Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The Weaponization of antisemitism article seems to me to be heavily based on original research, but maybe I'm wrong. There is a stiff argument on the talk page, but a very small number of editors participating. Would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite 1 on the page is Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell, ed. (1 March 2023).
The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. p. 170.
ISBN
9781000850321. In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups.
How's that OR? Editors asked for cites, they were provided and promptly tagged as OR/failed verification, smacks of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since it is clear that the topic exists. What else would you call the leveling of false charges of antisemitism?.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I started a discussion about renaming the article to gather options for a new name. Llll5032 ( talk) 11:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Is this sentence original research by synthesis or not?
My position is that it’s NOT original research:
1. The text of Seneca clearly makes an association between mice and eating cheese. This is just describing what the text says. That is not OR. Similar examples of using primary sources can be found in good articles such as Pigs in culture:
2. The source also notes that Seneca lived in the Roman period. Since Seneca makes this association in the Roman period then concluding that the association appears in the Roman period is an immediate undisputed logical step, akin to 1+1=2. This is not forbidden synthesis.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
so why did he choose this behaviorI don't know and nor do you. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place here about whether or not the use of this source to claim the Libertarian Party (Australia) follows the ideology of conservatism is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Further input would be much appreciated. Helper201 ( talk) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties", that leads to it talking about who those parties are in the second paragraph when it states "
... after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse". I find this to be explicit. TarnishedPath talk 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
What should be done about redirects whose titles (or rather, association between the title and the redirect target) constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? What concrete policies exist for this situation, if any?
For example, suppose an article is created for a valid topic (one that meets notability guidelines and all other relevant Wikipedia policies for existence), but under a title that is OR, i.e. no one actually refers to the topic of the article under the given title; the page author just made it up. The page is subsequently moved to its WP:COMMONNAME title. By default, in this case, a redirect would be created from the old page name to the new one. Should the redirect be deleted, or kept, and what specific policies, if any, can be used to support either decision? Brusquedandelion ( talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
On the 2004 European Parliament election article, there seems to be a mess with OR when it comes two tables, one for the 2004 estimated results, and one for the 2007 notional results.
The 2007 notional results by EU party section, which was created due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, doesn't seem to have a source of where the number of votes come from and according to one of the footnotes, it incorporate the results of the latest parliamentary election of both countries before their accession, which are not related to EU Parliament elections. I was unable to find the source of the 2004 estimated results either.
I'm curious of editors' input of this as these two sections takes up a decent portion of the page with seemly no source to back them up. WebKit2 ( talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be full of syth and making generalizations from random articles and quotes, i'm not really sure how what the best way to deal with it is— blindlynx 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Please comment on whether the proposed section here Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community should be included in the page. Thank you! Alexfotios ( talk) 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I have tagged "Overview / Statewide" section of 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California because I don't think it is verifiable. The tag was removed, citing WP:CALC.
The table includes several columns. One is "votes", which totals the number of votes for all candidates of each party. While this totaling is "basic arithmetic ... such as adding numbers" (from WP:CALC) from referenced sources, my argument is that the verifiability requirement is still not met. No reference is offered that verifies these numbers.
Instead, verification must proceed by examining the votes receive by each candidate for each of 50 districts. There are three to five candidates, or so, for each of those districts -- so something like 240 numbers must be found and summed to verify the totals here.
Additional columns count candidates from each district, then break those down by the number of contested seats and number of candidates advancing. These require more counts and comparisons spread again over the 52 districts.
This is far more converting from one unit to another, or summing even a couple dozen values from the same source in the same table. Here, the values are spread across a giant article, all from different specific sources, and are aggregated into different categories.
Is such a lengthy and tedious process in this state "verifiable"? Does it still qualify as a "basic arithmetic"? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
In September and October 2022, CinemaKnight100 added sections to several dozen articles about the composition and redistricting of different congressional districts. These sections include population information without any citation for the numbers given, and no timestamp information for when the observation might have been made. Further, they don't contain any references for the definition of the district boundaries, so the towns and cities claimed for the districts are also not verifiable.
How can this material best be corrected? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
A dispute has been ongoing for nearly a month at Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling regarding the insertion into the article of information regarding polls on the Canadian monarchy. There seems to be agreement that no one should engage in WP:SYNTH. However, there's either unawareness or misinterpretation of what "no synthesis" means. An appeal for more editors to get involved was made at WP:CANADA; however, few have jumped in. Input from those who're active here would be appreciated. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
In general, when editing a biography of a person who died many years ago, should I ruthlessly delete all material marked as personal research, even if that material does not appear controversial? TooManyFingers ( talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The Weaponization of antisemitism article seems to me to be heavily based on original research, but maybe I'm wrong. There is a stiff argument on the talk page, but a very small number of editors participating. Would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite 1 on the page is Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell, ed. (1 March 2023).
The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. p. 170.
ISBN
9781000850321. In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups.
How's that OR? Editors asked for cites, they were provided and promptly tagged as OR/failed verification, smacks of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since it is clear that the topic exists. What else would you call the leveling of false charges of antisemitism?.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I started a discussion about renaming the article to gather options for a new name. Llll5032 ( talk) 11:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Is this sentence original research by synthesis or not?
My position is that it’s NOT original research:
1. The text of Seneca clearly makes an association between mice and eating cheese. This is just describing what the text says. That is not OR. Similar examples of using primary sources can be found in good articles such as Pigs in culture:
2. The source also notes that Seneca lived in the Roman period. Since Seneca makes this association in the Roman period then concluding that the association appears in the Roman period is an immediate undisputed logical step, akin to 1+1=2. This is not forbidden synthesis.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
so why did he choose this behaviorI don't know and nor do you. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place here about whether or not the use of this source to claim the Libertarian Party (Australia) follows the ideology of conservatism is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Further input would be much appreciated. Helper201 ( talk) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties", that leads to it talking about who those parties are in the second paragraph when it states "
... after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse". I find this to be explicit. TarnishedPath talk 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
What should be done about redirects whose titles (or rather, association between the title and the redirect target) constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? What concrete policies exist for this situation, if any?
For example, suppose an article is created for a valid topic (one that meets notability guidelines and all other relevant Wikipedia policies for existence), but under a title that is OR, i.e. no one actually refers to the topic of the article under the given title; the page author just made it up. The page is subsequently moved to its WP:COMMONNAME title. By default, in this case, a redirect would be created from the old page name to the new one. Should the redirect be deleted, or kept, and what specific policies, if any, can be used to support either decision? Brusquedandelion ( talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
On the 2004 European Parliament election article, there seems to be a mess with OR when it comes two tables, one for the 2004 estimated results, and one for the 2007 notional results.
The 2007 notional results by EU party section, which was created due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, doesn't seem to have a source of where the number of votes come from and according to one of the footnotes, it incorporate the results of the latest parliamentary election of both countries before their accession, which are not related to EU Parliament elections. I was unable to find the source of the 2004 estimated results either.
I'm curious of editors' input of this as these two sections takes up a decent portion of the page with seemly no source to back them up. WebKit2 ( talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be full of syth and making generalizations from random articles and quotes, i'm not really sure how what the best way to deal with it is— blindlynx 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Please comment on whether the proposed section here Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community should be included in the page. Thank you! Alexfotios ( talk) 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I have tagged "Overview / Statewide" section of 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California because I don't think it is verifiable. The tag was removed, citing WP:CALC.
The table includes several columns. One is "votes", which totals the number of votes for all candidates of each party. While this totaling is "basic arithmetic ... such as adding numbers" (from WP:CALC) from referenced sources, my argument is that the verifiability requirement is still not met. No reference is offered that verifies these numbers.
Instead, verification must proceed by examining the votes receive by each candidate for each of 50 districts. There are three to five candidates, or so, for each of those districts -- so something like 240 numbers must be found and summed to verify the totals here.
Additional columns count candidates from each district, then break those down by the number of contested seats and number of candidates advancing. These require more counts and comparisons spread again over the 52 districts.
This is far more converting from one unit to another, or summing even a couple dozen values from the same source in the same table. Here, the values are spread across a giant article, all from different specific sources, and are aggregated into different categories.
Is such a lengthy and tedious process in this state "verifiable"? Does it still qualify as a "basic arithmetic"? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
In September and October 2022, CinemaKnight100 added sections to several dozen articles about the composition and redistricting of different congressional districts. These sections include population information without any citation for the numbers given, and no timestamp information for when the observation might have been made. Further, they don't contain any references for the definition of the district boundaries, so the towns and cities claimed for the districts are also not verifiable.
How can this material best be corrected? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
A dispute has been ongoing for nearly a month at Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling regarding the insertion into the article of information regarding polls on the Canadian monarchy. There seems to be agreement that no one should engage in WP:SYNTH. However, there's either unawareness or misinterpretation of what "no synthesis" means. An appeal for more editors to get involved was made at WP:CANADA; however, few have jumped in. Input from those who're active here would be appreciated. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
In general, when editing a biography of a person who died many years ago, should I ruthlessly delete all material marked as personal research, even if that material does not appear controversial? TooManyFingers ( talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)