Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 3 August 2011

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Dnepr M-72

User:Dennis Bratland changed the title of the article M-72 motorcycle to Dnepr M-72. This constitutes original research as it is unattributed. The Dnepr name was not adopted by KMZ until 1967, many years after production of the M-72 ceased. The M-72 was made by other factories besides KMZ which is noted in the article and cited references. The Russian, Polish and Czech language articles all correctly refer to the motorcle as the M-72. The Dnepr (motorcycle) article states that the Dnepr name was adopted in 1967. A comment has been made on the Dnepr M-72 discussion page and User:Dennis Bratland has been advised on several occaisions.

When primary sources show a secondary is incorrect

I have been informated that "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources". But whenever I have told the story of how at the article about New York's Capital District prior to my complete rewrite/expansion the article stated, and had a secondary source as reference, that the term started by a local newspaper and in the 1970s. Well, I did not believe it, and searching Google books I found numerous references of the term Capital District in reference to the area, many of which were primary sources of the institutions which used term Capital District in their title, along with laws of the state of NY (laws being a primary source). And so I removed the secondary source and used the other sources to show that the term was used in the past in specific instances. I have never been told this was OR until recently at the Village pump (policy), and in fact have numerous times been told what I did was correct. I come here for more opinions, as I've heard other people state similar stories. I find it disconcerting that policy should specifically condone keeping wrong information in the face of contradiction. Depending on statements here, I may push for a change in policy to reflect current consensus, once I know what the consensus is.Camelbinky (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy is correct and no change is needed or desirable. Editors should not correct secondary sources, although if material is believed to be factually incorrect, it could be omitted (if other sources are not available, and subject to factors like WP:DUE). I have not looked at the example mentioned, but it appears to concern the origin of a term, which is a classic case where different sources will make different claims, possibly all true in their own way (perhaps in some sense activities by the local newspaper in the 1970s were responsible for the current usage, even if earlier instances of the term can be found). If there is no secondary source to support an assertion, or if there is only one such source and it appears dubious, it would be better to remove the assertion from the article. At any rate, an editor should not publish the true facts at Misplaced Pages even when in a good cause because that is a one-way street to madness where every kook on the planet will want to correct sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The correct approach is to contact the secondary sources and persuade them to publish retractions or to publish a paper in an academic journal correcting the error. Once you are successful, the corrections may be reflected here. Otherwise we would spend a lot of time looking at Obama's birth certificate. TFD (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV over SYN?

• Van Tuong Nguyen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dear all, IF possible I'm requesting all to assist in the reviewing the aforementioned article and comment on the discussion page for the difference of "explained" (supported by the source, and an archive of the original source I found) over the word "said" (which isn't supported by any source), the latter is incessantly demanded by an extremely abusive Anon IP editor (2.220.204.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to replace the former, per WP:SAY. Similarly, I've placed this same request for review on WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV over SYN? in order to give it a fair chance at hearing. Apologies for any disturbance caused, thank you. --Dave 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If I understand this: using the word "said" in this context should be OK. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

The above page has tables which an editor compiled in order to explain the findings of this somewhat controversial school of thought. Referencing is not detailed enough to trace which point comes from which author. Are any of them OK to include, or are they OR/SYNTH? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the table in question is here and the Talk page discussion about it is here. Memills (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That should be helpful. I'm asking about all three tables in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether the school of thought is controversial is irrelevant. As noted on the Talk page, it has been agreed the additional primary source references will be added to the textbook references that are already there. And, as noted by several editors on the Talk page, there is no OR or SYNTH because there is no new conclusion/information created that is not the in original sources. Memills (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg

The permsssion section of the photograph publishes original research from Anders_Behring_Breivik, it also externally links to the primary source. --Hemshaw (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik in diving suit with gun (self portrait).jpg

The file permsssion and file history links the Anders Behring Breivik article to original research both in the text in comments and in a link in the article permissions. --Hemshaw (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis on Draft dodger

Hello, there is a user who is repeatedly adding this edit to the Draft dodger article. I haven't addressed WP:SYN much before, but to me this looks like an example of it. IMO, there are a few other important reasons why this doesn't belong in the article, but I guess that's irrelevant for this discussion. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything, it looks like a WP:NEUTRAL issue, and if the source can be properly formatted it seems like a good addition to the article in terms of balance; you cannot write an article about draft dodging without mentioning denied volunteers. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I'm not following at all. Denied volunteers? IMO The editor is putting together a bunch of raw figures to come to his conclusion that African Americans were underrepresented in Vietnam --CutOffTies (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Parts of the added text ("so they were significantly under represented in the war zone", and "it was significantly below the Black military age cohort in the general population at the time") are clearly original research, since they represent conclusions by the editor, not by the (original but now obfuscated) cited source. It seems the purpose of the addition is to dispute the statement "This was the source of considerable resentment among poor and working class young men including African-Americans - who could not afford college." As such, it is synthesis (though I note that the previous statement is itself not sourced). It could be contended that the addition is not to dispute the other content, but rather to provide additional information; if that were the case, it might not be syntheses but also appears to have no relevance to the topic of the article – which is draft dodgers, not Vietnam War casualties – and should probably be removed on that basis. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Clear OR. Stats are presented in order to present an interpretation of the fairness of the draft. But the stats are not even about who was drafted but who served. TFD (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, if the source can be properly formatted and cited it is an issue of balance that needs to be addressed. You all seem to have missed the main point: the editor in question copypasted that from elsewhere, losing the source itself in the process (replacing it with a ); how about requesting the editor to come up with the link? Without that link, no one can actually know whether he or she drew the conclusion; for all we (do not) know, it might be in that very source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about missing the point; it's about making the effort to check sources before rendering an opinion on whether they are used properly. The copy-paste was from an earlier version of the article, here, before the edit wars started and when the link to the list of statistics at http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm was intact. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Can mere organization of raw material from a book/film/TV show into a graph/table be called original research?

The heading pretty much speaks for itself, if anything is unclear I will be happy to elaborate. Naturally, the question pertains only to raw material that is collected from various book pages/film scenes/TV episodes and organized into a graph/table using only the material itself, without further deductions that could be interpreted in more than one way. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the noticeboard is meant to review/discuss specific cases, not vague hypotheticals. Is there such a case? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether this is the appropriate place or not, the answer to the question is no, it is not original research. It has been long held that pictures, graphs, etc, that depict something from a source isn't OR.AerobicFox (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

But he can't really take and use that answer without clarifying the question. Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a hypothetical, there is nothing that states you cant come here and ask one. Second, raw material from a book, film, etc would be a primary source and to organize it into a table or graph in a manner that draws a conclusion would in fact be OR not to mention the problem of using a primary source. So yes the specifics of the case and manner in which it is used is important, but in a generalization yes it can be ok as in- it isnt always prohibited in all cases. Therefore that is the answer to this hypothetical.Camelbinky (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, the example is a fictional character family tree in Family Guy that keeps being removed on the false grounds of OR. There are no drawn conclusions there, only family relations that are stated within the series and are brought together in a neutral manner. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In real life it is very common for people to be called auntie uncle grandma father mother son sister or what have you without being any sort of relation at all. Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether the chart qualifies as OR or not... the chart is a compilation of "in universe" WP:TRIVIA and should be excluded for that reason. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is called Griffin family, how more can anything pertain to a subject? Should the whole article be zapped? For this matter, should all articles discussing fictional characters/families be zapped as well? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that "zapping" the whole article makes sense, but then I'm not really up on guidelines for articles on in-world fictional entities. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In any case, we are quite clear that this is not OR, am I right? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not agree; material culled from fictional works, without a secondary source, is OR, and trivia. Did anyone say it's not OR? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the OR part for now. Here is a direct answer to your question, from AerobicFox's reply above: "It has been long held that pictures, graphs, etc, that depict something from a source isn't OR." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Illustrations that say no more than what the text says are what I think you are referring to. I would count this as OR but ask for IAR to be applied on the talk page. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to invoke IAR. As is, the chart is OR, but that can be remedied: What is needed is a) a section in the article that lays out who is related to whom on the show, with b) that information cited to a reliable source (this citation is important for two reasons... first it demonstrates that the information verifiable; second it demonstrates that someone other than a Misplaced Pages editor thinks it is worth compiling, ie not just trivia). Then, with that sourced information in place, the image becomes a user created illustration of what that is said in the article (and source) and is no longer OR... at that point it can be used in the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

All the family relations are clearly stated in the series, there are no interpretations here. All trivia doubts aside, how is it OR? Where do you see user created content? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To Heart 2

The article To Heart 2, about a work of anime, has an InfoBox which says "Genre = harem". An RfC was created here to ask whether that was the correct genre. In the RfC, that led to questions about whether editors were able to determine the genre on their own, without a reliable source stating the genre. Or, would an editor be violating the OR policy by stating (in the absence of a reliable source) that the genre was such-and-such. This question (do simple facts in an InfoBox require a reliable source) must have come up before, so any help from experienced OR experts would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Identical question cross-posted on the OR noticeboard here, so probably should post any responses at that thread, to avoid duplicate discussions. --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sondra Locke's date of birth

Sondra Locke was born in 1944. Erikeltic continues to deny all reliable sources by reverting my edits and inserting an incorrect 1947 birthdate for Sondra Locke. See below for proof that Locke was born in 1944.

On 28 May 2011, actress-director Sondra Locke turned 67 according to Yahoo! News , ABC News , the Associated Press , Leigh Valley News , and The Boston Globe ; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944. Her birthdate is 28 May 1944 according to MSN movies , the Internet Movie Database , and the Notable Names Database . Many printed publications erroneously list her birth year as 1947. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her appearing in a production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. If born in 1947, this would make Locke a 16-year-old university student, an unlikely scenario. Locke's age is stated as 45 in this 1989 People magazine article , correlating to a 1944 birth year. As of August 2011, Locke is 67 years old according to public records , correlating to her being born in 1944.

MSN movies, Yahoo News, ABC News, and the Associated Press are, to my knowledge, considered reliable on Misplaced Pages. I also understand that imdb, her yearbook, and public records are not considered reliable for whatever reason(s), but one should at least give them the benefit of the doubt considering that they correlate with reliable news sources. It is fairly obvious that Ms. Locke lied about her age in order to get younger roles, decades ago.

Please prevent Erikeltic from further abusing Locke's wikipedia page (or from removing/reverting this very section of this particular talk page). Her correct birth year should be on that page, and the correct year is 1944. Whenever I post sources for the correct birth year, Erikeltic has reverted my edits and even removed the sources from the talk page. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously...I'm trying to help you, and you're not listening...there was no need to rush here. I'm guessing that Erikeltic was unaware of WP:CALC; now that they are, perhaps we will see a change in thinking.

Erikeltic removed the MSN source , which directly states that Locke's date of birth is 5/28/44. His only explanation is that this was a "non-verifiable" source. How is MSN movies not a verifiable source for her birthdate, and a decade-old unathorized biography of Locke's former boyfriend is? PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

But, since we're here, let me try to summarize the info above more simply and put it into a policy question: If a reliable magazine article was Published in Year X, and that article says that a person is Age Y, WP:CALC says that we're allowed to say "According to Reliable Source, Person was born in (Year X - Age Y)", correct?

This is a very old discussion and I have been on both sides of it at various times. All of my comments can be read either at Sondra Locke or at Michelle Thomas, but Qwyrxian is correct that I was unfamiliar with WP:CALC; I will read that now. I will only point out that Placebo is consistently trying to use non-verifiable information and is most likely a sockpuppet of the perm-blocked Excuseme99. Erikeltic 03:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is Erikeltic who is using non-verifiale information, not me. The only citations he has used for a 1947 is an old, unauthorized biography of Locke's ex-boyfriend Clint Eastwood, and one website. Those two sources have nothing on the sources that I have provided. Please note that I am only trying to spread the word about this. For the past thirteen days I have only argued this point on Locke's talk page; however, Erikeltic repeatedly reverted my edits without merit and even removed my arguments and sources from the talk page. Naturally, you can understand why I want to spread the word on this (so Erikeltic won't be able to hide the truth). PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion

I am a bit lost on which noticeboard I should ask for help. In "Cold fusion" I wanted to add this:

In the "Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia" (August 2011) from publishing company Wiley, LENR is presented along with conventional nuclear fission and fusion technologies.

It was reverted first for WP:WEIGHT, I undid the revert. It was then reverted for WP:OR, I also undid that revert. It was reverted a third time and we started a discussion: Talk:Cold_fusion#Wiley_publication. The current reason for the revert turned into "add unwarranted sources at certain points in the article in order to imply stuff."

I am afraid that I will not be able to understand what WP rule that reasoning corresponds to, I assume it is still WP:OR

The Cold fusion article offers the reader very solid and frequent guidance towards the notion that cold fusion is pathological science and that it is not excepted by mainstream scientists. I do not question that, I understand to that notion. However, the fact that a reliable source book publisher decides to include LENR/"cold fusion" in his "Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia" along with regular nuclear fission and fusion technologies is interesting and noteworthy. I did not add any insinuation when I edited that fact into the article. I just presented the fact.

Can somebody look into this ? Also, please first look into User:POVbrigand where I explain my username. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wein bridge oscillator

I am continually running into the well-intentioned WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS of User:Circuit dreamer. He makes extensive edits that he claims are obvious, so they do not need sources. He likes to point out how one idea is connected to several others. He does not appreciate the notion of WP:RS. When pressed for sources, he will use blogs. He has been warned about this in many articles.

We also clashed at electronic oscillator; see Talk:Electronic oscillator#Negative resistance LC oscillator.

I've been meaning to revert many of his edits at negative resistance (see Talk:Negative resistance#About the last major edits), but my time is limited and it appears that other editors have left the field (I can understand why). One of the few remaining editors, User:Zen-in, got into a spat some time ago, and has agreed to never revert Circuit dreamer -- a position that Zen-in is apparently respecting. Circuit dreamer agreed to to never add material without inline sources, but he has ignored that promise.

The lastest episode is in Wien bridge oscillator. There were discussions on the article talk page about his original research.Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Some intuitive explanations; Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Revert of new material. He's introduced three unsourced views of the Wien bridge oscillator. He's offered an unsourced explanation of how the oscillator works. There are factual errors. CD does not correctly apply the term loop gain. He does not understand the distinction between avalanche and feedback.

I'm reluctant to continue to revert Circuit dreamer because it will appear that I'm in a continual and global edit war with him.

What should I do?

Glrx (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Before any discussion I would like only to note that I have no problems with such a trivial term as loop gain and I feel hurt to see this accusation here. Also, I have thoroughly explained many times what I mean when saying "in an avalanche-like manner" (regeneration with a loop gain bigger than one). Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice to

• User:Zen-in
• User:Spinningspark

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution