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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Search this noticeboard & archives

The article Friedrich Nietzsche's views on women can probably be deleted as obvious WP:SYNTH. Parenthetically, it's also grossly incorrect.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Out-of-context materials in "Battle of Ia Drang"

I want to report about user:Tnguyen4321's out-of-context use of materials from RS:

• In section Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley, he has written as follow

There were two battlefronts at the Chu Pong massif areas: a ground force operation, code-named "Operation Long Reach", conducted by the 1st Air Cavalry and an air force operation, code-named "Plei Me-Chu Pong Campaign", conducted by the B-52 bombers. The code name "Plei Me-Chu Pong Campaign" implies the B-52 bombing over Chu Pong operation that was on the planning since September 1965 entered in action at Pleime on October 20, was carried out with the support of the 1st Air Cavalry Division that set up and fix the targets with Operations All the Way and Silver Bayonet I for Arc Light strikes. The 5-day Arc Light operation was subsequently supported by the 2nd Air Cavalry Brigade conducting Operation Silver Bayonet II in conjunction with the ARVN Airborne Group conducting Operation Than Phong 7, which was conducted after the fighting at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany had been over.

In fact, when I read the RS that are cited in the above section, I found no words indicating that the air operations were supported by the Air Cav units. I also failed to find any indication about the relation between the real air strikes in October 1965 and the planning for a B-52 strike in September.

• Your concern has been addressed with following editing since [1]:

"The original plan to employ strategic bombers in support of the division was presented by the Assistant Division Commander (ADC-A) through Field Force Vietnam Commanding General to the J-3 of US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam."

The B-52 bombing operation and the Air Cavalry ground operation were so interconnected that the wording of the McChristian's text and of Kinnard's pertaining to activities from 23 October to 20 November is quasi word-for-word with minors editing regarding difference in intelligence and general staff matters. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• So it's even clearer: the bombers were "in support of the division", not the opposite as you've written. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• That's exactly what I'm about to say. The sentence "The B-52 bombing operation and the Air Cavalry ground operation were so interconnected that the wording of the McChristian's text and of Kinnard's pertaining to activities from 23 October to 20 November is quasi word-for-word with minors editing regarding difference in intelligence and general staff matters." was obviously a self-made conclusion derived from two separate RS, which is a violation of the WP:NOR regulation. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Look, we are discussing about the ranking of the two air and ground operation, which one come first and which one come second, which one is the main and which on is the secondary, which on is giving support/facilitating the other. "The original plan" that Knowles is talking about is the one hatched out since September 1965, prior to the advent of Pleime and the involvment of the Air Cavalry. It was initially supposed to have only one component: Arc Light Chu Pong operation. When the B3 Field Front decided to attack Pleim with only two instead of three regiments, it was modified to include a second component, with that it became: Arc Light Plei Me/Chu Pong Campaign. The entire McChristian's report describes the group preparation work done by the Air Cavalry in assisting the creation of available targets for the B-52 strike. Note that the RS are given not in one page, but in multiple pages: (McChristian, pp. 9-62), and (Kinnard, pp. 18-103).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• That's what you said, not what McChristian said. He said that the area was planned as "a possible target for a B-52 strike" in September, and no more. Can you point out any particular quote in which he claimed that the air strike in October actually rooted from the September plan? Can you point out any in which he claimed the the Cavalry units performed on the field 'in order to support the air strike? If you just derived such conclusion from such 53 pages, then you've conducted an OR again.
• You've still failed to explained what did he mean when he said that the bombers were "in support of the division" 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• As we see the history of the article, we can find out several versions in the past edited by this user claiming that the ARVN was one of the belligerents, and that its commander was a commander of the battle, which are distorted info derived from the book Why Pleime. He even used to claim that such commanding power was exercised in terms of "OPCON" or "operational control", [2] which are terminologies that are not even mentioned in the book for a single time.117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Firstly, you mistakenly equate "OPCON" and "operational control"; It is rather OPCON=operation concept=concept of operation. Secondly, the term had been removed from the info-box of the article subsequent to my realization of your misinterpretation.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please read again what you wrote in that version.[3]
• Please read the definition again to see what OPCON means.[4]
• By the way your idea to insert South Vietnam as an active belligerent is still an OR.117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's no more there, no?
• I thought we are done discussing this OPCON thing starting here
• It pertains to the RS you put there re: supported by ARVN>Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Find any quote from the source that directly shows such pertaining. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I hereby rest my case and let other members and administrators express their opinions. I can no more dialogue with someone that insists eastern foot of in "at the foot of the Chu Pong Massif" - a verbatim quote - means east of as in "east of the Chu Pong Massif".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

At the "eastern foot" actually. You distort stuff even in a noticeboard. And in addition, I don't have to explain for something that only blind people fail to see like this map. [5] The WP:NOR doesn't require RS explanation for such a thing. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

As a second thought, I cannot resist responding to this one.

So then why did you pin a tag on this paragraph here?

Isn't obvious that: 5 days > 2 days; Chupong-Iadrang complex > the LZ X-Ray; the 3AC's B-52 fleet > 1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 Air Cavalry Battalions; and 3 NVA 32nd, 33rd and 66th Regiments > 2 NVA 7th and 9th battalions ? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears clear now why you make use of the tag indiscriminately: whenever you are not capable to "see it" in a statement without or even with a RS, you make use of the tag.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• From what source have you come up with the idea that the significance of a military operation is judged through its duration, the area it covers, or the number of units participate in it?
• What source says that the Air Cav operation was on 14–15 November only? 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I had rest my case once. After me having a second thought, it is definite starting now.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Good work, now everybody can see you've conducted OR without explanation. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

request for comments on following bogus tags

1. tag#1 line 219
2. tag#2 line 225
3. [6]

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Some facts about my "opponent":

1. He is a non registered editor using multiple IPs such as 113.190.172.153, 180.148.2.189, 113.190.165.78, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116.
2. He is an editor with a political agenda: North Vietnam versus South Vietnam
3. He is indiscriminately using the OR tool that he had learned to wield after failing in the use of a much less sophisticate and primitive deletion tool like shown here.

4. He is uncompromising as shown here

5. He is the sole editor, besides me, that is involved in this editing war.

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• case #1 here
• case #2 here

Done I have fixed the issue of OR of case #1 here and case #2 here.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• In case #1, I have removed statement containing "words indicating that the air operations were supported by the Air Cav units",and "indication about the relation between the real air strikes in October 1965 and the planning for a B-52 strike in September" (correction of wrong air strikes date: November 1965).
• In case #2, I have rephrased the paragraph so as it contains only statements that are "attributed" or "attributable".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You've done much but I think more should be done:

• About the suspected OR in the 1st para, I think you should point out the exact page[s] which say[s] that the Air Cav Division "set up and fixed the targets" or something like that instead of deriving a conclusion from 53 pages like that. Nobody can see which page indicate that point.
• The last para is still 100% OR. You've failed to point out which page says that it's "more significant", or which academic standard makes it "more significant" just due to the number of days or number of units involved. Moreover the info you've given that the ground operation took place in only 2 days was totally wrong and supported by no source 117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• You are unreasonable in requiring a verbatim quote. It is not "noboby", only "you". You should request for comments on this. You even fail to recognize and admit an attributable statement such as in 2+2=4 in insisting for a RS.
• The statement is attributable, like the statement that says 2+2=4.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• It is obvious that you have no clue what "original research" means in Wikipedia. You should try to have a better and correct understanding of this notion with all its subtleties. You are applying it in a improper manner. At the meantime, you should seek for advices from more knowledgeable editors on this noticeboard.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're the one who totally misunderstand what does "attributable" means. If you says those things are attributable just like "2+2=4" then what is an example of unattributable thing? There must be a threshold, right? Yes, I think only "you" find it not attributable, because you are the one who derive it from the source. I can't see something attributable that is not even mentioned by a single document in this world like that the Ia Drang ground operation occured in 2 days. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Will somebody please stop this abusive OR-tagging:[7]

In comparison, the air action was much more significant than the ground action in terms

1. of time (5 days>2 days),
2. of space (100 square kilometers > 100 square meters),
3. of units committed (96 sorties>3 battalions),
4. and of enemy forces attacked (9 battalions > 2 battalions).

By tagging at the end of the paragraph, the editor also failed to realized the sum of each attributable components is also attributable.

This editor has no clue these are attributable facts in invoking the OR tag. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

The IP has been warned re: vandalism here.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Belligerent info box

Re: RS that is cited in the "Belligerent info box, I found no words indicating that the US was supported by the ARVN.

It is the other way around. In the conflict, the two belligerents were the NVA (aggressor) and the ARVN (aggressee)The ARVN was supported by the US.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's totally attributable, just like 1+1=2. Can I say like that?

p/s: In fact I do have RS proof of that. But I want to see how you define your concept of "attributable". It sounds like you have the tendency to define anything that you've failed to explain by RS as "attributable". 117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't you realize you have been given the chance to taste your own medicine? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's for you, yet you haven't realized it. If you think you really understand the "attributable" concept, why don't you just explain what's wrong with what I say, huh? 222.252.32.116 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you state US supported by ARVN, I stated ARVN supported by US.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, now prove what I say unattributable. You say you understand that term so much, right? 117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In challenging me as such, it shows that you have no clue what is "attributed" and what is "attributable". What you say is attributed to a reliable source, in this case "Vinh Loc, p.119"; it is not attributable; if it is then it wouldn't require a citation. And you wouldn't have to back up your statement (US supported by ARVN) as you are doing; and I wouldn't not pin an OR-tag on it (nonsense, right? I have been copy-catting you, so that, as I said, you get to taste your own medecine.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article." (WP:CHALLENGED)

p/s: Sorry but the way of your reasoning, it's unthinkable; I've never done that before. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" WP:BLUE Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Trying to understand SYNTH

Is the below paragraph SYNTH? (part after the last comma in particular)

Although some scholars have claimed that the fustanella was introduced into Greece by Albanians in the 15th century, archaeological evidence shows that the fustanella was already in common use in Greece as early as the 12th century, predating the arrival of Albanian-speakers on Greek lands by several centuries. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

it is absolutely synthesis unless a source directly makes the entire claim, starting with summarizing the opinions of some scholars and ending with a contradictory statement. WP editors are not allowed to present information so that one piece of information contradicts another, unless that contradiction is specifically and explicitly made in a reliable source. So on top of WP:SYN issues, there are also NPOV elements to presenting this information in such a fashion.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I suspected. You would assume editors with 7+ years of Wiki experience would understand this by now, but apparently not. DevilWearsBrioni (talk)

People tend to put on blinders when pushing their own agenda.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It simply falls into wp:OBVIOUS. If event X occurred prior to event Y, we have that X predates Y.Alexikoua (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, regarding matters such as this it is not 'obvious' as you state. The last part of that sentence "predating the arrival of Albanian-speakers on Greek lands by several centuries." is synthesis and also wp:original research (there is no reference/s whatsoever at the end of that sentence). The article clearly using sources states that yes the Fustanella did exist amongst the Greek speaking world in ancient times and that in time it became the preserve of the elite class well into the Byzantine era. They do not state though that the fustanella was an item of clothing amongst the masses as a continued fashion. Instead scholarly sources of which are cited in the article do refer to its reappearance amongst the Greek speaking masses in the 19th century to either Ali Pasha's time and spread due to his administration and/or the Arvanites i.e Orthodox Albanian speakers who affiliated themselves with the Greek national movement and made the garment popular. The bit of the sentence i have cited needs to go, as first and foremost it constitutes original research. Sentence needs to be split too. New sentence should start from archeological part.Resnjari (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it falls under WP:NOR as explained to you by Scoobydunk. You are synthesizing material to arrive at a conclusion that's not stated by either sources. The implied conclusion serves to purposefully diminish the scholarly opinion of those who claim that the fustanella was (re)introduced to Greece by Albanians. Also, notice how Morgan distinguishes between latter-day Greece and Greek lands. The origins section already deals with the fustanella during the Byzantine Empire. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing "explained" to me in this noticeboard after I've posted here. For future reference you need to invite all interested parts before trying to reach a concensus (since you intentionally? didn't inform anyone in the correspondent talkpage).Alexikoua (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Made up information

Special:Contributions/CarloRossi1010 seems to add made up information to multiple articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

CarlosRossi1010 appears to simply be a vandal going around deliberately adding false content to pages. This should probably be taken to the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Article in need of attention

The good folks at Language Log have drawn our attention to the hypertrophied monstrosity that is California Proposition 218 (1996), which (insofar as it's readable) seems to be entirely the original work of one editor, with a complete paraphrase of the proposition's text included for good measure. Neutrality has done some sterling work on the article in the past day or two, but I think the more eyes we can get on it, the better. Tevildo (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent post - I was about to post much the same! I heartily agree that we need more eyeballs on this, and ASAP. Neutrality^talk 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Holy Good Lord that article is long! Original Research problems aside, why are there two-hundred and fifty-one sections and subsections? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think far more pressing than OR, is the length of the article, and the overly technical language. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Price of anarchy

This looks like original research to me but not sure if qualifies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_anarchy

Not OR. Google pulls up many references. But the article does need a rewrite because all it is doing is summarizing the original paper (the one where the term was first coined). Our article was probably written by one of the authors of the original paper because it was created before that paper was published. --regentspark (comment) 10:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, not OR. This is a major subtopic in theoretical computer science and computational game theory. It's possible that some of the examples in the article are OR but the bigger problem is that it's overly WP:TECHNICAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Use or abuse of WP:PRIMARY?

An article undergoing a Good Article Review involves, inter alia, whether or not primary sources are over/misused. See Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/William_L._Uanna/1. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)