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) Shortcuts





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 Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Threads older than 28 days may be archived by .

SYNTH, NPOV [ edit ]

Steele dossier - I'm requesting input regarding what appears to me to be a classic case of noncompliance with WP:NOR (SYNTH), and WP:NPOV. I am also of the mind that if one issue is resolved, the other with possibly self-correct. I'm going to focus on a single paragraph from a rather lengthy and detailed lead in a topic area I just know all editors and admins love to edit. You can thank me later. 😎

I realize we can state several facts in a single sentence citing different sources as long as we don't reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources; however, the various sources that were cited in that paragraph were used to not only form an absolute conclusion but to justify stating it in WikiVoice, which is not only SYNTH, it is noncompliant with NPOV.

The CBS News report that was cited for "probable cause" in the last sentence of the above paragraph also states: "However, the Horowitz report is not the final word on the origins of the investigation. U.S. Attorney John Durham is leading a separate review of the FBI's investigation, and after Horowitz released his findings, Durham also questioned the conclusions." There is no mention of this important fact. It is also a known fact that the IG is limited in both scope and reach outside the department which the IG report and Horowitz himself admitted - again, no mention. Durham's probe is a criminal investigation, and it includes information from outside the Justice Department, to include testimony from witnesses outside the US. There is also the AP report published by PBS News Hour that corroborates the information, and like the CBS report, is neutral and presents all relevant sides, which is what WP articles are supposed to do.

Is it SYNTH? Is it compliant with NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:19, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion [ edit ]

SpaceX Merlin (Gas Generator section) [ edit ]

I'm looking for some assistance in reviewing SpaceX_Merlin#Gas_Generator for original research and synthesis. My interpretation is that almost all of the section is OR. As of this writing, the section reads:

Extended content The LOX/RP-1 turbopump on each Merlin engine is powered by a fuel-rich open-cycle gas generator similar to that used in the Apollo-era Rocketdyne F-1 engine.[39] During tests of that engine (ca. 1966), Rocketdyne showed[40] that open-cycle RP-1 gas generators of this type yield 20 - 200 pounds of class-1 carcinogens, such as benzene and butadiene,[41][42][43][44] per ton of RP-1 fuel. Note that by the current date, the thermal-cracking/condensation-polymerization chemistry of fuel-rich aliphatic hydrocarbon combustion has been well-understood for decades.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Due to their toxicity, these combustion products are now legally regulated within the US, providing community and worker health protections which did not exist during the Apollo era.[57][58][59][60][61] During free-flight of the Falcon launch vehicle in the lower troposphere, the extremely hot main-engine exhaust and substantial partial pressure of atmospheric oxygen are observed to ignite and burn off the gas generator exhaust. However, during the test-stand and launch-stand (pre-lift-off) water deluges, as well as in-flight at altitudes above the mid-stratosphere,[62][63][64] this post-combustion is extinguished, and these chemicals, tars,[65] and soot are released to the atmospheric and space environments.[66] Rocket engine thrust chemistry models and mechanisms exclude large toxic molecules such as benzene and butadiene,[67][68][69] and SpaceX Environmental Assessments[70][71][72][73][74] provide no data on this important chemistry for environment, community, and worker protection.[75][76]

I've had some conversations with the editor (User:67.61.89.32) on the talk page that has gone nowhere, and I'm not sure what the next step is. Quoting from my last post to the talk page: Taken together, the chain of logic [in this section] reads to me to be something like: "This gas generator of this old engine produced output which we now know to be potentially harmful. The gas generator used in this engine shares some design features with this old one. SpaceX should know that this harm is possible. They haven't done anything to prove that the harm isn't occurring. Therefore, communities and workers are threatened and should be worried about the Merlin engine." If this argument were made in a reliable secondary source, I would be happy to have it included here. If components of this discussion were included in more general pages, I would be happy to see them. But I don't see a way to include this specific chain of logic without violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

I really don't want to get into an edit war here -- I've deleted the content a couple of times over the past couple of weeks and the other editor has restored it. Am I way off base here? Any help in figuring out next steps? Themillofkeytone (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Themillofkeytone has correctly described the WP:OR by , who is now edit warring against consensus, and has started insulting other editors.[1] Alas, this looks like a case that will have to be dealt with at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

...and he is blocked for a week. -Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Music of Polynesia [ edit ]

Here's a link to the page I'll be discussing: Music of Polynesia

I am brand new to editing Wikipedia pages - as in, I have never done it before - but when I saw this page I knew I needed to do something about it. I'm posting it here because of the subjective and unverified assertions at the top, which is what I saw first, but on closer inspection the page is flawed in many ways. I really think this page is important and I want it to be improved but since I don't know what I'm doing I'm going to post this here and hopefully someone can point me in the right direction. I don't particularly want to research this topic myself, I just want the page to be flagged for editing, for those disclaimers to appear on the page (which ones would fit, by the way?) and for a discussion about it to be started somewhere. Let me know if this is the wrong place to put this and I will move it. Here's what's wrong

Original Research [ edit ]

This section is copied from the introduction: "Internationally, Polynesian music is mostly associated with twinkling guitars, grass skirts and beautiful relaxing sounds, Hawaiian Hula and other tourist-friendly forms of music.[citation needed] While these elements are justifiably a part of Polynesian history and Polynesian culture, there is actually a wide variety of music made in the far-flung reaches of Polynesia." There is a "citation needed" thingy, but I think until someone finds a source to cite, it needs to be taken down! I understand the sentiment and I agree with it, but I don't come to Wikipedia to see this kind of original discourse.

Worldwide View [ edit ]

I don't have much to say about this because it already has a disclaimer thingy, but the most egregious violation of this is of course the "far-flung reaches of Polynesia" that is also in the introduction. The whole intro should just be scrapped imo. Can I just do that, or is that not allowed? The rest of the article also frequently mentions Hawaii, which seems slightly indicative of a less-than-worldwide view, but I don't mind that very much at all because there is so little information about anything here.

Lack of citations [ edit ]

This ties in with the original research but there are other parts of the article that need inline citations too. This could be a simple enough fix but to be honest, I don't really want to bother, especially because....

Stub [ edit ]

It's a stub. Here's everything the article actually includes:

a short description of what Polynesia is

an unverified claim about popular opinion of Polynesian music

a statement about the diversity of Polynesia

a pretty decent description about the impact of Christian colonization and influence that is probably backed up by one of the sources, but should have an inline citation in my opinion

the assertion that three specific islands have developed a "casette industry" with no further information about what that means or the implications on Polynesian music or the music of those three islands. This also seems to have more to do with the music industry than any musical style or culture.

two seemingly random Fijian singers, including no description of their musical style or significance on Polynesian music

two "Hawaiian-inspired" steel guitarists. There is no description of their musical style or significance on Polynesian music, and there is no description of the steel guitar or its significance to Polynesian music either.

Most of the pages for the different islands of Polynesia are in this category and contain way more information than this one. That could be summarized and included here under different headings for different islands! And also this category here has lots of information that could be included. Oh, and the two links I put in this paragraph weren't working as internal links so I formatted them as external links. ~figayda~ (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

~figayda~, that's a 17-year-old stub and I agree it needs work. Pinging IdiotSavant who appears to be the main editor active on WP:WikiProject Polynesia, perhaps they have some ideas. Schazjmd (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC) I'm mostly focused on WP:WikiProject Cook Islands (because no-one else is), and actively avoiding wider topics like this (not least because I'm Pākehā and recognise my lack of cultural knowledge; political bios and geography articles are easy, but I'm wary of social stuff). Obviously, the article needs improvement, but I'm really not the person to do it. But maybe someone on WP:WPNZ might be able to help? --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Getting help... –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

At least two users have restored this commentary on a photo used in the article; despite the recent additions inclusion of a source (a primary source that's not specifically about the photo), it still looks unambiguously WP:SYNTH to me; bringing here for additional opnions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not our place to interpret weapon configuration nor to draw conclusions from such configuration. pburka (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC) I agree as well. If there were a secondary source making that comment about the photo, then it could be included. Themillofkeytone (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a relatively new article that could use some extra eyes: Weinstein is a somewhat well-known figure who has done a number of interviews about this campaign, but I have found very little reliable secondary sourcing on it. The closest I can find is this brief discussion of the campaign on Reason.com.

Barring additional sources, it might make sense to just merge everything in to Bret Weinstein's bio page, since he appears to be the main public figure associated with the project. Any other ideas would be welcome. Nblund talk 02:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

In the article intro, we've got Margaret described as Queen-designate. That description appears to be original research, to me. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This forum shopping is becoming obstructive and quite annoying. Since January you have been posting this on noticeboards and talk pages; I count at least six. It has been demonstrated to you that the term is not original research because it is used in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography by the leading expert on the topic. Time to move on, perhaps? Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Who made you the boss of Wikipedia? I find this attitude of yours, that your edits or views on content can 'never' be challenged, quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC) You challenged it. I explained it and cited a source. Another user chimed in and cited another source. 8 months later you again go around raising OR alarm despite having been shown sources. That is not challenging an edit. That is just obstructive obstinacy. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC) I'd rather converse with Blueboar, or is that also not allowed. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Annoying or not... Surtsicna is correct in saying it isn’t Original Research. The term “Queen-designate” is indeed used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to describe Margaret. (@Surtsicna, while we usually don’t put citations in the lead, in this case I would suggest doing so... since the term isn’t mentioned later in the body text where it would normally be cited). Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we do something then with how it differs from the infobox heading or visa versa? At the moment, the article appears quite confusing, with the latter showing Queen of Scots, then disputed reign. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC) That is a question that is beyond the remit of this noticeboard. The question here was simply “is it OR?”, and the answer is “no”. What to put on the infobox should be discussed at the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Ok. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC) That has nothing to do with this noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez [ edit ]

I would like to get feedback from uninvolved editors in a discussion[2] at the BLP Noticeboard about Ariel Fernandez that involves SYNTH concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)