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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Objectivist Party

I've been debating with another editor at Talk:Objectivist Party#Synthesis concerns about material pulled from a primary source that pre-dates the party's existence. Decades ago, Ayn Rand made comments in a Q&A session to the effect that she did not want a political party to be created based on her ideas. Fast forward to 2008, and a small political party was founded claiming to be based on her ideas. My take is that referencing Rand's earlier comment from primary sources is original research, because there is no source that connects those comments to the specific subject of the article, which formed long after her death. The other editor doesn't see a problem. Given the low traffic of the article, there is a lack of other input, so feedback from outside editors would be appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem as well. I think you're correct that having the assertions bound in a single statement is a violation of synth, and the use of a primary source is to be avoided in this case. If no 2ndary sources can be found that support the notion that Rand was opposed to formation of political groups based on her view of things, probably best to avoid it altogether as a interesting fact that is not significant enough for inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly synthesis. TFD (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ott and sustainability images

• Ott, K. (2003). "The Case for Strong Sustainability." In: Ott, K. & P. Thapa (eds.) (2003).Greifswald’s Environmental Ethics. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose. ISBN 3931483320. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16.

is used a reference to support the "Nested sustainability" diagram on a number of articles, none of which seem sourced to that reference or relevant to the article.

Specifics:

• Green economy, Environmental economics, Ecological economics

  Three circles enclosed within one another showing how both economy and society are subsets of our planetary ecological system. This view is useful for correcting the misconception, sometimes drawn from the previous "three pillars" diagram that portions of social and economic systems can exist independently from the environment.

• Sustainability, Sustainable development

  A representation of the relationship between the three pillars of sustainability suggesting that both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits. (but with another reference, in Sustainability, which I have not personally verified.)

None of these texts are supported by the reference, and the relationship of the diagram to the article is also not supported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

USANA - noting a sources COI. Is this SYNTH?

In the article on USANA there is a quote from a Forbes article from a consultant in nutritional research, Anthony Almada, claiming that USANA's business model (ie MLM) means they do not do research on the efficacy of their products[1], ie an essentially derogatory assessment of the companies products. It's been discovered that in addition to his consulting firm Almada is also cofounder and CEO of at least three other nutritional products company, Genr8[2], Fein Innovation, and Fierce Foods, Inc [3], ie competitors to USANA. At least one of these, GenR8 was active at the time of his quote. Forbes did not mention this potential COI. Would it violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to include the additional info on Almada in the article? Say simply adding "and cofounder and CEO of several nutritional products companies" or similar to his brief bio. It could be construed as combining material from multiple sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (ie that the "expert" is an industry competitor and this should be considered when assessing his opinion). Thoughts?--Insider201283 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not include the extensive discussion we've been having on this issue[4]? Is there some reason why you want people to be unaware of the relevant facts that have already been presented. Very shady. This is a red herring friend. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You said that "It's been discovered..." that he is a CEO of other companies and that these companies are competitors to USANA. (1) Let's be forthright shall we? It wasn't simply "discovered"; you brought forth the information in an ongoing attempt to discredit a clearly WP:RS source. (2) There is no evidence that he had a COI in Aug 2007 (when the Forbes article was written) or even that these companies (two of which you have already admitted may not have predated the Forbes article) are necessarily direct competitors to USANA. These are all your allegations; it's not fair to state them as though they are accepted facts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? (1) I linked to the page, which inherently includes talk. I assume people are smart enough to read the talk, but yes I could/should have linked direct to the talk area, my apologies. (2) The Genr8 page linked to says they were formed in 2007, same year as the article (3) all of the companies are nutritional products companies, ie competitors (4) I did not "bring forth the information in an ongoing attempt to discredit". Someone else raised the issue, I followed through and researched to see if it was true. The guy owns and runs several nutritional companies, that's RS/V-sourced fact, not "allegation". Whether WP guidelines allow that to be included is another question. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) Yes, you should have linked to the Talk page and you should have mentioned the lengthy discussion already taking place there. Other editors wouldn't have known that there is an ongoing discussion abut this issue unless you were to mention it. (2) It seems to me that you are grasping at straws because, for whatever reason, you do not like the fact that this expert source in question stated a negative opinion of USANA's products. (3) You haven't demonstrated that the source had a COI ever, let alone at the time the article was written, or even that the source's connections with the companies in question represent a competing interest. (4) You've candidly admitted that you don't know the dates at which he worked for two of the companies in question, and yet you are still throwing that spaghetti at the wall. (5) And yes, in fact it was you that brought forth the allegation regarding two of these companies that you say represent a COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(1)Hands up people who patrol NOR/Noticeboard and don't know about talk pages? (2) I don't like the fact that some editors seem determined to excise as much positive information about a company as possible, and include as much criticism as possible. I also don't like the fact Forbes was not diligent and cited someone with an apparent COI (3/4) He owned and ran a nutritional company the same year as cited in Forbes, and did the same with two additional companies within a short time, if not before. Both are demonstrated through the links provided. (5) I obviously should have provided the link to talk, since you need to read it. The issues was raised by PRJtrue, whom you replied to [5] and then taken up by Jean314. I was the fourth person in to the conversation, not the initiator. Now let's wait and get some other opinions. I've better things to do with my time than respond to your repeated false assertions. --Insider201283 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"He owned and ran a nutritional company the same year as cited in Forbes". That's not evidence that he worked for the company in question at the time the Forbe's article was written (Aug 2007); so far you have presented no such evidence, despite the fact that I have already called attention to this error of omission on your part.

"and did the same with two additional companies within a short time, if not before". More unwarranted speculation. You've presented no evidence whatsoever that Alamda was involved with these other companies at the time the Forbe's article was writtten.

"I also don't like the fact Forbes was not diligent and cited someone with an apparent COI". You state soemthing as fact that is not factual. It is your (so far) baseless assertion that a COI existed and that Forbe's made an error in failing to recognize this COI that you say exists. Forbe's credited Almada's affiliation at the time as "president and chief scientist of Imaginutrition, a consulting firm for the nutritional supplement industry". They mention nothing about Genr8.[6]

"I was the fourth person in to the conversation, not the initiator". You in fact were the first to issue the charge about Almada's involvement with 2 other companies as representing a COI, and you haven't stopped mentioning it since, even though you've presented no evidence that Almada was involved with these companies when the Forbe's article was written.[7]

"some editors seem determined to excise as much positive information about a company as possible, and include as much criticism as possible". A baseless charge and completely irrlevant to this inquiry. You've already made an allegation about imbalance in the article but so far the only thing you've done to address it is to try to have an expert opinion on the products disqualified or denigrated on the basis of this COI red herring.

"I've better things to do with my time than respond to your repeated false assertions". I haven't made any false assertions, so how could you possibly respond to them. I agree that to try to do so would be a waste of your time; much like this red herring crusade is a waste of everyone else's. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

your rants here are off-topic for this question I've asked on this board, which is posing a relatively simple question. Take it to talk on the article please. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Weeping Angels

Can I drag some eyes over to Talk:Weeping Angels to comment in an RfC regarding some especially dull edit-war? Please centralise all dialogue there. Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

This article is full of unsubstantiated, uncited, unverifiable claims. It is full of weasel words, and what appears to be independent research. The offending section is the subheading Cosmology. Miloserdia (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics is probably the place to go if you think a fix is needed and nothing seems to be happening after sticking tags or a banner on the section. If just removing the stuff is okay I'd wait a little longe after sticking in the tags. This noticeboard is more for disputes than fixing content and I can't see any dispute there. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Dmcq, but look up, at "What this noticeboard is for"--there's no requirement that there be a dispute. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you just wanted advice on dealing with it. So what is it you wanted to happen? Dmcq (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethereal being

An article filled to the brim, nay, overflowing with original research and synthesis. I made some of the easy edits--tags, rm of all-too obvious synthesis and OR, trimmed the images a bit, marked some incomprehensible grammar. This strikes me as the pet project of one editor who is responsible for all of its content, and reminds me of articles like Tahash. It has the usual traits of such labors of love: torturous grammar and verbosity, abundant use of images, etc--but more to the point, heavy reliance on primary sources and even explicitly stating that acts of synthesis and comparison (i.e., original research) are taking place. Note my edit summaries for edits where I removed or marked some egregious examples. If any of you feel an invisible spirit moving you toward improving the encyclopedia, here's just the project for you. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Canadian_federal_election

It doesn't get much more "original" than speculation.

Canada has just finished the 41st election. The date for the next election has not even been set. An election is only decided AFTER all the votes are counted. Rating the parties based on how many seats they used to have is speculative at best. The point of an election is that it begins from nothing. Although Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister today, at the beginning of teh next election day, he becomes the former Prime Minister until the ballots are cast.

This page is highly prejudicial in this apparent prediction of who the next Prime Minister will be.

In doing this, Wikipedia casts aside any claim to neutrality.

Huh? Doesn't the current Prime Minister stay Prime Minister until his successor is chosen? If he became "former" at the start of election day, that would leave Canada without any Prime Minister at all during election day. Who would be in charge if a disaster occurred before the ballots were counted? Surely his term ends at the close of election day or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Map of the Falkland Islands

An effort is being made to bring the Falkland Islands article to WP:GA standard. In describing the geography of the islands, I made a few references to information that was gleaned from maps rather than from text. Some fellow-editors suggested that in so doing, I was engaging in WP:OR, but they suggested that a wider opinion be sought.

The first of my comments was that the northern part of the Falklands Sound (which separates the two main islands) had clear water but that the southern part contained numerous islands. (See map alongside this posting)

The second of my comments was that there were a number of channels in between the islands in the southern part of the sound that were deeper than the basin in the northern part of the sound. I gleaned this information from the relevant Admiralty charts. This again is hardly original work as I am sure that both the British and the Argentine naval officers made the same observations during the Falklands War.

Jimmy Wales voiced his agreement [here] with the text "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonethless [sic] synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research". Opposed to this, the article WP:OR states "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented".

May I suggest that the crucial wording in Jimmy Wales' observation is, "non-standard". In the case in question, there can be no question that Admiralty Charts are reliable, published sources. One of the principal uses of Admiralty charts is to identify land and sea masses and the depths of water availalbe, especially to mariners. I used totally standard techniques to interpret the maps - the sort of techniques that would be taught at school and would also be taught (in much greater detail) to aspiring navigators. The material concerned therefore directly supports the claims. Anybody who has access to the maps and who is familiar reading maps can of course verify the claims that I have made.

I believe therefore that the editors who suggested that I was engaging in WP:OR were being over-cautious in trying to prevent me from jeopardiasing the GA bid that we will be making. I, on the other hand, believe that I was using a perfectly reason and natural resource in the manner that it was designed to be used. What is the opinion of others? Martinvl (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is original research to note things that other people have not noted or even implied should be noted even if you used standard methods to find them out. Why did you note these things if sources have not thought them worth mentioning? Dmcq (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But he didn't "find them out". At least that's what he's saying. The Admiralty found them out (or codified existing findings). They are present in the source. However, they are present in the coded form of a map rather than the coded form of language or numerals. Paul B (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to Dmcq, the Admiralty took soundings and worked out the depths and plotted the isobaths (underwater contours) on the map together with various spot depths at the lowet point in a channel. The "standard techniques" that I used to get my data was to read the values from the isobaths and spot depths. Martinvl (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you reported sounding measurements that are delineated on the map that is not OR. However, making generalized observations that are quantified or indicated in any standardized way (ie text) would appear to be OR. One could argue that it is benign OR and argue WP:IAR but strictly speaking, it is OR, in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Also a map made by the Admiralty is a primary source by any definition of the term. We need secondary sources to establish that anything in it is worth noting. Dmcq (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Are Admiralty charts (or their land based counterparts – Ordinance survey maps) primary or secondary sources? I believe then to be secondary, possibly tertiary sources - after all they were compiled and are constantly revised by teams of office workers by drawing on the soundings, observations and note made teams of field workers and are used in much the same way as textbooks?

Wikipedia [policy] regarding primary sources states “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.” Requirements for the use of secondary and tertiary sources are less rigorous. Since Admiralty charts have been reliably published and can be verified in the manner described for primary sources, does it matter whether they are primary, secondary or tertiary sources? Martinvl (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maps are just a database of facts rather than an analysis of facts. The original research is finding bits in it you think interesting to note. That's why a secondary source that finds things of interest is so important even if it doesn't have such good facts as a primary source. Dmcq (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that we are playing with words. As I understand it, the bottom line is that the statement that I wish to place in Wikipedia is allowable since source I am citing to support it has been "reliably published" and that "that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify [the statement from] ... the source". Martinvl (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Did a secondary source point out the features you noted? If so it would be perfectly okay to use the maps to give accurate information about what was noted. If none did then you thought of it yourself and my reading of the policy is that mining the maps is original research. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Would somebody else like to comment on this please? I've given my opinion but the OP disagrees, somebody else like to plonk themselves on one side or the other? Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a clear case of "a picture is worth a thousand words". Given that the picture is already in the article, providing a text summary of it's minor features seems at best redundant. As mentioned above, secondary sources should be used to determine which geographic features are worth noting. aprock (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur roughly with Dmcq here. The maps and charts are primary sources, and one would have to be careful using them. Absent some secondary source that puts the geography in some kind of context, I'm not sure what the value would be. I also think that it would be difficult or impossible to provide relative context absent 2ndary sources without engaging in OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The existence of many flat islands and shoals at the southern end of the sound is considered noteworthy in this secondary source [8], but I find nothing that mentions the depth of the channels - that would only be important I imagine if it constrained the route of vessels entering the sound. I have sympathy with Martinv, I'm not sure that I haven't overstepped this mark somewhere in my contributions, but if there are secondary sources there is no issue. Mikenorton (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Straight descriptions of data from the admirality charts is not OR, and a primary source for this purpose is perfectly acceptable unless there's some actual controversy over the data. WP:OR states "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research". There's no argument there's a reliable source for this data is there? I've checked a few of the edits and things like "It provides a natural shelter to shipping" is however interpretation of that data, so that's OR and problematic. There's no particular WP requirement for a secondary source to determine notability of content within an article. So I think (sans the interpretation parts) it's perfectly acceptable to use the source - the real question is whether it's worth including or not, not whether it can be included or not. --Icerat (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories

Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories could use a few experienced editors to patrol it for OR and SYNTH violations. Cheers! Location (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Gosh they're quick these conspiracy theorists! Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

George Hotz

I've been pretty bold in editing this. There's been a lot of attention drawn to this individual. Out of sensationalism and other factors, it has turned into a very large convoluted idea or theory of the truth. It would appear that there's very little verifiable information. I've requested citations on what needs to be removed, but if anyone would like to contribute to clarifying it so that it is factual and according to WP:BIO, it would be appreciated. Mnemnoch (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:BIO#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators Mnemnoch (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Amway

There's a bit of an edit war going on over what I see as a clear case of OR, but at least one other current editor does not and keeps deleting the tag. A bit of history in that I added the tag originally back in 2009 and it was discussed in talk but got nowhere, I eventually left that section, which needs a lot of work, and later the article (and WP) for a year or so. I started editing again recently. Today another editor removed the tag so it showed up in my watch list. I checked the article, the problem was still there except worse - the only source used for the claim, a primary source website, was now non-existent. That means of course that now it can't even be investigated by new eyes to see if it is OR or not. To top it off, the claims are about living people, so WP:BLP applies however they're not particularly controversial, they are however in my opinion being used to push a particular POV. So, that's the background, here's the specifics - [9] -

Multiple high-ranking Amway leaders such as Richard DeVos and Dexter Yager are also owners and members of the board of Gospel Films, a producer of movies and books geared towards conservative Christians as well as co-owner (along with Salem Communications) of Gospel Communications.

The source is a now defunct organisations website. The original "OR" problem I raised is that the source didn't even mention the topic of the article, Amway. To make the statement someone had to first connect to Amway Richard DeVos (not hard, he's co-founder and mentioned in the article) and Dexter Yager (not mentioned at all in the article other than this statement) and then research those people to find this information about them and independently connect it to Amway. To me that's clearly original research, even if factual. The next problem is the apparent POV reasoning behind why it was added - to create some POV particular image of Amway. In reality it's a far more complex picture. The founders are well known conservative christians, as are some of the top leaders in the US, but the majority of Amway's revenue and sales force are in countries like China, Indonesia, and India, where christians Amway reps are in a very small minority. There are literally thousands of "top ranking" Amway reps and Amway executives. It's simply silly to go around researching each ones affiliations outside of Amway and reporting them in the article so a clear idea of "overall" culture might somehow be obtained. So, in short we have some unsourced trivial OR being used to push a POV. I didn't think it should be in the article 2 years ago, and now that the source is gone I definitely think it should be removed. Comments appreciated. --Icerat (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here are the specifics.[10] What you just did is a form of inappropriate notification known as "campaigning" (i.e. "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner"). From what I can see on the talk page, you verified the text in question back in 2009 when you first raised your concerns. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this source identifies DeVos as chariman of the organization and it mentions Amway,[11] and there are likely others. The association is clear; the source clearly mentions all three of the key issues together DeVos, Amway and, DeVos serving as chariman of Gospel Communications. I can't imagine why you would be so intent on whitewashing this at any cost. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This source also confirms DeVos as the chariman of Gospel Films.[12] and this one[13] shows Gospel Films as a co-defendent in a lawsuit against Amway, DeVos, and Yager (is that what you were trying to cover up perhaps?) Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(1)it's not whitewashing it's trying to get read of crud that barely has relevance to the article. (2)The first link is Doug DeVos, not Rich DeVos. Which just goes to show, you need to do better OR (3)The second link is indeed Rich DeVos, but still OR. Go put it in the article on Rich DeVos, which clearly needs work. (4) I wasn't even aware of the connection, but clearly again that is both OR and SYNTH. Again, Yager isn't even mentioned in the Amway article (which isn't to mean he shouldn't be, I have in my collection of sources info on him related to Amway and intend to add it when I get back to this article in a serious manner). Seriously though, do you believe we should be listing all of the various corporate and organizational affiliations of every Amway executive and "leader" in to this article? --Icerat (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So was I hallucinating then when I read this in City Paper from Philaldephia (an RS):

"...'Rich Devos, one of the founders of Amway, is the chairman of Gospel Films, a company which produces Christian films" [14]

or the following quote on page 2 of this book How to Be Like Rich Devos: Succeeding with Integrity in Business and Life By Pat Williams:

"It turned out that Rich DeVos was chairman of the board of Gospel Films"[15]

The connection is also mentioned in the books Merchant's of Deception (p 165):[16][17]

"He also worked closely in Michigan with Rich DeVos, who happened to be Chairman of the Board of Gospel Films."

You clearly are not even trying to find references that might counter your OR argument, even though the obviously exist. You are also now pushing a new angle about relevance, rather than OR, but the relevance too is obvious. And edit warring is not the way to prove your point. You're now at the threshold of violating 3RR over this campaign of yours over a dead link to source (the GCI website) which you had already confirmed back in 2009. You are entitled to discuss the issue, but you have no justification for continuing to slap up an OR tag on the entire section or deleting the content. This is disruptive editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the multiple sources, I think we can say that the statement is definitely not OR. The relevance issue is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)