Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 30 June 2016 (→Extensive quoting from a primary source: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

The article Friedrich Nietzsche's views on women can probably be deleted as obvious WP:SYNTH. Parenthetically, it's also grossly incorrect.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Made up information

Special:Contributions/CarloRossi1010 seems to add made up information to multiple articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

CarlosRossi1010 appears to simply be a vandal going around deliberately adding false content to pages. This should probably be taken to the Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this matter should be taken to a more appropriate noticeboard to be dealt with. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Article in need of attention

The good folks at Language Log have drawn our attention to the hypertrophied monstrosity that is California Proposition 218 (1996), which (insofar as it's readable) seems to be entirely the original work of one editor, with a complete paraphrase of the proposition's text included for good measure. Neutrality has done some sterling work on the article in the past day or two, but I think the more eyes we can get on it, the better. Tevildo (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent post - I was about to post much the same! I heartily agree that we need more eyeballs on this, and ASAP. Neutrality 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Holy Good Lord that article is long! Original Research problems aside, why are there two-hundred and fifty-one sections and subsections? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think far more pressing than OR, is the length of the article, and the overly technical language. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Price of anarchy

This looks like original research to me but not sure if qualifies https://en.wikipedia.org/Price_of_anarchy

Not OR. Google pulls up many references. But the article does need a rewrite because all it is doing is summarizing the original paper (the one where the term was first coined). Our article was probably written by one of the authors of the original paper because it was created before that paper was published. --regentspark (comment) 10:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, not OR. This is a major subtopic in theoretical computer science and computational game theory. It's possible that some of the examples in the article are OR but the bigger problem is that it's overly WP:TECHNICAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this is not OR. Also agree that the article might need a rewrite and some restructuring of words. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Use or abuse of WP:PRIMARY?

An article undergoing a Good Article Review involves, inter alia, whether or not primary sources are over/misused. See Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/William_L._Uanna/1. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Article "39P/Oterma" entirely based on original research?

I have a problem with the article about periodic comet 39P/Oterma (https://en.wikipedia.org/39P/Oterma). The subject of that article is a comet that apparently has a very interesting and peculiar orbit that is nicely described in the article, with a detailed description of what has been done by the author. But there is no external source, so I assume the entire description is based on the author's own unpublished calculations. Is this a violation of the "no original research" rule? And if so, how can the article be saved in its current form, but satisfying the wiki rules?

Note: I successfully repeated the "experiment" done by the author myself, using the newer Solex12 and Exorb8 software, repeating the steps he describes. The result appears to be reliable.

Renerpho (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions and OR

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:English people#Original research about whether giving a dictionary definition of a nation, and then stating that the English people meet this definition, constitutes original research if no source is provided apart from for the dictionary definition (which does not mention the English). Comments would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Using a dictionary definition to go around and make your own determination of whether things fall under that definition is considered original research. It should be easy to find reliable sources that explicitly make the claim.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Extensive quoting from a primary source

Many articles on German military men contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on war-time propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Misplaced Pages policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?

This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NPOV? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution