Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:09, 4 August 2015

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

RfC notice: Synthesis in 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to the request for comment, at which the issue of synthesis has been raised. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Comments from editors with some familiarity with our WP:SYNTHESIS policy are respectfully requested. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Several commenters to the RfC have cited WP:SYNTHESIS in their statement of position. Attention from editors with some previous experience in identifying and explaining WP:SYNTHESIS is respectfully requested. The RfC question proposed content is a one-sentence addition, a summarization of multiple sources including The Washington Post. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our WP:SYNTHESIS content policy remain in the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Sophisticated original aggregations

In the article Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, there is a table that not only contains several (sourced) surveys ranking U.S. Presidents, but also an original attempt to aggregate these in a sophisticated manner, which by no means can be called a "routine calculation". It is my contention that its presence is not appropriate for several reasons, but don't feel completely comfortable claiming it to be inappropriate synthesis because no particular position is being advanced per se. However, I do feel it goes against the spirit of forbidding original research, because any aggregate is bound to imply an idiosyncratic "overall" picture. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Fucking A" - plot analysis

I found this yesterday: Fucking A. It is an article about a play that contains large quantities of what looks like original research. I'm on a slightly unreliable wifi connection and not much time to edit. Just wondering if someone with more time and patience could go at it with a scalpel and remove the original research. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely needs work. There is a difference between a plot summary and a plot analysis. If this is supposed to be a plot analysis then it needs to cite sources that analyze the plot (doing so ourselves is OR). If this is supposed to be a plot summary, then it goes into way to much detail. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia?

Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)#RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia? .-M.Altenmann >t 05:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Age of consent

@Fabrickator: Please see previous discussion at User_talk:Fabrickator#Pennsylvania. There is a dispute over what the age of consent for the state of Pennsylvania should be listed as in the article Ages of consent in North America - Either "16" or "18"

• Pennsylvania's statutory rape laws, and the "close in age exemptions" only apply to persons below 16 years of age
• However there is also a "corruption of minors" law which can be used to charge anyone 18 and older of a misdemeanor if he/she has sex with someone under 18, and this includes 16 and 17 year olds. The party may be convicted if the jurors agree that he had committed the offense.

One editor's position is that the Pennsylvania age of consent should be written as "18" because an adult who has consensual sex with a 16 or 17 year old can face legal consequences even though they are not statutory rape offenses.

My position is that the Pennsylvania age of consent should be written as "16" because the secondary sources discussing the matter all say that the age of consent is 16.

• Smerconish, Michael. "The Pulse: Coming forward on abuse helps the community" (Archive). Philadelphia Inquirer. August 5, 2011. "There are no statutory-rape charges pending as the age of consent in the commonwealth is 16."
• Boyer, Barbara. "Chester sex case points up questions A high school administrator has been charged with two misdemeanors. Experts say the issues are not clear-cut." Philadelphia Inquirer. April 9, 2005. Retrieved on August 4, 2015. "Wilson's arrest highlights confusing questions about sexual relations between youths who are of the age of legal consent at 16 and adults." and "In Pennsylvania, prosecutors turn to broader laws, such as corrupting the morals of a minor, that are not as clearly defined."
• Elizabeth, Jane. "State ranks low with school sex abuse law." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Saturday May 31, 2003. Retrieved on August 4, 2015. "The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 years old -- reduced in 1995 from 18 years old."

These sources do discuss the "corruption of minors" law; they anyway say that the age of consent is "16" and a former prosecutor quoted in the Boyer article says that the consideration of whether someone is corrupting a minor is a separate consideration from the "age of consent"

• "JoAnne Epps, dean of academic affairs at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, said that even though a teenager can legally consent to sex, corruption of the morals of a minor gives prosecutors authority to file charges for inappropriate relationships. "They are different crimes," said Epps, a former prosecutor. "Having sex with a 16-year-old may not necessarily be statutory rape, but that's irrelevant in determining whether a person is guilty of corrupting the morals of a minor.""

I also think that if there are issues on how to define "age of consent" we need to find sources which explicitly define it, such as legal dictionaries, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution