Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)
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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Interpretation of WP:OR[edit]

My edit here was reverted by doomsdayer520 on the claim that the content that I removed was sourced and not original research. When I explained to them what the source is about and asked them what part of the content that they restored in the intro is supposed to be backed by it, they ignored my request and accused me of misusing the term "original research", because according to them Original research (on Wikipedia) is when a scientist tries to claim that his/her own research is notable.

Your views on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

M.Bitton, we have a precise but very minor disagreement that does not belong here. My original reversion of your edit was because you removed two different pieces of notable material and justified it with one reason (original research) that I found to be inaccurate in both cases. I actually took some of your words to heart and concluded that the source on the translation of the band's name could be considered unreliable -- a much different problem -- and I added a "better source needed" tag to that piece of information in the article. You seem to have missed this step. Meanwhile, disagreement about the band's hometown is not even close to a dispute over the meaning of original research. We have a minor disagreement between two good-faith editors who care about the accuracy of that article, and it can be discussed there even if I said something you don't like. Wait for other people to support you or disagree with you there. For everyone else on this board, M.Bitton's decision to bring the discussion here as an incident that needs to be investigated is an over-reaction at best. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Doomsdayer520: We're here because we disagree over the "interpretation of the OR policy". You think that the translation is not OR and I think that your interpretation of OR is erroneous, therefore, we need input from uninvolved editors familiar with the policy. M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Translating foreign languages to English is not original research Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions though it's reasonable to ask for sourcing to support difficult or questionable interpretations. Rhoark (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rhoark: Translating foreign languages to English is not original research, provided the source is relevant. In our case, what's being translated is the group's name using a dictionary that doesn't even mention the group in question. Let me illustrate by way of an analogy why this method is both OR and terribly flawed (regardless of the result). Imagine the Bee Gees article being created in the French Wikipedia. How wrong would the editors be if, in order to define the group's name, they decide to use an English to French dictionary to translate the words "Bee" and "Gee"?
The other issue is Doomsdayer520's interpretation of the OR policy (highlighted in green). What do you think of it? M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for input from an experienced editor. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Does The Turner Diaries explicitly mention white genocide conspiracy theories?[edit]

Regarding this discussion about The Turner Diaries, the NOR policy at WP:PRIMARY says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia 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. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot." My question concerns whether these passages can be cited or need to be quoted:

But one thing which is quite clear is that much more than our freedom is at stake. If the Organization fails in its task now, everything will be lost-our history, our heritage, all the blood and sacrifices and upward striving of countless thousands of years. The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence. No excuse for our failure will have any meaning, for there will be only a swarming horde of indifferent, mulatto zombies to hear it. There will be no White men to remember us-either to blame us for our weakness or to forgive us for our folly. If we fail, God's great Experiment will come to an end, and this planet will once again, as it did millions of years ago, move through the ether devoid of higher man. [Chapter 5]
the majority of those who wanted a solution, who wanted to preserve a White America, were never able to screw up the courage to look the obvious solutions in the face. [Chapter 6]
By terrifying the White population they will make it more difficult for us to recruit, thus speeding our demise. [Chapter 10]
Each day we make decisions and carry out actions which result in the deaths of White persons, many of them innocent of any offense which we consider punishable. We are willing to take the lives of these innocent persons, because a much greater harm will ultimately befall our people if we fail to act now. [Chapter 14]
...the newscaster gloated, "The White vermin died like flies. We can only hope they realized in their last moments that many of the loyal soldiers who pressed the firing buttons for the missiles which killed them were Black or Chicano or Jewish. Yes, the Whites and their criminal racial pride have been wiped out in California, but now we must kill the racists everywhere else, so that racial harmony and brotherhood can be restored to America. We must kill them! Kill them! Kill! Kill!" [Chapter 26]

Could any educated person verify the statement that "The Turner Diaries presents a white genocide conspiracy theory" from those passages? EllenCT (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Find secondary sources that say either say that (1) TTD promotote WGCT, or (2) proponents of WGCT draw inspiration from TTD. Then let the wikipedia article article reflect what these secondary sources say. If the secondary sources cite particular passages of TTD, then those passages may be quotable. Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Here are the sources used to support the statement:
Since the 1990s, ideological white nationalism in the United States has declined. But since 2008, recruitment based on less-defined racial fear and hostility has risen to take its place, emphasizing ideologically neutral concepts such as “white genocide” and shifting toward less clearly delineated movements (such as the “alt right”). Users participating in these new movements on social media routinely and selectively highlight incidents of racial unrest and black crime as evidence that “The Turner Diaries are coming true” -- Berger, J.M. (September 2016). "The Turner Legacy: The Storied Origins and Enduring Impact of White Nationalism's Deadly Bible" (PDF). ICCT Research Paper Series. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism: 40. doi:10.19165/2016.1.11. ISSN 2468-0656. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
The recent manifestation of white genocide has its origins in the American neo-Nazi movement. The Turner Diaries, a very influential 1970s novel by William Luther Pierce, posited a dystopian world in which white Americans were oppressed by non-white minorities at the behest of Jewish politicians. -- Ross, Kaz (March 16, 2019). "How believers in 'white genocide' spread their hate campaign in Australia". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
Are those sufficient? EllenCT (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, those are the type of sources we need (see also this Atlantic article by the author of the ICCT paper). As long as we summarize their relevant content correctly, it should be ok. Abecedare (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the sources generally agree that the phrase "White Genocide Conspiracy Theory" comes from David Lane about 20 years after The Turner Diaries are published. It' s absolutely correct to say that Lane himself was heavily influenced by the Turner Diaries, and that the book inspired/parallels elements of WGCT, but it's a stretch to say that the Turner Diaries depict a "white genocide". current lead seems in line with sources. Nblund talk 13:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure Lane or anyone associated with him called it a "conspiracy theory"? The origin of the theories appear to be a 1925 book by an Austrian-Japanese author published in German. None of the proponents call them conspiracy theories, although they do talk about conspiracies. I'm convinced that the excerpts above would convince "any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" that The Turner Diaries were advancing a WGCT as the motivation of the main characters. While the genocide which occurs at the end of the book is by whites against others, there are actually about twice as many passages where the specter of genocide against whites is raised than just the excerpts above. EllenCT (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
EllenCT: that should say, the phrase "White genocide" is attributed to Lane. the general idea of a conspiracy to destroy "white civilization" is probably as old as the concept of whiteness itself. I agree that Praktischer Idealismus has some thematic similarities, so does The Camp of the Saints, so do the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but reliable sources usually attribute the current usage to David Lane. Lane's co-option of human rights terminology like "genocide" and his complaints about "racial integration" wouldn't have made much sense in the 1920s. There's a fairly broad cross-section of editors saying the same thing, and I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise unless you can find lots of high-quality reliable sources that explicitly say the things you're saying here. Nblund talk 15:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I have written an essay that may help. It it at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
EllenCT's primary source doesn't talk about any conspiracy. It talks about minorities outbreeding whites, which has been a white nationalist talking point for many years, but the idea that minorities outbreeding whites is a deliberate conspiracy by blacks, jews and liberals appears to have come later, when Lane popularized it. Assuming that any mention of minorities outbreeding whites is a mention of the later conspiracy theory that minorities outbreeding whites is a deliberate conspiracy by blacks, jews and liberals is a classic example of original research. The fact that the mention is in a primary source and that the secondary sources directly contradict the OR is icing on the cake.
This has been discussed to death at:
"Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".)" --WP:OTHERPARENT
--Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Novels are not usable reliable sources for claims of fact. No matter how one looks at it, novels are fiction. If something is a fact, policy requires that we use a source stating it as a fact, and that is not the purview of novels in the first place. This is basically why Wikipedia does not use novels in every article, as far as I can tell, except for articles specifically about that novel. Collect (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The article in question is the one about the novel, for which it is the primary source. The novel includes passages such as "The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence," and, "There will be no White men to remember us," and, "the Whites and their criminal racial pride have been wiped out in California, but now we must kill the racists everywhere else," which per WP:PRIMARY would lead any educated person without further specialized knowledge to conclude that it presents a white genocide conspiracy theory. EllenCT (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
And the novel is fiction - and thus its "theories" are also fiction. Does it say "This is a white genocide conspiracy theory" in it? Or is it an attempt to read into a fiction book something which is then linked' to a "current conspiracy theory"? Ergo, it is not properly used. Collect (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It should not be claimed that a novel depicts a conspiracy theory that developed long after it was written, and using a wikilink (even a piped one) to imply that connection is misleading. It might be fair to say it describes a "genocide which targets whites" as a more generic handling, but that would have to come from sources that interpret it as such. On basic reading, it sees more like its just referring to birth rates. This seems like a case where the article title includes "conspiracy theory" as part of it both limits the coverage and treads the POV/NPOV line. If the article were more simply "white genocide", it would cover more broadly and chronologically, and so this connection might not be such a stretch. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory started in 1916, see White genocide conspiracy theory#Origins and development. EllenCT (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Any sources that say the author of Turner Diaries read the 1916 or 1925 books, or at all was aware of their content? -- Netoholic @ 19:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
William Luther Pierce#Early political activities says he was the editor of the American Nazi Party's journal and spoke at the delegate's convention at the first National Socialist World Congress, so do you really doubt he would be familiar with the American book that Hitler called his Bible? EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Some scholars note even older precursors, but the term "genocide" didn't exist in 1916, and Grant's version doesn't really posit a conspiracy - it posits a more-or-less voluntary "race suicide". I'm all for citing Grant and others as important influences, but this source doesn't say that WGCT began with Grant in 1916, and even if it did, we would still need to do better than simply citing a single journalist to make that claim in wiki-voice. I'm puzzled as to why you aren't satisfied with being a little more conservative here - if you just dialed it back a little ("David Lane coined the term but here are several important precursors to the theory") it would be a really good contribution to the article. Nblund talk 20:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that essentially what the WGCT article says now? The broader policy question is whether an educated person without specialist knowledge would consider "destroy the racial basis of our existence," and, "There will be no White men," as within the definition of white genocide even if written before the term was coined. Editors here are saying they would not, without providing any reasons that they might not. I'm baffled, and I've stopped editing the Diaries' article until we can figure this out. EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Ellen, the problem here is that you are the one making the connections here. Yes, your connections are logical, but they are still originating from you. That’s what isn’t allowed. Instead, you have to report on the connections that others (sources external to Wikipedia) have made. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The WP:PRIMARY policy asks whether any educated person without specialist knowledge would make the connection. The very excellent source Nblund found says the term "white genocide" appeared in a 1972 issue of White Power, "the official newspaper of the National Socialist White People’s Party," which was six years before Pierce wrote The Turner Diaries and while he was a leader in that very organization. So the idea that the book predates the term is wrong. Is there any reason to think that any educated person would not make the logical connection? EllenCT (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Yet the term "white genocide" doesn't appear anywhere in The Turner Diaries, and there are no reliable sources that explicitly say that the Turner Diaries represent an instance of WGCT. You might not be satisfied with that explanation, but no one has to satisfy you, and at some point you probably have to accept what multiple editors are telling you. Nblund talk 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Ellen: A white genocide theory and the "white genocide conspiracy" are two related but different things. An educated person should know that.--TMCk (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm convinced I'm right, but on reflection, I can't think of any reason that the encyclopedia would be any better if The Turner Diaries was described as presenting a WGCT instead of just shaping their later development, so never mind, I don't care anymore. EllenCT (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas, that doesn't solve our problem. You have shown us that you are either unable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's policies. Just because you give up on one page because you don't think your original research improves the page, there will no doubt be other pages where you aren't willing to give up. The fact that you remain convinced that you are right no matter how many people tell you that you are wrong and no matter how carefully we explain the policies you violate is a problem. Your practice of opening discussions on multiple pages hoping that you will get the answer you want is a problem. My advice is to completely drop the stick. Just unwatch all pages related to race or white nationalism in any way. Those pages have a lot of good editors working on them, and your efforts are not helping. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── ...and, as usual, every fucking detail turns into a big fight and a wall of text, all of which could be avoided by this simple thought: "Gosh, everyone is against this. Should I go along with the consensus, or should I argue on and on, despite the fact that in every previous case where I argued on and on I failed to get my way? What to do? What to do?"

Related: The Most Important Thing Possible, Megalomaniacal point of view

I can't take this any longer. I will not be reading any further comments on this and I am unsubscribing from all related pages. I wish the rest of you the best of luck in dealing with this dumpster fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be very obvious here: If we have a conspiracy theory which we have a well-sourced date period where it began to be propagated, and we have a book that was published well before (decades) this conspiracy theory took hold, there is no way we can say the book promotes that theory. If and only if we have secondary RS sources that state the book shares several of the principles of the theory, then we can state, with appropriate attribution, that the book was seen to espouse some of the points that are now part of this theory. But that requires the sources; it is original research for an editor to make the leap of logic on a contentious topic, even if it seems obvious that the book is similar to the conspiracy theory. As soon as you get into contentious areas like a conspiracy theory you better have sources to back up all claims like that. Core principle of NOR. --Masem (t) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


Regarding Venom (2018 film), Adamstom.97 is restoring content to the lead section that is not supported by sources in the article body. He is trying to restore content that critics disliked the film "for its script and inconsistent tone" even though the "Critical reception" section has nothing indicating this overall conclusion. It appears that he supports this conclusion based on synthesizing individual critics to "reach or imply a conclusion" these were the overall trends. Furthermore, he is also trying to restore content that it was "an unexpected box office success" despite the "Box office" section not saying anything about this. It grossed more than tracking predicted and broke records, but there's no indication of how much it was expected or not. Can other editors please review this? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

OR question at The Great Replacement[edit]

Looking for some outside input on a discussion that partially concerns WP:OR issues on The Great Replacement. The discussion concerns whether or not we suggest that there are distinct conspiracy and non-conspiracy related versions of the theory.

Link to discussion

Nblund talk 17:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Israeli permits[edit]

At Israeli permit system in the West Bank an editor has argued that it is OR to use the following source which compares a specific permit requirement to the pass laws of South Africa under apartheid. as it does not refer explicitly to an overarching regime or system. The source is

  • Pieterse, Jan (1984). "State Terrorism on a Global Scale: The Role of Israel". Crime and Social Justice. 21-22 (4): 65. JSTOR 29766230. The parallels extend to the finer print as well, as with South Africa's pass laws, and Israel's special IDs for Arabs (stamped with a "B") and requirements for travel passes in the occupied territories.

Does the source need to refer to the overarching regime or can we use a source comparing a specific permit requirement? The user has argued that other sources define the regime itself as beginning in 1993, and yes one source does this, another however says it began in 1967. Is the argument that it is SYNTH to use a source that refers to a specific permit but the overarching regime valid? nableezy - 16:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The diff in question is this, and this was being used to source: "The regime itself has been likened to the South African pass system under apartheid" - a stmt on the regime/system, not the particular travel pass in the oPT. Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thats a bit dishonest. The diff in question shows you removing the sentence The Israeli permit or pass system for Palestinians was likened very early to that devised in South Africa under Apartheid. Your arguments on the talk page have also been wider than that one sentence. You have argued that a source that discusses one permit may not be used if it does not discuss the regime (eg here). I dont know why you wont just own that argument here if it is the one you think is true. Ive offered to rephrase, you rejected the source as a whole on the basis of not including the word "system" or "regime". nableezy - 16:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Please strike your personal attack - I quoted what was being used in the lede, I indeed did not quote the similar sentence in the body (with a similar issue - referring to a system Pieterse does not refer to). Also please cease misrepresenting my talk page arguments - I said using Pieterse to refer to a "regime" or "system" (which Pieterse does not use) would be SYNTH and OR (SYNTH being a subset of OR). I did not "reject the source as a whole" - though using a source which doesn't mention the subject of the article does raise questions (which I did not raise - as it is irrelevant at this point). Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Im sorry what did I misrepresent? What you wrote in the diff I linked to is

Without Pieterse referring to a regime, system, or any other clearly synonymous word - Wikipedia editors making a guess regarding Pieterse's intentions based on a feature Pieterse mentions being present in other sources (written at a different time) that do discuss a "system" or "regime" - is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

You said, explicitly, if the source does not refer to the system as a whole then including it is SYNTH. I am here asking if that is a valid argument of if we may use the source when it refers to a specific permit requirement. Here you wrote that because it is referring to a specific permit it may not be used in the article on the overarching regime (Absent the source referring to a permit regime or system - then yes - tying it to our article is WP:OR). What exactly am I misrepresenting? If you dont feel your comments on an obscure talk page should be used in a wider setting maybe dont make those comments? nableezy - 16:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I said "Without Pieterse referring to a regime, system, or any other clearly synonymous word - Wikipedia editors making a guess regarding Pieterse's intentions based on a feature Pieterse mentions being present in other sources (written at a different time) that do discuss a "system" or "regime" - is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR" - and I stand behind that stmt. I most certainly did not "You said, explicitly, if the source does not refer to the system as a whole then including it is SYNTH". In any case, I'll let un-involved editors weigh in - this being a rather clear-cut case of WP:OR (using a source that doesn't mention "regime" or "system" to make a stmt on "the regime"). Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Really? Absent the source referring to a permit regime or system - then yes - tying it to our article is WP:OR. nableezy - 16:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the permits discussed in the source evolved into the "permit system" that is the subject of the article? Or is that not clear even though both the source and the article refer to the permit system being utilized in Israeli-occupied West Bank? I'm not sure how much this extends into OR... but definitely has verifiability issues, which can be resolved by giving the sentences attributed to this source more context. Instead of The regime itself has been likened to the South African pass system under apartheid maybe In the 1980s, special identification for Arabs and passes required for travel—earlier implementations of the modern Israeli permit system—were compared to pass laws in South Africa during apartheid. Sidenote... the source used pass laws, so why was the link for the article Pass laws purposefully altered to "pass system"? Rhinopias (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
With the article under 1RR I dont think I can correct that right this second, but when I can I will. nableezy - 15:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
"-earlier implementations of the modern Israeli permit system-" would be OR - as the source doesn't say this. The permit system is much wider than just travel passes (encompassing a wide variety of different permits - building, work, travel, etc.). Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes its wider, this source is discussing one part of it. nableezy - 16:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, which is why I questioned that exact part of my example prior to giving it. If there really is no other source that says the "Israeli permit system started as special identification for Arabs and passes required for travel in _decade_", just give necessary context to the source in question without tying it to anything else. But I find it hard to believe sources don't discuss the history of the system, and it wouldn't be synthesis to just demonstrate that these components did precede the more complex system. Either way, this would still be fine... In the 1980s, special identification for Arabs and passes required for travel were compared to pass laws in South Africa during apartheid. Just make sure this sentence is separated from others in a way that doesn't tie the source's comparison to the subject as a whole. Rhinopias (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Anecdote as original research[edit]

I'm writing this in reference to The double thank-you of capitalism page, which includes several explanations in the form of narrative anecdotes, particularly under the "trade creates mutual wealth" section and the discussion of the win-win scenario; as they mostly lack a source, I was wondering whether or not they count as original synthesis/research? Darthkayak (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If it can't be found in any previous publication, then it was original research by the user who added it. The easiest way to find out is to ask. @Kazvorpal: where is this information from? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 06:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)