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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Frederiksberggade 1

User:Ramblersen2 has created many articles on notable buildings in Denmark, containing very detailed information about all known previous inhabitants (of the current and former buildings on the same location), compiled from census records. Frederiksberggade 1 is the most recent example. Example paragraph:

At the 1801 census, No. 140 was home to 45 residents in eight households. Jacob Rosted resided in the building with his wife Frideriche Dau. a maid and two lodgers (carpenters). Anne Christine Linne., a widow, resided in the building with two sons (aged 12 and 15), a maid and two students. Gertrud Marie Greis, a widow teacher, resided in the building with a maid, Peder Armstrøm (a planter from Saint Croix and the latter's 11-year-old black servant. Johan Gotlieb Blau, a pharmacist, resided in the building with his wife Christine Winkler, their two children (aged three and five), two maids, three pharmacists, two pharmacist's apprentices and a caretaker. Philip Gebhart von Thun (1756–1828), a captain in the Royal Danish Navy, resided in the building with his wife Anette Mathisen, a two-year-old daughter and two maids. Rasmus Larsen, a beer seller (øltapper), resided in the building with his wife Marie Hansen and their eight-year-old daughter. Ole Hansen, a barkeeper, resided in the building with his wife Juliane Hobroem their trhree children (aged 13 to 18) and a maid. Niels Andersen, a beer seller, resided in the building with his wife Anne Cathrine Jensen and their two children (aged two and three).

We have a disagreement whether such information is acceptable or should be removed. Fram (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fram, is there a discussion anywhere other than in edit summaries? I think it's unencyclopedic trivia that should be excluded, but I'd like to hear Ramblersen2's argument for inclusion first. Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Ramblersen2#WP:OR. I had also informed them of this discussion, as their input is of course necessary. Fram (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have for quite some time worked on creating articles on all heritage listed buildings in Denmark. In some cases, typically in inner Copenhagen, it is difficult to find sources with more than very basic information. As a supplement to other available sources, I have then relied on information from the earliest available census records (typically 1787, 1801, 1840 and sometimes a few more) in piecing together the early history of the property/building. I think the information from the census records is instrumental in highlighting what sort of people lived in the building, what sort of businesses were operated from the premises etc. In many cases, the same people have contributed to the evolution of the property by adapting then, constructing warehouses etc. If we have an article on a marginally notable (typically heritage listed) building, I think we may just as well make it an informative one, rather than leaving it as a fairly uninformative start-class article. The information from the census records is always supplemented by all the other sources I can dig up, old illustrations etc. I don't think it is correct to refer to published information from census records as "primary sources" or "original research". But I have been in doubt as to how I should present the information to avoid it turning into something that might qualify as original research. And I have then ended up going with the form that seemed to get the best ratings by a range of different reviewers over a quite long period of time. And I have wanted to stick to a somewhat consistent approach. In some cases, I can see that it seems more relevant than in other. In some cases, it would no doubt be better to provide a summary of the composition of residents.Ramblersen2 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I could see an argument for a brief paragraph summarizing "what sort of people lived in the building, what sort of businesses were operated...". But a prose-list that is merely a directory of residents from over 200 years ago? How is that relevant or helpful? Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be removed. That amount of excessive intricate detail is not related to how or why the building is notable in the first place. This type of detail - Peter Christian Kierkegaard resided in the first-floor apartment to the left with the theology student Otto Harald Benedictus Boisen - is not relevant or notable information about the building.

In order for any named resident to be included in the article, they must be notable themselves. For example, see: Notable residents of the Dakota or Notable residents of the Brentmore or Notable residents of The San Remo. Also see WP:NBUILDING for the guidelines on notability for buildings. And danishfamilysearch.dk is a questionable source as well, since it appears to allow user generated content. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I was going to comment the same, but it's already been done. danishfamilysearch.dk appears to be user generated content (you can create an account here[1]), so shouldn't be used for any verification purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with using danishfamilysearch.dk. Creating an account gives you access to more daily page views and you can transcribe untranscribed census records but the page publishes the original census record which is not user generated content.Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, danishfamilysearch.dk is an unreliable source and when are you going to remove all those excessive details from the article? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. And even if the transcriptions or images of census records is unimpeachable, they're WP:PRIMARY and not normally used as sources. EEng 06:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a giant world of these articles, all sourced primarily to danishfamilysearch.dk. Can somebody go through [2] and assess these articles? There seems to be oodles of WP:CRUFT in need of removal. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I will try again: Danishfamilysearch is not a user-generated source. The page publishes the original census records, you just need to press "original kilde" ("original source") to see the original census record. Another thing is that the information is also published by the Danish National Archives (see for instance here. Surely what matters for the information to be a valid source is weather it has been published and it has. The link makes it easy to check the source but is not what makes it a valid, published source (just like you can use a book as a source even if you don't provide an online link to the book. Information from census records are routinely used by recognised historians in articles on individual buildings in Copenhagen, see for instance Ida Haugsted's article Gips og voks på Østergade og Værnedamsvej' or Allan Tønnesen's Et hus i Amaliegade (I can provide you with lots and lots of other examples). Why wouldn't Wikipedia accept a source which is good enough for historians and scientific magazines?Ramblersen2 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally avoids primary sources unless absolutely necessary. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Even that's an overstatement. We don't use primary sources as some kind of last resort because nothing else's available, but rather we use them in very narrow circumstances (generally, to illustrate some point make in a secondary source). If those circumstances don't hold, we don't use the primary source, even if absolutely nothing else is available. EEng 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ramblersen2, there are a lot reasons we don't use primary sources except in very narrow circumstances. For example, census records are often just plain wrong. An historian writing a bio of person X will not only look at the census record for where X lived, but will also use letters, business documents, and other sources to confirm what the census says; in their publication, they'll present their scholarly understanding of the best reconstruction of the historical facts, and our article can then draw on that. But we editors lack the resources to do such sifting and research, and indeed it's beyond our remit to do so even if we had such resources. So we don't use census records directly -- we wait for a secondary source to do so, and if that doesn't happen, then that material doesn't go in the article.

Beyond just the question of the accuracy of a census record, there's a question of, well, just plain what belongs in an article. If secondary sources on a particular building haven't seen fit to list its every occupant over the centuries, there's a reason for that: it's trivia.

A final point: Let's say that an historian says his research shows that Mr. Famous Person lived at 14 Wissenspoor in 1750. In addition to reporting that in the article, that would be a good time to go the the census and get the original handwritten census record, and include it as an image in the article. That's an OK use of the primary source, because we're using it for illustration, not as a fact source. There's a great example at Phineas_Gage#Death_and_exhumation -- a cemetery record. It's there for illustration, but NOT as a fact source. Indeed, the cemetery record gives the subject's middle initial as B, which is incorrect -- again, that's why we don't use primary sources for facts.

I hope the above helps. EEng 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

EEng says it a lot nicer than I could. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had my grumpy pills yet this morning. EEng 19:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's guidelines: "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[e] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.". I can easily understand the point that I have provided "excessively detailed information" but I have done so in an effort to make absolutely sure that I was only making "traightforward, descriptive statements of fact". And I do think that the information contains a lot of relevant information about the history of a given building: The type of residents, associated businesses (In Copenhagen, membership of a given craftsman's guild or merchant's guild, was typically attached to the ownership specific properties), notable residents or the hierarchy between different floors etc. In articles on notable buildings (typically because they are heritage listed) that are not major landmarks and where few other sources can be found, I really don't get the problem withy including such information. And having produced a lot of articles on buildings over a long period of time (several years), I can conclude that a wide range of new-page patrollers and page-raters have not seemed to have a problem with the approach either.Ramblersen2 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, we realize this is disappointing, and it's annoying that you've put so much effort into this aspect of hundreds of articles (see this search [3] of article space), but even repeating what the census entry nominally asserts is an interpretation -- you're taking it as fact. Look, again, at my example (linked above) of Phineas Gage's cemetery record -- it's got his very name incorrect. These kinds of records are often just wrong, and that's why we don't use them in the was you are using them. Furthermore, your very statement contains a lot of relevant information ... type of residents ... notable residents ... hierarchy between different floors etc shows you're trying to imply stuff that we as editors are not supposed to be implying. If a notable person lived there, then there will be secondary sources on that person mentioning that; we don't come to that conclusion ourselves. If there's something interesting about the hierarchy between floors, then when some social historian comments on that in a secondary source, we can include that; but we don't marshall data to imply that ourselves.

And to be perfectly blunt: your articles are great! The architecture, the history! But the long sections on Jan Marinsen and his wife and their three kids and their two maids and their cow and their chickens are nothing but cruft-trivia. They need to go. EEng 19:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And I can see that lots of other perfectly relevant information based on other sources have to go as well. Yes that is indeeded super "disappointing".Ramblersen2 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC) How can the deletion of the entire History section of a page such as Nyhavn 17 not qualify as vandalism (compare here)? I get the point that mentioning random tenants at diffent census records is considered irrelevant but just deleting all information on the origins of the property, cadastral numbers (the building's only address until 1859), information on notable previous owners based on other sources, notable former residents based on other sources, map details, images...everything? Does such an approach really leav e it as a better article?Ramblersen2 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, and I don't have time to look into it. It does happen that when an article is full of cruft, the cleanup throws some good stuff out with it. What I suggest you do is use that article as a vehicle for working out with other editors what is and is not appropriate for that kind of article in general. Open a discussion on the talk page. EEng

Things like cadastral numbers are trivia though. And considering Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Ramblersen2, getting rid of most text and only adding relevant, copyvio-free text back afterwards may well be the wisest approach. Fram (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So now pretty much everything is just rejected as trivia. In spite of the fact that it is covered in secondary sources and is the sort of information that is covered in lots of published articles on individual buildings. Weather the information violates any copyrighted material should be pretty easy to determine, considering that the secondary sources are so limited.Ramblersen2 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's covered in secondary sources we can probably use it; if it's merely "the sort of thing" that's covered in secondary sources, then we probably can't use it. EEng 09:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User:EEng: But the secondary sources are there. Take Nyhavn 67 as an example: User Allan Nonymous has simply deleting the entire history section of the article on the basis that it is "fandom". This book has been published about the history of the book. And the deleted section contained a number of other secondary sources, supplemented with some primary sources used in acorance with Wikipedia's guidelines (withy care and without interpretations). And yet all coverage of the history of a historic building is rejected as "fandom"? I can see from User:Allan Nonumous' talk page that an administrator (User:Liz) has criticized him for listing way too many articles for deletion. As I see it, he is still applying his own, eclectic criteria for what to delete. An article about an individual building is am article on a quite specific subject, it will obviously only interest a very limited number of people. But I do think that the average reader of an article about a historic building will expect to find information on the history of the building. Yes the relevance of some informations can no doubt be debated. Other information could no doubt be presented in another way. And an extra source should and could no doubt be added. But simply deleting the entire section on the basis that it is "famdom" is absurd. And it makes it impossible to fix the mentioned issues in a way that improves the article.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Having only momentarily glanced at what was removed, it does seem that possibly some might be appropriately restored -- as I said already, It does happen that when an article is full of cruft, the cleanup throws some good stuff out with it. But I'm not sure what your statement that But the secondary sources are there refers to. It looks like most if not all of the removed material was sourced to this Danishfamilysearch site, and so can't be included.

Look, let me suggest this: of all these articles you're talking about, pick the one on the most famous building -- the one other editors are most likely to take at least some interest in. Then ask a few editors to join you in a discussion on that article's talk page about what does and doesn't appropriately belong in the article. (This is likely to be a lot less than you'd like, but that's the nature of the collaborative process.) Then try to apply that experience to another article, and ask one of the friendly editors from the first article to take a look.I wish I could offer to participate, but I just haven't got the time. Good luck. EEng 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:EEng: Thanks for the constructive reply and tone. It would have been a good suggestion if this discussion had come up a little (or rather a lot) earlier) but it is simply too many articles and too little that will be left (if only some new-page patrollers or page raters had raised these concerns a little earlier). So I have decided simply to quit Wikipedia. And if everything is deleted, so be it. Sorry to have wasted your time with this.Ramblersen2 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hazaras of the Turkman valley

Need some help please. there is a person on the Turkmun Hazaras tribe page keeps reverting my edits and deleting my sources essentially saying that his sources contradicts me. He says "A number of writers have dealt and considered this Hazara tribe to be of the Turkoman race or descent" and he then further says "which if you force me, I will present them to you,". I asked for these writers/sources and he refuses to show them to me or even cite them in his edit. Theres alot more to be said... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mioncraft (talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Can't Catch Me Now

Two statements I included at Can't Catch Me Now have been flagged as potential WP:NOR issues by Pbritti at its FAC. These include "Dan Nigro returned as her principal collaborator on the follow-up album, Guts (2023)" (cited to Billboard, USA Today, Variety; Nigro produced and co-wrote every single track on the album) and "The album was released to critical acclaim in September 2023" (currently cited to BBC News; can potentially be cited to Metacritic, where it is designated with "universal acclaim"). From my understanding, Pbritti interprets the sentence "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" to mean that a source used to include details in the Background section must have been published after the song "Can't Catch Me Now" was released and include a mention of it too. Would appreciate uninvolved opinions on this. Thank you.--NØ 13:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Unmentioned above is that there appears to be little basis for the inclusion of multiple sentences cited solely to sources well pre-dating the release of the song the article is about. If reliable sources do not find a need to draw certain connections, then those connections are necessarily original to the editor who adds them to Wikipedia. Particularly objectionable is the mention of "critical acclaim" about a previous album, sourced not to anything about the article's subject. The FAC in question is a strong candidate, but I do not see why a this kind of article can dispense with policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pbritti, I have changed the referencing for Guts being critically acclaimed to this source and this source, which state "The new track from Rodrigo comes just two months after the release of her critically acclaimed second studio album, 'Guts'", and added this source which begins by talking about Can't Catch Me Now for the statement that Nigro was the main collaborator on Guts, which also states "Rodrigo and her co-writer and producer Dan Nigro assembled 'Guts' as the follow-up to Rodrigo's Grammy-winning 2021 debut, 'Sour'". Happy with this as a compromise. Let me know if this resolves your issues.--NØ 17:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: On the move at the moment but, AGFing that these sources are as described, this would be more than acceptable solution to my concerns. I'm deeply appreciative that you took that step and look forward to seeing your hard work receive a much-deserve promotion at FAC. Thank you for your diligence, cooperativeness, and communication and apologies for any ire my concerns caused, especially since they appear poorly communicated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Until such time that you have gone through the sources and revised the comments at the FAC accordingly, it is best we keep seeking third party opinions. We still need clarity on the general policy interpretation since your interpretation of it is inconsistent with what I have seen enforced at FAC. I can't say I agree with the original criticisms just because it was possible to find replacements here.--NØ 04:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the number of times a Court Decision has been cited an original research?

I am working on an article about a SCOTUS decision. And to emphasize its notability, I checked GoogleScholar and found, that it was cited 2377 times as of today. Is the "2377" original research or not? There is no other way to provide a reference for such infor, if you want recent data. Here is the article draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georgia-Pacific_Corp._v._United_States_Plywood_Corp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Scholar doesn't always have an accurate number for citation count, at least for academic citations (I doubt for law too). [Edit: thus it would not be intrinsically verifiable and thus it's OR.] But more to the point, let's say you put the citation count in the article text. Is 2377 a lot? A lot for a scotus decision? A lot for a modern scotus decision? Any way you cut it, to give any reader some comprehension (who is not a legal scholar themselves), you'd need a secondary source to contextualize such a number.

It reminds me of a joke I think from a Kip Thorne book. Carl Sagan was famous for saying "billions and billions" when communicating so-called "astronomical numbers" (but it of course never mattered what precisely the number actually was). But since then, citing the trillions of the US GDP, trade deficit, and debt in the news, Thorne(?) suggests instead calling them "economic numbers". The point is no matter what the number or the name, it's meaningless in communication. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If you say that a case has been cited numerous times, it is an implicit statement about its significance, which is OR. You should use a source that explains its significance.

Also, it isn't meaningful information that a case has been frequently cited unless you mention what aspect of the case was cited. Often what lawyers find interesting about a case may be something minor, sometimes even dicta. TFD (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I forgot to mention (and this is clearly stated in my draft here):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georgia-Pacific_Corp._v._United_States_Plywood_Corp. "According to Google Scholar on 2024-10-14, [3] [original research?] this decisions has been cited 2377 times, making it THE MOST CITED DECISION OF THE USFEDERAL COURTS IN 1971.[4]" [4] Slottje, Daniel (25 October 2006). Economic Damages in Intellectual Property: A Hands-On Guide to Litigation. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-05625-7. I am citing a book from 2006 that explicitly states, that it was the most cited decision of US Federal courts in 1971. AND then, I add updated citation count from Google Scholar today. (I can check how this number compares with all other cases from 2006 -but then I will get really worried about OR. It seems to me, that citing a 2006 book, which explicitly states, that is was highest cited decision of 1971 proves the notability of this case. (The question of notability for a wiki-article is the reason I decided to research the number of citations). If this is not the right way to prove notability, than what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 11:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The same thing that demonstrates notability of anything. Have multiple reliable and independent sources written about the subject in reasonable depth? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If you say "it has a citation count of 2377 on Google Scholar as of October 2024" instead of that it has been cited 2377 times, then that'd be accurate and imo not OR. You need to lead with Slottje, not Google -- Slottje is your sole source for the case being well-cited, while the Google count is just a bit of flavor sprinkles (and should probably be in a footnote and definitely not in the lede prose).

To add to and amend my previous reply, GS has stability in indexing its citation counts I think (it's search results that are unstable). At issue is that GS indexes across all subjects, so it includes counts of, say, non-legal history or sociology papers that may cite the case. LawCite also provides a citation index for 318 FSupp 1116, but it's not a complete count (I believe the stars go up to three). The place I can think to get a complete law-only citation count would be Lexis Nexis or Westlaw, the former which you can access at some libraries. Regardless, it's not necessary or usually even useful information for article prose, per my previous reply. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As a note when including the Slottje details, it should include the date if that publication, eg "As if 2006, this case was the mist-cited in other US legal cases" Masem (t) 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If Slottje is saying it's the most cited case of 1971, then it would take a significant change in existing law or historical scholarship for that fact to change going forward, and anyone can check the date of publication by the source. The "as of" is only necessary for a rapidly-changing fact, such the raw number of citations this month. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually necessary in all cases. Article text should be as accurate a thousand years from now as today, so if something could conceivably change, it needs an "as of", whether such a change is likely or not. That also provides a temporal context. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Under no circumstances should Google hits or citation counts be used in articles, period. Same goes for WestLaw or whatever. There are too many uncertainties and provisos to what the results mean. This is a superb example of why secondary sources are used instead -- a scholarly paper on the influence of this case will know how to use tools in an expert manner to give meaningful numerical results, if such results are appropriate. EEng 07:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly this. Is Foo v. Bar showing a citation count of 2000 significant? I'd have no idea. Is that more impressive for a newer case than an older one? Probably, but how much so and over what time frame? A legal scholar will be able to actually interpret and contextualize that number, and say "Yeah, that's really a lot" or "That's not all that impressive" or "That number is rather artificially inflated." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. May we get back now to my original question: what is the most appropriate way to show a notability of court case? I proposed to show

1) how the case is ranked in terms of the number of citations it received among all other cases that year at the appropriate level (Federal or State). 2) someone objected to it, because the ranking may depend on the database used (which should NOT be true, because this a finite and well-know number of court cases in the US for each year - unlike the number of citations a journal article receives). 3) the fact, that the case is cited in a textbook does not mean much. This is because unlike the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Men change often. Even, if an old book mentions Baker v. Nelson as highly cited, it is not a good law today. 4) I feel, that Wikipedia must have an explicit policy on case law notability. If such policy does not exist today, should we make it?

The most appropriate way to show the notability of court cases is the same as the appropriate way to show the notability of anything, and already exists. Have reliable and independent sources extensively noted it, by writing a good deal about it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If Slottje says it's the most cited law of 1971, then that's the appropriate way to show notability in the lede, as you have done. As I said before, the inclusion of a Google Scholar count in that sentence is unnecessary (and definitely problematic especially to be in the lede).

All that said, I don't see in Slottje where it says that Georgia-Pacific is the most-cited case of 1971, so you have to provide a page number. It does say on p.4 that it is among "several of the most significant cases [in IP law on economic damages]", and a significant part of the book is about applying "Georgia-Pacific analysis" in legal practice.

Imo if a single other source confirms that "Georgia-Pacific analysis" is an existing term of art in law, then the article clears notability by a mile. Citation counts mean nothing by comparison. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, if the point is 'it's influential' number of cites does not even do it for most readers, it sounds rather like trivia -- go to where you always have to go for 'it's influential' or even 'number of cites matters', a scholar who writes those things, don't try to put that together yourself with data (that is original research). (besides which, the OP has an error as to time in the way they have tried to jam those two things together) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

1600m and 3200m equivalent times

Hello. On the articles on the 1600 meter and 3200 meter track events, I added an equivalent world bests section which converted the world record indoor and outdoor mile or two mile times to a 1600m or 3200m equivalent time (also adding these to the list of world records in athletics section). Does this count as Original Research? I used the MileSplit Conversion Calculator that gave equivalent times, which is cited for its ease of use and accuracy.

To clarify, these are equivalent times, not necessarily the actual split the athlete came through at for 1600m or 3200m en route to 1 mile or 2 miles (though given the distances are nearly the same the times wouldn't be too different). Bringing up this point, if I were to go back into the video of a mile or two mile world record race and estimate what the athlete split at 1600m or 3200m based on the clock, would that count as OR? Better yet, what if I went into the official splits section of a world record run to pull the 1600m or 3200m split? Is that original research?

I feel like this is a gray area as times are technically calculations. Please advise. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How would the equivalent be calculated? Did you just adjust the distance (1 mile = 1609 meters)? That does not work!

A track time is always significantly faster. A rubberized track has energy-restorative properties (think like a spring) and water drainage, optimized for track running shoes, while road or turf have none of that.

(This is also why track times from the 1930s, on crushed cinders, were so much slower btw -- one can do a comparative adjustment by taking modern runner's times on tracks versus other surfaces and finding a functional distribution, and they did that with like the 1930s Olympic runners, demonstrating that say Jesse Owens would likely still be an Olympic-level runner today -- that's the difference of modern tracks. If you find such an adjustment function online, you may or may not get away with applying it (editors will probably consider that WP:Synth), but at least you can link it). SamuelRiv (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @SamuelRiv. I appreciate the input, but you misunderstood my post. What I mean by equivalent is that, upon plugging in the mile or two mile world record time, the milesplit calculator took the average speed of the mile or two mile world record and then converted what the equivalent time at that pace would be for the shorter distance, with 1600m being 9.344m short of 1 mile, and 3200m being 18.688m short of 2 miles. Therefore, it is an equivalent world best and the equivalent time would be similar to the actual time given 1600m and 3200m are not far from 1 mile or 2 miles respectively. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

When I say equivalent I do not mean, for instance, what Hicham El Guerrouj's mile world record would be today on modern tracks in modern spikes. In this example, I am referring to what Hicham El Guerrouj's equivalent time would be when he comes through the 1600m mark at his mile world record tempo (3:41.84 thru 1600m, 3:43.13 for mile). The equivalent and actual time will be within several tenths of a second of each other given the 9.344m difference. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You can give a distance adjustment maybe in a table, for purposes of sorting, but where it's in prose in that separate section it's just misleading. (While I'd say a 1-mile-to-1600m adjustment is perfectly defensible on a table with both on a standard track, the calculator becomes patently ridiculous when it has distance-adjusted times for the indoor short tracks.) The correct way to do it in prose, if you have the source, is as it is said for Webb: Webb was timed in 3:51.83 for 1600m (en route to the high school mile record in 3:53.43). 1500m-to-1600m btw also cannot be adjusted in this way, and would require a statistical table for conversion. (Again, if you can find such a good proper calculator, then you can try linking it.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you have high school records, I'm not sure why you wouldn't include indoor and cross-country records. They're slower, but that's because they're different races. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Tic Tac Toe Variant Ideas

Hi! I've been getting into Tic-tac-toe variants and testing them out with friends. Most of them are interesting, and we've refined them to be more complex, fair, and fun! An example of a small modification is Tilt-Tac-Toe, which is played like a game of Ultimate tic-tac-toe, except the center game is rotated 45 degrees. This means that, for example, playing in the top corner of the center game will send the other player to the top edge game. Center corners are more powerful as a result! This can also be combined with ulimate^2 TTT, also known as ultimate TTT level 3, for even more craziness! Another more complicated variant is Trifect Tac Toe, played with 3 people on a 5x5 board. The concept is that each symbol counts as the next in a cycle, allowing one player to incorporate another's into their 5 in a row. (for example, if the cycle was O->X->S->O, OOXOX would be a win for X). I would like to share these variants on Wikipedia, but they don't have sources. And as a high school student, I can't make anything more than a blog post. Can these types of unopinionated original creative ideas be added? Primius Maximus (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your original research, which this clearly would be. Remsense ‥ 论 21:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the Tic-tac-toe variant page not supposed to display a list of variant ideas? I, again, created a few entirely on my own that aren't found anywhere else (that I know of). If Wikipedia is not the place, what is? Primius Maximus (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, which roughly means that we present topics in a way that reflects how they are discussed in existing reliable sources. Actually, if you would like to create an educational resource discussing and exploring this subject, I recommend our sister project Wikiversity! Remsense ‥ 论 22:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Marco Polo and family origin

Information from the article: "Marco Polo was born around 1254 in Venice, but the exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown."[4]

Part of the source says that Polo "was born around 1254 in Venice", other part of the sources says that "exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown".

I assume that the editors combined those two groups of sources and and put informations into one sentence, however in my opinion this is where the synthesis and OR took place. Given that not all sources ie probably none say what the quote from the article says(full context). Some say that Polo was born in Venice, others say that his place of birth is archivally unknown. This wording from the article (given that the context of the birth in Venice is presented as a fact) can also mean that Polo was born in Venice but the exact place (part of the city, suburb, street, etc) is not known archivally.

To avoid the OR context and synthesis and ultimately to respect the sources, I suggest that formulation of the second part of the sentence be like this: "however, there is no archival material which would prove that Polo was born in Venice". I would love to hear your opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that such emphasis would be inappropriate WP:DOUBT and appropriate attribution would be to follow the last paragraph of that subsection ("general consensus") and not give equal validity to options that, as far as I'm aware, have not gained acceptance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Try to explain a little more clearly because I didn't understand you. Some authors claim that Polo was born in Venice, others that it is not known from the archives where he was born. Otherwise, it is primarily historical information used by some historians. According to you it shouldn't be in the article ie this information? Mikola22 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to phrase the second sentence in a manner that casts doubt on the first unless the source used explicitly does so, and it should be appropriately attributed to indicate the relative prominence of that doubt. If you want to state obliquely that the subject might not be born in Venice, find a secondary source that says that as well as how common that view is. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You can see from the article that there are several sources that talk about Korcula ie Dalmatia as the place of birth. However, this is about the fact that there are no archival sources that say where he was born, and this is stated by a couple of sources. Someone put that information in the context of first part of the sentence and his birth in Venice. All together it should be synthesis and OR.

The problem is if it is all together in the context, it is not clear which place is not archivally established, birthplace in Venice, part of Venice, etc. If it cannot be written more clearly, then the two pieces of information should be written separately.

1. "Marco Polo was born around 1254 in Venice". 2."Exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown, according to some sources it could be Dalmatia, according to others could be Korcula or neither Korcula nor Venice."

This is what can be confirmed from the sources and in such formulation is not a synthesis or OR. Mikola22 (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

SEGM and conversion therapy

There is currently an ongoing dispute at Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Arbitrary break (Conversion therapy) concerning the source linking SEGM and promotion of conversion therapy. The quote from the relevant source is as follows:

Dr. Malone and fellow SEGM member Dr. Colin Wright have asserted, “Counseling can help gender dysphoric adolescents resolve any trauma or thought processes that have caused them to desire an opposite sexed body.” In my opinion, these statements are transphobic and reductive and favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth. [... rest of the quote is MEDORG notes]

It is asserted that the entire source, post In my opinion, should be excluded as WP:RSOPINION, and that it is WP:SYNTH to consider the quote from Malone and Wright as verifying favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth as a factual statement. Editors are invited to join the discussion on the article talk page. I have also posted this at WP:NPOVN#SEGM and conversion therapy since both noticeboards seem relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I will note here as well that the quote as presented in this source removes the opening proviso "But in most cases", which changes the tone somewhat.

Also, I think you are not accurately describing my objection to the subsequent MEDORG statements. It is not an arbitrary claim that "everything after the opinion is opinion". The issue is that what relates the subsequent statements to the quote is a statement of opinion. The form is (paraphrasing):

• Here's a quote
• In my opinion it is conversion therapy
• Here's information about conversion therapy

The MEDORG information is all totally factual - but the basis for presenting the two alongside each other as if they are related is opinion. That added, I welcome some outside input.

Void if removed (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

List of wars involving Gujarat

• List of wars involving Gujarat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The creator, User:JingJongPascal created an originally researched list of supposed wars, inventing the names of supposed wars, and supplying broken citations by copying them from other articles obviously (sfn without the full citation). When asked to identify the source and to quote the part of the source which discusses the ostensible thing which they named "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War", they said: there is nothing like that in book. They previously explained that they invented the names of the wars. They then clarified that I should refer to Wikipedia content at Karna I#Other campaigns, which they've linked from "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War", to see how whoever edited that article described the event. I was able to connect a paragraph from that section with the purported "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War", based on JingJongPascal's provided "R. B. Singh (1964). History of the Chāhamānas p.125"; the last section has this citation.

The section is as follows:

Two relatively late texts suggest that Karna was defeated by the Chahamana king Durlabharaja III. The 14th century text Prabandha Kosha claims that Durlabha defeated the Gurjara king, brought him to the Chahamana capital Ajmer in chains and forced him to sell yogurt in a market. The 15th century Hammira Mahakavya claims that Karna was killed in a battle against Durlabha. However, this claim is historically inaccurate: Durlabha died around 1070 CE, while Karna lived until 1092 CE. Moreover, the earlier Chahamana records (such as Prithviraja Vijaya) do not mention any such conflict. It is possible that Durlabha achieved a minor military success against Karna, which was magnified into a major victory by the later panegyrists.

There is more on User talk:JingJongPascal#List of wars involving Gujarat.

There is no such thing as the "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War".

The entire list is like this.

References

—Alalch E. 14:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Other "List of wars involving X" pages created by this user are:

• List of wars involving Magadha (contested WP:BLAR; the page is a copy of List of wars involving India)
• List of wars involving the Indian Subcontinent (WP:BLARed as a POV fork by User:NXcrypto)
• List of wars involving India (disambiguation)
• Draft:List of wars involving Hindustan
• Draft:List of wars involving Kerala
• Draft:List of battles involving major India
• Draft:List of wars involving Subash Bose
• Draft:List of wars involving Southern India
• Draft:List of wars involving Jerusalem

—Alalch E. 14:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

So what I am supposed to do? Leave it as blank?

I am following common naming conventions

As seen in Maratha-Rajput Wars

Mughal-Rajput Wars , etc.... JingJongPascal (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ajmer (Chamamans) is an rajput clan (for context) JingJongPascal (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

the book and sources simply lay out the belligerents of the war and how it happened they don't mention its name.

So I am supposed to leave it blank? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is what you are supposed to do: You are supposed to fundamentally and comprehensively change your approach to editing. You need to understand that what you have been doing is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and that it can not continue. The pages you have been creating are terrible. —Alalch E. 14:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me hours I have spend on creating articles which are terrible. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

okay then why don't you tell me what am I supposed to be naming those conflicts ? I have to leave them blank ? Is that what you want? JingJongPascal (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You've already asked that question. Do you think that asking it again makes everything okay and magically makes your original research into valid content? —Alalch E. 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Readers don't come to Wikipedia for your personal survey of history. Presenting them with that instead of relating what reliable sources say is a disservice to readers and is a timesink for other editors. Like Alalch said, you need to fundamentally change your process, working from what sources say only and not adding your own analysis or commentary, or inventing your own names for things. Remsense ‥ 论 22:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Then tell me what the hell I am supposed to name them? JingJongPascal (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered that if a conflict doesn't have a name, it may not be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic list of conflicts? Remsense ‥ 论 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

this kingdom isn't very well known, it has only two or three well detailed books , the names of the wars are given in books but in descriptive sense like "Xyz Emperor war against Xyz kingdom"

None of these wars have actual name, I am using basic naming convention

If you found a war between Gupta Empire and Bengal Empire

What would you name it? Obviously Gupta-Bengal War JingJongPascal (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have spent hours on this list.. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We reflect what reliable sources say; we're not a publishing house for original research. You are not entitled to host your original research here because you spent a lot of time on it, unfortunately. It would have been better if you became aware of this issue sooner. Remsense ‥ 论 12:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will fix them, but I will take some time JingJongPascal (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what other editors have already said what you're doing is original research. You content may be better suited to one of the military wiki's on fandom that don't have Wikipedia's policies on such content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Also list of wars involving Magadha is not a copy. I am the one who made it in List of wars involving India aswell as that article. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Prostitution statistics by country

The article Prostitution statistics by country seems like a mess of OR. It's inconsistent in what metrics are used, population percentages aren't consistently calculated from the same year as the data, and it compares these separate measurements for some countries against each other. Could use a look from editors familiar with statistics type content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the chart as currently constructed is an OR mess. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Titius-Bode Law

Titius–Bode law contains a lot of discussion on the provenance of one of the cited sources (a 1913 article by Mary Adela Blagg), and devotes a portion of the article to suggest, citing only the Blagg source itself, that the article in the ADS and journal archives is a forgery. It seems to use the information contained in the source, but not in a way the source directly supports. Of course, there's always the possibility that it really is a forgery, though if that's the case I'd personally prefer that statement to come from a source that isn't the 'forgery' itself. Regardless, I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know what parts of the discussion of the Blagg paper or the article subject itself should be removed, so I'm wary of messing with the article too much (some parts of the article appear to genuinely discuss the content of the source as intended, but I'm not sure where that starts and ends in the article structure - the forgery suggestions seem mixed in pretty deeply to me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by InkTide (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I just reverted to the 2024-07-18 page revision, which seems to be clean. Also left a note on the talk page. Arcorann (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

"without any clear relationship"

The source (Braune 2019) is cited in the following sentence:

However, since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory popular among the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis. [emphasis added]

We are currently divided on whether the bolded part constitutes a synthy use of the source. Could editors please take a look and report either here or, preferably, on the Marxist Cultural Analysis talk page, where we have an ongoing discussion? 87.116.182.140 (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Tale_of_the_Doomed_Prince

Most everything written here is original research. The citations are not to experts in ancient Egyptian literature making the claims, but to wholly new claims. It seems that the material dates all the way back to 2008 with the article's inception. A rewrite and better sources is sorely needed, as well as the removal of just a "list" of motifs, the likes of which do not appear in other well-written articles on literature. Chris Weimer (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH: Baalbek

Is this sentence in Baalbek SYNTH?

"Baalbek is a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, and its tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon, particularly the 1975–1990 civil war, the ongoing Syrian civil war since 2011, and the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)."

Three people think it's not. Two people (including me) think it is. Arguments are in here: Talk:Baalbek#Requesting_explanation_for_revert. FunLater (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A similar issue previously came up at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#Are these reliable sources for Baalbek -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If I understand this issue correctly, no one disputes these three items: (1) Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold; (2) the tourism industry has had struggles and challenges; (3) RS attribute the tourism industry's struggles and challenges to military conflicts that have occurred. The dispute is over whether in the absence of an RS that explicitly ties the fact that Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold to the military conflicts that are one source of problems for the tourism industry, it is SYNTH to tie the Hezbollah-strongholdiness of Baalbek to the tourism problems. If I got all that right, I agree that it is SYNTH. Novellasyes (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like the sentence just needs to be split in two. Add a full stop after the part saying it has been a Hezbollah strong hold, that could use some additional details anyway as the sources for that go back decades and aren't just related to current events. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris's tenure as Attorney General of California

Before there’s any chapter, the first paragraphs in the article show no reference. Hadjnix 07:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead of an article are meant to summarise the rest of the content, so it's not necessary to have to references in the lead. Instead those details should have references found in the main body of the article, which the lead is then summarising.

Leads sometimes have references, usually if a particular detail is controversial, but that's not the norm. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Absentee ballot postage and voter suppression

The question is, if a source takes the position that having to pay postage when returning a ballot is a constructive poll tax, is this a sufficient basis for claiming that this is a form of voter suppression?

To be clear, there is no claim that every form of voter suppression is illegal, just that there is no "line to draw" as to what constitutes voter suppression and that anything which has a tendency to discourage voting, by definition, constitutes voter suppression to a greater or lesser degree.

Here's the pertinent part of the original discussion from Talk:Voter suppression in the United States#Reconsidering the gist of this article:

I understand from what you are saying here that you do not believe that it is WP:OR to decide that the meaning of the term "voter suppression" is self-evident and does not require further definition. I do believe that it is WP:OR but of course I could be wrong.

The specific ask is presumably that there must be a source which explicitly states that having to put postage on the return envelope may discourage some people from voting (i.e. that this would in fact constitute voter suppression), while my contention would be that this is implicit, particularly when there is no assertion of any countervailing benefit, e.g. in terms of reducing voter fraud. Fabrickator (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• The term “Original Research”, as used on Wikipedia, refers to statements, arguments or conclusions not directly stated in any external source (but instead originating on Wikipedia). So, the question here is very simple: is the conclusion that postage constitutes voter suppression found in a source? If so, then it is not OR … if not, then it is OR. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Flat-out OR. EEng 19:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Blueboar and EEng: What about a source stating that the postage requirement imposes a "burden on the right to vote"? Does that also fail to support the claim of "voter suppression"? Fabrickator (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I think ballot envelopes should be postage-prepaid, because who the hell has stamps around the house anymore? But it's not for us to make the jump from "burden" to "suppression". I think you'll find the examples at WP:SYNTH on point. EEng 21:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  If the source says “burden” we should say “burden”.

  Indeed, I would say that “burden” is actually a stronger word, since rain on Election Day can “suppress” the vote. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)