|Welcome to the no original research noticeboard|
|To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48
Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by .
Include large RCT as primary research in text (RFC)Edit
We have a discussion whether a large clinical trial should be mentioned in the flavan-3-ol text, even though it is primary research. Any comments to reach a consensus would be appreciated. There is no dispute whether the study is primary research - it is whether it meets the criteria specified in WP:MEDPRI to permit inclusion.
Lavender Oil Capsule ResearchEdit
Lavender_oil#Uses current wording:
A 2021 meta-analysis included five studies of people with anxiety disorders. All five studies were funded by the manufacturers of the lavender oil capsule used, four of them were conducted by one author of the meta-analysis, and blinding was not clear. In this analysis, an oral 80 mg dose of lavender oil per day was associated with reduced anxiety scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. Due to the limitations of these studies, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.
Where  is reference to (von Känel, 2021),  is (Generoso, 2017), and  is (NCCIH info page, 2020)
- Explanation of this wording choice by its author
- Current talk-page section: Talk:Lavender_oil#Anti-anxiety_content_and_sources_-_revision
- Background talk-page discussion: Talk:Lavender_oil#RfC_on_adding_more_sources_for_anxiety_treatment_section_and_summarizing_their_findings
Thank you for helping out.
Discussion of content provided that does not exist in cited sourcesEdit
Hello, in the article BMW G 310 R, we are discussing the possible use of original research. The editor who added it states that information not found in a source, is true because it isn't found in a source. I'm pretty new so I may be wrong but I believe this is original research based on Wikipedia's core content policy. The discussion can be found here and additional expert input would be appreciated. Talk:BMW G 310 R#Not Feature Lists containing original research. A third opinion was obtained and they are in agreement that it is original research but the original poster is adamant it is not. Advice would be appreciated if this is original research.
Homophobia and people of color -- original research or synth?Edit
This is the second paragraph in the lead at Homophobia in ethnic minority communities:
Different regions of the world and different nations have unique conceptions of which groups are considered ethnic minorities. In many Western nations where people of color (POC) are seen as ethnic minorities, homophobia that is not usually associated with the nation's dominant culture may arise as a result of that ethnic community's norms.
This is very vaguely written, so it's hard to tell exactly what it's trying to convey, but my interpretation is that it means that communities of color may be more likely to be homophobic than the white majorities in Western countries, based on the following sections in the main article detailing how non-white people are uniquely homophobic.
My problem with this is that there doesn't appear to be a single citation in the article that supports this extreme overgeneralization. Further compounding the difficulty of verifying the sources is that many of the citations lack page numbers, especially in the Black community section.
While there are individual minority cultures that are often described as uniquely homophobic, consider that I have also posted several examples of sources that contradict this view where it occurs. Those examples can be found at this talk page discussion. These sources suggest that the idea that black people (for example) are uniquely homophobic is inaccurate and basically an unhelpful racial stereotype that is projected on to black Americans by the white majority. So it's a contentious idea -- but none of these sources are currently in the article.
All outstanding claims need outstanding evidence. I'm not seeing anywhere in the main body of that article where a citation says that communities of color in general may be uniquely homophobic in white societies, or that white societies are generally not homophobic. It seems to be an original research synthesis based on the citations pertaining to many different ethnic groups in the US and UK.
In other words, because there are citations for every major minority group in the US and UK detailing instances of homophobia within those groups, however contentious some may be, the author has assumed from this compendium of citations that minorities are just plain homophobic relative to white culture. To me that's a huge violation of WP:OR and SYNTH, and it should be removed in absence of a citation that explicitly says communities of color may be uniquely homophobic in supposedly non-homophobic western societies. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:891:D96:5E15:4083 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Trump bio — Iran mistakenly shot down airliner IIEdit
Would it be OR to add the following to the end of the second paragraph of the section Iran of the Donald Trump article?
- Retired Canadian Maj. Gen. David Fraser said it was just a failure of Iran to manage their airspace after their air defense systems were put on high alert, following their attacks into Iraq.
- McGuffin, David (January 13, 2020). "Some Canadians Are Angry At The U.S. Over Iran's Downing Of Flight 752". NPR. Retrieved November 9, 2022.
The item is based on the following excerpt from the given source.
- But many in Canada's political and military establishment see the events differently.
- "This is a failure of Iranian military planning," says retired Maj. Gen. David Fraser, who led Canadian combat operations during the war in Afghanistan. Iranian military leaders "knew they were going to strike into Iraq, they were going to put their air defense systems on high alert, and they didn't coordinate with the civilian authorities. So that's just a failure of the Iranian command control structure to manage their airspace," he says.
- Editors, please note that Bob K31416 is in this section arguing for the inclusion of material that does not make reference to the subject of the BLP (Donald Trump), when in the above section (Trump_bio_—_Iran_mistakenly_shot_down_airliner), the same user argued against inclusion of similar material because it did not reference the subject. WP:BATTLE, WP:GAMING, whichever want to characterize this as, it is unacceptable and disruptive. Zaathras (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this is really inappropriate. Bob made many complaints about content he didn't think was policy compliant and we fixed every issue, but now he wants to tag on more that duplicates the mention of the accidental nature of the downing of the airliner. It is already covered, so this is unnecessary. It's not even about Trump, so it's OR. Please hat this thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t really see an original research issue (the source directly supports the text)… But I certainly have relevance questions. Why is the bio article on Trump even mentioning the plane shooting? Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Found an apparent incorrect year given on List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States; how to address without violating OR?Edit
Greetings, I was expanding List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States to add some documented fatal attacks that occurred prior to the start of 1970 (where the list began). The entry for a 2021 fatal attack in Louisiana states the following:
Although Louisiana, like Florida, has approximately 1.5 million alligators, this may have been the first fatal alligator attack in the state since 1774 during the Spanish colonial period before statehood.
However, as I dug up the details on this case, despite quite a range of recent news media (possibly inaccurately informed by Wikipedia itself) stating that 1774 was the preceding case, a couple books I found on GoogleBooks (and just a couple of more recent articles) list the same case as occurring in 1734. I'm reasonably sure 1734 is the actual correct date and someone/somewhen/somewhere messed up a number and it became an "established fact." A key reason for my thinking this is the deceased was the blacksmith at Fort St. Jean Baptiste, which per Wikipedia was founded around 1716 and abandoned after 1764. Also (while not definitive), it seems contradictory that a French coronary hearing on the death of a Frenchman at a French fort would occur during Spanish rule (1762-1801).
I don't want to just change the 1774 to 1734 in the passage quoted above, because that would be contradictory to the source its citing. What's the best way to point out the disparity in dates without it making the passage unduly bulky or adding OR? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
RfC on Male expendabilityEdit
There is now an active RfC on the Male expendability talk page about whether specific ideas should be listed in Wikipedia's voice or attributed. You are welcome to lend your voices to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
White supremacy revisionism at Western worldEdit
At Western world on 19 November an established editor supported by administrators, rephrased the introductory paragraphs boldly. A few hours ago, after a few days I have been looking to reason with them at its talk page, an established administrator removed my entire discussion and blocking access to the talk page too. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- The revision you object to corresponds to reliable sources. You've posted several long rants on the talk page without providing any sources, much of which involved personal attacks on an editor and what appears to be a belabored tangent about John Wayne that makes me think you're confusing western world with western (genre). Rants like this are considered disruptive, and the admin was correct to remove them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Unsure how to comment your reply. I would stick to excuses for my personal attack but I noticed you are wrong in every way: the revision published by Rim sim lacks reliable sources, it is original synthesis. I attacked personally since editor coming from the porn topic managed to convert my fine revision into a racial matter touching on genetical factor of skin pigmentation: a thesis which is not the mainstream view.. outside the porn world (!) And all such I found outrageous.
- The Occident came into existence while populations of white Europeans enslaved and massacred populations of other racial backgrounds, so doesn't mean it was envisioned in ethnical warfare (racism): it was indeed in economic warfare (colonialism) instead, as I explained in my "long rants on the talk page". Update: very dangerous left as it is since other editors are also building on it in the last week.220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)