Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:No original research

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roscelese (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 7 October 2012 (→List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcuts
    If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.

    Additional notes:

    • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.
    • For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

    Doctor Who soundtracks

    The OR on all of them is acceptable as it helps to identify where the tracks were used.

    Could you give more detail of what the issue is. Is someone removing OR that you think is necessary for an article and why do you think that material that goes against Original Research rules should be kept? Please note that the reason needs to be a strong one because WP:OR is one of the core policies of Wikipedia.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes someone called "Etron81" is removing it and it is very necessary for all the articles "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack", "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3","Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4" and "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4: The Specials" because someone could be scouring their Doctor Who collection trying to find the pieces of music, when in fact, a non-main episode, i.e. one that it appears in, but not the one associated with it, has it in clearly enough to be heard.

    Have you tried, I don't know, talking to Etron? At all? Someguy1221 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried so just now. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI you posted your message on Etron's user page. It belongs on their talk page otherwise they might not see it. I have moved it for you. MarnetteD | Talk 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked a question at the Doctor Who Project talk page and got a response there that this was OR that needed to be removed. After I started a dissenting opinion came in so I have stopped editing to see if consensus could be reached - I was not aware of this discussion here until just now. In my opinion there is a lot of OR here - especially notes that state "variation of", "a few notes used in", etc. that are VERY subjective and should be removed if it's an obvious reuse of a cue I would have no objection to it's inclusion. I will not edit any of these articles for OR until consensus is reached here - some of my edits have been reverted by others now. Etron81 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that was me, Etron, because I very strongly believe that they are completely fine. But also, not as important but I still want to point it out, I made some of the changes that you are removing myself. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC). P.S. I have just noticed that my reverts were only on Series 5 onwards. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion this kinda of OR minutia is more fitting for the Doctor Who wiki than a more general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Perhaps we should invite some non-involved people to comment? Etron81 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am opening a request for comment so that we can get more input into this issue. On these pages, should the "episodes used in" column only list what is listed in the liner notes (or other reliable sources), or can users recognise melodies and add them? My view that it should be the former, as the latter is very subjective at time, especially as motifs can be used in multiple pieces. Etron81 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC) I think that even if a motif comes as part of two tracks (i.e. the musical sting at the beginning of "Westminster Bridge" and "All The Strange, Strange Creatures (The Trailer Music)"), both of those tracks would be counted as being used simultaneously, but maybe with a note saying, "At the same time as ...", so that a reader will know it's a part of two songs. P.S. Do leave a comment on my talk page if that makes no sense. James Morris-Wyatt (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I think that there is entirely too much trivial (and uncited) minutiae within the Doctor Who articles, from the uncited nods to prior episodes/seasons/incarnations to stuff like this. Find a source for where each piece was used - and this is important - and why it is important to an understanding of the article or subject. Not only does it have to be cited, but it needs to be referenced as to its importance within the article. We cannot use the editor's fervent belief that it is important.
    Do I think there could be an article about Doctor Who music used within the series? Maybe. Do I think every track used per episode or arc needs to be shoehorned into the article? Absolutely not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple more edits removing unsourced notes have been made by another person: [1] [2] Etron81 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    BACE2 function

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-secretase_2 currently states "The physiological function and role of BACE2 in Alzheimer's disease is unknown." might need updating there is a article at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250401.php but it is poorly written, containing: "BACE2 then cuts beta-amyloid into smaller pieces, which in turn, destroys it" but then later in the article: "...by using BACE2 to block beta-amyloid destruction." leaving the reader confused (is it destroying or blocking the destruction of beta-amyloid?).

    the articles source materiel may be more useful: http://www.molecularneurodegeneration.com/content/7/1/46/abstract the pdf has a section labeled: "BACE2 cleaves AB at 3 sites" however it also has a section labeled: "BACE2 does not degrade fibrillar AB" (isn't fibrillar the Alzheimer form?)

    should any of this be mentioned as a footnote or "additional references" in the wiki article or is it still too original or non-peer reviewed to mention?

    Beatles RfC

    You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kings of Armenia

    Avidus has been contributing to several pages about armenian kings, of these, many are about Orontid kings, but his sources are clearly lacking. He puts Orontes III as the founder of the city of Yervandashat, and in the page of that same city, he has put Orontes III as the founder, even though none of the sources claim this, and Movses Khorenatsi says it was the last orontid king (Orontes IV). He has made several alterations to many more pages, it would be best if there was action taken towards researching whether the statements can be verified. JirisysKlatoon (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that the modifications made by Avidus come from this source, as his contributions seem to be copied verbatim from that blog. JirisysKlatoon (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits by Avidus could be a concern. But he hasn't been on Wikipedia since April, 2011. I left a note on his talk page, but I suggest that this report might be closed. Anyone who thinks that Avidus may have added wrong information can check his contributions and see if anything needs to be reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Scientific method

    Given that the relationship between fringe science, protoscience, and mainstream science is often contested, this template looks to me to be original research, and almost certainly a violation of WP:NPOV if presented as 'fact'. Any opinions?

    {{Scientific method}}

    AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see where it's meant to be used, what good it would be for anything. There's templates for deletion, do you want to propose it? But if it's meant to help navigation through articles on methodology, perhaps it could be worked into something helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was used in the Fringe science and Protoscience articles. I'm fairly sure that this diagram, or something very much like it, came up before and was generally agreed to be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep this is the same one, and it's OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many historians and philosophers of science, and science and technology studies scholars who deal with the boundary between "science" and "non-science." I would expect a valid diagram to cite a clear and singular evocation of the typology illustrated in the diagram, and for that typology to be clearly evident in the work of a seriously influential HPS / STS typographer. Otherwise, without such a citation, it looks like clear OR. If someone has cobbled together typographies from multiple scholars works, none of which make the argument put in the diagram, then the diagram is clear COATRACK/OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, the idea of the template is to share that diagram in different articles (currently, just into Fringe science and Protoscience, but could also be useful in other related articles), like a navigation template that shows the relationships between them. Please, note that I'm not the author of the diagram, I just cut it from Fringe science and moved into this new template so it can be shared. If the information is wrong, it was already wrong in the article, I'm not backing the validity of its contents at all (I'm not an expert at all about this topic). However, instead of removing it, if anything can be saved I suggest you to improve it and add the adequate references. Because in my POV diagrams like that can improve the readability of those articles, to help readers understand the similarities and differences between those terms. Cheers —surueña 18:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this template seems questionable to me too. One could reasonably argue that there are no such things as "Protoscience" and "Fringe science". There are only science, pseudo-science (nonscience that pretends to be science like Lysenkoism) and simply nonscience like astrology and religious beliefs. There is a question what really constitutes science. For example, some think that theories without predictive power do not belong to science. Now, speaking about real science, it is not uncommon that the same experimental data or results of simulations may have a number of alternative interpretations, and the fact that some interpretations are less popular than others does not make them wrong, non-scientific, pseudoscientific or even "fringe" in the negative sense, even though some participants here probably think otherwise. My very best wishes (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I think it probably is original research, and is likely to lead to much more confusion than enlightenment. If there is something called "protoscience", and I find the concept useful myself, then it is pretty much defined by not using the scientific method, or not fulfilling current scientific norms anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Given that things have often been described as 'fringe science', or 'protoscience' quite explicitly because they are not "treated with scientific method". I'd suggest that on this basis, not only is the diagram WP:OR, it is also just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more diverse because pseudoscience isn't limited to what is presented or looks like science, astrology is included because it is a framework that makes falsifiable statements (which have been falsified in tests) about the world but does not adhere to the scientific method (some astrologers do claim it's a science, while others claim it's a religion etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Feminist existentialism

    Resolved
     – contradictory source issue repaired, mainly with a blockquote, but it's probably better than using the encyclopedia's voice for this. —Cupco 15:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone please take a look at Feminist existentialism? The one source it has dealing with both of those two concepts does not at all say what the article says it does (at least as far as I can tell from the abstract) and I am beginning to think the article might be a hoax. Someone take a fresh look at it, please. —Cupco 04:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's definitely not a hoax, but I'm not sure if it's needed either. Simone de Beauvoir was a key figure in existentialism and also wrote a book on women which was the feminist text from the late 1940s through to the end of the 1960s. I don't know if there is enough writing other than her book to make this into a current of thought. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps someone can find a source saying that, and do something with the source in there now that says the two concepts are incompatible. —Cupco 15:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Second Vermont Republic paragraph OR?

    Before I was fully aware of WP policy on OR, I let this questionable paragraph stand. Don't feel like having another argument should same people be around, so thought I'd bring it here. At the time and now no evidence of a "news release" - as opposed to the NY Times article - can be found. Any thoughts on what to do? Thanks CarolMooreDC 23:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In April 2007, SVR advisory board member Frank Bryan and Vermont Commons publisher Ian Baldwin authored an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, "The Once and Future Republic of Vermont".[1] A month later in his column at the Vermont Secretary of State's website, Vermont State Archivist Gregory Sanford countered several quotes in a "news release by two Vermont supporters of secession". A reading of the Bryan and Baldwin opinion piece shows that they are the same, word for word, as the "news release". Sanford held that each of quotes was "based on historical facts of dubious reputation", illustrating the point by "juxtaposing italicized quotes from the press release with quotes from historical documents". Sanford said his point "is neither to argue with our current secessionists nor denigrate the beliefs of the authors of the press release". Rather it was to argue "the importance of having accessible public records to evaluate the rhetoric of public figures".[2]

    References

    1. ^ Frank Bryan and Ian Baldwin Op-Ed: The Once and Future Republic of Vermont, Washington Post, April 1, 2007.
    2. ^ Gregory Sanford, Vermont State Archivist, Voice From The Vault: Myths and Documents, May 2007.

    Vitruvian man

    An anonymous editor added some 5000 bytes to the article Vitruvian man and within minutes a new editor User:RevistaDhimbja tidied this piece of text up and added another 2000 bytes. This language has the look and feel of a professional but it lacks citations. To me it smells of being either original research or plagiarism. Would someone have a look and give a second opinion. (diffs here). Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi,
    It's basically a machine translation of this. I believe it's a fringe position (for instance, the original essay goes on to recommend the construction of circular hospital beds) but if anybody has a reason to believe that Dr Vaso is accepted as an expert on Da Vinci, perhaps we could build his argument into the article in a more appropriate way (ie. a couple of paragraphs of neutral text rather than a copy & pasted essay). bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed it. Job done. bobrayner (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel

    This article has just emerged from AfD and is the subject of a discussion as to its scope. Please join us on the talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=516431984"