User:Dragons flight/RFA summary

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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?

ResearchGate

It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section do not meet WP:OR and other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:

Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.

User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.

RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].

In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.

Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this is only one of at least four noticeboards on which JNorman704 has posted his grievance. My take on the situation is here. For simplicity and centralization, I recommend that further conversation simply take place at Talk:ResearchGate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Adjusting for inflation

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there an established procedure for adjusting for inflation? For example, the article on the Bath School disaster has the following sentence (emphasis mine):

"The Red Cross also managed donations sent to pay for both the medical expenses of the survivors and the burial costs of the dead. In a few weeks, $5,284.15 (about $70,698 today) was raised through donations, including $2,500 from the Clinton County board of supervisors and $2,000 from the Michigan legislature."

There are several ways of adjusting for inflation, and they all become out of date rather quickly. It's important to provide context to monetary amounts, but what is the best way to do it? Andrew (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless the focus of the article is an economic indicator such as GDP, cost, rvenue etc. it really should not matter what indicator is used for inflation. However, the example you gave about $70,698 today has a problem, its an absolute amount so we don't know if the espected deviation is in dollars or cents. If it is in cents then the deviation does not matter and if it is in dollars then we would have to assume some reason why we cannot arrive at an approximate figure (like a dispute). So the term about is wrongly placed. A better statement would be approx $70,000 which would still leave the discussion open for an absolute amount. You can edit the article to give an approximate conversion and open a discussion in the talk page. Unless the amount is really important, no one wil object. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I never translate old-timey money amounts into today's currency because, as Wikishagnik noted, there are so many ways of doing it, most of them totally off the mark. If you feel it necessary, though, avoid using the word "today" but use the year instead. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Some content might demand a conversion. E.g. a statement like such-and-such tycoon started his career in 1912 with just $10 might confuse a reader not accustomed to time adjusted value of money. SO we will have to convert old amounts. SO we might have to convert old amounts as per editor's discretion-Wikishagnik (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I simply disagree with my good friend Wikishagnik. There are simply too many ways of figuring the COI. But I would not get in high dudgeon if some other editor wants to attempt the conversion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OOPS! Looks like I took a too strong position about something I am no expert about, adjusting to NPOV -Wikishagnik (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If the value of (say) a dollar changes over time, it's a bad idea to convert from 1900 dollar values to 2012 dollar values without telling readers that they're 2012 dollars, because - even if the conversion was a reasonable one - it will become inaccurate again after you edit. Something like a CPI deflator isn't a magic wand which converts "old" money into "new". bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Science as a religion

An editor, Timpo, insists on claiming that science "can be considered a religion" (in several different phrasings so far, but the implication is the same) in the Religious offense article (section: Science). We keep going back and forth with it, with me tagging and editing and him/her untagging with what I think are minor changes and don't really take care of the issue. There's discussion in several sections here Talk:Religious_offense#References. I think the main problem is that Timpo thinks that the ref s/he provided (a writing by Richard Dawkins) is sufficient to make the statements, while I think it's original research/improper synthesis. We're just repeating the same stuff at each other now and Timpo has resorted to policing my tone, so I'd like someone neutral to have a look over this issue. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a rather uninformed POV, but you might want to check Thomas Kuhn, if your not already familiar with the author.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Calling an allegation a "claim"

collapsed section by blocked sock per WP:DENY

The dispute concerns an online petition which allege some things about certain clinics in Ecuador. I want those allegations to be preceded by "they claim" so that Wikipedia doesn't present the opinion of the authors of the source as fact. The source: [3] The edit history of the dispute with MrX: [4] Here is the discussion with MrX: [5] Zaalbar (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Petitions on change.org are basically user-submitted content which is intentionally running in the opposite direction from WP:NPOV. (They're not trying to describe a situation neutrally, they're trying to get people angry enough to sign a petition). So, it's not just an OR problem - we should be very careful about using that as a source for anything. bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I suggest the discussion be carried on at Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Ecuador#Self-revert before it is brought here. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) WP:CLAIM may also be helpful. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC) So should the allegations in the petition be removed because of POV issues or should they be preceded by "allege", not "claim"? Zaalbar (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC) As long as we are examining NPOV issues and not NOR issues, I do need to point out one thing... re: "user-submitted content which is intentionally running in the opposite direction from WP:NPOV"... It is important to remember that sources are allowed to have a POV and are not subject to Wikipedia's NPOV policy... the point of our NPOV policy is to say that we (Wikipedia editors) are not supposed to insert our own POV into our articles. That means we must represent all of the various points of view and biases that exist in our sources with neutrality. Now... part of presenting things with neutrality is assigning things DUE WEIGHT. We have to ask: Do the allegations made on the website represent the view of a tiny minority or a more mainstream views. If the former, then we should probably not mention them at all. If the latter then we should mention them as being the opinion of a certain person or group (and attributing that opinion in the article text). In that case, it is something of a judgement call as to whether to use "allege" or "claim"... other phrases can be used as well (such as: "X is of the opinion that blah blah blah" or "X believes that blah blah blah" or "according to X, blah blah blah"... etc.) Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, inserting wording for "claimed", "alleged" or similar would just need evidence to be brought forward showing that the existence of the starving, abuse and torture is reasonably disputed. Formerip (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC) There are follow up sources with information regarding these clinics so I think the petition should stay. However, from the sources it's clear that not all of the 200 clinics are known for torturing, as only a few have been closed down and there have only been former patient complaints from some of them. I'll put in "allege" since it's clearly disputed that all 200 clinics are known for "starving, abusing, and torturing patients". Zaalbar (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC) If the torture etc undoubtedly happened but only at some clinics, the correct thing to do is to use the clarifying phrase "some clinics", rather than "claimed". Formerip (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) True, but the source claims over 200 clinics, while the other sources used show that only a fraction of them have been shown to be. Therefore the claims in the source either has to be removed or clearly shown to be only an allegation. Zaalbar (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC) So the article should give the full picture: ...some clinics, claimed by Organisation X to be as many as 200, although only a fraction of this number has been officially recognised (or something like that). Formerip (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC) That sounds good. I can't make the change though since I've already done 3 reverts on that page so close together. Zaalbar (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC) If you wish to rewrite this content to add weasel words such as claim, allege, purport, etc. you need to produce sources to support the dubiousness you are trying to introduce. There are several sources (besides change.org), from credible news organizations, that corroborate the material as it is written. We don't get to decide on our own that we doubt the reliable sources and then introduce that doubt into articles in Wikipedia to push an a particular point of view, which by the way, you seem to be trying to do in a number of LGBT related articles. - MrX 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Please look up a definition of "weasel words". You keep getting the definition wrong and it's interfering with your editing. Attributing an opinion by a specific group as an opinion of that specific group is not using weasel words. I don't need to produce sources because none of the sources used in the article allege that there are over 200 clinics which are known for "starving, abusing, and torturing patients". That is a claim only in the petition. Can somebody revert MrX? The article has been representing an opinion as fact for too long now. Zaalbar (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems all my main sources are wrong....

I posted this at the Help Desk and they suggested i bring my issues here. My post there was:

I have a strange problem. I decided to pick back up my series of presidential oval office desks, which I have been working on and off with for a few years now (List of Oval Office desks), and I was about to start a new article about the Theodore Rosevelt desk when I hit a major snag. I dug up this article stating that Truman moved FDR's desk out of the Oval Office which runs counter to every reference i have about the number of desks that have been used in the Oval Office. I dug a little deeper and found this picture on commons showing that yes, FDR had a different desk than what is declared in the sources. How do I deal with this problem? The desk FDR had does not appear to have a name, so what do I call it? Since the references are obviously not right can i use any of the information in them? Is this whole thing original research? I guess I just need another set of eyes to look at all of this to see if I am crazy and what should be done.

--Found5dollar (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Just swallow hard and rewrite your article with both sets of facts. You could use something like "disputed" if there is indeed a dispute. Or "In 1945, however, the Associated Press reported that . . . " Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

world's largest flower article Rafflesia

I am posting this because the article on "the world's largest flower "Rafflesia is incorrect. While the article itself on Rafflesia is accurate, Rafflesia is not the worlds largest flower. Amorphophallus sp. is considered the world's largest. A picture and more detail is posted on my website http://www.facebook.com/Wi.thyme

Claims/facts based on silly messages on Twitter

It would be interesting with your expert opinions in the discussion on Talk:Beneath Your Beautiful. Thanks. Nording (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

SYNTH question regarding meanings of foreign words

There is a minor content dispute over at Kuroneko. The article is about a Japanese film named Yabu no naka no kuroneko in Japanese, and simply Kuroneko in English. WP:NCFILM says that we should include a translation of the titles of foreign films in cases where the English title is not already a translation, even when no literal translation has appeared in reliable sources.

The dispute rises from the meaning of the phrase yabu no naka. It technically means "in the middle of a bamboo grove", but in everyday Japanese usage it means "an inability to discern the truth of a matter; mysterious; obscure".[6][7][8] The idiomatic usage is derived from Akutagawa Ryūnosuke's story In a Grove, and predates the film by several decades.

The user on the other side of this dispute has insisted that I need a reliable source that links the phrase yabu no naka to the film or else it is SYNTH[9], but this seems a bit unreasonable, since the phrase is part of the title of the film.

Any objective input would be most appreciated.

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A glance at the plot summary will demonstrate the film is set in a bamboo grove. The bamboo is a major visual motif of the film. However, originally I tagged the article with the "original research" tag because the user claimed that the title of the film was a reference to the Akutagawa story, not because of his fanciful translation. I believe that claim that it is named after the story is a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The "fanciful translation" is the most intuitive translation of the title to any Japanese-speaker. Yes, much of the film does take place in a bamboo grove -- so what? The title still means what it means, and can be interpreted one of two ways; to insist on one interpretation over the other is POV and requires a reliable source. Providing a gloss for English-speaking readers as to exactly what the title means is not OR or SYNTH. And the origin of the phrase yabu no naka is a reference to the Akutagawa story, and this etymology is included in most good dictionary entries for the phrase (see Daijisen cited above). I never claimed that the film's title is derived from the Akutagawa story, and the article's current wording clearly states such.[10] JS has indicated several times in this dispute that what he believes is SYNTH is not the Akutagawa reference but the translation itself.

However, it does seem entirely possible that this is all a misunderstanding: JS, if I were to remove any reference to the Akutagawa story from the article and merely leave the translation as is, would you be content? We can discuss whether an etymology of the title is appropriate or not at a later date, but I would be perfectly happy to drop this issue if it turned out it was all a misunderstanding.

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss issues about the article on the article page itself. This is a noticeboard for discussing claims of original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But you just re-added the original research tag to the article itself. I have removed the text that you said was original research, and you re-tagged the basic definition of the phrase as original research. Now I am not even sure what you are referring to. Admittedly, the wording of the definition I give is not exactly the same as that given by Breen, but that's not "original research" so much as a dubious interpretation of the source. We could just use Daijisen, though. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Guy, the film is about a (demonic) black cat which exists in a bamboo grove. "yabu no naka no kuroneko" literally means "black cat in a grove" where "grove" in Japan suggests bamboo grove. Now you want to change this title to "mysterious cat" on the basis of your analysis that "yabu no naka" means "mysterious" rather than "in a grove". Presented with overwhelming evidence that your analysis of the Japanese term is completely wrong, you claim that the native speakers who disagree with you are being ironic or satirical, and you go on trying to force a completely unsupported claim into an article without references or support and you wonder why I tag your claims with original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have collapsed the above discussion, since it took place at a time when I thought my fellow editor was open to constructive discussion and compromise. However, he has since posted a couple of sarcastic remarks[11][12] on the article's talk page and removed my edit entirely[13] based on his opinion that the title doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means. The normal Japanese word for a bamboo grove is takebayashi. It is obvious that the reason the film is not called Takebayashi no kuroneko or Takebayashi no naka no kuroneko or even Yabu no kuroneko is that yabu no naka specifically has another meaning. Any objective input on this issue would be most welcome. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion can be considered resolved. I still think it is not SYNTH to cite the dictionary definition of a common phrase when translating a title, and JS apparently still thinks it is. But I have found a reliable source that goes much further in the analysis than I wanted to, and re-added it to the article. I hope this will be the end of JS's WP:HOUNDing me on this particular article. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Burden" RFC

A dispute has arisen in regards to the wording in burden regarding the tagging or removing of content. This request for comment is to establish the specific wording for just that part of the "Burden of evidence" section of our "Verifiability" policy. Found here.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical Jewish Population

• Historical Jewish population comparisons#Comparisons

Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Jewish" can mean different things. Depending on what the questions are, some surveys/censuses might capture people who are jewish in a religious sense, whilst other surveys/censuses might capture people who identify as jewish for cultural or family reasons. (Obviously there's a lot of overlap between the two sets, but they're exactly not the same thing). Is that table comparing like with like? bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs merging with Jewish diaspora, which would then need to be split in another, more logical way. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is OR by Synth, but I partially agree with Itsmejudith that the topic could perhaps be better in a different article. Andrew³²⁷ 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also Jewish population by country as a potential merge target. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Supporting a claim that "some" or "many" authors support a certain theory

As a general principle would we agree that a statement such as "Many/some authors now support the theory that [some novel theory proposed by an amateur historian]" can be reliably supported (and thus made verifiable) by a string of references (to represent the "many" or "some"), placed just after the "many" word in the sentence, to cites of: a set of college course notes, a literature review, a paper published by an organisation accused of being a "predatory" or fraudulent publisher and the local news section of a science club website - all of which do refer to the amateur historian's theory, directly or indirectly? MeasureIT (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)