| Revision as of 06:17, 2 February 2017 editScoobydunk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,480 edits Undid revision 763264575 by Scoobydunk (talk)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:29, 11 January 2025 edit undoTraumnovelle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,464 edits →Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp- |
{{pp-sock|small=yes}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 52 | ||
| |algo = old(28d) | |algo = old(28d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}]] |
}}]] | ||
| ] | |||
| __TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 28 |collapsible=yes}} | {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 28 |collapsible=yes}} | ||
| == Edits to “Game Science” == | |||
| == ] list == | |||
| Discussion regarding ] has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at ]. ] (]) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For the article in question, we have a "List of 20 most viewed K-pop music videos on YouTube". | |||
| == Jackal (character) == | |||
| The table itself does not cite a source for the selection of individual songs. An editor defending the list cites . However, they have identified a song or two that are somehow missing from the source and added them to the list. View figures are then updated from the individual video pages on YouTube. While the source is dated October 20, 2016, the chart says it is "Last Update: December 20, 2016". | |||
| The article ] seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the {{oldid2|1263622722|most recent edit as I'm writing this}}, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. {{oldid2|1263534172|An edit}} I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character {{oldid2|1263602067|was reverted}} by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. ] (] • ]) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The other editor suggested spinning off the chart to its own article. It had previously been killed as a trivial metric at ] and ]. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 15:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| : There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: ]. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be ] to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the ] could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is ]. My two cents. ] (]) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Ranked list of languages == | |||
| :It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. ] (]) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == SYNTH-edits at Team Seas == | |||
| The article ] aims to provide a ranked list of the top 100 languages. However, beyond the notorious unreliability of speaker counts, it's not possible to obtain a ranking by using specialized sources for each language, since they use different criteria and give figures for different dates. The solution chosen is to use a ranked list of the top 100 languages published by the Swedish encyclopedia '']''. Although ''Nationalencyklopedin'' does not specify its methodology, it is at least a single (tertiary) source that is trying to be internally consistent. | |||
| There's an ongoing thread ] on a contested edit to the article. The in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that {{tq|This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing).}} There is clear consensus of a ] violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are ] any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --] (]) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Problem: entry #80 (]) is obviously wrong – 4 times bigger than the figure in a reliable secondary source or the total population of the counties in which it is spoken – see ]. But how can we fix this? Just deleting the entry would confuse readers, but any explanation would be OR. And what of the entries ranked #81 to #100? ] 13:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :See also ] ] (]) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe some articles just can't be created. Yes, you can't use multiple sources to make such a list. If we can use the Swedish encyclopedia without it being a copyvio issue, we could have the top 50. ] ] 19:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: Clearly SYNTH; also ] by this point. I've left ], which I hope will help resolve the situation. ] (]) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) {{nacc}} | |||
| :::When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not ] on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ] (]) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Original research in ] == | |||
| Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Misplaced Pages. I thought I knew but reading ] from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.] (]) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| An editor keeps trying to insert original research in ] based on (a) what he believes he can see in a reproduction of a 180-year-old painting, (b) a Facebook page, and (c) ancient maps. While our article is poorly sourced, the ''Amistad'' incident is far from obscure and finding reliable secondary sources is not difficult. I refuse to continue to argue with somebody who will not read, or cannot understand, ]. Eyes would be welcome. Thank you. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership == | |||
| :Hi there! I'm in good faith but seem impossible to talk to Mr. Shabbazz who is just bullying citing policies. I've started to read the page and I've made a edit regarding the Ship flag, after being reverted I was pulled by my self me to investigate the matter. Well ok, after several research I was wrong regarding the ship flag, no problem, anyway since the fact a ship cannot fly Spanish flag if registered to a different country, and Honduras was no longer Spain since 1821, on this sources: ; ; The Amistad, set sails from Havana to the port of Guanaja, Cuba , nowadays part of ] (]) municipality, ] wich is today called ], not the omonym ] (Honduras) just because of an unsurced wikilink. Thank you in advance and sorry again. This not an original research, anyway it's impossible to talk or to try to make edits on that page. --] (]) 22:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Editors are invited to comment at {{section link|WT:WA|Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership}} on item (2) as to whether the statement that "Merivale are on the traditional land of the Njunga" is synthesis. ] (]) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here on page 27: : {{Quote| ''"sailed from Havana for the port of Guanaja, in the island of Cuba"''|Page 27; Africans Taken in the Amistad: Congressional Document, Containing the Correspondence, &c., in Relation to the Captured Africans, U.S. Dept. of State, 1840.}} Wich is not Honduras. --] (]) 22:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Same source, page 37: {{quote|''"The Amistad is a Spanish vessel; was regularly cleared from Havana, a Spanish port in Cuba, to Guanaja, a Spanish port in the neighborood of ] another Spanish port;"''|Page 37; Africans Taken in the Amistad: Congressional Document, Containing the Correspondence, &c., in Relation to the Captured Africans, U.S. Dept. of State, 1840.}} --] (]) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research == | |||
| ::::And many other sources: or others like: --] (]) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. ] (]) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| More eyeballs are needed at ]; a user has content into this article that is not supported by any reliable sources. (The user is also inserting citations to the Libertarian Party's website and to a libertarian advocacy website, but even these (unacceptable) sources don't support the claims made). | |||
| ::The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum. | |||
| ::The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement. | |||
| More eyes on this would be appreciated. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. ] (]) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've responded to this at the article talk page. Regards, ] (]) 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::He's had a DS for American Politics, he should know better. ] ] 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==Kingdom== | |||
| The following wikitext on ] appears to be synthesis: ''"The medieval Adal Sultanate seized slaves during jihad expeditions in Christian outposts in the old provinces of Amhara, Shäwa, Fatagar, and Dawaro . Many of the slaves seized by Adal were assimilated, others exported or gifted to rulers of Arabia in exchange for military support ."'' It is cited to two works on expeditions in various historical multi-ethnic provinces of Ethiopia (viz. ], ], Fatagar, Dawaro); however, neither citation is population-specific (i.e., they do not indicate that the sultanate expeditions were against Amhara Christians). As such, the wikitext appears to breach ] since it "combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Please advise. ] (]) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Please see , as the cites include relevant embedded quotes. To allege OR:synthesis, one must identify (a) how the two sources are being combined, and (b) what is "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" in the above. Neither are offered. If you see the edit history, you will note that the article originally had two separate sentences, but @Soupforone into one. ] (]) 06:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Indeed, I had to tweak the phrasing because the synthesis was even worse before. A wikiphrase attributed to Ehud R. Toledano claimed that ''"Amhara were a part of major Afar slave caravan trade routes from the southern and southwestern regions to the northern and eastern Ethiopia"'', when what Toledano actually indicates is that ''"the first section of this trade was in the hands of Ethiopian dealers who drove the slaves from the southern and southwestern Galla, Sidama, and Gurage principalities to the central Amhara provinces. While the caravans from the area south of Showa were perhaps as large as those crossing the Sahara, the average Afar caravan consisted of thirty to fifty merchants and about two hundred slaves"'' . That same wikiphrase was also attributed to Richard Pankhurst, who similarly writes instead that ''"later in the century Mähfuz, the amir of Zayla, no doubt taking advantage of the wealth and power of the port, began a series of annual incursions, into Amhara, Shäwa and Fatagar"'' . Here too there's no mention of Afars enslaving Amhara, but rather expeditions by the Adal kingdom in the old multi-ethnic Amhara province and other zones. The only place where Pankhurst does allude to Amhara Christians is to indicate that many embraced Islam-- ''"'a great multitude' of Amhara Christians at his exhortation embraced Islam"'' . Likewise, Ulrich Braukämper only mentions Adal sultanate raids in the Dawaro and Bale provinces, not by the Afars against Amahara-- ''"Harb Jaus, a general of the Adalite sultan Djamal al-Din (d. AD 1433), before he continued his campaigns against the Christians in Dawaro, also achieved a successful attack on Bale. Makrizi's document reports, 'So much booty fell into his hands that every poor man was given three slaves; indeed by reason of the vast numbers of these the price of slaves fell'"'' . The foregoing is on expeditions by the Adal sultanate against old multi-ethnic provinces. ] (]) 16:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == FamilySearch usage in Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta == | |||
| ] uses FamilySearch as a source multiple times. Is it Original Research? It's used to link to a scanned image of a passport, a scanned image of records of marriage, a census, crew lists, passport applications.--] - ] 05:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I looked at ] - it seems largely to allow primary sources - including familysearch I would assume - even while saying that they are easy to misuse. | |||
| From there I was linked to policy on primary sources in biographical articles - ] which states: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." - seems pretty definite against this kind of use.--] - ] 18:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed now that ] is about Biographies of living persons, which Rafael Díez is not, he died in 1939, so maybe the injunction against using public records is null. -I almost posted this in the BLP noticeboard. :/ --] - ] 18:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == The Exodus == | |||
| This is about {{diff|The Exodus|762254706|762252070}}. It is not clear at all what a wall around Jericho has to do with ]. Wall around Jericho ] the Exodus? ] (]) 17:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :The previous sentence states Jericho was "small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified". Being unfortified makes a direct reference to a wall not being around Jericho, thus evidence to the counter perspective should also be relevant. ] (]) 17:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::It means small and poor, almost insignificant and unfortified at a specific time, it does not mean ever/forever. ] (]) 17:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ]. ] (]) 17:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Conflation of the Bronze Age with the Iron Age. Typical for ]. ] (]) 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::So, ] discussed the small and poor Jericho of the Iron Age, and {{u|Maldives107}} cited a book by Kenyon which discussed the fortified Jericho of the Bronze Age. I don't understand why a reality of the Bronze Age could refute a reality of the Iron Age. The sources which verify those claims don't even speak of the same historical period, so obviously the wall of the Bronze Age does not contradict the unfortified Jericho of the Iron Age. ] (]) 18:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::The beginning of the ] section states "Attempts to date the Exodus to a specific century have been inconclusive" meaning The Exodus, if it happened, does not have an established date. However, if it did occur during the Iron Age, C14 dating of the same debris Kenyon found has been dated to the Iron Age documented here: . ] (]) 18:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Maldives107}} Could you please give us a quote from the document so that we can see what specific C14 dating you are referring to? Which phase, etc. Thanks. ] ] 19:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Before he gives such quote, it still is ] or ] to quote Kenyon's book for begging a conclusion which Kenyon herself did not subscribe to. ] (]) 19:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC | |||
| :Yes it is. ] ] 20:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The story here, including the claims about what appears in "Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2", comes from an article that creationist archaeologist Bryant Wood published in Biblical Archaeology Review in 2008. Wood wants to align the archaeological record with the bible by means of two devices: one is to move the date of the destruction of Jericho later and the other is to move the date of the exodus earlier. However, "Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2" does not support the first claim and is indifferent to the second. You can read what "Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2" actually says at ]. The authors of that study (who were the excavators of the site) ''do not'' believe in an Iron Age wall in Jericho, not in that paper or in later papers I could find. This is just for information, since Maldives107's edit is forbidden by policy as others have pointed out. That paragraph in the article is very poor though and could use a complete rewrite. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :According to Exodus, Joshua blew his horn, causing the walls of Joshua to fall and the Israelites to take the land of Canaan, completing the Exodus story. Archeological evidence about the city and its walls can therefore provide evidence about the degree of truth of Exodus. ] (]) 05:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: You are correct. However the edit being challenged suggested that a wall had been found which supported the account. The problem is that the wall was destroyed a couple of centuries earlier than the usually accepted date of the exodus (i.e. accepted by those who think it happened at all) and about one century earlier than even Wood's much earlier date. The issue could expanded in more detail in the article if that's what the consensus is, but isolated misleading sentences are not good. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Maldives107}} Have you actually read Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2? If so, I want the text you are referring to. If you don't do that it will appear you are relying on someone else as your source, probably Wood, and should not be citing Quaderni di Gerico, Issue 2. ] ] 07:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Look you can argue that Bryant Wood is not a good source and I tend to agree still he is widely cited although mostly by academic theologians. The chronology is wrong but I don’t think anyone disputes that the site is the biblical Jericho. Many details match the biblical description the walls possibly destroyed by earthquake or war, then the city was burn after the harvest when the store houses where full. | |||
| What scholars dispute is that the city was destroyed by invading Israelis during the exodus.] (]) 06:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent additions in "]" == | |||
| I have limited the sources to just explicitly mentioning "Cold War II" and/or any other interchangeable term. To make the article less about EU/NATO–Russia relations, I added China–US and "Early usages" to balance the article. The recent by ] (reverted but then ) and by ] had me worried. The sources added by them do not use the phrases, like "new Cold War" or "Second Cold War". Rather they used old "]" and recent events as comparisons to justify inclusion of added information. Are these additions "original research"? | |||
| Also, there has been disagreements over what the article should be about. However, the ''subject'' they referred to was the EU/NATO–Russia relations, I think. Should the article discuss the ''term'' "Cold War II" or the ''subject'' describing (or described by) the term (probably EU/NATO–Russia)? --] (]) 17:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd just like to make a small note with the relevant ]. I recommend to read it first but in very short terms I do think the article should be about the ''subject'', not the ''term'' (at worst case it would need to be moved to a more appropriate name but I don't think that would be needed) and that its inclusion criteria for any relevant event etc. should be ] using (any variation of) the term "Cold War" in a way that suggests a possible future or perceived renewed/new Cold War. | |||
| :--] (]) 18:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm not keen on renaming the article, ], though I respect your thoughts. How about creating a new article? Maybe move some portions to another article, like ]? By the way, there have been past discussions about the article itself. You can read the Archives. ] (]) 18:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not suggesting to rename it - I just wanted to make a sidenote about that also being an option if people think another term would more appropriate for the subject. Also imo an additional article would mean duplicate content. Also one could also think of a subsection of the "EU/NATO members vs. Russia"-section titled something like "Events<!--/Instances/...--> compared to the Cold War". This info just should not miss in the article. --] (]) 18:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::: What about other sections, "Early usages" and "United States vs. China"? ] (]) 19:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC at ] == | |||
| Is a US drone strike that killed the child of a suspected terrorist, added , an example of ], or is this original research? | |||
| Please contribute at ]. ]] 20:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Every movie, video game, play or book review on Misplaced Pages == | |||
| It seems to me that the "no original research" provision must, of necessity, exclude the summaries of every "literary work of art" (work) which I will define broadly as the plot summary of any | |||
| * fiction book, | |||
| * play, | |||
| * TV program (or the summaries of the full season of a series), and | |||
| * motion picture or | |||
| * the playing summary of any computer program which is a video game, | |||
| described in an article on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Most plot summaries (or play summaries for video games) of these works are presumably written by the editor of that article at the time they create (or update) the article about the work, based upon their own memory of the plot of the work or how they played the video game. That summary has almost certainly never appeared anywhere else for that work and almost certainly has no reference to third-parties for the content of the summary. | |||
| Thus the plot or play summaries of these works are by definition original research having no third-party content at all. I have checked and there is no exception in the prohibition on original research for the summaries of the plot, or video game play, of works of art. | |||
| Therefore I think a qualifier should be added to the "no original research" provision to state that for obvious reasons of necessity (as I have stated above), the plot summary of a fiction book, play, television program (or series) or motion picture, and the play summary of a computer program is permitted to be original to Misplaced Pages, is permitted for this limited purpose to be original research, and to that extent is not required to contain or include references to third-party content. | |||
| In the alternative I believe it is necessary to flag every single article on Misplaced Pages about any fiction book, play, motion picture or television program (or television series) that contains plot summaries, or computer programs having a play summary, which are not references of, and not indicated by a reference as derived from, a third-party source, as containing forbidden (prohibited) original research. | |||
| ] (]) 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| <hr color=blue height=6 /> | |||
| :The descriptions you talk about are not original research - the source is the creative work itself, an example of ]. The description of a movie carried on the Misplaced Pages article about that movie has never appeared anywhere else, but that's the case with every article. Our description of Donald Trump has not appeared ''ver batim'' anywhere else, and indeed that has to be the case, or else it's a copyright violation. You can describe a movie without committing original research just as you can summarize a news article without committing original research. The originality of the text does not imply originality of the thought, which is what OR is meant to prevent. The only way a plot summary could be original research is if it drew conclusions that were not blatantly obvious from the source, or attempted to interpret the source. There is no contradiction in policy here, and most long-time Wikipedians understand this. ] (]) 22:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| This is a situation where a ] source is acceptable as long as no analyses or conclusions are made. Obviously this would have come up before if it were a policy problem. ] (]) 23:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Another way to put it, following from Someguy's response, is that a plot is presumed to be implicitly sourced to the work in question. This does not mean a plot cannot be explicitly sourced to third-party works, or in the case of very long works, using direct citations to the work itself. But again, this summary should only be apparent and obvious, and definitely not interpretative. --] (]) 01:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I will chime in and say that the movies can be used as a primary source but that reliable secondary sources that summarize the source should be used if available. One concern I don't see voiced here has to do with WP policies concerning NPOV. If an editor chooses to focus on only certain parts of the movie while omitting others, then they can create a narrative that may or may not be intended by the original source. Think about the movie deadpool, and if an editor minimized the amount of coverage of fighting, shooting, torture, and blood to focus the majority of the summary on Wade's girlfriend. It would read as a romance film and where is to say what should/shouldn't be included in the summary? Just something to keep in mind.] (]) 06:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==OR checking myself== | |||
| On an article I am working on, ], I found a source (ISBN 9781900188470) that mentions that 1. The salt mines near to the Iazyges were owned by Rome, and 2. The Iazyges did not have salt of their own, and needed it, because they bred cattle. Would it be too far of a stretch to say that they relied upon the Romans to get this salt? I have another source (OCLC 891848847) that says that the Iazyges' trade route to the Pontic Steppe was cut off. These two factors would logically imply that the Iazyges would have to get it from the Romans. -- ] ] ] 00:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:29, 11 January 2025
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
| Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
|
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
| To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edits to “Game Science”
Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Jackal (character)
The article Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the most recent edit as I'm writing this, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. An edit I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character was reverted by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be WP:OR to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is WP:OR. My two cents. Novellasyes (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
SYNTH-edits at Team Seas
There's an ongoing thread Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions on a contested edit to the article. The edit in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing).
There is clear consensus of a WP:SYNTH violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are WP:STONEWALLING any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- See also this recent discussion at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
- When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I linked it, you can read it yourself." They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not WP:DROPIT on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
Marxism–Leninism–Maoism
Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Misplaced Pages. I thought I knew but reading WP:NOR from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.Prezbo (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership
Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA § Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership on item (2) as to whether the statement that "Merivale are on the traditional land of the Njunga" is synthesis. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research
I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum.
- The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement.
- There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)