Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WP:NOR/N
WP:NORN
WP:ORN

This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be original research (OR) or original synthesis.

The policy that governs the issue of original research is Wikipedia: No original research (WP:NOR). It says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." For questions about the policy itself, please go to WT:NOR.

Please post new topics in a new section. When a thread is closed, you can tag it with {{resolved}}.


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents


[edit] When does adding up become original research?

I regularly edit popular music-related articles, and many editors are obsessed (there's really no other word) with adding sales totals for indiviudal singles or albums. A common tactic to source these is to take individual charts from a source such as United World Chart (each weekly chart includes a sales total for that week), add the figures together, and then include them in the article along with references to each chart.

Now, it seems to me that this violates the synthesis policy: it involves taking information from multiple sources (in this case, multiple individual charts), and combining them to advance a position (in this case, the claim that a particular record has sold X copies, when X is a figure not found in any sources). While this involves simple maths rather than drawing an inference, it still seems to fall into the domain of original research as far as I can see. Is that the correct reading of the policy? Gusworld (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple arithmetic should not pose any problem. i.e. there's no "different" way to add the figures together that could result in a conclusion original to the Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If it were simple arithmetic based on a single source it might be ok (but taking account of potential pitfalls such as overlapping sales periods, etc., it might be best to err on the side of caution). However, if the calculation is based on figures from multiple sources, then I'd agree: it's original synthesis. Jakew (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It sounds to me like this is adding the same figure from multiple issues of the same source. We should be able to do this all in one footnote, with the right notation. Put something like "Σ Jan..Dec" in the citation template. But it seems to me like this is really a concern about "cruft", not original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There's definitely a "cruft" element that comes up, but I can see a legitimate case for saying what sales an album has had in a given country or worldwide. But suppose an album stays on the chart for 15 weeks; that requires 15 URLs to be included in the footnote in order for anyone else to verify the number, and that still feels like synthesis to me. Appreciate the point about not being able to come up with a different result -- hadn't looked at it that way. Gusworld (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. Here's my reasoning: copies of an album sell whether it is listed in a chart or not, so unless I'm missing something, one couldn't correctly calculate the total sales in this way. At best, one could calculate the minimum total sales. If there are alternative methods (or indeed alternative charts), then there might be any number of results for the minimum sales figure, depending on the method chosen. Jakew (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. The only potentially viable option is to say "According to the Apparent World Chart, Hot Polka Party sold 3.1 million copies between January and May 2007", which is a more precise claim. Still leaves the question of whether this is OR or not open to debate, of course. Gusworld (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is a lot better, but I'd feel a bit uneasy about it because of the attribution. If I see something in an article that says "according to X, Y is true", then my expectation is that X actually says that Y is true, not that someone else has calculated Y from data in X. To be precise, I'd prefer something like "Using data from the Apparent World Chart...", but to my mind that's like waving a big flag that says "original research this way!" Jakew (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
About "cruft", what I was getting at the article might look problematic if there's 30 citations under one number, and its tempting to use the "original research" policy to fix the problem. My opinion is that it's not an "original research" problem but maybe some other kind of problem. Jakew has a point that adding up sales from a chart wouldn't include sales from before [or after] the song was popular. The Gusworld wording handles this well, and with some careful handling of the citation tag, this could be done in one footnote without cluttering the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Point well taken -- undoubtedly in many contexts where this kind of material occurs, there are bigger picture issues of relevance/focus which might mean that OR is not the biggest problem. I still can't help feeling that when we're facing a situation where somebody has added together a long sequence of numbers and presented them as a single number, we're pretty much in OR/synth territory though. Quoting the individual numbers with appropriatie citations is obviously not controversial (in an OR/citation sense, though it might well be a violation of WP:IINFO). However, when we're combining multiple pieces of information from separate sources, that looks like OR to me. I can see that it's not a clear and unambigious judgement call though. While the information can potentially be verified, that's not a trivial task for many people (a point underscored by the sometimes faulty addition that accompanies such citations). Gusworld (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Simple arithmetic wouldn't be OR, just like conversions from feet to meters, because there's no unique "art" in the conversion that creates a fact only found on Wikipedia. Now whether this figure is good for the article is another matter, as is whether it's practical to keep updating the sales figures. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Simple arithmetic is often not so simple, as pointed out above though, where overlapping figures have to be taken into consideration. I think the important point missed here is OR violations can be avoided by notability considerations; if it's notable, some reliable source will have already done the maths, thereby solving any problem with when it can be included/excluded. Faith (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
if it's notable, some reliable source will have already done the maths. Not necessarily, especially for us who work on obscure subjects. I think our editors know how to add, and our community can debate whether the figure is helpful to the article. There's two different issues here with regard to using math. One is the addition itself; there's only one way to do it, so it does not create any original facts. The other is, does the resulting figure belong in the article? For instance, you could take the (positive) square root of the sales figure. Not an original fact, but it doesn't belong in the article either. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that notability should definitely be a consideration as well, but in (say) a discussion of a particular album, worldwide sales would undoubtedly be notable if they could be reliably sourced. The question remains of whether combining reliable but separate sources is OR (and I'm still arguing that it is).
Re maths: my reading of the OR policy doesn't seem to make exceptions for things that are easy to calculate from multiple sources. Conversions are a slightly different case; it's applying a single calculation to a figure that itself would presumably already be sourced. In this case, multiple figures from separate sources are being synthesised, which doesn't seem like the same approach to me. If we convert (say) the height of a mountain from metres to feet, we're still expressing one fact and not contradicting our original source. If we add together six weeks' sales, we're reaching a conclusion that none of our sources actually contain. Gusworld (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Gusworld. I tend to think that unit conversion is a form of translation, so applying the spirit of WP:VUE, it's legitimate to do so (but the original figure should be mentioned in a footnote or something). To stretch your analogy somewhat beyond breaking point, if no reliable sources estimated the volume of the mountain, it would be original research for us to calculate it on the basis of other published statistics. Jakew (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Remember that in the original case, they weren't adding figures from different authors, which is a different matter than adding the same figure from multiple issues of the same source. Also the example about estimating the volume of a mountain is a good example about when we stray into OR. Figuring the volume of a cone is not OR because there's only one way to do it. Making an estimate of the volume of a mountain requires some judgement on the person doing the estimating and that's OR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"Not necessarily, especially for us who work on obscure subjects." That opens another can of worms. If it's too obscure to be noted in a RS, then it's too obscure for WP under WP:NOTE. Editors shouldn't be performing their own SYN of the material; it boils down to OR, in that they researched figures, regardless same source or not, and compiled them to draw a new conclusion ("total sales for period x through x") not found in a RS. Where do the separate figures come from? If there is a general list of links, then linking to that list would be the better way to go than to post 30 different URLs. Faith (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Notability is for the article as a whole, not for each fact in the article. It doesn't work to say "this album is notable but how many copies it sold is not". In this case, the separate figures came from the same source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One element of original research is that wikipedia is not a news outlet, nor should be the first source to publish information. We can't say "Band X sold Y records" if there is no other source that says that. Requiring the reader to add sales figures for verification purposes is a bit much, and it assumes that we understand the intricacies of how sales figures are calculated. -Andrew c [talk] 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The intricacies of simple addition? Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Simple addition is the easy part. The part that requires expert knowledge is knowing whether and when it is appropriate to use simple addition. Jakew (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a concrete example to demonstrate the issue: Mariah Carey albums discography. If you check the entry for E=MC2 (the last album in the discography), you'll see it has a US sales total with six footnotes, all sourced from Billboard. The references are accurate and the numbers have been added up correctly, but I can't see how combining six separate figures isn't OR (and I've largely been responsible for maintaining this total). Other arguments about whether this is relevant information could also apply, as noted. Gusworld (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they all come from the same source. It's just the same if you added up a column of numbers that were on the same page. We are allowed to summarize sources, and that is what's going on, in the most literal sense of the term. Of course all this adding and footnoting sounds like too much work, and I understand the concern that it misses the "long tail" of sales when not on the charts. I'd suggest taking this discussion to one of the music-related projects, as they probably have an opinion on the best way to handle sales data. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
To me, the rules regarding summary and synthesis mean that you can summarise what a particular source document says, but you can't summarise multiple sources, even if they come from the same publisher. That is, adding together numbers within an individual document would be acceptable, but adding together numbers from separate documents (which is what happens here) is synthesis, as it's not summarising what one source says, but what multiple sources say. Gusworld (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is summarizing serial documents from the same source, not merely from the same publisher. We've probably exhausted the possibilities of being able to say "this is definitely OR", or "definitely not OR", and it's time to seek input from a different talk page. My opinion is that it isn't "original research" ( there is no unique art in saying "here are the weeks the album charted, add them up, and use that figure with a caveat" ), but it sounds like too much work to keep maintaining these totals. Is there an easier way to handle album sales? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Material sourced to archives, e.g. UK National Archives

Is it acceptable to use as sources information accessible only through an archive (in this case, the UK's The National Archives) that does not appear to have been otherwise published? In this case, it's an internal Royal Air Force report now accessible this way being used on Cap Arcona.

Another issue that's come up there is whether a response from those who administer the UK's Freedom of Information Act that no records exist on a topic can be used or is OR (I'm inclined to the latter). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say Yes to the material sourced to the National Archives (as anyone could go there and verify what is in the document), and No to the response from the FoIA administrator (as personal correspondence is not verifiable). Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"personal correspondence is not verifiable", unless it was published by a reliable source Faith (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely though (to play devil's advocate) if anybody "can" visit the archives, then anybody can also personally correspond with (e.g.) the FoIA people..? ntnon (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
But anyone who visits the archives can see the same documents that were cited in the article. They can't see personal correspondence. They can have an exchange of correspondence themselves, and the material information in the reply might be identical, but no-one else would be able to verify those responses either. Gusworld (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal correspondence could be the documents in question; held by the National or any university archive. The negative criteria break down at this point! MartinSFSA (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newspapers

I was working on straigtening out an article on a topic which had elicited a great deal of speculation and debate, but after finishing it I think it might be original research. I've used mostly 19th century newspapers as my source, accessed through subscription databases. Oddly, I cannot find any specific mention in the policies on how newspapers are treated, but I think that they fall under primary sources. Although I've attempted to be as transparent as possible, I think that ultimately I've created original research. No published source has assembled the information in the same way I have, mostly owing to the recent increase in online searchable databases of historic newspapers. In the article I come to the conclusion that there is yet no conclusion, but that in itself seems to be a conclusion, and thus original research. Any thoughts on this? OwenSaunders (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized that I may have posted this in the wrong area. I have not received any notices about this article. The draft is residing on my user page while I figure out whether or not it should be moved over to the entry.OwenSaunders (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There's different points of view on newspapers. One point of view is that a newspaper is automatically a secondary source. Another point of view (which I don't subscribe to) is that only "analysis" articles in a newspaper qualify as secondary sources. A third point of view is that a current newspaper article is a secondary source, but a historical newspaper article is a primary source. Anyway as far as OR, the question is, have you created any facts that only exist on the Wikipedia? That's OR. Some editors love to waste time arguing that assembling things together is OR, but that's not the policy, not unless you use them to make a deduction. There are other policies about grouping facts together, such as WP:COATRACK. Why don't you show us the article in question? Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm now pretty sure that it is not the correct form for Wikipedia, but how/where would I show you the article?OwenSaunders (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Welsh Rarebit thing? Wow, that's a lot of detail. Not sure if it's OR. Usually if someone's gone to the trouble to ask here, it's not OR. Might be too much detail for the article though (which can cause some editors to make accusations of OR). Probably the best thing to do is to go slowly, merging facts from your draft into the WP article on Welsh rarebit piece by piece, so all the editors can look them over and copyedit as they come in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primal Therapy

Hello. There is a dispute on the Primal Therapy article regarding no original research. Specifically, one of the edit warriors there has created a self-published website in which he makes anonymous serious claims about 3rd parties. He then inserted quotations from himself of his opinions into the text of the wikipedia article itself.

I removed that quotation (although I didn't remove the reference to the self-published website), and I added something to the discussion in which I pointed out that the quotation violates no original research and WP:verifiability.

My change was reverted, the quotation was re-added to the page, and it was pointed out (in the discussion) that the author was an "eyewitness" so it's supposedly legitimate. I pointed out that no original research specifically forbids "eyewitness" testimony from anonymous, self-published websites; and I removed the quotation again. This time, I provided a detailed explanation on the discussion page of which policies the quotation violates and why (here, at the bottom of the section).

My change was reverted again, and the quotation was re-added, this time without discussion.

I do not wish to revert any further because I would run afoul of the 3RR rule. Furthermore, I don't wish to participate in the ferocious edit war raging there. The user in question (PsychMajor902) has made 12 consecutive reversions to various primal therapy-related pages over the last several days, and it seems probable that he will revert my changes once again. (Note that sometimes he reverts by not using the 'undo' button but by manually reverting the text).

Please note that most of the page editors are "interested parties", including myself--I underwent primal therapy many years ago and did not witness the events claimed on the author's self-published website. However what I witnessed (or didn't witness) is not really relevant; wikipedia is not the place for personal observation or opinion. I just wanted to offer a full disclosure here.

I don't believe there's any possibility of consensus, since I have pointed out (repeatedly and in great detail) the relevant wikipedia policies, but the the editors in question revert relentlessly anyway without any meaningful discussion or explanation.

I would like the page to be protected with the quotation removed, and for the relevant editor (PsychMajor902) to be limited to one reversion. Thanks.Twerges (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. An unpublished eyewitness account should not be added to an article, but if the claim is attributed to a source, the question is whether that source is reliable. True, one can argue that if the source is unreliable then it is as good as no source, and hence OR, but I think that analysis is more complicated than it needs to be. The fundamental question, as far as I can tell, is whether this website is a reliable source (there may also be WP:COI issues involved, but this is largely a behavioural issue, not a content issue). The RS noticeboard may be the best place. Jakew (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Jakew, the source is clearly not a reliable source according to wikipedia RS. The source is self-published, anonymous, contentious, and makes claims against 3rd parties. The WP:Reliable_sources policy claims that sources cannot be self-published in most cases, and if they are, they can't be anonymous, contentious, or make claims against 3rd parties. I could post this to the reliable sources noticeboard, but it's not the source or its citation that I object to, but rather the inclusion of the editor's personal opinions in the article itself.
The reason I brought it up here is because I'm certain the source is not reliable according to WP:Reliable_sources, but I don't wish to remove the reference to the source altogether. I don't object to the inclusion of the source; I just wish to prevent the editor from inserting quotations from himself about his own observations. Thus it seemed to me to be an original research issue.
I realize there could be WP:coi issues here as well, but I don't wish to pursue them since they're a behavioral issue. I'm not trying to get the editor in trouble. I only wish to remove the material which clearly violates policy.Twerges (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I added this to the reliable sources noticeboard as per your suggestion. Thanks.
The addition of that link and quote does not violate wiki policy. There is no evidence it is original research created for or on the wikipedia site. The source is reliable and has a couple of pages on the site that relate to verifying it, one of which shows proof of years of attendance. It is clearly marked as subjective criticism and opinion. It is probably more reliable as Janov's own claims. There is no evidence that the editors disagreeing with twerges are "interested parties" or that the editors are the author of the mnaterial. This in my opinion is an attempt to remove criticism by trying to find whatever wiki policies can be found to argue the case. Aussiewikilady (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire section "Debunking Primal Therapy is a website set up by a former primal therapist trainee, and addresses such issues as peer review, falsifiability, bias, justification and other social psychological effects behind primal therapy. In the section on cohort observations of the early 2000s the author writes about his admittedly non-experimental observations:" as well as the following quote is unacceptable. this is not a RS for criticism, in the absence of some specific evidence that the author is a recognized expert, and recognized as such by neutral parties. Not is it acceptable as an external link, for the same reason. And it isn't needed, there';s enough other criticism from better sources. I can';t imagine how anyone would think any of this personal experience stuff can be seriously defended as content. DGG (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Please see further discussion at RS/N. Jakew (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly fails Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material".--Hu12 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ypatingasis būrys

Could uninvolved editors take look at this: Talk:Ypatingasis_būrys#Another_round_of_original_research, one party adding information, which in my view, fails to meet WP:NOR (and WP:SYN), WP:V. WP:3O provided suggestion but other party refusing to follow it. And now I am stuck, please provide your thoughts. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Court opinion v. court documents

I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand the WP:NOR policy with respect to the use of court opinions as sources. My question is: Are court opinions primary or secondary sources? The WP:NOR article encourages the use of secondary sources, but cautions about using primary sources. It lists trial transcripts as primary sources. However, a court opinion is significantly different from a trial transcript because it is a judge's analysis and synthesis of material presented at trial. Thus, it seems to fit the WP:NOR definition of a secondary source.

For example, I added a cite to a court opinion to verify factual information about the Church of Scientology litigation against Gerry Armstrong. In the last 3 paragraphs of the Gerry Armstrong article I summarized the convoluted procedural history of the litigation based on the court's opinion. I posted the actual opinion at Wikisource [1] and linked to it for easy verification. Is this potentially raising original research issues? Taiwan prepares (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Without touching on whether it is a primary or secondary source, I would always advise strong caution when using court opinions and documents. Legal scholars, courts, lawyers and expert writers debate about the meaning of even relatively plain cases. Every decision is impacted by a complex cocktail of case law, including (but not limited to) general tradition, legislative intent, previous cases and administrative precedent. Some cases are a bit more clear than others, as are some assertions. Generally, you want to take great care to report as plainly as possible nothing more than what the source states and similar care to ensure that the material does not advance another position by its presentation. In this case, it seems like a fairly accurate and matter-of-fact reporting of what the source states. The only concern I would raise in this instance is not one of original research, but one of proper weight. It seems like a lot of text in general, and a very large part of the current article. If no secondary sources make any note of the case, and case history, it should not receive more than a passing mention (if that). In general, I would recommend a serious injection of reliable independent sources, to avoid problems. Vassyana (talk)
As Vassyana says, a courts opinion can be many things. I examined the case, from the California Court of Appeals, and if I were citing it for the underlying facts, I'd give it as the opinion of the court only. for the use that you want to make of it, saying what the legal status is of the various proceedings, I think it's authoritative, if there's no subsequent decision. DGG (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sabretooth (comics), Dog Logan and original research

I was wondering if someone adept in how original research works could read the following things and tell me if this constitutes as original research.

Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It does seem like OR to me. In the Sabretooth article, the comparison between Dog Logan and Sabretooth's appearance would have to be sourced to a reputable third party -- it's original research to posit a resemblance and use the picture as evidence. Given that the only third-party comment in either article on this topic is the creator of Dog Logan rejecting the notion that the two characters are the same person, there's really no grounds for including the material at all. (If there were sourced conflicting views on the issue, the quote from Paul Jenkins would be relevant, but without a reputable third party making the Sabretooth = Dog Logan claim, it just seems like trivia in the Logan article.)
Similarly, if there was sourced material suggesting a connection, then the picture might be useful, but given that there's not and that it makes use of artwork that's presumably still under copyright, it also should go.Gusworld (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential superpowers and Potential great powers

These two articles use an infobox that "summarizes" the material in the text. There are a myriad of other issues with these articles, but this one in particular seems like blatant original synthesis. The folks who are generally involved with the articles like them, though, and I'm not going to start an edit war by removing them without some better consensus. They are handy visual aids, but they just don't have much basis in verifiable source.Somedumbyankee (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- there's no material in the text which would justify such precise graphing in each case, so unless someone can specifically source them (which seems unlikely on the face of it) they should go. At the very least it would need to be established that reputable academics do perform this kind of summary analysis. The maps at the top of each article are also suspect -- the bit about the US being included 'for reference' on Potential great powers is particularly dodgy, I think. Those aren't so much OR problems though. Gusworld (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOR concerning pseudoscientific claims

Hello everybody, I was wondering if you could have a look at the article on Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) and the content I had put up there. On that mountain, there is a cave with a few short inscriptions ("PIA" and a few line markings), read by enthusiasts as a bilingual note in Iberian and Ogham script. The point they have made is that both inscriptions mean "white", once in "P-Celtic" and once in Punic. This claim is highly pseudoscientific, but has been printed, while no scientific publication so far has bothered to include a detailed rebuttal.
Apart from the obvious objections, including those invoking the wide gaps in time (a few centuries) and space (the Atlantic) as well as Ockam's Razor that one might consider (but which I did not raise, in order not to violate OR), there is one simple problem: If these signs were indeed Iberian and Ogham, they would have to be read completely differently. In other words, the person who "deciphered" them assigned them more or less random meanings. The two writing systems in question are common knowledge among Celticists, and the reading of the inscription would be a pretty straightforward matter.
My problem is this: As a linguist specialised in early Celtic and Germanic philology, I think it should be mentioned in the article that the person did more or less the same as someone who claims that the word "apple" would actually have to be read as "wambo", (meaning "white" in a randomly chosen language). The writing systems can easily be double-checked in the respective Wikipedia articles. If someone insisted ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ had to be read as "moose", would it violate OR to include a more correct transcription in the article page? In other words: Does the act of reading and transcribing from an alphabet other than our own constitute OR?
A wikipedia user (User:Til_Eulenspiegel) who seems to be worried about the quality of the article has repeatedly invoked SYNT and OR against a correct transcription. Before I just keep re-inserting it, I thought I'd ask you who read the notice board for your opinions. Thanks a lot, Trigaranus (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there's an easy solution here, and it doesn't involve performing OR. It sounds as though the article may already be giving undue weight to a viewpoint that's held by a very small number (perhaps even one) of authors. Is that correct? If so, it may simply be a fringe theory that, quite simply, doesn't belong in the article. Jakew (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
To answer your direct question... it depends who is doing the "reading and transcribing from an alphabet other than our own." If it is a Wikipedia editor then, yes, it would be OR. If it is a published source then, no, it isn't OR. (not at all sure how synt comes in to play). However, I do agree with Jakew... I would say that OR may be irrelavent... if it is indeed a fringe topic, the guidelines at WP:FRINGE will come into play. ie... This may well be material that is not notable enough for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Gloria Farley(Indians are savages unless they are Christian)'s book is on a private website and she is definitely an unreliable source, however much she may be revered by others who believed that everyone discovered America (by the way, they like to call themselves diffusionists -- but every archaologist accepts diffusion, they are really hyperdiffusionists. The other link is to a blog. The article itself says that McNeil agrees with her, which he does, but that's all he does, he doesn't say he did any work on it. I agree with Bklueboard, get rid of virtually all the fringe stuff, make it an article on Turkey Mountain, with sources such as [2], [3] (ok, there are probably better), [4] etc. Doug Weller (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights

The first 70 pages of A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights are biographical. Can I use this content for Jesse Jackson, Jr.? The book has a co-author.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that for things like the neighborhood he grew up in, the name of his elementary school and his wedding date it is O.K., but can I use it for details of his college experience and early political activities.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
An independant source would be preferred... but if one can not be found, the source is acceptable as a autobiography. Blueboar (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, with the caveat that it would be superceded if a more independent source contradicts it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Windows Vista and Windows XP

I prod-ed this before as an essay/original research, and it's been recreated again. To me it smacks of original research and opinion; for example Vista may have been criticised in the press for DRM but would the ordinary user care? Other comparison pieces (for example Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions) are simply limited to facts. I don't want to prod it again just yet until I get some other opinions. --Blowdart | talk 18:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is the justification for a separate article. The differences are covered in Features new to Windows Vista and, as you say, Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions. There's definitely material in here that violates OR, but there's also a broader question of whether this material needs to be covered in a separate article at all, even if it was sourced. (By the way, I think sourced criticisms of the DRM implementation are legitimate, and not necessarily dependent on whether the ordinary user would notice or care, but this article isn't a sensible place for them to go, and there's plenty on that topic in Criticism of Windows Vista.) In short, it seems to me an unnecessary essay that doesn't add to Wikipedia and duplicates points made more appropriately elsewhere. Gusworld (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Ghetto benches

Input of uninvolved editors regarding WP:SYN policy is strongly required in this discussion [[5]]. This a hot topic, it is about a policy of racial segregation of Jews in pre-war Poland. There a lot of emotions, and very little common sense so far. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether the "Politechnika Lwowska 1844-1945" article connects the "ghetto bench" system with the incidents of Oct. 1939 because I don't speak Polish, but another option is to move the disputed paragraph to the history section of Lviv Polytechnic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice or Opinions

Would the example below constitute original research?

Examples:
Actual Source verbatim: Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311
Actual text added to article: The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.

:Actual Source verbatim: Whig government falls. Lord Russell’s Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering.David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

:Actual text added to article: The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

:Actual text added to article: Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

If an additional source was then added to support the first, would I be right in saying that unless both sources unequivocally reach the same conclusion then the editor is engaged in original research? Thanks--Domer48 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a case of OR... but it is a case of the source not backing the specific claim. As to your second question... As long as one of the sources backs the conclusion stated in the article, it should be fine. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, what policy do we have for a source not backing a specific claim? Under our policy of WP:OR it states that, "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." The information which appears in the Source text dose not "support the information as it is presented," in the Article. If it is not WP:OR, would it be WP:SYN, or are they not the same thing? --Domer48 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really SYN... (that is a specific type of OR... puting two sources together and reaching a novel conclusion that is not stated in either of them, which isn't happening here). I think I should clarify my comment above ... When I said that this does not seem to be a case of OR, I am assuming that there is another source out there that could back up the statements. If there isn't such a source then we would indeed be in OR territory (for example: how do we know that the Russel government was "influenced by their laissez-faire belief"). Does that help?

Yes that helps me out alright, I'll have to think it over. --Domer48 (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The policies aren't like legislation, and you don't have to sort out whether the problem violates some particular sub-clause as opposed to another in a legalistic sense. If the source does not say the same thing as the claim made here, the claim isn't verified. Unverified claims can't go in articles. If claims invent specific details which aren't in the source, then those specific details aren't verified, and can't go in. If I'm reading your examples correctly there has been a good deal of unverified embellishment added beyond what the source actually said. That's not allowed, perhaps it's because it's original research but then again it could be complete fiction or conjecture. If not, if it comes from broader background material from other sources, those sources should be identified and cited. Professor marginalia (talk)

Thank you very much for that. That’s exactly my reading of it, and would I be right in saying that the embellishments make it misleading if presented as stand alone statements. The reason I ask is that I can provide statements from notable sources (the source above is a general history) which contradict these statements with subject pacific books and authors.--Domer48 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question. From your example, a strike-thru through embellishing commentary:
  • Actual Source verbatim: Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311
  • Actual text added to article: The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.
In the original, famine begins and Peel then orders corn, maybe as a consequence but certainly not as a preventive against famine following early detection from signs of crop failure. Next examples, :
  • :Actual Source verbatim: Whig government falls. Lord Russell’s Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering.David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311
  • :Actual text added to article: The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311
  • :Actual text added to article: Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311
This is confused completely. In original, Whigs fail, followed by Russell, a Tory. In text added here, Russell is a Whig. The eventually is a relative term that should be replaced by a date or time period because of the sensitivity surrounding the issue.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I thought it was just me. What I’m saying is, would it be acceptable to present the information in an Article as statements of “Fact” like here when there is ample evidence that the sources contradict the information? You have pointed to some already.

I don't think it is a case of the source contradicting the statement (with the exception of the Tory/Whig error they seem to follow the facts)... what seems to be happening is that the source is being embelished upon (for the most part the embelishments consist of attempting to give reasons for the various actions stated in the source). What is needed is a source for those embelishments. Without such a source they come across as being OR. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused again. "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research...If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The information is not supported by the text, call it embelishments if you will, but is it not still WP:OR? --Domer48 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The parts that were struck out by Professor Marginalia might be OR (if no source can be found for them)... the parts he didn't strike out are not OR (just correct Russell's party affiliation). Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So I'm right in saying that the information should not have been added on an Article as it currently stands. And that the the parts that were struck out by Professor Marginalia is original research, and should not have been added to an Article. I'm also right when I say that looking for sources to back up original research is not how Articles should be written. We don't for example start of with opinion and then try to support it. Now since the text is not supported by the source, are you suggesting the editor should now cite a source to support the origional reference, or the Article text? Because the policy I quoted above states quite clearly that the sources must "explicitly reach the same conclusion." Thanks very much to both of you for your patience and considered opinions, its very much appreciated, --Domer48 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are taking too hard a line on this. It is boarderline OR... but the way to deal with it is to request additional citations, not to complain that the information should not have been added. Assume good faith for the moment and assume that the information is based on a source... if, after a reasonable time, sources are not added... just remove the "embelishments" and keep the stuff that is in the source. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar for that. I have indeed requested citations a number of times, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. I've only put two examples up here, the first diff lists quite a number of them. Additional sources are now been added, but since I have the books I know they don't support the text. On the examples I have given here, the editors responce was [13], I said I would allow them to check it again [14] and they still insist [15]. Now they had this stuff in the WP:LEAD, and have now moved it just below it to were it is now. The discussion is now all over the place sorry about that. --Domer48 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Blueboar, your citation tags were removed and a Woodham-Smith reference added. I have the book, and Russell is not even in office yet in the pages used to support the sentence. Any suggestions? --Domer48 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Which sentence... I tagged several. Look, I don't know enough about the topic to argue this in detail. It is farily obvious that what you are really dealing with here is a NPOV dispute. Your opponent in the debate is at least trying to cite the material he wants to add, so I don't think he is intending to introduce OR. Assume good faith, and work with him to present the information accurately and neutrally. Try proposing acceptable language on the talk page, and reach a compromise. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Blueboar, the trouble with me is I do know enough about the topic to argue this in detail. I was talking about the "The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed" sentence. Like I said, Russell was not even in office yet according to the source used. My opponent in the debate is trying to cite the material he wants to add, and making up references to do it. Listen, this is not your debate and I'm just imposing on you, sorry about that. Thanks for the advice, I did not mean to take up so much of your time. I'll try work something out? --Domer48 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a complex set of circumstances, and even delving through the explanation of the conflict is confused without access to the sources themselves. What's difficult for me to appreciate is why a subject like this is so reliant upon a single source, one that isn't especially accessible. It doesn't strike me as such an esoteric topic that more readily accessible sources, or at least a greater diversity of sources, aren't helpful sourcing what look to be these "embellishments". If you're describing the situation where a single source is relied upon even while its claims are discrepant to accounts in other sources, it's probably not fruitful to try to resolve it by pinning a n "original research" label on it, which would only mean a shift in emphasis to resolving it. What's always hooked me in most to digging for particular articles at WP is, what do the best and most representational sources say? That's what's fun to do, and what I think helps make WP a good resource. So if you're in this toe-to-toe between one difficult-to-verify source against other sources you're well-versed in, you need broader input in terms of assessment and verification of sources cited. And don't apologize for taking up time here. Editors do fabricate references, and misrepresent legitimate references. I know they do sometimes and I've caught some doing it, more than a few times. That's how I first encountered what a complicated labyrinth WP can be tying the right policy to the complaint or to identify what proper authority or venue to appeal to. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It’s my view that if the source does not say the same thing as what appears in the Article, the claim isn't verified, and can't go in. If Editors concoct specific details which aren't in the source, then those details aren't verified, and can't go in. Now I have copies of the sources, and I have also provided quoted references from them to substantiate that the information is just the invention of the Editor. Now I put the exact same examples I have used here to the editor, and their response was as follows. Now they are adding additional references, which would be a good thing and advance the discussion, if only the additional references supported the information, which they do not. I have asked a number of times for them to provide quotes from the references which support the information, and all I get is the catch all answer. This is just a brief example of what I’m having to content with here.I know the issue will not be resolved here, and is simply an attempt by me to address any misunderstandings I may have on the issue. But I do feel I’m starting to take up to much of your time, on an issue I will have to contend with myself. The information I have received has been informative and useful, and I will try to use it as best I can during this testing discussion.--Domer48 (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who

There are two debates going on, here and here. There's a fair amount of snippiness being tossed around by those in favour of the speculative info; please comment there rather than here, just so everyone's centralised. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I've just opened a policy RfC over at Talk:Arrow_Air_Flight_1285#Image about whether a Wikipedian's "artist's impression" of an event constitutes OR. I opted for a general policy RfC over bringing it up here since there are other policy questions that have been raised as well. Input welcome! --Rlandmann (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trakai Voivodeship

A recent discussion about renaming a historical geographical entity - Trakai Voivodeship - (not a single source has been found to support this name) - to a referenced Troki Voivodeship has generated a stalemate on talk and an edit war in the article (since a Lithuanian webpage is being added to support the Trakai name version, despite the fact that it does not contain the English "Trakai Voivodeship"). Do note that the entity which was never named with Trakai (the historical name in official language of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Polish - was województwo trockie). Since Trakai is a Lithuanian name (the city of Trakai is currently in Lithuania), and Troki is a Polish name variant, Lithuanian editors prefer Trakai despite no English source supporting this name, Polish support Polish and input of neutral editors is needed to break the stalemate.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John C. Huang

John C. Huang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has done nothing but post his OR theories about relativity. He has been warned about this several times by several people. On 3 June he was given a final warning. Since then he has twice posted his theory to User talk:Skeletor 0. —teb728 t c 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Is this the proper forum for this report? I don’t see any reports like it. —teb728 t c 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor on the Help desk expressed the opinion that NOR applied only to article space. So I guess I should address that misconception here.
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy explicitly applies NOR to talk pages. This makes sense: Article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to articles. Inasmuch as OR is forbidden in articles, it is also out of place in article talk pages. Inasmuch as user talk pages are supposed to be Wikipedia related, OR is out of place there too.
The final warning referred to an article talk page post. The warning was posted by another user; so I am not the only one who thinks his talk page posts are unacceptable. Another user (beside myself) also left him a non-final warning about his talk page posts.
I would think nothing of it if a user posted OR once or twice on a talk page. But this particular user has posted his theories to article talk pages about 25 distinct times (not counting correctons). His edit history shows essentially nothing but posting OR. —teb728 t c 08:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)