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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Weaponization of antisemitism article seems to me to be heavily based on original research, but maybe I'm wrong. There is a stiff argument on the talk page, but a very small number of editors participating. Would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. This is one of those articles where the sources are likely to mostly be opinion pieces, isn't it? Truthfully a better title might help; the current one is non-neutral and while it might reasonably pass WP:COMMONNAME if we want an article consisting of nothing but a bunch of quotes from opinion pieces, we could probably fold the topic into a more neutral descriptor that would allow for more academic coverage - verbage like "weaponization" isn't something you'd see much in academia. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a change of title is needed and could result in a more neutral article. Even the first source currently cited in the article applies scare quotes in two of its three instances of using the words "weaponization" or "weaponized",^[1] and the source's third use of the words also does not endorse the idea. Llll5032 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those articles where the neutrality and the quality of the sourcing will always be disputed by someone. I'm not criticizing you for bringing it up here, mind, but I think it will always be troublesome. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 1 on the page is Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell, ed. (1 March 2023). The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. p. 170. ISBN 9781000850321. In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups. How's that OR? Editors asked for cites, they were provided and promptly tagged as OR/failed verification, smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since it is clear that the topic exists. What else would you call the leveling of false charges of antisemitism?.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, the source you cited is a paragraph within Consonni's section in the Routledge handbook that includes the phrase and some other descriptors. Although she appears to only use the phrase once, I don't believe that any editor has tagged that source for problems. Perhaps her usage of it should be described within the article, instead of only cited in the first sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion about renaming the article to gather options for a new name. Llll5032 (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done about redirects whose titles (or rather, association between the title and the redirect target) constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? What concrete policies exist for this situation, if any?

For example, suppose an article is created for a valid topic (one that meets notability guidelines and all other relevant Wikipedia policies for existence), but under a title that is OR, i.e. no one actually refers to the topic of the article under the given title; the page author just made it up. The page is subsequently moved to its WP:COMMONNAME title. By default, in this case, a redirect would be created from the old page name to the new one. Should the redirect be deleted, or kept, and what specific policies, if any, can be used to support either decision? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really depends on the nature of the connection, but usually leaning on the side of 'keep'—given that redirects are meant to be navigation aids primarily. As you know, WP:RFD is full of cases where the usefulness or harmfulness of redirects are discussed in this terms. Remsense诉 09:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the 2004 European Parliament election article, there seems to be a mess with OR when it comes two tables, one for the 2004 estimated results, and one for the 2007 notional results.

The 2007 notional results by EU party section, which was created due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, doesn't seem to have a source of where the number of votes come from and according to one of the footnotes, it incorporate the results of the latest parliamentary election of both countries before their accession, which are not related to EU Parliament elections. I was unable to find the source of the 2004 estimated results either.

I'm curious of editors' input of this as these two sections takes up a decent portion of the page with seemly no source to back them up. WebKit2 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be full of syth and making generalizations from random articles and quotes, i'm not really sure how what the best way to deal with it is—blindlynx 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on whether the proposed section here Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community should be included in the page. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged "Overview / Statewide" section of 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California because I don't think it is verifiable. The tag was removed, citing WP:CALC.

The table includes several columns. One is "votes", which totals the number of votes for all candidates of each party. While this totaling is "basic arithmetic ... such as adding numbers" (from WP:CALC) from referenced sources, my argument is that the verifiability requirement is still not met. No reference is offered that verifies these numbers.

Instead, verification must proceed by examining the votes receive by each candidate for each of 50 districts. There are three to five candidates, or so, for each of those districts -- so something like 240 numbers must be found and summed to verify the totals here.

Additional columns count candidates from each district, then break those down by the number of contested seats and number of candidates advancing. These require more counts and comparisons spread again over the 52 districts.

This is far more converting from one unit to another, or summing even a couple dozen values from the same source in the same table. Here, the values are spread across a giant article, all from different specific sources, and are aggregated into different categories.

Is such a lengthy and tedious process in this state "verifiable"? Does it still qualify as a "basic arithmetic"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although long-winded it does seem to be covered by WP:CALC. If they are the totals of the data from the separate districts (and the separate districts are sourced) then a+b+c+d+e+f+.... is a tedious but not complex calculation. So the information isn't OR, but I'd agree verification is a pain (but verification doesn't have to be easy). This might not be the case if the figures where coming from different sources but ultimately these all come from the same source.
If all the candidates where in a single table then the sum of votes and count of candidates (and candidates that advanced) would be simple. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the question comes down to two things: the reliability of the source that the original numbers come from, and the transparency of the method. If the original numbers are legitimate and it's clear how to check the accuracy of the person's work, I think it's OK, even if checking it is a tedious job.

I also think that the fact you're asking about this might mean that it could have been done by an easier-to-understand method. However, sometimes there is no such other method. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In September and October 2022, CinemaKnight100 added sections to several dozen articles about the composition and redistricting of different congressional districts. These sections include population information without any citation for the numbers given, and no timestamp information for when the observation might have been made. Further, they don't contain any references for the definition of the district boundaries, so the towns and cities claimed for the districts are also not verifiable.

How can this material best be corrected? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think in such a case (dozens of articles about a political topic) it's important to first try to figure out whether that editor was (a) working in good faith but not finishing the job correctly, (b) inserting garbage to disrupt Wikipedia (i.e. vandalism), or (c) systematically lying to advance some agenda.

If it is possible to look these things up somewhere reliable, and if it turns out that the editor was telling the truth, then cleaning up the editor's work and providing the missing references is enough. (Along with putting a note on their user talk page, if appropriate.) TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute has been ongoing for nearly a month at Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling regarding the insertion into the article of information regarding polls on the Canadian monarchy. There seems to be agreement that no one should engage in WP:SYNTH. However, there's either unawareness or misinterpretation of what "no synthesis" means. An appeal for more editors to get involved was made at WP:CANADA; however, few have jumped in. Input from those who're active here would be appreciated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, when editing a biography of a person who died many years ago, should I ruthlessly delete all material marked as personal research, even if that material does not appear controversial? TooManyFingers (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers No, you should use your editorial judgement depending on the context. See WP:PRESERVE. WP-best is to make an effort to find WP:RS, cite those and possibly rewrite depending on what you find, and, if you can't find anything, content removal or tagging may be the thing to do. Other editors may object to whatever you decide, but that's part of life here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a scientist conducts scientific research by experiment about something he should not include the results in a WP article unless possibly he publishes it in a learned periodical first especially if that magazine article is reviewed by other scientists. That I can understand. If a historian researches a subject he cannot include his own conclusions in a WP article unless they agree with earlier research. If for instance the research is into the causes of the Second World War, if he agrees with say AJP Taylor's conclusions he can cite Taylor's works in the same way as he can cite facts included in Taylor's books. However he cannot cite something he finds in an unpublished diary letter or speech of Adolf Hitler or Neville Chamberlain. If the speech, letter or diary is published as a complete document-perhaps in a book of collected correspondence or a single web published page on say a University website. That I can understand. If a WP page mentions a particular building with which I am familiar and perhaps see every week and that building is demolished or changes its use can I change the WP article or is it called "original research." .There is a published source about the building but saying it exists or has a particular use, but this has not been updated. A sourced WP article says e.g."there is a post office at Smallville" but there is no source to say the Smallville Post Office has been demolished or has been turned into a private house. Can a resident of Smallville .correct the article to say so or simply delete the sentence about it? This can be verified by anybody that visits Smallville. This is mere observation rather than research. No special scientific or historian's skill involved. I have encountered this sort of situation on a number of occasions and it has been difficult to find sources and sometimes the information has been indirect such as a directory that does not include any mention of the building.. . Spinney Hill (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]