Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 15 November 2016

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

list of cryptids

Hello folks. Right now we've got an article called list of cryptids. The article itself is a total mess and is a relic of an era in which cryptoozologists had free reign on Misplaced Pages.

Recently another article was merged into it, a result of an ongoing effort to clean up the huge mess the cryptozoologists left behind from that era. However, what remains on this article is a mass of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. (To dispel any confusion, cryptozoology is a classic pseudoscience on par with, say, flat earth theory or ghost hunting and shouldn't be confused with biology or folkloristics.)

Anyway, there are a lot of dubious claims going on there that stink of original research. Please see the talk page for discussion. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A response to your notice and a plea for some kind of WP:Boomerang action or sanction here. User:Bloodofox has been on a rampage about "cryptozoology hijacking" and topics in this list making multiple edits in multiple articles on this topic. Yes I engaged today in the Jersey Devil article, it is on my watchlist and I have edited it before. I'm not saying that my edits there were all correct-(they were not), but I definitely felt a lack of trying to find a consensus and more of a WP:battleground and scorched earth type of editing in progress. In trying to save some content, I feel like I was pushed into some bad edits there myself, when really the original material was fine or at least should have been discussed on the talk page before discarding content and a source which was attributed to a famous cryptozoologist. I am asking User:Bloodofox not to remove so much content without discussion please. I can see where User:Bloodofox may have a point about this cryptozoology hijacking thing, and also that User:Bloodofox has made some great clean-ups of dead links and promotional referencing but I think that there is room to include some sources and referencing that may be attributed to authors and researchers who call themselves cryptozoologists, who are not "pseudoscientists". Some of them are actual academics and scientists and professors of sciences, so I object to this wholesale categorizing and crusade/agenda to WP:right great wrongs at the expense of content and editorial consensus.TeeVeeed (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You had no reliable source for your claim and you have yet to be able to produce one. It's as simple as that. And that's precisely why we need more people out there bringing these folklore articles up to par: by kicking out the undue emphasis on tiny, internet-based pseudoscience subscultures and bringing in the peer-reviewed secondary academic sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You DELETED the reliable source and then later left tags and notice that a reliable source was needed. That seems to be one of your habits for deleting content and that's why I am asking you to please slow down or at least please discuss your content deletions on article talk pages. I really think that your folklore vs cryptozoology problem needs to be addressed. TeeVeeed (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding req.attention to edits. The thread is Editor on a mission: folkloristics vs cryptozoology. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Geographic names from multiple sources

Some administrative units are known by several names. E.g. some sources say about Pozsony County and other about Pressburg County (the same county).

If the first source contains a sentence "Nyitra County shared borders with Pozsony County" and the second uses the name Pressburg (but does not mention a neighborhood), is the following sentence original research and synthesis of published material?

"Nyitra County shared borders with Pozsony (Pressburg) County"Ditinili (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

that pressburg county has always been the same as pozsony county? even if it was the same administrative unit, its borders could have changed. in this case using anachronic names may create some confusion. otherwise i see no OR. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

that pressburg county has always been the same as pozsony county? Yes, the first name is German and the second name is Hungarian. The region had mixed German-Hungarian-Slovak population + some Croatians, thus various ethnic groups used various names (note: Pressburg and Pozsony are some historic name of present-day Bratislava).

"even if it was the same administrative unit, its borders could have changed" Of course, the exact borders had changed over centuries (this is not something unusual), but they had always common border. These changes are well known and I can also provide a reliable source where they are described in details.

Is it OR/SYNTH? Ditinili (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

OR related to the situation in Syria

Hi, We have a discussion for deletion here and no admin has taken action yet. The article itself is OR purely and clearly. The 2 editors creating/editing it are clearly not neutral and motivated with Kurdish nationalist ideas. Many other articles related to the so called "rojava" are the same and are created and persistently maintained in their current biased form by the same users who have been edit-warring to deleted any neutral edit. Please take a look at Human rights in Rojava for example, to see how it sounds like utopia (pure propaganda for a certain political party). Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You do not seem fully familiar with the various policies you're trying to recruit to your cause. Original research means one thing and one thing only: claims not supported by citations. It looks like at least one editor has undertaken tagging and removal of some claims in the article in response to your complaint. There is, however, a lot of material left. It clearly meets sourcing and notability requirements for the existence of an article. Just naming as many policies as you can in hopes that something sticks will not help your cause. What you have is a perceived problem with the article's neutrality. What you can do about that is improve the article with sources you feel are less biased. Rhoark (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that what Amr ibn Kulthoum is complaining about is a lack of neutrality, and that describing a lack of neutrality as being original research is confusing. I do not agree that "Original research means one thing and one thing only: claims not supported by citations". I could write my own analysis cited to multiple primary sources and add it to Misplaced Pages articles -- whether about Rojava or about anything else. This would still be original research even though it was supported by citations. Equally I could engage in WP:SYNTH of multiple secondary sources and add it to Misplaced Pages cited to those sources, again that would be original research even though supported by citations. MPS1992 (talk)

Thanks MPS1992 for understanding what I am talking about. Another example is the article "Rojava" itself. This name is politically charged and only used by one political party in Syria (PYD) with its military branch (YPG). There are sources that use that name (blogs, forums, facebook, Kurdish news agencies, Kurdish parties), are those reliable? NO. No reliable international media, state or organization uses that name for the territories occupied by Kurdish militia. The maps used to illustrate that territory (as a political entity, not as a zone of war occupied by military force) are faked, and keep expaning. I know this comment should go to the Reliable sources noticeboard, but there is also a lot of OR in there as well. I hope some admin will read the article(s) and take action, because the alternative would be either edit-warring (look at all the rereverts that have happened there) or the ridiculous very biased versions of those articles. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Just three random examples from the past weeks, out of 5 Million Google hits for the term "Rojava":

"The Rojava Model", Foreign Affairs, the term Rojava in the headline and central throughout the text

"What the Syrian Kurds Have Wrought", The Atlantic, the term Rojava central throughout the text

"The Women Leading a Social Revolution in Syria's Rojava", Newsweek, the term Rojava in the headline and central throughout the text

This is the top level of English language media. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The mentioned article is original research cause it recruit sources that do not mention the invented region called shahba, making it look like a real historic region with historical recognition even though its just a result of the syrian war where different parties gain and lose lands everyday and this region was born because the YPG took control of it and can go out of the face of earth if another force took over it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Admins, any action here? Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Article appears to be an OR synthesis of two ideas.

Hi, in my best estimation the short article 'agnostic theism' I nominated for deletion is a neologism founded on a synthesis of agnosticism and atheism. When I nominated it I didn't expect opposition, there is opposition that doesn't seem to understand the OR objection. An opinion might be helpful. If I'm wrong, I'll withdraw the deletion nomination. The opinion of a knowledgeable 'OR' perspective may be helpful.

Thanks in advance. KSci  23:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are some links to make things easier: the article in question, the current AFD, a previous AFD from 2006. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking review of recent edits to Anti-Indian sentiment

I reverted these edits to Anti-Indian sentiment that to me appear to be original research and a change in pov not supported by the sources, and appear to fall under general sanctions. Could someone review the edits? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In my point of view, this is a dispute resolution noticeboard and I'm not seeing a dispute here. If the IP contests your reverts, then feel free to seek help. If the IP editor refuses to provide quotations from a reliable source that supports his/her additions, then express your concerns here and another editor or I will be happy to look at this further.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

While in practice, this noticeboards are used for disputes that have already been discussed at some length, the noticeboard is for addressing OR problems. Given the subject matter and general sanctions, I'd like a review. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Usage of Google Ngram to support text in wikipedia

To what degree the results of Google Ngram Viewer are allowed to support statements in wikipedia articles?

See Talk:Soft skills#"First documented usage" where this question arose. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like we should never use it, as an automatically generated list with no editorial control. It's a great way to look for old sources, but that's it. Heck, it has references to Misplaced Pages going back to 1906, because google lists a 1906 publication date on a book that was uploaded with recent commentary added. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would say that it counts as original research. I'm not familiar with Ngram, but I would say that it acts like a tool and that a person is making their own determinations from using that tool. It sounds like whatever results it returns have no notability since those results won't likely be found in reliable secondary sources. It's like if someone uses a ruler to measure the length of a coke can, it would be original research. I also wouldn't count the returned results as being "published" with editorial oversight, so there would be reliability and verifiability concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I would say it should not normally be used as a reference for information stated as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice (such as "first documented use"). In my opinion such results are admissible, for instance in talk page discussions, to support editorial decisions such as the choice of words, spelling, etc. There may be borderline cases. --Boson (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Constructing a sales chart

What do folks think about the following, which is being proposed at the Felodipine article? It is a chart of annual sales, constructed from the company's annual reports.

Template:Line chart

References

1. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2015" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
2. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2014" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
3. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2013" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
4. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2012" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
5. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2011" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
6. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2010" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
7. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2009" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
8. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2008" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
9. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2007" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
10. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2006" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
11. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2005" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
12. "AstraZeneca Annual Report and Form 20-F Information 2004" (PDF). AstraZeneca. Retrieved 6 November 2016.

Never seen anyone do this before. Is this OR? Kind of interesting. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution