Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steeletrap (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 13 March 2014 (→Synth to infer RS mentions individual by name when doesn't??). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N 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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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 Misplaced Pages. 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:

treehouse attachment bolt

I have noticed that a few of the facts on the treehouse attachment bolt page, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/Treehouse_attachment_bolt, seem to contain some origional research. Specifically those that are linked to the 2nd reference. Both can be found at the end of the paragraphs in the history section.

• Please sign ("~~~~") your contributions.
• Please make clear what exactly supposedly is OR, and why. BsBsBs (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what the OP means, but "Shear plates provide a larger load-carrying capacity in shear than can be otherwise achieved by a bolt alone", linked to looks like OR. The linked article doesn't mention tree house attachment bolts, and the reference just before it, doesn't mention sheer plates. Then there's the stuff about the "Garnier limb" sourced to, The Complete Guide to Building Your Own Tree House: For Parents and Adults Who Are Kids at Heart and none of which seem to use the phrase "treehouse attachment bolt". Indeed it appears that the article could be seen as publicity for the Garnier limb. At the recent AfD, User:Mangoe commented that "I find some slight book coverage of Garnier limbs; none of "treehouse attachment bolts". I think an article on the former might be (barely) justified, but not for a general term" while User:Andrew Davidson said "This good source explains that "As a whole, limb system designs have been referred to as “tree anchor bolts” or TABs. But it's the GL that started it all." As there are obvious alternatives to deletion, such as merger with treehouse, our editing policy indicates that we should not delete this page." We do expect sources to specifically mention the subject of the article, and these don't. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am reminded of the tree shaping case. But, as Treebeard said, "...we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say." Andrew (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Mary (mother of Jesus)

This article contains a section titled "Specific references" that only cites one secondary source for the dodgiest of its claims, and lists seven books in the New Testament where Mary is "specifically referred to", providing only primary references for all of them. Mary is named in four of these books. One (the Gospel of John) mentions Jesus' mother but not by name; one (Paul's letter) simply says Jesus was "born of woman"; and one (the Apocalypse of John) doesn't mention her at all but some Roman Catholics have read her into it. I removed the Paul reference because no one could possibly interpret "Christ was born of a woman" as being a specific reference to Mary; Paul doesn't mention Mary once in any of his letters. I was reverted within a matter of hours. In fact, the only independent source that names Jesus' mother as Mary is Mark (virtually all scholars agree that the authors of both Matthew and Luke-Acts used Mark as a source).

I think changing "Specific references" to "New Testament references" could work, but honestly I think each point in the section should be backed up by a reliable secondary or tertiary source.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• If a reference does not back up a statement, then, in most cases, it can be challenged. This would not necessarily be an OR matter, it would primarily be a matter of an unsourced statement.

• Secondary sources are always preferred, especially in cases where the primary source is interpreted by many secondary sources. The article should not add yet another interpretation, which would definitely be OR.

• Counting how often Mary is mentioned in a gospel could be construed as a mild form of OR, I personally would not go that far, but I would also not defend the position.

• Where I would draw the line is at "Luke's gospel mentions Mary most often." Superlatives definitely need a good secondary source.BsBsBs (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Virtually all counting statements should be referenced. Numbers of all types that aren't sourced frequently get changed and are virtually always OR. And Hijiri is obviously right about Paul not being a specific reference to Mary. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable clarification. To clarify even more, when you say that "virtually all counting statements should be referenced," should I read this that they should be

• simply referenced to the source on which the counting is being performed (like here Luke's Gospel)?
• referenced to a secondary source that did the counting?
• referenced to the primary source, along with a big footnote that explains how the counting was done?

BsBsBs (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

BsBsBs, Sorry to be slow in replying. Referenced to a secondary source that did the counting. That way the actual source can be checked if anyone wants to verify the number at any time. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, on principal I think that where a reliable secondary source can be found, both the primary source and the secondary source should be cited, but when no reliable secondary source can be found the information should be removed. I like leaving the primary sources in because that way readers can check where the secondary source got its information. Just to clarify that I'm not generally in favour of removing primary sources for circumstances like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller:: Thank you for the clarification. I agree. I think the operative phrase is "checked if anyone wants to verify the number." Verifiability is key, meaning that a cited number MUST be found in a reference.

@Hijiri88:: I don't know whether this is the right place for a deep discussion about primary/secondary sources, but since it has been brought up here: It's a matter of context. For numbers (especially changing ones) I like to get as close as possible to the actual source. For value statements, or comparisons, I'd like a secondary opinion.

On a page about Global Widget Co., statements like "Global Widget makes the world's best widgets," or "Global Widget is the world's largest maker of frammel-class widgets, before National Gadgets and China's Dragon Doohickey (Donguan) Co." should be backed-up by an authoritative secondary source (if they can't be totally avoided.) For "Global Widget's 3Q operative profit was ..." I'd like to go straight to their quarterly report. In the specific case about counting, then yes, we should absolutely leave the actual counting to a secondary source that can be cited ("According to Widget Weekly, there are 87 frammel-type thingamabobs in Global Widget's catalogue"), if only because it would put an undue burden on the verifying editor who can't find "87 frammel-type thingamabobs" in the primary source, who would have to count them, and who would have to judge whether they are frammel-class widgets, or not.BsBsBs (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Journalists

I think the no original research policy could use some clarification for the case where the subject of the article is themselves a journalist. I've seen some of these cases (Touré, and now Chuck Philips) where you have an article that lists all the articles written by the subject like a resume, and for references they use the articles themselves. It's a subtle point, but I believe that constitutes original research. The article appears well-cited, but the citations are non-independent primary sources. What is needed to meet notability standards is a news article about the news article. My apologies if this has already been mentioned in a guideline somewhere (I looked). Fnordware (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While these cases may raise questions about other issues not within the purview of the noticeboard, I see no OR issues in listing articles of a journalist, as long as they exist. It would be a different matter if the article comes to a conclusion that is not born out by the article referenced source .BsBsBs (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a better place to discuss this? It's not just that there is a list of articles, but most of the narrative of the article is composed of that list. Really, you could take any professional journalist and make them an article saying, "In 2008 they wrote about X in Y newspaper. Their essay on A was published in B." But clearly not every journalist is notable; most of them aren't. A key distinction is that news articles written by them are not actually about them. That's why I say that the citations should be news articles about the journalist's news articles. Seems like links to their actual articles might be more appropriate in an external links section. Fnordware (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing, attributing and synthesis

Does the second sentence below (in bold) violate WP:SYNTH?

During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Russian historians argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.

It is based on these quotes from sources:

Senyavskaya (2006), Advesaries of Russia in the Wars of the 20th Century: Evolution of the "Image of an Enemy" in the Minds of the Army and Society:

In this context, the mythology relating to the mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers, with the alleged absence of such evidence in the areas of occupation of the Western allies, is noteworthy. This topic, in the context of the general political pressure on Russia, is actively exaggerated in the Western media... Consequently, we can speak about individual (especially compared with the actions of the German side) violations of international law in the conduct of war. Moreover, all these events were spontaneous and not organized, and were strictly suppressed by the Soviet army command.

Rzheshevsky (2002), "The Berlin Operation of 1945: Discussion Continues" (World of History):

In different areas where the Red Army entered, its relationship with the local population varied. Violence could not be prevented, but it was contained and then reduced to a minimum.

Gareev (2005), "Abuse of Facts" (Trud):

Of course, instances of cruelty, including sexual, occurred. They simply could not be absent after what the Nazis did on our land. However, such cases were strongly suppressed and punished. And they did not become widespread. As soon as we occupied a town, a commandant office was created. It provided the local population with food and medical care. Order was controlled by the commandant patrol. I personally took part in the liberation of East Prussia. I say this honestly: I did not even hear of sexual abuse.

Braithwaite (2006), Moscow 1941: A City and Its People at War:

Western historians have written at length about the large-scale rape and violence committed by Russian soldiers in Germany at the end of the war. Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale.'

Basically, the sentence is a summary of what three Russian historians say and this summary is also directly backed up by the fourth source. It should not be synthesis because it summarizes the points made by the historians (per WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_summary).
However, is it synthesis because the statement is attributed to Russian historians? Does it imply that all Russian historians think this way?
I think that simply saying "Russian historians" does not imply that absolutely all Russian historians have this view. The last source also directly says "Russian historians". -YMB29 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the Russian historians really said that, and that they were not cherry-picked while many others said the opposite, I see no OR in such a summation, as long as it comes with plenty in-line references. How about this: "Some Russian historians argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread (ref1), (ref2), (ref 3). Rodric Braithwaite, former UK ambassador in Moscow, asserted that “Russian historians have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale.”(ref)" BsBsBs (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the comment.

No, the sources are not cherry-picked. I have not seen an opposing view from a Russian historian. It is safe to say that most Russian historians have this view (based on many other sources).

I think "Some Russian historians" implies a minority view, so that is why I think it should be left as "Russian historians" or maybe "Many Russian historians". -YMB29 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

With "Some," you would be on the safe side (as safe as possible in a highly charged environment.) Three cites would prove "some." I see no minority view in "some," just cautious writing. "Many" would definitely invite opposition.BsBsBs (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so "Russian historians" does not violate WP:SYNTH, but it is safer to add "Some"? -YMB29 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it violates WP:SYNTH. From the quotes above, it is an undisputed fact that different historians are saying different things. And, assuming that your references above alone are representative of what historians WP:RS have written (vs. these were cherry-picked to puch a POV), this appears to another example of the classical East-West divide. As such, what we need to do in this case is either (1) to add a Controversy/ies section to the article in question where each side is presented, or (2) to incorporate statements such as the cites above into prose of the article qualifying them into a form like "historian A said X, and historian B said Y, but historian C said Z, while historian D said R." No one can dispute facts and these are the facts. No POV, no BS, and end of the dispute. Mercy11 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the first sentence ("During, and in the days immediately...")? I think it violates WP:NPOV rather than WP:SYNTH, in that it presents a disputed view as a fact. That is a different issue though.

Yes, there is an East-West divide on this issue, so that is why I am trying to add the second sentence ("Russian historians argue...").

I am asking about that second sentence. Is it synthesis to summarize what Russian historians I quoted say and to attribute it to Russian historians?

Attributing statements to individual historians may not be the way to go since that would give too much weight to the topic in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Consulting the Subject

Is asking the subject of an article (via email) for strictly factual information (such as (regarding actors) did he or she appear in such or such when in dispute) considered original research? If so, such seems ludicrous and I think the rule should be changed. Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That is original research. Material that can't be sourced to a reliable secondary source doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages, and if two reliable sources contradict each other then use the talk page to determine which reliable source is more accurate. Contacting the subject and saying so on the talk page in order to help determine which reliable source is more accurate is OK, but bear in minf@d that unless you can prove you did so other users are not obliged to believe you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

However: Would I be right in assuming you refer to this article? No one has disputed you, but it seems you're comparing information from two unreliable sources. We are of course not supposed to contact the subject to verify information that otherwise is only found on a site "similar to" IMDb. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, which is most appreciated. Yes, no one challenged my recent edits but in the last case the change I made was at least supported by third party sources. I am also uncertain if the erstwhile actor was actually in the final movie that IMDB asserts that he was. As I said on the talk page, I’m skeptical of that assertion, though not certain. Therefore, I made an inquiry to the subject and wanted to know that if he chooses to answer me if I would be justified in changing his years active in the profession should he confirm that he did not appear in that movie. If he chooses not to answer me, then of course the IMDB reference must stand until someone can produce a definitive alternative source disproving the IMDB assertion if it is indeed incorrect.

On one hand, not allowing “from the horse’s mouth” input seems ridiculous regarding strictly factual matters such as this; on the other hand, I do recognize the validity of your point that it would be difficult to prove my source without reproducing a private email which I am not willing to do. It would just be frustrating to leave information about the subject on the article stand that I would know for an absolute fact to be incorrect. Such things happen, I guess.

Thanks again and best regards.

P.S. On an unrelated matter, I wanted to please ask you something regarding Misplaced Pages protocols since you seem well-versed in such matters. I was recently taken aback when I was invited to vote in a Wiki election for officers and was able to do so. Was that because last year I created my first article? Does such endow some sort of stature upon a Wiki editor? Other than that, I have restricted my input to editing, usually regarding trivial matters such as correcting typos. (Just as a note of interest, the subject of the article that I wrote is one in which I have absolutely no interest. I just stumbled upon him by happenstance and noted that he didn’t have a Wiki article as yet but seemed to meet Wiki’s notability guidelines; so I viewed it as a rare opportunity to actually create an article. As my interests generally lie in more substantive, academic matters, I almost find this embarrassing!) HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

We can all vote. You're just as much a member of the community as the rest of us. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, once before I received a Wiki email inviting me to vote, but when I attempted to do so I was informed that I lacked sufficient edits to vote. This was before I had created the article but had made many edits. That is why I thought that possibly creating an article is deemed worth a lot of edit points or some such thing. I was just curious. It’s not important. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A purported email reported by a Misplaced Pages editor is not straight from the horses mouth, it is from an anonymous Internet user who's credentials cannot be verified. That is why the email is not a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:HistoryBuff14 The reason we have WP:GNG is so we can't create articles that can only be written by consulting the subject. I personally would prefer if GNG said "if it doesn't have an article in any print encyclopedia, it doesn't get an article on Misplaced Pages", but that's just my opinion. If there is a factoid that can't be backed up by a reliable secondary source (published interviews and the like are also acceptable), then don't add it to Misplaced Pages. IMDb should never be used as a source, btw; if the subject himself did in fact tell you that IMDb is wrong, that's just one more reason not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hijiri88, please stop saying everything must be verifiable in reliable 'secondary source. Reliable primary sources may also be used, although greater care is needed with primary sources. (But the reliable primary source must be published, and when a Misplaced Pages editor checks directly with the person who is the subject of an article, that interaction is not published.) Jc3s5h (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment, particularly between the parentheses. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrace Garden, Rome by John Elliott

I would like some clarification on the page for John Elliott (artist) , in reference to Terrace Garden, Rome . As a new user of Misplaced Pages I would like to make sure that I have not violated this rule. I wrote: "Terrace Garden, Rome, an oil painting on canvas depicting the artist's terrace at his apartment in Rome. It was painted at the request of Larz Anderson, who met his wife Isabel Weld Perkins for the first time at this location"

The two references for this information are as follows(for more detail, see the links on the actual[REDACTED] page)-

From James Sansum Fine and Decorative Art : Terrace Garden, Rome Circa 1880-1900 Oil on canvas, original frame H: 23 W: 19 D: 1 inches (framed) Signed with initials on lower right of recto: J.E. Inscribed on stretcher: Elliot (sic) Terrace Rome/Return to Mrs. Anderson, Weld, Jamaica Plains Provenance: Mrs. Larz Anderson (Isabel Weld Perkins), Weld, Brookline, Massachusetts

From John Elliott: The Story of an Artist

"The terrace is intimately connected with the romance of our young friend Isabel, for here she often received her admirers, and met the man for whom she was destined.... As a souvenir of the happy hours that he spent there, Larz Anderson asked Jack to make a painting of the terrace. This picture now hangs at their Weld country home."

I wonder if it is to much of an inference to link these two references as one coherent statement about the painting.

Arkabaker (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is unproblematic because there is nothing controversial about the material. You could make a note on the article talk page about what you have done. If someone objects then they can read that and find another solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reporting %sun when only total duration is quoted in source

Is it either original research and/or synthesis to include the %possible sun if a meteorological agency only lists the total monthly sunshine duration and then one proceeds to use another reliable source to state the following, as an example: in Washington, D.C., during March, the sun shines 55% of the time? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Synth to infer RS mentions individual by name when doesn't??

Note: Moved the below from WP:BLPN where no response. Guess it's too minor a problem for that noticeboard, but it is annoying and would like an opinion. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that policy demands we be very careful to give proper context to any use of material about individuals. Here the question is: a Nobel Prize winner in a NY Times article does not mention an individual's name but only links to a personal blog where that person is mentioned. Editors insist we can write it as if he mentions the individual by name in a New York Times article. This has been reverted back and forth numerous times on article, and discussed a few times, but not addressed by non-involved editors when it was brought here as part of larger issue in November. Since creeping synth is a problem in many BLPs, uninvolved editors' opinions would be helpful this time.

At this diff my change of

• "In December 2012 New York Times column Paul Krugman wrote that University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong had attacked "a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same" and linked to DeLong's column naming Murphy."
  

was changed back to

• "In a column criticizing economists "who stick with their ideology no matter how badly it performs in practice", Paul Krugman noted that University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong had attacked Murphy..."

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not all synthesis is contrary to policy. If we're going to abandon all common sense and discretion, and label it "synthesis" to say x referred to y by quoting a comment specifically and exclusively about y, we're going to have to call a lot of things synth. (E.G. it is "synthesis" to infer from surrounding context that a specific individual is being referred someone is being referred to if a pronoun is used.) Steeletrap (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution