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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

"List of Sri Lankan actors"

Similarly to List of conflicts by duration, this list doesn't cite any sources. Would this list qualify as original research? Lizardcreator (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It's the same problem with List of vigilantes in popular culture, which also doesn't cite any sources. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian fascism

Hello. The article Russian fascism (ideology) whose AfD was closed recently is still a house full ot trouble. Those troubles are:

• users buying into a narrative ("Fascist Russia invades Democratic Ukraine because Fascists are hateful") rather than following sources
• the inability to agree on or undestand what the scope of the article is (see Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)#Scope of the article); this creates an inability to juge which source pertains to the article and which do not
• a metastasis of the article, as the WP en article keeps being translated into other foreign languages (see wikidata:Q15975478)
• a disregard by users for having sources which support what the article says; a prime example is the "such as Moscow as the third Rome" part of the lede which is neither mentioned in the body of the article nor in the inline refs.

I feel this situation cannot continue, but do not know what is to be done. I am thinking about doing an RfC to at least define the scope of the article, which - in the hopeful case a consensus is found - would be at least a minimal basis to discuss.
Does anyone have any advice to give or intervention to make? I feel an intervention, as an exterior opinion, on the article's talk page would be useful. Feel free to have a look at the talk page discussions in general if you want to investigate further. Veverve (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Cripple punk and acceptance of mental disabilities

There's been some back-and-forth editing on the article Cripple punk, over whether the movement accepts mental disabilities or not; this has turned into a Talk page discussion, and I'm requesting some input over what constitutes synthesis and what doesn't.

The basis of this argument is a post made on Tumblr in 2014 by the movement's founder, Tyler Trewhella, about what the principles of cripple punk are. However, every other source in this article, in regards to this matter, only quotes from this post; none of them pass their own judgement. I feel it would be synthesis to state that all of these sources have the same intention as this blog post, as none of them elaborate on this point or make their own judgements. To state that just because Trewhella believed it, then by default these other sources must place that same emphasis on it, feels like rolling together sources in a very "if X says X, and Y quotes from X, then Y absolutely means X" way.

The original post states that the movement is "by the physically disabled for the physically disabled". I don't feel it would be synthesis, or in error, to write something like the following under the origins section:

The cripple punk tag was started in 2014 by a Tumblr user, Tyler Trewhella, who posted a picture standing with a cane and a lit cigarette, with the caption "cripple punk" layered over the top, and the description "i'm starting a movement."[3] The post would go on to be liked and reblogged by over 40,000 people, with the caption being used as a tag to boost other posts and images of disabled people going against the typical perception of people with disabilities.[6] In a post made in 2014, Trewhella stated that "cripple punk is exclusively by the physically disabled for the physically disabled", though they noted that "cripple punk respects intersections of race, culture, gender, sexual/romantic orientation, size, intersex status, mental illness/neuroatypical status, survivor status, etc."

– and I feel like this would carefully sidestep this problem.

At present, with the sources we have, I don't think it can be said for definite that the movement includes mental disabilities; but I don't think we have enough basis to state that all of this sources are definite on the matter, as they quote only from Trewhella, which strays into point five of WP:SOCIALMEDIA territory. (Source one does include another quotation, but this is from Urban Dictionary, which isn't a reliable source.)

My argument is that, as no source directly mentions the exclusion or inclusion of mental disabilities in their own voice, until other sources stating this can be found, the only statement that can be made is an explanation of the original principles, and nothing else. This would mean the lead would simply mention 'disabilities' for the time being, with no mention of 'physical' or 'mental', until such a time sources on the matter can be found.

I'd appreciate some input from experienced editors, as synthesis isn't a problem I've had to deal with for a while.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Original research on flag of Alabama article regarding connection to Confederate battle flag, Spanish Cross of Burgundy, and flag of Florida

Much of the flag of Alabama article does not accurately reflect reliable sources about the Confederate origins of the state flag while speculating connection to the flag of Florida and the Spanish Cross of Burgundy. Much of the article seems written to disconnect from the Confederate history while heavily downplaying it and speculating on other supposed origin stories. A significant majority of reliable sources appear to agree that the state flag is based on the Confederate battle flag. Am I correct in considering this original research and what is the best way to potentially fix the article if so? Desertambition (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sally Kellerman

The writer of her Wikipedia post left out the movie 'Fatal Attraction' that she starred in. I believe her movie preceded the Glen Close/Michael Douglas movie. Back in the days of all the video movie rental stores, I rented them both.

S.L.A Marshall

At the present, the article for S.L.A. Marshall contains the following two sentences:

[Leinbaugh] argued the 315th Engineers were a rear-echelon unit which never saw combat, hence Marshall fabricated accounts of his active service and details such as his whereabouts on Armistice Day. However, a record produced in 1921 of the 315th Engineers from formation to the end of 1918 shows Marshall's company spent six weeks in the front-line, during which it lost nine dead and fifteen wounded out of 165 men.

Does this constitute WP:SYNTH?

In my view it does, as it is combining two sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by either source. More specifically, it uses a source which does not mention Leinbaugh to strongly imply (However) that Leinbaugh is wrong. Just as in the examples given at WP:SYNTH, a trivial hypothetical rephrasing would result in the opposite implication: ...Indeed, a record produced in 1921 of the 315th Engineers from formation to the end of 1918 shows Marshall's company spent six weeks "in the front-line", during which it lost only nine dead and fifteen wounded out of 165 men.. This altered sentence would imply that even if the unit was present in the front-line area, it's losses were so low as to not support a conclusion of it having been involved in "real" combat. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Smells like OR to me. All of it! In the first sentence, "argued the 315th Engineers were a rear-echelon unit which never saw combat" is a real stretch from what the source actually says. I see you've started a talk page discussion about more wide-ranging issues, and I encourage other OR-sensitive editors to get involved. I will too, though I'll warn in advance that I get mild gut pain when I spend too much time around military history. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what OR smells like but for context; Leinbaugh was out to trash Marshall's entire reputation and in relation to this specific point says two things, both of which are directly taken from the American Heritage article.

(1) “What I was taught as a child was confirmed by my teenage experience of leading troops in combat.” Some inner FBI alarm went off. Leinbaugh was convinced that Marshall was lying.

(2) “World War One records,” says Leinbaugh, “show that Marshall’s regiment was involved in road work and building delousing stations".

Without quoting the rest of it in detail, he strongly implies two things; (a) Marshall lied about leading troops in combat and (b) his unit was building roads and delousing stations safe in the rear. If it makes you happier, I will change the wording but I strongly refute the contention that "he argued the 315th Engineers were a rear-echelon unit which never saw combat" is a "stretch". Which sentences in this article do you consider to be "Original research?"

More specifically, it uses a source which does not mention Leinbaugh to strongly imply (However) that Leinbaugh is wrong. The logic of this escapes me; two accounts of the same event which come to a different conclusion are not invalidated because one of them doesn't name the opposing author.

Not even Hackworth or Spiller suggests he fabricated his WWI service record. So I've got one guy, who admits he's out for blood, making claims unsupported by anyone else.

Because I was curious, I went looking for what the 315th did and I found their unit war history, which made it clear they were under fire for most of their six weeks and suffered casualties. His grandson wrote a book which demolishes Leinbaugh's case but then I'm told "well, he would, wouldn't he".

I've read both the WP:Synth and OR guidelines; as I'm frequently told whenever I invoke the power of Wikipedia, they are "guidelines", not necessarily fit for every situation. This article has been extensively expanded and updated with numerous references added and I'm not clear why what seems a minor point has taken up quite so much time and effort.

What exactly am I being asked to remove or reword? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Your move of the second sentence from the example above solves my concern regarding synthesis. Ljleppan (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Open source license litigation

I recently reviewed this article for copyediting. I noticed it had a strange referencing style; almost all references were in the section headings (as in this version). The heading references were to the court documents themselves, which would be primary sources as I understand it. The analysis in the article seems likely to be original research. I'm not experienced in this area, so I'm posting it here for review by more experienced editors. I did move the references to court documents into an external links section where they seemed more appropriate. Thank you for your help. Popoki35 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Using court documents outside the court decisions (without additional pointers from third-party sources, like a third-party source talking about an amicus brief) is absolutely inappropriate since those do not have any verification. Court decisions can be used but they should only be for the factual results and not picked apart for analysis. Fortunately, we have HeinOnline as part of the Wikimedia library, and most significant cases will have some type of law review there which does provide the appropriate secondary source for analysis. --Masem (t) 15:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That's good to know. I'll try to dig into that and see what I can do to improve the article. Popoki35 (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

I've been trying in vain to discuss my edits with SPECIFICO and Zaathras at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Four quick questions (and its main section). They've refused to explain why they want the article to say what the sources don't, rather than what the sources do (despite claiming otherwise) and I highly doubt they'll start anytime soon at my invitation. Can someone else try to get the ball rolling, on at least one of those points?

The one about Joe allegedly protecting his son rather than his son's business seems the most egregious, maybe because it's repeated three times. The needlessly vague attribution of an ODNI report to the "intelligence community" as a whole is probably the least important, but involving Hunter Biden in the underlying election meddling, however it's ascribed and whether or not Iran and China are omitted, seems like a BLP violation.

It is annoying and does seem futile, so I'll understand if nobody wants to bother, but I feel I should at least ask once here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is it called a conspiracy theory, when in fact Hunter Biden worked for a Ukrainian company? While there may be conspiracy theories about the relationship, the existence of the relationship itself is not a conspiracy theory. Does anyone question that Hunter had a relationship? TFD (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That's also a real problem, though one I figured was impossible to solve. I thought raising it again would only distract from the four plausibly easier problems. But yeah, go ahead, good luck with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is it called a conspiracy theory - That Hunter Biden "worked for a Ukrainian company" is not a contested fact. The "conspiracy theory" arose when allegations from the far-right were made regarding the undue influence Biden (senior) had on Ukrainian affairs when Vice-President concerning his son's appointment. Or the influence flowing in the other direction from Biden's (the younger) business dealings. The question is kind of silly, to be honest..

As for Mr. Hulk's...whatever this is, the claim that the article is saying things that the sources do not support is not a reality-based statement. Zaathras (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. I've explained how. All you've offered in return since the start is silence and snark. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I've happily taken worse snark (and sadly read worse OR), it's the stubborn silence this "whatever it is" finds civilly unacceptable. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Salad Fingers

How would you deal with the excessive character descriptions and plot summaries? I'm not sure if such an exhaustive list of characters is justified given that there is close to no coverage in secondary sources about individual characters, except the titular character. This reads like the sort of original research you'd read in a fan forum. The plot summaries could be significantly cut down and put in a table format, similar to Game of Thrones (season 1)#Episodes for example. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I normally just delete enormous swathes of it, [1][2][3] then see if it gets added back in. There's probably some MOS:EPISODEPLOT link someone knows that says the summaries should be less than X words, somwhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I'd delete the entire characters section because it's almost entirely unsourced and seems WP:UNDUE given the complete lack of coverage. I wanted to get some opinions first because I'm sure such an edit would be immediately contested by people emotionally invested in the series. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I tried deletion at Power Sword, didn't work. He-man's sword gets its own article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete the lot, perWP:NOTPLOT... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, are you referring to the character descriptions or the episode summaries? I agree that the characters section should be deleted but a much more cut-down version of the episodes section can stay, imo. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to both. Articles about fiction should be discussing what secondary sources say about them, and 'in-universe' material on characters, episodes etc should only form a small proportion of the article. There are dedicated Wikis for fancruft... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)