Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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 Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific ors, 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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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 Wikipedia.
  • 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:


mentioned wrong history on bhumihar[]

history on bhumihar written on the article is not correct. the content is abusive and sprading a wrong message in the community so please give your attention on this topic because wikipedia common for collectin the information. so you should give your attention on the credibility of wekipedia.

i am giving you the genetic report of NCBI on bhumihar , which prove that bhumihar and brahmin have same genetic. thank you link:- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:a0c2:55a7:f17a:3ace:1c33:9029 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Cowboy bedroll[]

The Cowboy bedroll page seems to have rather a lot of original research, particularly in "The traveling cowboy" subsection which spends quite a long time criticising a source without providing any supporting material. The or who added this analysis seems to have done a lot of research themselves and I don't necessarily doubt their conclusions, but would the NOR policy cover this? It makes it very hard to take the article at face value because it's clear the or has performed their own analysis and isn't citing their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.176.28 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Impact of the privatisation of British Rail[]

This article - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail - has the tone and content of a white paper for a think tank, rather than an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.22.31 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Ahbash[]

Original research is likely here regarding Al-Azhar in the article. Would like input regarding this RFC [1]

Origin of the Romanians[]

This is about [2], namely about what WP:PRIMARY means in respect to WP:MEDRS, WP:HISTRS and WP:SCIRS. Origin of the Romanians#DNA / Paleogenetics seems exclusively based on primary sources, no reviews are cited. See Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. It's not our task to write reviews of primary scientific literature. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that people are confusing "secondary source" with "MEDRS-compliant source". The sources in question are secondary sources since the actual definition of the term is A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. - you may notice that it says nowhere "of other publications". However, they don't meet MEDRS and I'd ask for a stronger, MEDRS-like source i.e a meta review or such here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
From WP:SCIRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
1) What the OP or considers WP:PRIMARY in the DNA section mentioned is debatable. A cursory look at one such DNA study mentioned will show that it actually references several other previous studies, thus presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. That's the very definition of a secondary source, as according to the Wiki definition, "in some fields, a secondary source may include a summary of the literature in the Introduction of a scientific paper." These DNA studies also introduce new information but that's par for the course, so the classification here is not obvious, although I'd argue it leans towards these studies being secondary sources.
2) These DNA studies also comply with WP:MEDRS, as "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies."
3) These DNA studies also comply with WP:SCIRS, as ""Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge."
4) Anyone (including the OP) is free to post (other) secondary or tertiary sources in that section, if any are available at this time.
5) There are countless Wiki pages dedicated to DNA studies of various populations and they all contain such sources as are "in question" here. If somehow we create a precedent where we deem these type of sources "unreliable" then we'd need to delete all those Wiki pages and completely remove all DNA studies from Wikipedia, which would amount to nothing short of a travesty.
In summary, I believe we should keep all the info in the section and if the OP (or anyone else) has anything to ADD in the way of secondary or tertiary sources, he's welcome to do so. That would improve the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: As per WP:CLAIMS, what exactly are the sources that you find inappropriate?Cealicuca (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean: all sources which are neither literature reviews nor treatises, handbooks and such. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: What I meant is for you to list the sources that are not, according to you, appropriate.Cealicuca (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps with the exception of the first sentence, everything else is based only on primary scientific literature in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Copy/pasted from WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean: being a Romanian is not a disease so, strictly speaking, it is not a biomedical claim. But for all other purposes such research in human genetics is primary literature in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: What I meant is for you to have listed the sources that are not, according to you, appropriate. You haven't done that. Instead you chose to re-iterate a WP:RULE. I would like to remind you that "one of the poorest attempts at unsubstantiated claims is to merely suggest a situation violates a list of Wikipedia acronyms, but give no evidence, as merely "WP:THIS or WP:THAT or WP:THEOTHER". Such a list of WP acronyms is often a warning sign to beware that there is no significant basis to the claims" accodring to WP:CLAIMS.Cealicuca (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I reiterate my point: except perhaps the first and second sentence in that section, everything else is sourced to primary scientific literature in biology. I mean: everything else, prove me wrong if you can. You cannot, because there is no other secondary scientific literature in biology there. Don't WP:Wikilawyer to hammer your point, I have been clear enough. E.g. no other source is called "review", "treatise" or "handbook". Oh, yes, Pinhasi et. al. seems a review, and so is apparently Renfrew (although we cannot be sure about the later). These two sources are used to verify the first two sentences, in that section these two sentences only serve as introduction to the topic, the positive findings of these two sources about Romanians and their ancestors are not in any way used in the article. So, only lip service is paid to secondary scientific literature in biology, there is no use made of their positive findings, although per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS the secondary literature should supersede every other source cited in that section. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It's good that you reiterate your point. You started by dismissing the whole section. I think you should reconsider. I don't have to prove you wrong, and neither anyone else, when you don't back up your claims. I am disheartened by your aggressiveness on this matter. I don't understand what's so hard - simply post the sources that you consider are not appropriate.Cealicuca (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean the whole section has no positive information about the origin of Romanians sourced to any secondary scientific literature in biology. I the areas I have ed, this has been often seen as a problem, not as a virtue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
So you are able to take the time to re-iterate the same idea, but don't have the time to do a simple copy-paste and list the exact problems? You find the time to copy-paste from WP:POLICY but (again) avoid naming those sources? It's a small section, it's not the entire article - an article which, by the way, contains a section Evidence that you seem to have no problem that it uses sourced statements in a context contrary to what those sources meant, or that it lists sourced statements without any connection/relevance to what the article itself designates as being mainstream theories. Otherwise - you use some generic statements that may be true. Everyone can agree to that...Cealicuca (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
As they say, all it takes to show that all swans aren't white is one black swan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
They might say that - and thank you for the insight - but it is irrelevant to the current debate. However, since you insist on playing logic: Wow... You're actually expecting *other* people to "disprove" a negative statement that you make? "They" actually say that showing a swan is black is all it takes to prove that not all swans are white. There's a huge difference. When you state that ALL swans are black, and later on admit that there's some white among them, it seems only natural to actually revise your original statement (ie. instead of "all swans are black" -> "some swans are black") as well as actually pointing out which swans are black. Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The two sources which could be construed as secondary literature are not used for positive statements about the origin of the Romanians, they are used for paying lip service to the greatness of genetic studies. I have consulted those two sources, and they don't have anything to say about Romanians in particular. Pinhasi has concerns about contamination of Ancient DNA. A common denominator of the literature in the field is that it is hard to differentiate among European populations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh well... since you can't seem to be bothered to do it, I'll do it. You're talking about "From molecular genetics to archaeogenetics. PNAS, Colin Renfrew, 2001" and "Pinhasi R, Thomas MG, Hofreiter M, Currat M, Burger J. The genetic history of Europeans. Trends in Genetics. 2012 Oct;28(10):496-505. PubMed PMID 22889475. Epub 2012/08/15. Eng". Those two sources being related to the following: "The use of genetic data to supplement traditional disciplines has now become mainstream. Given the palimpsest nature of modern genetic diversity, more direct evidence has been sought from ancient DNA (aDNA)." Both those statements clearly refer to the general setting of genetic data and modern genetics - they don't even pretend to do something else. The fact that we have that in a "DNA / Paleogenetics" section is not hurting, but actually adds context to whatever other content is added. Considering the parent section is labeled Evidence (without establishing what are the sourced statements evidence for, that despite the sources themselves stating that...) I see no problem with establishing, with two statements, the general credibility of genetic research or the fact that genetic research is relevant to the study of the origin of a population.Cealicuca (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that it would be irrelevant. Fact is that from that section any positive information about Romanians and their ancestors is only based upon primary scientific literature in biology. And that in most WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS areas is a big sign of unreliability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────And... it gets increasingly odd and silly... all living Europeans had the same European ancestors 1000 years ago, see [3]. Back then I had the same European ancestors as the Queen of England. See also [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

* Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced summarisation of reviews for "Kill the Moon"[]

Hi. We have been discussing "the episode received polarising reviews" statement on the article's talk page. There is no consensus, yet or AlexTheWhovian keeps adding unsourced info and claims "summarisation is always beneficial". I just wanted to hear other opinions on this. Sebastian James (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: If you mention specific ors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so. -- AlexTW 12:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the term is meaningful. Shouldn't it be polarized? TFD (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Brześć Ghetto[]

Uninvolved ors requested. In Brześć Ghetto#Soviets and Germans as "wartime allies", an or is insisting on the language The German armed forces launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union – previously its own wartime ally which does not appear in the cited source for the passage (sztetl.org.pl - a wiki-like project). In Talk:Brześć Ghetto#Dead priests citing a book published by "Saint Maximilian Kolbe Foundation" for one bit, and a 1957 book from "Crown Publishers" for another book, which describe priests killed for aiding Jews by the Germans (but not Brześć Ghetto, or for some of them even Brześć/Brest) the dispute is whether these merit inclusion in the "Holocaust rescue" section of Brześć Ghetto. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

ARIJ in Halamish[]

There is a dispute about a report issued by the Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem in the article Halamish. The report is this village profile of Deir Nidham. In the report it says that

In 1997 Israeli authorities confiscated 604 dunums of Deir Nidham lands (21.9% of the village’s total area) for the construction of the Hamich settlement, which is currently inhabited by around 1000 Israeli settlers.

Earlier in the report it says the following:

The public water system passes through the Israeli settlement of Hamich and settlers sometimes break the line, leading to water shortages for the village.

and

Wastewater from the Hamich settlement is discharged on the village’s agricultural lands, causing serious problems and leaking into springs and ground water.

The only settlement near Deir Nidham is Halamish, and there are a number of sources discussing the water being shut off by Halamish, eg Oxfam:

In village after village, people told Oxfam staff of damage to water networks, sources, and storage facilities by settlers and the Israeli military. This included ripping up pipes, shooting at PWA and municipality water personnel and the destruction of cisterns. The water supply to the village of Deir Nidham, Ramallah District, is connected to the Israeli network but comes through the Halamish settlement first. Villagers report that settlers shut off the valve for periods of time and on four occasions gave destroyed the water pipe in the stretch after village's water metre located in the settlement.

An or is arguing that it is OR to say the ARIJ is referring to Hamich, while my position is that it is evident that there is a difference in spelling here but that the settlement in question is obvious. Is it OR to include this? nableezy - 19:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Jeez - OR on NOR/N - water/sewege spats are common (one can find such on nearly all inhabited places in the West Bank). One should note that ARIJ in a document on a different village - [5] - use Hallamish. Where Hamich (not a reasonable Hebrew/Arabic-English error - dropped L + garbled ending) might be (though probably not the Hamoch near Aachen) is not for us to guess.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I wasnt using Oxfam to say it was uncommon for settlers to destroy Palestinian water pipes, but to say that in Deir Nidham that it happens due to settlers in Halamish. That is, I was showing that the place that ARIJ called Hamich is called Halamish in other sources. nableezy - 20:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
As Oxfam merely spins a common tale in the region, but does not say Hamich=Halamish - this is pure OR.Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Im not putting in an article "Hamich=Halamish", so I dont really know what you are complaining about. I am using, here, Oxfam to show that ARIJ was referring to what we call "Halamish". nableezy - 20:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)