York Review of Books and an interdisciplinary version of Reviews in American History.</p><p></p><p>I have the privilege to serve as Associate Editor, and I am genuinely thrilled to participate in such an impressive and important project.</blockquote>'''''Question''' to the notice board: Can WP term the journal a review journal?''--] (]) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Based on the sources I have seen (and—with full knowledge that this is the OR noticeboard!—supplemented my own knowledge of what it publishes) I think it could legitimately be called a "review journal". ] <sup>]</sup> 21:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' This seems like a logical supposition. For what it is worth, the first edition of the new Mormon Studies Review has not been published yet, so its final form at publication is actually not know.] (]) 03:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Yes it is a review journal. Journals published by theologians can be rs if they are written to academic standards. ] (]) 06:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' No, it's not a ], even though it is obviously an ]. Review journals publish reviews, not other stuff. Note that many journals with the word "review" in their title are ''not'' review journals as such. This journal is said to opublish "reviews of books, essays and other scholarly publications", which is much widers than what a review journal does. In fact, '']'' on which this journal is (''partly'') to be modelled, is not a review journal itself either. RiAH publishes ] and that is something very different from publishing ]s or ]s. The difference is subtle perhaps, but real. --] (]) 08:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Cmt''' - I believe there is - or at least SHOULD be - a "Strunk & White" Corollary to wp:OR: if the sole difference between the description of an activity and of the categorization of its actor is that between active- and passively voiced constructions, the distiction in so-called "grammar" between the two doesn't amount to OR. An ed. board whose membership inc. a who's who inc. all the chairs of Cowboy poetry studies, as well as the North American Wrangler's Assoc.'s Resident Scholar in Cowboy Poetry, and whose journal is to refrain from publishing new researches but instead concentrate on reviews of published scholarship as well analysis of the state of the field--well, such a pub IS a review journal.</p>Thus, I dunno about RAH but putatively to claim that ] pub'd recently by UChig (and now by Oxford) for the AHA - the <blockquote> only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is unparalleled in its efforts to choose articles that are new in content and interpretation and that make a contribution to historical knowledge. The journal also publishes approximately one thousand book reviews per year, surveying and reporting the most important contemporary historical scholarship in the discipline. </blockquote>whose Wiki article sez<blockquote> Each year approximately 25 articles and review essays and 1,000 book reviews are published.</blockquote>- ..... To sniff that the AHR inn't no review journal, while marvelously pedantic-SOUNDING,would I'd imagine be a false - slash - pretty much unsupportable, hence highly controversial, assertion (see, eg, "]"). No?--] (]) 15:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment:''' We still don't have a reliable source calling this a "review journal," so I still do not support that categorization. Additionally, its own descriptions include a lot of things that are outside the purview of a review journal. I think we're still better off calling it an "academic journal." — ] ] 15:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? <self-mocks> What content spoiled the whole apple barrel? </p><p><small>OK there's a lot of free-standing commentary and the like in that iteration. But there was less in - and in any case what is at issue at the moment is the stated purview for its upcoming numbers (say, vol 24-on--unless this vol is be renumbered No. 1).</small>--] (]) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have no idea what you're trying to say. — ] ] 01:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The website you are describing is to FARMS Review: "apples" to the upcoming MStudies Rev. "oranges." (which will be made clear to those who refer to the "History" section of the Wikiarticle now being discussed).--] (]) 19:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Per ):<blockquote> will publish a new review journal in American history and related disciplines which will carry timely, in-depth review-essays of scholarly and non-fiction trade books and of reprints, teaching and research materials. Reviews in American History contains 160 pages per issue....</blockquote>So indeed apparently yes the term "review journal " is used in academia to refer to a journal that publishes more than the occasional ] (despite what the unsourced WPdia article ] claims: that such a journal must publish exclusively such articles). Such pedantry has arisen solely on Misplaced Pages and in my humble opinion WP cannot trump via in-house technical categorization what we may allege to be too loose of definitions used by the preponderance of the sources, esp. when these sources happen to be prestigious academic journals.--] (]) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Gasteracantha cancriformis mating == | |||
| I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. ] (]) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I'm ]. I have observed the species ] mating and have uploaded it to commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Gasteracantha_cancriformis_mating_in_Summer.webm. I want to include it in the article ], but doing so would probably require a new section with text sourced from http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Gasteracantha_cancriformis/. However information from that page is contradictory to the video(For example, my video disproves that the species has only been observed mating in a labratory, disproves that the species only mates in Winter(I suppose it doesn't if you don't trust the datestamp on it), and generally adds more information about it.) I know information from this video is not from a verifiable, reliable, published source, but it seems ridiculous to write knowingly incorrect information that contradicts the video. I don't know how to get this new finding about the species "published". I am asking for any advice. Thanks, ] (]) 21:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum. | |||
| :Or perhaps the video could count as a verifiable reliable source for "been observed in the wild" and "in summer". ] (]) 22:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement. | |||
| ::This would fall under ], so there's nothing you can really do on Misplaced Pages. I'm not really familiar with journals pertaining to arthropods, but what you could do is look for a researcher studying this or related species and drop them an email. They may be able to help you out. As long as you sound professional and polite, usually researchers are very helpful towards people who share their interests. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">'''– ] <sup>«]»</sup>'''</span> 23:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. ] (]) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see no reason that makes it obligatory for you to include that text, and especially that makes it obligatory to include ''all'' of its information. Just put your video on the WP page, update the page with whatever is sourced that you trust, while '''not''' writing anything of your own research, and meanwhile contact some arachnologist (is this the word?) to let them know. I suppose they could be interested in your video. --]] 15:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I put the video on the page. Thanks for the advice. ] (]) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Video game music == | ||
| Numerous paragraghs of substantial length in ] have no sources; nothing cited, no references given. I have tagged several of these in this section: ] and am interested to learn if that content represents "original research". ] (]) 00:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The article on ] seems to contain an awful lot of OR and synth based on primary sources. I've removed the worst of the material, lists of adherents and proponents that were either completely unsourced or synth. There is a discussion going on on the talk page. Would appreciate it if more editors would examine the article and weigh in. There is a valid topic here, but the article seems to have become a coatrack article on a vague concept. Thank you. ] (]) 02:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Strictly speaking, we define original research as claims that aren't ] in ]. Merely uncited material can be often be (and is usually encouraged to be) cited rather than removed. However, culture trivia like this is often ] or ] even if it is verifiable, but these need to be weighed individually. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Commonwealth & Somaliland== | |||
| ::Got it. Unverified is not unverifiable. So much to say that is lacking support...seemed it might be personal accounting. Thanks for the quick reply. ] (]) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| With respect to the ] page, a user has added the following paragraph on ], a secessionist ] in northwestern Somalia: | |||
| <blockquote>{{flag|Somaliland}}:<ref name="The future of the modern Commonwealth"/><!--quote=the following countries and nations, to varying degrees, have all expressed an interest in membership...Somaliland--> '''unilaterally seceded from Somalia claiming succession to ], which became part of ] shortly after independence in 1960'''. Its independence remains unrecognised. Delegates were sent to the ], and applied to join the Commonwealth under ], although the application has not been granted.</blockquote> | |||
| He claims that this paragraph is both neutral and accurate. I've explained to him ] that it is obviously neither since a) Somalia did not exist prior to its July 1, 1960 independence day, and b) the former ] protectorate actually united with ] on that day to form the new nation of Somalia (per the CIA: "Britain withdrew from British Somaliland in 1960 to allow its protectorate to join with Italian Somaliland and form the new nation of Somalia" ). British Somaliland was not later incorporated into Somalia as insinuated in that paragraph above. The third problem is the statement that Somaliland's "independence remains unrecognised" since that already implies that the region is an independent country, when it is in fact only a self-declared independent state. "Self-declared independence remains unrecognised" would therefore be a more neutral presentation. | |||
| Given this, I proposed the following modification: | |||
| <blockquote>{{flag|Somaliland}}: internationally recognized as an ] of the ]. Those who call the area the ''Republic of Somaliland'' consider it to be the successor state of the former ] ]. Having established its own local government in Somalia in 1991, the region's self-declared independence remains unrecognized by any country or international organization. Delegates from the territory were sent to the ], and applied to join the Commonwealth under ], although the application has not been granted.</blockquote> | |||
| The user rejected this proposal and instead added two non-neutral links from ] websites to support his argument ("Qaran News" & "Somalilandpress"; c.f. ). Note that these partisan sources themselves don't claim that British Somaliland "became part of Somalia shortly after independence in 1960" (c.f. , ). Please advise. ] (]) 15:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==WP:OR/Synth argumentation in biography== | |||
| ''Note: ] was posted on WP:BLPN where no one responded except regarding procedural matters; two noninvolved editors at Editor's assistance said it would not be Forum Shopping to bring it here; editor in question objected.'' | |||
| WP:OR reads in intro: ''To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. '' | |||
| * I removed as ''argumentative for a bio'' a sentence written by User: SPECIFICO giving Milton Friedman's opinion on an economic issue which contradicted bio subject Jesus Huerta de Soto's view, but the ''source does not mention Huerta de Soto.'' | |||
| * reverted it, writing: ''If a claim is made about economics, it's entirely appropriate to present the mainsteam view.'' | |||
| * reverted it writing: ''as presented, particularly with "however", it is WP:OPED. Article is a BLP, not economics subject..'' | |||
| * puts back another version of same material with more refs that do not mention Huerta de Soto. | |||
| *Note that talk page discussion ]. | |||
| Given that the editor has been going through a lot of biographies of Austrian economists he disagrees with, it needs to be made clear to him that adding this kind of WP:OR is against policy. Such debates belong in articles on the subject in question (for example, ]), not in bios. If they were allowed there, many bios would just become argument fests of sources not mentioning the subject at all. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 13:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :''What is the issue'' to be resolved and ''why'' is this being posted here? Seems that the contentious edits (mentioned as DIFFS) are old and perhaps displaced by subsequent edits. Wasn't the issue hashed about in the BLPN ''and'' on the talk page? Is this notice intended to bring up the "Other issues" we see on the BLPN, or are we just to focus on the Friedman/Soto/Krugman/Joe Blow comparisons? Because mention of "the editor" disagreements is brought up, is this a NPOV issue? Just who is invited to participate in this discussion? – ] (]) 18:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:36, 22 January 2025
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
| Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
|
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
| To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edits to “Game Science”
Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Jackal (character)
The article Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the most recent edit as I'm writing this, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. An edit I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character was reverted by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be WP:OR to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is WP:OR. My two cents. Novellasyes (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
SYNTH-edits at Team Seas
There's an ongoing thread Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions on a contested edit to the article. The edit in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing).
There is clear consensus of a WP:SYNTH violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are WP:STONEWALLING any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- See also this recent discussion at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
- When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I linked it, you can read it yourself." They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not WP:DROPIT on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
Marxism–Leninism–Maoism
Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Misplaced Pages. I thought I knew but reading WP:NOR from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.Prezbo (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership
Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA § Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership on item (2) as to whether the statement that "Merivale are on the traditional land of the Njunga" is synthesis. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research
I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum.
- The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement.
- There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Video game music
Numerous paragraghs of substantial length in Video game music have no sources; nothing cited, no references given. I have tagged several of these in this section: Early_digital_synthesis_and_sampling and am interested to learn if that content represents "original research". azwaldo (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, we define original research as claims that aren't verifiable in reliable sources. Merely uncited material can be often be (and is usually encouraged to be) cited rather than removed. However, culture trivia like this is often of marginal utility or otherwise unencyclopedic even if it is verifiable, but these need to be weighed individually. Remsense ‥ 论 01:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. Unverified is not unverifiable. So much to say that is lacking support...seemed it might be personal accounting. Thanks for the quick reply. azwaldo (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)