Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Include large RCT as primary research in text (RFC)

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 Research

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,[13] and blinding was not clear.[14] 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.[13] Due to the limitations of these studies, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.[11]

Where [13] is reference to (von Känel, 2021), [14] is (Generoso, 2017), and [11] is (NCCIH info page, 2020)

• Explanation of this wording choice by its author[1]

• Arguments that this is not WP:OR[2][3][4]

• Arguments that this is WP:OR[5][6][7]

• 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 sources

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.

Written Arguments Section in Supriyo v. Union of India

The written arguments are used by parties involved in the case, such as petitioners, respondents and intervenors. I believe, for this content, Primary Sources would be best sources as mentioned in Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As the intention of the section is to present the claims made by each party in the Court. Secondary sources, at the best case could misquote or make mistakes, and at worst case, they are influenced by their own opinion. The is secondary sources are included in the Reaction and Commentary section of the same Article.

WP:OR at List of Shrek (franchise) characters

My initial edit to the article removed roughly 100k bytes worth of original research from the article, along with maintenance tags that had been in place for 10 years. I chose to keep short descriptions of characters that have stand-alone articles and added ref ideas to the talk page for editors to re-work and expand the article. The edit was then reverted unaltered by Yuotort, who called the removal "vandalism". I left a message on their talk page and have not heard back so far. The edit was reverted again by FishandChipper, who gave no explanation whatsoever as to the restoration. Am I missing something here? I feel as though I'm perfectly justified in removing the material. These two editors are also fairly new, so they might not have the fullest grasp of policy. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

How exactly do you propose they be sourced then? As most "List of characters" type articles just simply source the movie/show/comic etc they first appeared in. None of this is original research as it is immediately obvious from the title of the page that these are characters from the Shrek franchise, a franchise consisting entirely of 6 movies and a few spin-offs. It would be both excessive and pointless to source every claim by essentially just saying "Watch the movie". Also unrelated but there's no need to be condisending, ok? You're not some editing genius just cause you've been here longer. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTPLOT. Wikipedia should not primarily focus on in-universe info. A list of characters should focus on their scholarly analysis and cultural impact rather than a simple retelling of what they did in the films. P.S.: I never claimed to be an "editing genius", I'm certainly not. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, then I suppose you'd also argue for the deletion of every article listed here too? Or here? Or here? FishandChipper 🐟🍟 11:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion, no. Certainly major rewriting to conform with the policy I just listed above. Challenge me on policy, not based on what other articles look like. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's rife with OR. Stating that "[the Furniture] return in Shrek the Third, but are no longer alive (presumably due to Fairy Godmother's death)" is unambiguous OR and can't be used in Wikipedia without a citation. We can't know for sure they're not alive, and we certainly can't speculate on the cause of death. pburka (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a few small handfuls of your removals that I would have kept (eg we should still mention Shrek is an orge on the list page), but overall your removals are 100% in policy and pages like that are epidemic of list of characters in a franchise or work, excessive repeating of plot and assumptions being made. Masem (t) 15:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Masem, I did keep that sentence as you can see in this revision, and I agree that basic descriptions of notable characters should be kept. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe the relevant policy here is WP:PRESERVE. Wholesale removal is generally reserved for Libel, nonsense, and vandalism. Even then, a lot of the removed content falls under WP:NOTOR. The article definitely needed cleanup, but mass removals are always going to be controversial. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Maintenance tags had been in place for ten years, so there was plenty of time to consider alternatives to removal. No improvements have been made whatsoever, so starting fresh seems to be the best option at this point. WP:CANTFIX applies: Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. [...] Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia [...]. The article was filled almost exclusively with plot summaries. Regardless of whether or not content removal is controversial, if editors raise legitimate reasons for removal, no editor is justified to simply restore the material without previously discussing it per WP:ONUS.Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Do sources support Steve Jobs being described as a "business magnate" and "investor" in the lead's first sentence? Apparently, the justification for the "investor" label was that Jobs made one investment in Pixar, though I found no source treating "investor" as an important label for him. No inline source supports "magnate", and I didn't find that term (nor "mogul", a synonym) in the two major Jobs biographies (Isaacson 2011, Schlender Tetzeli 2015), nor in reliable sources through a Google search.

Raised in Talk:Steve Jobs#Reverts to lead last week, which received no response. I tried to remove them as WP:OR and have been reverted twice. DFlhb (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is best served in a discussion on the talk page. Buffs (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't work when WP:BURDEN is violated, since people can just force their preferred version in, say "take it to talk", and then ignore the talk page so their preferred version gets to stay in, as happened here. I posted here so someone else could revert it and bring them to the discussion; or at least so we could reach a consensus that the terms are unsupported and IMO promotional (POV). Maybe I should have gone to dispute resolution instead. DFlhb (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Investor", much like "philanthropist", seems to often be a code-word for "rich" when it is used in the lead sentence of a Wikipedia article. The fact that Walter Isaacson doesn't use the exact word "magnate" doesn't mean that we can't use the word magnate (which means a wealthy and influential person, especially in business according to Google) to describe a person who, quite clearly, was a wealthy and influential businessman. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's WP:OR and puffery. We don't use code-words in leads, nor can we assign labels based on criteria as subjective as wealthy and influential. Of course we must use the same labels as sources, not choose our own. business magnate was added to all sorts of BLPs and BDPs in the last few years, and then added, again with zero source, to a completely unencyclopedic image gallery at Business magnate. DFlhb (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Satanic verses

Hi. There’s this part of the lede of this revision of Satanic Verses that I believe misrepresents what the source says.

It’s written in its lede that:

However others disagree, Alford T. Welch, in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, argues that the "implausibility" argument alone is insufficient to guarantee the tradition's authenticity. He says that the story in its present form is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication despite the fact that there could be some historical basis for the story.

However, in the source,

• Buhl, F.; Welch, A.T. (1993). "Muḥammad". Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 7 (2nd ed.). Brill. p. 365. ISBN 978-90-04-09419-2.

Welch doesn’t say anything like the story in its present form is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication

Instead he says:

"It is possible that this story is another example of historical telescoping, i.e. that a situation that was known by Muhammad's contemporaries to have lasted for a long period of time later came to be encapsulated in a story that restricts his acceptance of intercession through these goddesses to a brief period of time and places the responsibility for this departure from a strict monotheism on Satan. This interpretation is completely consistent with what is said above regarding Muhammad's gradual "emergence as a religious reformer"

So I changed the part in question of the revision to:

Alford T. Welch, however, argues that this rationale alone is insufficient but does not rule out the possibility of some historical foundation to the story. He proposes that the story may be yet another instance of historical telescoping, i.e., a circumstance that Muhammad's contemporaries knew to have lasted for a long period of time later became condensed into a story that limits his acceptance of the Meccan goddesses’ intercession to a brief period of time and assigns blame for this departure from strict monotheism to Satan.

But the other user, @NEDOCHAN doesn’t like it and keep reverting it. I had invited him to discuss the matter, but he refused and instead attacked me with accusations of sockpuppetry. So what do you all think? Also in case I get mistakenly blocked, I would like someone to address the issue in the article. Kaalakaa (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This appears to have resolved itself. In any event, this appears to be a dispute about how to interpret a source, not an NOR issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Views on military action against Iran. Articles on viewpoints OR?

Im thinking of putting Views on military action against Iran up for AfD, but i cant find any rule that would specifically apply to this type of article. Is it synth or OR to cobble together views on a specific subject at a specific time and say that those views represent a coherent topic? Even if you can, is it an appropriate subject for a stand alone article? This is the sort of material that would be appropriate for a more general article, say Foreign relations of Iran. Seems like if we allow this, we are opening a can of worms for any subject for which views have been published. Any advice? AfD? Rework? Ignore? Bonewah (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty straightforward WP:SYNTH. If it were about a specific military action, that would be different. Some of the content could probably be moved to other articles if it's WP:DUE, such as foreign relations of Iran or various Iran-country relations articles, but this article itself is not about a singular notable topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article is laughably incorrect unless I'm very mistaken. Since when has Israel's main objection to Iran being Al-Qaeda supposedly being there? (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Rendezvous with the Future

First things first, I have to say that I haven't watched the series yet, but I'm concerned about what's in there: a dozen elements that have only a little to do with the subject matter. But I haven't figured out how to clean it up next (since I can't actually find many sources), so I'll put the issue here first. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Burlakov case

The article contains the original research of its main author.

It combine in an original way a set of criminal and civil cases related to the personality of Oleg Burlakov, which were conducted in different years between him and third parties, as well as between third parties without his participation.

The article does not cite and there are no reliable sources at all that would define the totality of these cases as the “Burlakov Case”. Acting in the same logic, all cases connected with the personality of any John Doe for the entire period of his life and proceedings after his death should be defined as the "John Doe Case", which is absurd. I suggest deleting the article. Джонни Уокер (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

wilderness therapy

This http://www.wildernesstherapy.org/Wilderness/ForceRestraint.htm was used as a reference and I think it might break guidelines on no original research.

The website is sponsored by Mentor Research Institute and the page was written by one of its board members

http://www.wildernesstherapy.org/

https://www.mentorresearch.org/about --1keyhole (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR as it's not original research done by a Wikipedia editor not published in a source. You might be looking for WP:RSN if you're concerned it's not reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Genetic Studies On Jews Edit Warring

Hello,

I hate to have to reach out but I added a controversy section to this article including citations from the Human Genome Project, American Society of Human Genetics, the World Health Organization etc which someone keeps reverting. Maybe my wording in the section is not the best but the section is well cited from trusted agencies in genetics and they factually discredit the article on a whole.

The rest of the article outside this section I added after seeing several other attempts by others in the talk to do the same is based on Original Research. I requested more than once that the reverter quote me the verification methodology used in the studies they are defending and they have never been able to. They cannot because it isn't in their citations. Each one was based on self-reported unverified data sets collected by a subjective source. Which is why the HGP and others discredited as antisemitism or more broadly bigotry while the Holocaust Musuems of Canada, the USA, and the State of Israel all literally defined it as Nazism. All of this was cited and I'm trying in good faith here. I created a talk section to hash it out which they ignored the first few reverts. I offered to let them re-write it with the same sources. I offered for them to add supporting documents to the controversy section since they felt it wasn't balanced.

Moreover Dr. Raphael Falk is misrepresented in the article. His paper "Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent" got cited several times as supporting documentation for stuff not at all discussed in the paper or stuff the paper was discrediting not supporting. It was a gross misuse of Dr. Raphael Falk's work and most of this article is based on misappropriating this as well as other papers to create the desired article instead of accurately reporting what is in the citations.

Hey I am trying here. I don't like this article. To me it is very much neo-nazi propaganda, and that is cited, but I am trying to in good faith do the right thing so all I wanted to do was add a section which deals with the controversial nature of this topic. If someone else needs to step in and write that section for me then by all means but as it stands currently outside the controversy section that keeps getting reverted so that it is no longer there is the only section which accurately represents the citations used.

"But how did they sample them? What were the criteria for Jewishness of the sampled individuals?", is a quote from Dr. Falk's paper and is the same exact question I have been asking in the Talk. What was the verification methodology used in the studies supporting the claims of the article which authenticated test subjects as Jewish? There is none and no one is even trying to answer that.

Thanks and sorry it came to this. I am really trying here. I even used my actual IP to make these edits by not logging in so the Mods would know I am trying to be legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358a:72ef:92a0:ca76:7ccb (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• For anyone wondering what this is about. See Genetic studies on Jews and this edit. Discussion is ongoing on the talk page, anyone wanting to lend a hand should go there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• You asked "What was the verification methodology used in the studies supporting the claims of the article which authenticated test subjects as Jewish? There is none and no one is even trying to answer that." Answer: The criteria for verification of the eligibility of people for the study The Maternal Genetic Lineages of Ashkenazic Jews is stated on page 14: 'The phrase “full Ashkenazi” refers to individuals with genetic and genealogical indications of having sixteen Ashkenazic great-great-grandparents, who most often score 99–100 percent Ashkenazi Jewish at Family Tree DNA, 23andMe, and AncestryDNA.' A combination of family trees and documentation in support of them with genetic admixture signals, and more rigorous than the typical study that sought people who say they have four grandparents, a less rigorous method which had occasionally led to several samples being discovered to be outliers because of an unexpected non-Jewish ancestor a generation or two before that. As the geneticist Harry Ostrer has said, Ashkenazi Jews are a legitimate ethnic group, not merely a religion that you called Ashkenazi Judaism.172.56.217.228 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

are "common sense" links allowed?

is finding a wp:reliable source that states a general truth enough to be narrowed down and used in articles or is it wp:synth?

example:

• a homeless person has frequently been arrested for trespassing and loitering.
• he lived in a place where trespassing and loitering is illegal.
• there is a prevailing opinion these laws exist to criminalize homelessness.
• there is a reliable source for this opinion.
• is it wp:synth to make the following link.
• "and they were frequently arrested for tresspassing and loitering[1]"
• does it matter if the source does not name the homeless person by name? for it to be wp:synth or not.

To me, this is like arguing someone wasn't arrested for being homosexual, but for violating sodomy laws.

The fact that the laws do not explicitly call for the criminalisation of the group in question is purposeful political obscurantism.

p.s. this is the "weak" version of general statements as synth. there is also a "strong" version.

Read wp:blp, and specifically wp:crime, we can't accuse someone of having committed a crime, we have to have wp:rs making the accusation. Also if it does not name them by name, how do we know it is them who have been arrested, and not some other homeless person? Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If I understand the example correctly, we do know that the person was arrested for trespassing and loitering. The question is whether it's ok to wikilink "trespassing and loitering" to criminalization of homelessness. pburka (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

" is it wp:synth to make the following link.

• "and they were frequently arrested for tresspassing and loitering[1]""

The OP is explicitly asking if it is OK to link to it in the arrestee's article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of the example, there are RS that clarify the arrest record and there is significant consensus to keep arrest record in the article, despite whatever policies it might violate.

We know for a fact the subject has been arrested for the crimes, what doesn't mention them by name is the source which asserts that the crimes they were arrested for are part of the criminalisation of homelessness.

so rather than "loitering and trespass" it would be "loitering and trespass", as having individual links obscures what is actually going on and is not otherwise neutral.

the main question is if this linking constitutes original research because there is no RS cited that connects the general truth to the specific truth, aka, this specific homeless person. Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't check all the links, but I feel confident in saying the context here is the Killing of Jordan Neely (I didn't see that anywhere in this section). And I think Bart Terpstra asks a valid question in good faith. The idea is to contextualize the crimes of the deceased, rather than imply other crimes. As such, while it is certainly a WP:BLP issue, for me, it gets past that bar. It's true, relevant to the person, and does not cast them in a bad light that doesn't already exist. Where I have my qualms is to whether or not this is WP:DUE here. If the link is not made in secondary sources, it's likely not that important for us. While homelessness is certainly an issue in the context of the article, the reliable sources to my eyes sort of give the deceased's criminal record as background, and really neither use it nor investigate all that substantively. Because of all that, I think this sort of connection would be allowable under BLP, but is probably best left out. Then again, I tend to err on the "less is more" side of articles, so take that into account. As ever, should consensus go a different way, I will happily abide. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would understand a rejection on those grounds and work with that, but i made this post because I wanted to know if this edit violates wp:synth, as it is representative of a way of reasoning about facts i think is valid, but has been flagged as synth by some, but not all editors.

I could construct a more fictional example if required. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

My reason for saying it does is that he had a long criminal past, and those arrests may well have been things nonhomeless people would have been arrested for as well. As such (I think) it is OR designed to try and claim he was a victim of persecution for being homeless. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

just because others are convicted for crimes with the same name in different contexts does not undermine the overwhelming likelihood that a homeless person is arrested on these charges for being homeless.

That argument would sink the strong version of the claim, but not the weak version. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Is narrowing of general statements wp:synth?

There is a reliable source that states either:

• In all cases, A applies to all B that are C

where A is a property, B is a category and C are the qualifications for the category.

e.g. in all cases, people who are killed, die.

now, there is an article where a general statement applies. there is a reliable source that offer verifiability for the claim. is it original research or synth to narrow the general statement to the subject at hand?

hypothetical example:

• Country A demands Country B to be Muslim, or it will continue sanctions.
• Country A does business and allies with non-Muslim countries that are otherwise the same as country B.
• there is a prevailing opinion this policy is hypocritical.
• there is a reliable source that states "Country A's demand on other countries to be Muslim is hypocritical because [see previous]"
• is it wp:synth or wp:undue to add this to a page that mentions Country A's reasoning for the sanctions?
• does it matter that the source did not explicitly mention country B?

p.s. this is the "strong" version of general statements as wp:synth. there is also a weak version.

In this case [[8]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This basically echoes my arguments from above, but I can't really hide my amusement that we are essentially debating the classic syllogism and perhaps its most famous example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Now, as a form of logic, it is basically unimpeachable. For Wikipedia purposes, I would personally not call it synth for one particular reason: in all cases I can imagine, the final proposition would be stated in the article about the general class of things discussed. Thus, if I take the conclusion that all men are mortal from a hypothetical source, and the fact that Socrates is a man from another, my conclusion (Socrates is mortal) is explicitly stated in the first source, just not explicitly applied to Socrates. So, not synth, but as above, for me, I also have a hard time imagining a situation in which the conclusion not explicitly connected with the subject is WP:DUE for inclusion. If it were a relevant factor, one would imagine it would make it into sources about the subject at hand. That said, anything is possible and I certainly can't imagine all possibilities.

TLDR: I would not call it synth, but presumptively WP:UNDUE. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the premise is the relation where "A applies to B in all cases". Those statements may be fine in formal science, may be used with case in natural science, and are almost always misleading in social science. In social sciences, A may "always" apply to B but not in a boolean manner, and rather with shades of grey. Even more, "cause -> consequence" may not always work as intended, not the way it works other fields (such as in "liquid water reaches 100º" -> "liquid water becames vapor water"). We may have a given situation where a predicted consequence should be a clear and almost logical thing to happen, but for whatever reason that thing did not happen. Such as in your example: someone may do something that should clearly tarnish his reputation, but somehow his reputation can be still intact. Cambalachero (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a source that says all cats have 4 legs and a tail and are furry. I have a source that says dogs have 4 legs a tail and a furry. Does the second source say dogs are cats? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

this is blatantly a different example. this is "A is B AND C is B therefore A is B", which a completely different proposition than the question. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

this is the strong version of the argument, so the facts are absolute.

in social sciences, if someone says "A is always B", then at the very least it is true that "according to X all members of A are always B".

the question is if it's wp:synth to say "according to X, C is B" (because C is part of the set A). Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Trevitt

I am in a dispute with someone who purports to be the father of professional footballer Ryan Trevitt, who persistently makes unsourced original edits (ie. original research) to the player's page. I have reverted them, but rather than get into an edit war, I thought I would bring it here. I've talked with him about on his talk page, but he is ignoring. He thinks that because he's the player's father, that he constitutes a reliable source. Beatpoet (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)