Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Delmonico's restaurant

A dispute exists regarding the following text:

It is not uncommon for profiles in media reports to confuse the present incarnation [of Delmonico's] for the original; for instance Time Out New York magazine erroneously reported that it opened in 1831, and ABC News reported that Lobster a la Newberg was invented at the South Williams location when it fact it was invented uptown.

It is agreed that the facts cited are indeed wrong. The disagreement centers around whether citing them as such to substantiate the claim that "it is not uncommon for profiles in media reports to confuse the present incarnation [of Delmonico's] for the original" constitutes synthesis/original research. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm the other party in this dispute (over on the talk page), and basically what I was saying is that it's synthesis to source the reviews and draw a conclusion about them that's not directly stated. To come to the conclusion stated in the quotation, a reliable source that says something to the effect of "reviews made by Time Out and ABC News are inaccurate." A third opinion was given in this case and agreed that it was synthesis. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and my contention is that for a synthesis to exist, under the guidelines it must be shown that the author is attempting to "advance a position" that might reasonably be contested by others, which is not the case here. It entirely permissible to make an observation about the material cited that is uncontroversial and verifiably true.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding to a note by the other party in WikiProject Food and Drink: While Sylvain1972 is correct, and could probably say that about a lot of other revived restaurants, I think policy plainly requires that a reliable source make this statement and not a Wikipedia editor. The "position" he/she is advancing is that reviewers often are wrong on a key fact concerning this restaurant. That is undoubtedly true, but the policy does not say "advance a wrong position." Truth and falsity are frequently in dispute. I think it is an open-and-shut case of synthesis. I've removed the passage, but request that other editors keep an eye on this article and this passage. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Truth and falsity are not in dispute here at all, synthesis is. If a X magazine states, "Michael Jackson was born in 1960," it is perfectly permissible for a wikipedia article to say "X magazine erroneously reported Michael Jackson was born in 1960." The editor does not need to get a third source to state that. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. From WP:SYN:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

What you're doing in the text is essentially stating that (A), "Delmonico's opened in 1827", (B), "Time Out says Delmonico's opened in 1831," and therefore (C), "Time Out is wrong." And you can't do that without a third source to state C. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to include a statement saying that "X is incorrect" in an article, you do need a source for that statement. Otherwise, how do we know that X magazine is incorrect? The only way to demonstrate that fact is to provide a source for it.

Now, if we are talking about talk page discussions, we are allowed to venture into OR (within reason). If we are discussing a source on the talk page, we can say things like: "no, no, no... Source X is wrong... look at what sources Y and Z say... they have it right". Then we can try to determine how to account for the discrepancy in the article.

When sources disagree, we have several options... In most cases, the best is to mention what both say, per WP:NPOV, by saying something like: "According to X, Delmonico's first opened in 1827, while according to Y it opened in 1831. " Another option (assuming there is clear consensus that one source definitely is incorrect, and everyone on the talk page agrees) is to simply ignore the incorrect source, and rely on what all the other sources say. But what we should never do is say "X is incorrect" unless we have a source that specifically points out this fact about X. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, there are sources in the article confirming that X is incorrect. No one is disputing that X is incorrect.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "confirming that X is incorrect"? Do they actually say "X is incorrect"? If so then it is ok for us to say so. If they simply give a different date, then it is ok for us to assume that X is incorrect on the talk page, but it is not ok for us to explicitly say so in the article (as saying so would insert our own analysis into the article).

It sounds like you are dealing with a reliability issue and not a NOR issue. If it is clear that one source contains an error, such as disagreeing with all others as to something like a date, it is ok to simply assume that there is a typo in the odd man out. We can reach a consensus and determine that the odd man out is unreliable on this one date (it can still be reliable for other information). For the date, we can rely on the other sources and simply ignore the source with the erronious date. There is no need to explicitly point out the error in the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think that pointing out the error in the article would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As the first outside observer who commented that this is a synthesis and should not be included, I also agree with the independent commentators here. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the two supposedly "independent" commentators to which you refer indicates that he was recruited to join the discussion in WikiProject Food and Drink, but nonetheless I consider the matter closed for the time being.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I responded to a neutral posting requesting participation in the discussion. I had never edited that article before. To imply that I was not independent is not warranted. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheeseburger

The cheese in a cheeseburger substantially changes its nutritional value. For example, in comparison to their standard hamburger, which only differs by the slice of cheese, a McDonald's cheeseburger has 20% more calories, 33% more fat and 25% more protein. Other types of cheese would have varying effects, depending on their nutritional content.

This paragraph is from the lead of the cheeseburger article. I removed this passage as I believe it to be a violation of WP:Synth because it takes facts about a McDonald's cheeseburger and hamburger and makes a comparative analysis of the nutritional makeup of the two, which I contend is synthesized original research.

NJGW contends that is simple calculations and thus is exempt from the original research guidelines.

I would like some comments from independent contributors on the matter. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also consider it OR. The source cited does not state that all differences in figures between the two are due to the cheese - as per the notes at the end of the document, "Variation in serving sizes, preparation techniques, product testing and sources of supply, as well as regional and seasonal differences may affect the nutrition values for each product. In addition, product formulations change periodically." IMHO, editors need to be very careful of 'differencing' calculations; they can vastly increase relative errors.

There are also issues of rounding/false precision. For instance, representing 12/9 as "33%" implies a precision of one part in a hundred, which is far beyond what the data supports.

Here's another 'simple calculation': the entry for the hamburger has 2 grams of fiber equalling 6% of daily requirements, and the cheeseburger has 2 grams equalling 7% of daily requirements... from that we can conclude that 0 grams of fiber equal 1% of daily requirements. --GenericBob (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sources to nutritional data of American cheese and a plain hamburger, removing all connection to McD's and their nutritional mistakes. This should also eliminate any questions about differences in preparation. A + B = C ... B / A = %-increase. NJGW (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it once again, as the new paragraph is still SYN, in that it is your personal math regarding the available variables. Unless you can cite a reliable source for that, it will not be included.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion. Instead of reverting me, please address the problems here and wait for people to respond before continuing further.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact is you're still doing original research by doing your own math from material you have read, instead of a published source that cites it directly. We are not publishers of original thought.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For any who care, below is the new paragraph:

The cheese in a cheeseburger substantially changes its nutritional value. For example, an ounce of low cholesterol American cheese will add to large prepared hamburger almost 25% more calories, about 45% more fat and over 25% more protein. Other types of cheese would have varying effects, depending on their nutritional content.

As far as I can see, it still presents problems of OR/SYN. Please discuss.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of striking through Daedalus969's comments given the following reply on my talk page after I asked for clarification: "I've reverted my own edits to CB. Surely that is enough to figure out, I'm busy irl, so I'm not going to be able to explain further, you should be able to figure it out for yourself." NJGW (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It'd be ideal to find a secondary source that discusses this directly, but the math is so simple and the conclusion so straightforward that I don't think this is a violation.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This version is a lot better - providing a source specifically for cheese fixes the differencing problem. I've taken the liberty of rounding those numbers a bit to avoid implying excessive precision; with that change, it looks reasonable to me. --GenericBob (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree that the new version still presents a synthesis/OR problem. Surely a reliable source can be found on the shift in nutritional characteristics after tossing on a piece of cheese. This is not a massive issue, for the math is clear, but still, it seems a bit prominent in a rather brief article and it would be best for Sanjay Gupta or someone like that to make the point.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty in SYN with Weird Al song and its implied location

For Weird Al's lastest song, "Skipper Dan" (which is currently listed at Internet Leaks in lieu of a full article due to lack of coverage), there's an issue in OR-ish nature. The song's lyrics, which tell of a man in charge of a jungle cruise ride, do not cite the location, though it mentions "Adventureland" and uses direct quotes from Disneyland's Jungle Cruise. The associated video for the song asserts this further; the person is seen living near the HOllywood sign, and guests on the ride are clearly wearing mouse ears, though again, no specific mention of Disneyland is named. I believe that presuming that the ride is the Jungle Cruise line at Disneyland is original research barring any source that suggests it is only that, as because plenty of other theme parks have similar rides, and such we cannot eliminate all others by process of elimination. Others suggest it's the case that it's the only obvious solution given all of the above. Now, I've been watching for sources, and plenty of blogs and sites dedicated to Disneyland state this, and certainly if a reliable source states this, then, no further questions, but until then, this is the type of SYN that we need to avoid, I believe. (It may be that I've never been to Disneyland and thus the "this is exactly how it happens" approach others suggest doesn't ring any bells with me, but I think that's a stronger point that it's not patently obvious and thus SYN.)--MASEM (t) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sources are appearing – [1][2] – but well done for waiting for them. ;) JN466 15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles Fields of science and Science and the Bible

Fields of science looks like entirely OR. Everything under the sun seems to be a field of science. And now it's being use to structure Science and the Bible, which although it has references still has a lot of OR. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you give us some examples of the problem... at a quick glance Fields of science looks ok to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's unsourced, looks like a list drawn up by a committee. The link at the bottom just goes to a UK codification of all subjects. Will our readers really consider law to be a science? Why are military history and economic history sciences, but not history? And if it is then used in articles such as 'Science and the Bible', we end up with everything but the kitchen sink, whereas I think our readers will expect such articles to relate to what are called the natural sciences. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I do think you have a point here... In fact, now that I look deeper, I have a problem with the what is included and excluded in the entire Social Sciences section... why isn't History listed (it is noramlly considered a "Social Science")? As for Military Science, what about Ballistics (which invloves the application of physics and mathematics)?

I think part of the problem is that there was a trend (common in the 1960 and 70s) to reclassify what used to be called "Humanities" and "Liberal Arts" as a science... you had every accademic department wanting to rename themselves with the word "Science" in their name... the Theater Arts dept suddenly wanted to be called "Theatrical Sciences" and the History dept wanted to be dubbed of "Social Sciences"... I suspect the trend had something to do with where the grant money was directed. This trend was reflected at the Grade school and High school level... where subjects underwent a name change as well... History class became "Social Studies", while English class became "Language Studies".

In any case, you are right... that list needs a clear criteria for inclusion... and that criteria needs to be based on a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could take a look at Science and the Bible I'd appreciate it - it's changed quite a bit recently thanks to one editor. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Lead may or may not be OR. I couldn't determine whether it was OR because it is not clear what the "sourced" statements were saying. It thus wasn't clear whether the sources being cited are all talking about the same thing. If they aren't all discussing the same thing, then the statements for which they are being cited are OR.

2. Content is completely OR. The only source that addresses the topic/theme and is being used properly is Gould, but which only appears in the lead. The only other potentially-valid source at all is Schroeder, but that is being misused to regurgitate an argument rather than being summarized for its conclusions. The rest of the ostensibly sourced statements are all off-topic, and hence OR.

It would seem that the editors have not understood that they are not supposed to do any arguing. They need to be told that they are not to write essays. They need to learn to regurgitate sources that have already covered the topic. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible synthesis in Sam Fuld

Question here is whether his religion is adequately sourced or is synthesis, with regard to the three sources given as sources in the second paragraph of the article, where he is referred to as "Jewish" and cites three sources. None of the three sources explicitly state his religion, and that is contradicted by a Q&A with Fuld cited in the "Personal" section, which more accurately refers to him as "half-Jewish." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Research Question at Criticisms of CAIR

Admin User:Athaenara suggested I post an inquiry here:

There has been an on-going content dispute at Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations over original research, BLP violations, plagiarism, and other issues.

However, my issue revolves around original research.

User:PelleSmith reverted an edit I made claiming it was original research. User:PelleSmith and User:Commodore Sloat have been edit-warring out all my additions following a failed AFD started by Pelle.

Here is a link to the beginning dispute: Identified plagiarism.. The paragraph crafted by Pelle and Sloat was practically copy and paste from the original source. I rewrote the paragraph to better represent the source, while paraphrasing and attributing quotes accurately. Then I added a corroborating source from the SFgate to affirm what is being said. I also copy edited because the original draft linked the same source 2 or 3 times. Pelle's reversion also included minor grammar and syntax fixes in other paragraphs.

For comparison of the drafts, I summarized the issues and posted the paragraphs in a sandbox. Drafts can also be found in the talk discussion but they are accompanied by intense arguments and name-calling. This just seemed easier for the lazy: User:Wikifan12345/cair dispute

I tried other dispute resolutions such as collaborative discussions and 3OO, but the edit-warring continued and I probably won't edit the article again till there is a mutual understanding or admin intervention. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - As I've explained to Wikifan numerous times on the talk page, I did not intentionally revert his version of the paragraph as "original research". I am also not the author of any of the material therein. I was attempting to remove other material that does not belong in the entry because it does not present actual criticism attributed to a third party but instead piles on supposed "facts" about the organization being criticized which are meant to make the reader think critically of it or to further substantiate the criticisms of its critics. After he brought the issue of this paragraph to my attention on the talk page I reverted it to his version. Despite this good faith revert and despite my explanations he keeps on claiming falsely that this particular edit has been contested as original research. The OR issues with some of his edits are more straightforward and represent what the rest of us feel is WP:SYNTH. If you are actually interested in these please take the time and read through the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place and you claimed the entire paragraph was original research, and there is no "us." You claimed I was editing against consensus which is total bullocks. Anyways, experienced editors please review the draft and tell me if it is OR. If not, I'll restore it. I know OR when I see it and I know policy shopping when I see it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Related Question

This might be more of a WP:NOTE or WP:RS issue than a WP:NOR issue but I wonder if using primary sources of criticism is in line with our various editing policies and conventions at all, especially if the specific criticisms sourced to primary sources have not been mentioned in secondary or tertiary sources. How do we decide they are notable enough if they come from a primary source? Does the publication itself establish notability (if lets say it is an editorial in the NYT), if so what about self-published sources? One might contend that unless a critic is made notable by mention in reliable secondary or tertiary sources as a critic of ... their criticisms should not be included. Perhaps it is not enough either that the critic shares the critical perspective generally mentioned in such sources. Hundreds or thousands of people might share those perspectives, but what makes them notable? Or maybe sharing a critical perspective that is notable and publishing in a reliable venue is enough? I think problems arise relating to "criticism" sections and articles because we do not have policies that are clear enough dealing directly with criticism. Instead we rely on related policies like WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc. I do note that we have an essay on the topic, WP:CRIT. Please move this to a more appropriate space if it does not belong here.PelleSmith (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The concerns mentioned in the above question have not been raised at the entry at all. At no time has primary sourced criticism been removed as not notable or as any other violation. I am however wondering if it should in this and related entries/sections.PelleSmith (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing to post policies doesn't mean anything. An admin suggested I post this here so no nothing should be removed. You claimed the paragraph was original research several times, and we'll see if it is. If not, I'll restore the edit because it is far superior to your copy/paste/poorly sourced/practically plagiarized paragraph. All these questions mean you clearly have no understanding how policy works and should therefor not be including rules in your summary rationale. As I've said before, practice somewhere else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You claimed the paragraph was original research several times - Please provide diffs for this.PelleSmith (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I was clearly referring to my subsection "Related Question" only when I asked for it to be moved if it doesn't belong. I don't want to clutter this space with unrelated questions. That comment has nothing to do with your question. Calm down.PelleSmith (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: This ANI is strictly about Original Research. Pelle and the other editor stood by the claim for pages in discussion, and I told him several times I'd seek an admin if things weren't resolved. Here I am. Most of Pelle's other issues have already been talked to death in discussion, my latest post (in talk) summed things up quite nicely. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)