Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

"Late modern period"

The article late modern period (currently a redirect) was originally created without any actual sources defining the topic. It was just assumed that the existence of the early modern period meant there had to be a late "equivalent". But the term is actually very marginally used among historians and is often specific to the a period of English literature. It seems to be mostly based on the misunderstanding of how the modern period is defined, which is either c. 1500 until today or c. 1800 until today, depending on the context.

Almost a year ago, there was a clear and umabigious request[1] to provide sources to define the "late modern period" at talk:late modern period up for several months. No sources that actually describe the term unambiguously as "the period following the early modern period" have been provided, only references to search hits for the phrase "late modern" or "late modern period" in prose.

From what I can tell, there are several users who want to flat-out ignore WP:OR and even WP:N in order to keep late modern period because it "feels" logical and convenient. Periodization is in my view treated as though it was merely a subjective layout issue rather than something has to be verifiable and balanaced. It's as if a lot of Wikipedians think it's okay to disregard sources in favor of their own take on how history should be written and organized.

I would appreciate input on this over at talk:late modern period to help build a more sensible consensus around this. Peter ^Isotalo 23:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that the BLAR is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late modern period. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Jordan Peterson

There is a dispute on the Jordan Peterson article Talk page concerning the climate change section of the article. One key question is: how should editors use primary and/or secondary sources to decide what the article should say about Peterson's contributions to the debate on climate science and climate policy? Additional input from experienced NORN contributors would be appreciated. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Oldest institute for agricultural research?

In the wiki on INRA it is stater that this is (or maybe) the first institute for agricultural research in Europe. However, in the wiki on the ‘history of Wageningen University and research you can read that the institute DLO (governmental Agricultural Research Service) was founded in 1877, and several new sub-institutes from 1888 onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A456:35A:1:B4A4:136B:BFEF:40EF (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Paraphrasing official legal texts

I'd be interested to get more thoughts on where to draw the line between what qualifies as "original research" vs "reasonable paraphrasing" on articles about Law, when quoting directly the actual text of law (e.g., quoting the constitution, or a text of law).

For example, in "Draft talk:Contravention in French criminal law", one paragraph states:

Article 34 of the Constitution, which pertains to the scope of the law, does not include provisions concerning contraventional offenses, in contrast to crimes and misdemeanors: "The law establishes the rules concerning: [...] the determination of crimes and misdemeanors, as well as the penalties applicable to them.

My opinion was that it would be acceptable for this paragraph to rely only on a primary source (article 34 of the constitution), since the first sentence only makes non-controversial statements that can be easily checked by opening the actual text of the law (i.e., that article 34 doesn't contain any statement related to contraventions but contains statements related to crimes and misdemeanors), and the second paragraph is just a translated quote from that article.

However, in this discussion, @Mathglot was of the opinion that this would qualify as original research unless it is supported by a secondary source.

I agree that other parts of the draft are likely problematic, but I'd be interested in getting more opinions on that particular paragraph, to get better lens on how I should think about OR on legal topics in general. I feel like law (especially in civil law countries) typically relies a lot more on primary sources than other domains such as science where primary sources cannot always be trusted (e.g., due to bias of the authors). Hence I would have expected a lot more weight be given to primary sources given they are the "source of truth" of an entire legal system.

7804j (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot is right here. As Wikipedia editors we should not be assumed to have the legal expertise to understand the important factors of laws and court rulings to be able to quote or directly paraphrase them. Thus we must rely on secondary sources that are reliable for this type of reporting to help us explain laws or the importance parts of court rulings that we can include. — Masem (t) 14:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, 7804j, I plan to leave this discussion primarily to others unless called upon, but wanted to clarify something. In your OP above, you said: "...when quoting directly the actual text of law", but then later you talk about having a paragraph "...to rely only on a primary source", and that seems quite different to me. I read the former as meaning you want to copy the law word-for-word and double-quote it (no problem), and in the second, you want to have a paragraph that "relies" on the law, by which I understand not word for word, and not double-quoted, i.e., somebody's rewording, or interpretation (big problem).

So I think we need to be clear about which situation you are talking about here. As the linked discussion was solely about the second case (paraphrased), I'm assuming that is your main intent here, but if I'm wrong about that, please clarify. In connection with an article that is well-sourced to our standards, I have no objection to copying text from a law or Constitution directly into a Wikipedia article, as long as it is word-for-word exact, enclosed in double quotes, properly cited, and reasonably brief. (Long extracts, or even the entire French criminal code is public domain, and you may copy the whole thing if you wish—if it isn't already—to Wikisource, and then link to it from the article.) But I believe you are not asking about that case, but a loose paraphrase of the law, a very different situation, and in my view, that is off-limits. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

OR at White ethnostate

White ethnostate has an entire section listing "Historical attempts to create White ethnostates". The problem is that there are zero sources describing any of these as "attempts to create White ethnostates". Editors came to the conclusion that they are by taking the definition of "White ethnostate" from one source and then applying it to historical events described in other sources, which is textbook WP:SYNTH. The entire section needs to be removed. I proposed doing so on the talk page, but editors there don't consider this an OR problem, even though they admit the term "White ethnostate" was coined recently and there are no sources applying it to the historical events in question. Un assiolo (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

for context i highly recommend reading the whole discussion at Talk:White ethnostate#Nazi Germany as a "White ethnostate", especially User:Grayfell comment "One of the problems here is that the article is not about the term 'white ethnostate', it is about the concept of a white ethnostate. We requires that sources directly support attached statements, but we do not require that they use any specific wording to do so. "Ethnostate" is a relatively recent term which appears to have been coined around 1990, and reliable sources are free to use other terms to describe this concept." wikipedia is not a dictionary Gooduserdude (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Suppose this were about a different term – for example, fascism. Would it be acceptable to take a definition of fascism from one source and combine it with a source describing a politician's words or actions, and then claim the politician is a fascist, without a source explicitly saying so? Clearly not. How is this any different?

"Ethnostate" is a very specific term with a very specific meaning, while the "historical attempts" described are generic racism. That is why I am nitpicking about sources: there are no sources because these historical events do not fit the definition. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is textbook OR. Editors are not to connect past events with modern concepts unless a source does so for them. In this particular case, it's particularly dubious. Nazi Germany didn't believe in "white" supremacy (ask the Slavs); they believed in Nordic/Aryan supremacy. JDiala (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sgian-dubh

There is a dispute at Sgian-dubh around original resarch and sourcing. Short version, I removed an amount of text that I considered OR, synthesis or wasn't actually in the sources cited. One or two editors have repeatedly reverted, with reasoning that IMO amounts to "it doesn't need to be sourced". I would appreciate others taking a look. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Tim walz

The page states that Tim Walz achieved the rank of Command Sergeant Major however this is inaccurate because he did not complete the requirements to maintain and keep that rank and was instead later demoted. For further information see: https://youtube.com/sVMkvv8PQhk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2090:105F:5DD2:8686:3633:9D5B (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The page states that Tim Walz achieved the rank of Command Sergeant Major

He did attain that rank.

to maintain and keep that rank and was instead later demoted

How can you be demoted from something you never attained?

Answer should be proof enough for you. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The article does not mention the demotion. It should. Blueboar (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

1) Why should it? Noting the highest rank attained is the policy for infoboxes.

2) It does mention it. Lostsandwich (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

How is this original research? Seems like it's directly from multiple sources that are cited. It's also mentioned in the article that he didn't fulfill the requirements to retain the position.

Per the Tim Walz Wikipedia page: "public affairs officer for the Minnesota National Guard in 2018 said it was "legitimate for Walz to say he served as a command sergeant major", while Walz's former battalion commander, John Kolb, described his usage of the title as "frocking"."

This isn't the place for this dispute, rather, you should use the talk page to gain consensus for changing it. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, the National Guard will reduce someone's rank after retirement because of their short service in that rank. But how is that different from Donald Trump who achieved the rank of commander in chief but lost that rank when he left the presidency? It certainly doesn't mean he was never commander in chief. TFD (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)