Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

British Sri Lankan Tamil article

I have removed quite a lot of original research from the British Sri Lankan Tamil article, largely consisting of material sourced to sources that do not mention British Sri Lankan Tamils. An example is "The second generation have received little attention from scholars, but a lot of information can be gleamed from similar diaspora groups in other racial communities. The Economist noted how westernisation had affected Muslims...", which Lankandude2017 is insisting on restoring to the article. I have started a discussion at Talk:British Sri Lankan Tamil and would appreciate further input. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I note that Iryna Harpy has previously expressed similar concerns about this editor's additions to the British Tamil article, and so I've been looking into some of their contributions. I have deleted some unsourced material from Indian diaspora in France. I'd appreciate help looking into their other contributions to see if this is a general problem with their editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Update: Health in Sri Lanka: I've already found WP:OFFTOPIC additions such as the one here, as well as content from promotional sites that do not meet with WP:RS, as well as completely unsourced content here. Considering how few contributions the user has made, all of them smack of WP:NOTHERE. The user's objective is WP:SPA beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've removed the contentious material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The editor was blocked as a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible OR at Climate change denial

I've objected a couple of times to a contributors insertions in Climate change denial pm the basis of OR. The discussions are at Talk:Climate_change_denial#Center_for_American_Progress.23Center_for_American_Progress_Action_Fund and Talk:Climate_change_denial#Clarify_Obama_on_climate_change. I don't think we're on the same wavelength at all - anyone like to look and comment? Dmcq (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your response to the second point, about including Obama's statement, is right on track - it is a bit of coatracking/POV to use the quote to give a severity of the climate change issue and then to subsequently talk about climate change deniers.
First point I think you're response has the right reasons - we shouldn't include a think tank's analysis unless it has been noted by independent RSes. A point I bring up but do not attempt to resolve is that (the independent site, it seems) is used 160-some times on WP, frequently on BLP pages (including Michelle Obama) so there may be crossed wires if it is an RS. It might be worth establishing this at the RSN. Do note the same report has been added by the same editor at Climate change policy of the United States so you may want to check other contributions. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
ThinkProgress might be okay for some things but I definitely have reservations in this instance because it is reporting on the Center for American Progress which set it up, and as the article on ThinkProgress says 'In 2011, Smith and Kenneth Vogel wrote in Politico that the ThinkProgress reporting staff "isn’t exactly walled off from the Center for American Progress Action Fund message machine, nor does it necessarily keep its distance from liberal groups organizing advocacy campaigns targeting conservatives." ThinkProgress editor Legum said ThinkProgress "is editorially independent of CAP."' I think an independent source is required here. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
True enough. But interesting just trying to see if other sources exist I came across this (done by Vice's own survey), and [1] Mother Jones also points to the CAP study. Just searching news, there is clearly a thread that there is concern that some subsection of Congressmembers have made statements that would categorize them as climate change deniers, and in such a case, we then could say the results of the separate studies. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
They say there are climate change deniers in the Senate and could be used for something like that, but they don't back up the list of characteristics of climate change deniers in the senate that CAP had and don't seem to me to be very relevant to what was being put in. Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view."[1] In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he now agrees with the scientific consensus.[2] The nonpartisan policy institute and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in a 2017 study of climate change denial in the United States Congress based on Senators' and Representatives' public statements, found 180 Senators and Representatives who deny the science behind climate change; all were Republicans.[3][4]


  1. ^ Begley, Sharon (13 August 2007). "The Truth About Denial". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 21 October 2007. 
  2. ^ "Frontline: Hot Politics: Interviews: Frank Luntz". PBS. 13 November 2006. Retrieved 19 March 2010. 
  3. ^ "RELEASE: CAP Action Releases 2017 Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus". Center for American Progress Action Fund. April 28, 2017. Retrieved September 5, 2017. 
  4. ^ Moser, Claire; Koronowski, Ryan (April 28, 2017). "The Climate Denier Caucus in Trump’s Washington". ThinkProgress. Retrieved September 5, 2017. The researchers classified as a denier any lawmaker who: has questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change; answered climate questions with the “I’m not a scientist” dodge; claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming); failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change. 

Contended content in bold. The contended content has no OR issues. The proposed content updates the article with recent developments in the relationship between climate change denial and major US political party, since the Luntz conversion in 2007. Here ThinkProgress is in the role of publisher of the report, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund is in the role of author of the report, or "agency" - this relationship is clearly explained in the two sources, a ThinkProgress article and a Center for American Progress Action Fund press release. The study is a reliable source for its own content with in-text attribution. The contended content is attributed in-text. The content is not in Wikipedia voice; Wikipedia is not saying that all the climate deniers in Congress are Republicans, we are saying that a recent report says so. The article lead already covers organized climate change denial as an American phenomenon; it seems appropriate that Wikipedia's article on climate change denial might be able to point out the significant correlation of the subject with major US political party. Sources need not be neutral; many sources in this article are not neutral on the subject. ECarlisle (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep putting this stuff in the talk pages instead of actually checking it against the criteria in the policy pages? The Newsweek article does not mention CAP at all, neither does the Lutz interview and the last two are the Center and a strongly linked party of it. So there is no grounds in all that for including what the Center says. Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The above proposed one-sentence update is to a paragraph on the origins of the relationship between climate change denial and the Republican Party. The current text leaves off at 2006. The proposed addition updates the article to inform readers that the relationship persisted beyond Luntz' personal conversion. Without this update, a reader unfamiliar with the relationship between climate change denial and the Republican Party might take away the impression the Republican Party distanced itself from climate change denial in 2006. What specific policy do you believe is violated by the above proposed update? ECarlisle (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
That needs somebody from outside Wikipedia to say it in an article that is relevant to climate change denial and that is in a reliable source. If you were writing a paper then of course you should do what you say in your paper, but Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable outside sources and reflect what they have said about a topic. Just try answering the original question I put to you, what would stop some Heartland person sticking in their Institute's idea into that article that no work to mitigate climate change should be done as that would be harmful to the economy?, they could use the exact same type arguments you have used. Sometimes the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater. This is what the WP:OR policy does and why Wikipedia is generally regarded as a trustworthy encyclopedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Try also some totally different topic like floor cleaning to see this in action. I think that artiicle really could do with improving. Floor cleaning is one of the larges if not the larges occupation in the world so it is extremely important - but people just don't seem to write about it in reliable sources. So the article is quite small. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
One thing to consider is that when looking through a google news search "'climate change denier' congress" is that there is definitely a perception/accusation that we can source that many Congresspeople are CCDs or at least have said statements that would made them CCDs, and specifically towards how these views tend to impact what legislation gets passed or not. Just that we don't have headcounts or the like from that. But if's article includes mention of the general concern of some Congresspeople being CCDs, then at that point the CAP study would be completely fine to include to show what one think tank can to as part of its conclusion. Certainly if it was only CAP and ThinkProgress suggesting this idea that some Congresspeople are CCDs, then yeah, we're in FRINGE territory and shouldn't include, but this is definitely not the case. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Why should we include them if no reliable source references them? That's the basis of the problem. I've not objections to the references you provided, the Mother Jones one in particular looks good, but I've explained above why none of the ones supplied by ECarlsisle are okay for inclusion. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
With in-text attribution a brief summarization in this article of the Heartland Institute POV on climate change denial may be appropriate, as it is a category leader in the subject of the article; you may propose something if you wish. Similarly, CAP may be used with in-text attribution. Sources need not be neutral. Many sources already in this article are not neutral on the topic. In the US the subject of the article is associated with a major political party, but the article does not say that yet. The CAP report is an perfectly acceptable source with in-text attribution for the conclusion of their own study. If I understand your objection it reads to me as having more to do with RS than OR. ECarlisle (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It is possible that something like that could be done if the citations follow Wikipedia's policies. However I was asking about do you think it would be okay to just include a quote cited to the Heartland Institute without any citation to a reliable source showing interest in it? If it was cited properly we could see what an independent party said. Or to include other bits about the Heartland Institute which are cited okay but don't say anything about climate change denial? I'm talking about the Original Research policy here, not about the Neutrality policy. We can't include original research to counter a perceived lack of neutrality. The OR policy plus the WP:Verifiability policy are the ones that requires us to use reliable sources, WP:RS is a guideline on how to select suitable reliable sources. If you really feel that CAP is a reliable source you could ask at WP:RSN but I'm pretty certain they'd agree with me and besides many of the same editors would be here. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course the Center for American Progress is a reliable source, for its own statements, with in-text attribution! CAP is the best source for questions of climate denial in the US Congress. The Center for American Progress and ThinkProgress are both widely used by others WP:USEBYOTHERS. If you have read anything about the number of climate deniers in Congress you have read the Center for American Progress or ThinkProgress or a source that cites them. As I better understand your objection to the proposed content it seems you may be raising RS issues at NORN. Or do you believe it is original research for Wikipedia's article on Climate change denial to mention the noteworthy relationship to major political party in the US? ECarlisle (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If it has been used by newspapers like you say why don't you cite such a newspaper together with its attribution to ThinkProgress? And then ThinkProgress can also be given as a primary source. Original Research means an editor goes around searching for information in non-reliable sources rather than it being shown to the public in a reliable source first. The article is not about ThinkProgress, and even if it were we couldn't mine it without secondary sources. Have a look at Conservapedia for instance, the organization proclaims about loads of stupid things but the article only talks about the stuff that people have noted in secondary sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it is better to use books and journal articles, rather than media sources, if we want accuracy and weight. They of course will quote think tanks and presidents and talk show hosts, so it's not like we would lose that, just that we could explain how their views are perceived. TFD (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Jeeez. Could you just get a reliable source or give up please. Daily Kos is a blog website without editorial control. If it doesn't make it to a newspaper or some website with editorial oversight it just doesn't work as a reliable source. This is covered by WP:UGC. Please just stop scrabbling around taking any rubbish source as confirmation that what you want to stick in is a good idea. We're supposed to have a neutral point of view and however much we think things are important they shouldn't be put in unless a reputable site has noticed it and commented on it. That was not just a blogger site it is also specially set up to promote the Democratic Party and we have to be especially careful with partisan sources trying to discredit their opponents. You put in something with decent sourcing yesterday, that's the sort of thing that's needed. Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I fully appreciate why there's concern in OR for inclusion but think there are ways this can be used under certain conditions. If we had no other sources stating that there are CCDs in Congress, pulling in this report clearly is a problem if no other RSes recognize it.
But we can uses established RSes to state that there are analysts/journalists that believe there are some Congrsspeople that are CCD (google news on "congress "climate change deniers"" gives NYTimes and WaPost hits, among other). So the idea that there may be CCDs in Congress can be made without engaging in OR. However, none of these attempt to give a scale or number of these, so if this CAP report was mentioned after these RSes and with clear attribution, this would give at least one recognized (if not biased) estimate of the number without introducing any new OR or RS problems - at least, IMO. I can see counterarguments to this, so I think this can use more discussion as long as we are keeping in mind that this has to depend on the above RSes that I mention being present already in the article. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
He put in a good citation asserting that and I was happy with that and thought for a moment he had finally got the message about OR and RS. We can't then go trawling around and stick in sites that are not mentioned in them. That is WP:OR. Why is he so desperate to put in some think tanks findings which are only noted in its own mouthpiece and a political blog? Wikipedia has standards which we should keep to about reliable sources and original research - especially in contentious areas like this. Wikipedia is not a blog for people to stick in their own ideas of what's important based on their own research in some political echo chambers. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Plus what I find especially annoying is they keep sticking the stuff back into the article even knowing about all this and being directed to WP:BRD. If they think they have found a decent source at last why not use BRD and say I think I have finally found a reliable source for this stuff? This edit warring is really annoying. They haven't removed the stuff from other places they've put it but I don't normally look at, I'm just being treated as an obstacle to them sticking into Wikipedia what they think is important rather than them actually taking the policies to heart. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The venue for article content issues is the article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your editor conduct concerns. ECarlisle (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You were inserting the same stuff without a reliable source yet again. I hardly think that requires another discussion to be started. You seem to have used reliable sources for the recent edits you've just done elsewhere in the article for which I am heartily grateful. Dmcq (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

What does ATA stand for?

Came across the Parallel ATA article and noticed two of the three initials in the term ("AT") were not explained in the lead. The WP:BEGIN/specialised term/context seemed pretty straight forward and there were voluminous reliable secondary sources[2][3][4][5][6] for a basic definition, re: it was "AT-Attachment" with the AT part coming from IBM's "Advanced Technology". I added this and was met with a wall of WP:OWN (with some WP:NPA thrown in) and reverts where two editors put forward they had read many primary source "standards docs" (which they REFBLOATed for good measure) and since "Advanced Technology" never shows in those docs it should not be used in the lead description and any secondary source that gives that as a description is wrong, "we don't need a secondary source" (said twice), "It was never written out as "Advanced Technology Attachment", except in error." (hidden note at article top).

The up and up being "Advanced Technology" is only mentioned in a WP:SYNTH statement under "History and terminology" "The "AT" in "IBM PC/AT" refers to "Advanced Technology",[6] but the ATA specifications published by the several standards committees simply use the name "AT Attachment" with no reference to "advanced technology."[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]" - reaching or implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Asking for reliable secondary sources proving any mention of "Advanced Technology" is "in error" has gone nowhere. This refusing to explain 2 letters out of a 3 letter abbreviation in an article title seems to be a lack of understanding or unwillingness to follow MOS:BEGIN re: include variations, included synonyms, giving context to specialised terms, adding relevant information in the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that while the article does make it adequately apparent by repeatedly associating ATA with the PC/AT's bus that there is possibly some connection in the names, the reader might be left asking that question. Clearly explicit explanation of whether or not it was the intent of the standard that this refer (directly or obliquely) to the PC/AT requires a secondary source, since the primary source doesn't mention it. I agree that The "AT" in "IBM PC/AT" refers to "Advanced Technology", but the ATA specifications published by the several standards committees simply use the name "AT Attachment" with no reference to "advanced technology", and the proposed ATA is frequently called Advanced Technology Attachment but such a definition does not appear in any ATA standard, both have the same WP:SYNTH problem: rather than being based on a secondary source, they combine statements from different sources to say something not said in either, linking them with the word "but" which is the exact example given at SYNTH. It's not the first time I've seen a stubborn reluctance to accept the implications of SYNTH. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The current phrasing doesn't claim that any mention of "Advanced Technology" is "in error". We don't need a secondary source to directly quote the "horse's mouth" standards documents as using the term "AT Attachment", nor to note that the phrase "advanced technology" doesn't appear in any of eight different versions of them. Nor do we need a secondary source for conclusions a reader might draw from an article. The current phrasing is simply pointing out that the difference in interpretation exists and doesn't claim that one interpretation or the other is correct. It seems to me that FoBM and DIYe are claiming that there is no way within WP policy to point to two different interpretations of the name, one that expands "AT" and one that does not. Really? Is hiding that information the best way to improve the article? Jeh (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an old issue raised a number of times in the past and settled by consensus among a number of editors. FoBM has recieved no support for his edits to the lede but insists upon his WP:POV reaching WP:TE. The language of the many published standards is clear and consistent; "definition" ... "ATA (AT Attachment)." A lot of tertiary sources and FoBM have made the sythesis that ATA is consists of three initials, that is simply not true and should not be in the lede. Tom94022 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
PC, XT, AT (and a number of other acronyms) - all became "words" which were then added onto. AT-Attachment is correct - as one can see from the sources. The origins of AT, as a term, are irrelevant for ATA (a term which lived on long after the death of the IBM Personal Computer/AT, its clones, other buses, and also when the AT wasn't quite so "advanced").Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "The current phrasing doesn't claim that any mention of "Advanced Technology" is "in error"", that is still stated in the editors note at top (unverified) and implied in the cited WP:SYNTH statement. settled by consensus among a number of editors - when claiming consensus its is helpful to link it, I did not see any consensus discussions on the wording of the lead. A lot of tertiary sources and FoBM have made the sythesis - well, secondary and tertiary have made that sythesis and that is their job, its not our job, and we seem to have a claim, again, that reliable secondary sources, and any editor who cites them, are wrong.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here between the needs of a textbook and the needs of an encyclopedia. a textbook sets nomenclature and instructs a reader on usage, an encyclopedia does not - it simple reports what is in secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a very widespread misunderstanding on Wikipedia - that we're not allowed to use primary sources at all. There is no such P or G. In fact WP:PRIMARY states that primary sources may be used "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." Nothing in the text disputed by FoBM is outside of those boundaries. Jeh (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The main problem I see is with using conjunctions or conjunctive adverbs to relate statements from separate sources that don't directly address the same topic. "But" implies that it is significant and contrary that the specifications refer only to AT and don't mention "Advanced Technology" when the source being relied upon doesn't take a stance on whether this relates to the meaning of ATA or not. By WP:SYNTH you can't counter a statement from one source with a statement from another that doesn't directly refute the statement. It's possible that the writers of the standard fully meant AT to refer to Advanced Technology (I don't personally think that's the case) but simply did not mention it. Attributing some significance to that omission is synthesis - i.e. using "but" to contrast with the other half of the sentence. In this case I think it also matters that the source is primary and is not offering any analysis or conclusions of its own which otherwise might be contrasted if directly on the same subject. From WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Using "but" to contrast is an interpretation that there is a contrast. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I see that with the latest edit FoBM has corrected this issue. I think the current wording looks good. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the contrast would be (and now is) quite apparent without the word "but". However I can live with the current edit. Jeh (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If you read an entire policy (instead of cherry-picking it) there is no "misunderstanding". WP:PRIMARY---> "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". Noting the words in a primary source is fine. Saying "I can't see any other words in a primary source and that means X" is WP:OR. Citing a secondary source and then citing your own OR about the words you could not see in the same sentence is WP:SYNTH. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Copied from here (permalink)

A typed transcription of a scan of hard copy index is NOT a primary source. The primary source is the certificate of birth/marriage/death, or the registrars entry into the register. If while researching at University if someone had ask me what original research I had dome, and I had said "FreeBMD", I'd have been laughed out of the fucking building. Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A copy of a primary source is still the same primary source.

As I explained at User talk:Sitush, the births, marriages and death registers (which comprise the indexes and the individual entries) are the primary sources. Making a copy of a primary source into a different medium (which is all FreeBMD is, just a computer typed-up copy of the indexes without any individual interpretation or analysis allowed - I know, because I helped do some of it), is still the same primary source.

Searching those indexes and identifying the correct records for yourself is blatant original research, and it's frought with error - any genealogist worth their salt knows that there are masses of problems if you rely on index entries, some of which I have also explained at User talk:Sitush

Wikipedia requires secondary sources and I have also explained to you what that means, and I'll quote again here from WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." In this case, I went on to suggest that a suitable source might be, for example, something by someone who had done the BMD research properly and had published it in what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's Johnny… A few points… 1. The Indexes are typed after the birth/marriage/death certificate is issued (sometimes years after the certificate is issued), and so are at least one step removed from the event, 2. The person creating the index is not the person that issued the birth/marriage/death certificate, and so are there is evaluation, and interpretation in the creation of the index, and 3. The index shows just the quarter of the year in which the birth/marriage/death was registered, not the actual birth/marriage/death registration date, and so the information is not the same as the primary source, i.e. the birth/marriage/death certificate. DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion on my talk page that is referred to above, and in which you stood alone in your opinion, is here. Nothing has changed. Drop it, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this discussion should be at WP:NORN. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."
The BMD indexes are just that, indexes, and carry no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, and no analytic or evaluative claims (and the fact that the indexes are not typed by the same person who typed the register entry (not the "certficates" - a certificate is a copy of the register entry) does not change that). The indexes are simply partial copies of some of the information that's in the BMD registers themselves, filed under quarter. They are most definitely not secondary sources. For genealogical material, you would need to find someone who has done the research properly, verified that they have all the correct entries, etc, and published the results in a reliable source. Searching the indexes to try to find the correct entries yourself and adding the results of that to Wikipedia articles is clear original research (as per WP:OR). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • To expand with an example. A Tom Askin is born, an entry is made in the birth register for him, and a certificate is copied from that entry for his parents. Then, sometime later, someone else goes through all the register entries, quarter by quarter, and types out the index. All they're doing is making a one-line entry in the index for each birth contained in the register, and that is still a primary source - the primary/secondary question is not about who who creates the document or when it is created chronologically, but is about the nature of its content. What the transcriber is not doing, obviously, is saying "This is the baby who will go on to be a cricketer" (or, in the case of a death index, "This is the cricketer") - they are not identifying which Tom Askin they're typing up an index entry for. Someone identifying the index entries as relating to a specific Tom Askin would be creating a secondary source, as they are analysing the primary source, consulting with other documentary evidence, and synthesising new information based on their primary sources - and if they publish it in a reliable source, we can use it. But you and I, as Wikipedia editors, are not allowed to do it ourselves, as it is Original research. We are not allowed to search the indexes and decide for ourselves which ones correspond to the people we are writing about - several of us have given examples of how badly wrong that can go, but even if it might seem conclusive in some cases, it's still prohibited by WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's an "interesting" scenario… secondary sources have identified that Tom Askin married A. Stephenson of Whitley Bridge at Kellington Parish Church on 16 August 1933… FreeBMD has the marriage of Thomas C. Askin to Aubuary (née Stephenson) registered during July→September 1933 in Pontefract district… are we saying this FreeBMD can/cannot be used to augment other secondary references? Also, as it stands, I don't believe that asking questions on talk pages is a Wiki-crime just yet, so I dont believe that comments such as… "If you are going to keep using this crap, I will get you topic banned", and this "is quite likely to end badly for you" are actually appropriate. DynamoDegsy (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is OR. There are even instances - more common than I think you realise - where two children of the same parents have been given the same name, and registration districts were often huge (eg: the one for Sculcoates). There are also gaps in the FreeBMD data, which the site acknowledges and which actually applies to the example you give. The general issue has been explained to you previously and WP:IDHT alone is grounds for blocking etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I'd agree that FreeBMD record can not be used. No matter how close it appears (and even if it is the correct one), using it is still WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In general I agree with Situch (including that this discussion should be at NORN and not here). There is no blanket rule against use of primary sources, and it is commonplace to quote from primary sources in illustration of material from a reliable secondary source that refers to the primary document. However, the problem with BMD records is the identification of the primary record. In the examples given here, the possibility of mis-identification is sufficiently high that I don't think we can use the primary source at all. I know from my own knowledge of BMD records that people of the same name doing similar things around the same time in nearby places is a common occurrence. It would be fine if there was a reliable secondary source which identified a particular primary record as belonging to a particular person, but making such identifications ourselves is not allowed. I could be persuaded of an exception if the details were extremely precise, but I don't remember seeing any examples of that in the encyclopedia. Zerotalk 03:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

End copy

Historically, when I believed there was a possibility of mis-identification I have not used the reference in the article, but I would usually add a query section to the article's Talk page, e.g. Talk:Arthur_Higgins_(rugby_league)#Birth?, which seemed non-controversial to me. I don't intend to create (or add to) any further articles with FreeBMD references, but I'm still not sure why it took 9-years for FreeBMD references to be identified as obviously problematic, it would have saved me an awful lot of time if the problem had been identified earlier. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that surprised me too. And, as I've said elsewhere, I do feel for you after you've done so much work using it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
And me. Someone on the rugby league project did tell me recently that it comprises a very small core group of people, so perhaps that contributed to the issue. Still, it has happened now and, unfortunately given the amount of time you have spent on it, it will need to be fixed. For what it's worth, you're not alone; for example, there was a great deal of use of British Raj sources in caste articles which were added by people (many by just one person) who meant well but which simply do not meet our guidelines etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Estimate the year of birth...

Copied from here (permalink)

Is it considered original research to… estimate the year of birth, by subtracting the age at death stated in a reference, from the date of death stated in the same (or different) reference? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Simple math(s) is ok. But beware of synthesising sources and, in the circumstances you are referring to (which is rugby league biographies), do not use websites unless you can be 100 per cent sure they have not mirrored the original research that you already introduced into those bios. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this should be at WP:NORN. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Also note that this is a non-trivial calculation, unless you also know the birthday of the person. Example: Person X died 12 September 2017 at the age of 100. The simple estimate would be "Year of birth = 1917" (ie 2017-100). However, if this person would have been born on 24 December 1916 the person would still be 100 in September 2017 and the estimated year of birth would be obviously wrong. (and if we know the birthday, chances high are we already know year of birth as well) Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
We have a template {{Birth date based on age at death}} that takes this into account and covers the 2016/17 issue. As long as people acknowledge that without the date of birth there is the one year variation and don't make a definite statement about the year of birth and use the range or c.2016/17 then simple maths is ok. Nthep (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
^^ Agree. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

End copy

I agree with Sitush and Nthep here. WP:CALC would seem to apply and as long as you indicate the "circa", that's good enough imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue has to do with two sentences taken from seperate paragraphs describing two different incidents more than 10 years appart in David Carradine#Reports of arrests and prosecutions being placed one after another in Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State in a manner which seems like WP:SYN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section SAITM

Is the Controversies Section on this article OR? I reviewed one part of it 'Dr Nandalal Gunaratne-Competence' the source makes no mention of the subject of the article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 10:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which part you think might be OR? It looks sourced. What does "it" refer to, "Nandalal" and "Gunaratne" don't occur anywhere in the article. I think if you want to challenge the section you're going to have to do the work of reviewing it rather than expect someone else to. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't refer to SAITM which what the article is about. BTW that section was removed, see the talk page for the part i'm referring to.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Report myself, OR (?)

Brief background I've earlier asked for better guidance when it comes to plots of motion pictures, novels, etc - at the Village Pump as well as elsewhere. As I was looking for information about Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews series, did I notice that the article in question contained very little information. Someone had began at a Summary, which must be the counterpart to a Plot within fiction - film/novels etc. And we are then to use the film/interview or novel as a primary source. Any contributor must take especially documentaries like this one very serious. And report what's observed, without making any own conclusions. Otherwise it would be OR, obviously.

Having said that, am I hereby reporting myself to AN/I, in order to try to find out if I possibly have been guilty of any OR in the summary part of that article or not.

If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, then changes subject, and instead makes (for the put Question, in question), a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question." Which can be observed (there was no cut in the interview there, and please note our current guidelines on plots and summaries) I would like to say, from a normal human perspective, is a change of subject a very well-known way to avoid a question. In this case, did Putin avoid to answer at least one of Stone's questions. Some other user, is of a very different opinion, and accuses me of having drawn OR conclusions. And appear to make the argument that "Putin never actually said I avoid that question". While I mean, that I have observed that Putin avoids a question from Stone. And hence have I not been guilty of OR. Not to my knowledge, anyhow. If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, change subject, and instead makes, for the put question, a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question" which can be observed (there was not cut in the interview, there, which is essential)

I have suggested to that user to make a complaint to AN/I , but it's just possibly might be so, that endless argumentation over "the Pope's beard - or the Beard's beard" is something he/she prefer. But really don't know. And as no such complaint has been made here, do I feel obliged to do this myself.

And I think an AN/I verdict would be to prefer, in this special case, ahead of endless time wasted at talk-pages over nothings (not just for me here and now, but in general and for the future). In a nutshell - isn't changing subject exactly the same as avoiding a question, normally ? And I really mean e-x-a-c-t-l-y the same, in this case.

And if AN/I find me guilty of intentional OR violation, do I expect some kind of proper punishment, although I have reported myself. If AN/I find me guilty of unintentional OR, would some comments be nice (aside of a possible punishment), something that I could take to heart for the future. And if AN/I find that I haven't been guilty of OR violation, then would this matter still be decided. As well as for other obvious observations related to Plots / Summaries

I will notify "myself" as well as the contributor who's got a very different opinion, but as he hasn't brought it up, do I leave it up to himself, if he feels like participate in this complaint against my self. Boeing720 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Finally. I haven't reported myself to AN/I for fun. I still think we need a rather long (bullet) list of examples, of what's OR and not, in the context of plots / summaries. Boeing720 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's include a more complete list of things you've "observed" at The Putin Interviews (emphasis on "avoids" is mine):
"Stone is very polite and it seems like Putin enjoys talking with him."
"As Stone then asks, "What about if an FSB employee had done something similar?", does Putin avoid the specific question, with the reply "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty.""
"It cannot entirely be ruled out, that Oliver Stone's work have prevented a future Nuclear Holocaust by making "Russia-fobics" more relaxed about Putin and Russia."
Those are perfect examples of NPOV violations/opinions/OR. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
"But as Stone turns the question around, "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?", does Putin avoid this question, by just state "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty". Putin has never has watched Stanley Kubrick's 1963 black comedy satire about the Cold War, Dr. Strangelove with (among others) Peter Sellers in three roles. Later they watch the film together, but if it was funny in Putin's taste, is never really revealed."
  • and

"Not so few of Stones political and military-related questions begin with some kind of smaller apology, like - "I really must ask this question.." , "People at home expects me to ask if.." etc. Stone is very polite and it seems like Putin enjoys talking with him."

So the parts below are taken out of their context. And is anyways not what I have put to ANI - Stick to the matter, or make an own AN/I report, DIYeditor ! Boeing720 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
THIS was a WP:BOLD attempt, and isn't included in my report - nor is it about primary sources. The statement above has nothing to do with the Summary. It was a WP:BOLD part in the lead, which aimed to get more contributors to contribute. Boeing720 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Running the risk that you will think I am avoiding the question ... but.... what you are describing is really too detailed for a plot summary. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It's a very tiny summary of 4 hours of interviews.
    • The full sentence is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing720 (talkcontribs) 03:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just FYI this isn't WP:ANI this is WP:NORN. Don't cut up other people's posts to reply to individual points especially when you can't WP:INDENT properly and, to be as polite as possible, make a disjointed mess of things. Further, you don't get to dictate what I bring up, and certainly would not if this were actually ANI. It's worth pointing out all three stunning examples of your work on that article that clearly constitute opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And you are right, it is worth noting that the original sentence before me fixing parts of it was: "But as Stone turns the question around, "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?", does Putin avoid this question, by just state "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty"." (emphasis original). Who says Stone turns the question around, you? Who says Putin avoids the question, you? You really think those are facts rather than opinions? —DIYeditor (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DIYeditor ! You are free to put another complaint to AN/I. But THIS Complaint is solely about a simple enough question. Don't CONFUSE it (and other contributers) by bringing up WP:BOLD matters, settled a long time ago, which were related to the lead. This is a matter related to Plots/Summaries, which (other than I) have made guidelines for. And the lead isn't based on any primary sources. A deliberate attempt in order to case confusion. My initial aim was to get more contributors interested. And is beside this point, or scope. But my AN/I complaint was (again) - what we could agree to disagree about at my talk-page.

  1. "But as Stone turns the question around, "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?", does Putin avoid this question, by just state "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty".

And the more dry, you may prefer

  1. "Stone turns the question around, "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?", Putin changes subject, and states "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty".

And the simple enough question is whether- if asked a question, and instead of receiving a reply, is the other person changing subject instead of giving a reply to the initial question. I think, believe and feel "changimg subject" it's a very common, and also human nature, to avoid a question! I don't see any difference, from either OR, NPOV or common sense. The significance of the observation is exactly the same. Not something that my mind "has made up". DIYeditor ! Stick to the issue here, or make a complaint of your own please. Boeing720 (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Who says Stone turns the question around ? No one at all says that, just like Putin doesn't say "I'm avoiding that question". According to you must we also quetion if Putin really chaned subjest, or perhaps was mute during the entire interviews ??But Stone does turn the question ! Simple enough. And besides, do you think journalist's never turn questions around ? That's what he did - in the primary source. I haven't added anything. And there is no cut during that discussion. It may show a trouble we have regarding Plots and Summaries. You cling to extremely hypothetical possibilities. Putin listened to Stone's question, and after this question was put to him, did he change subject. Or do you believe a rational answer to a question put like this "What about if an FSB-employee had done something similar ?" (regarding Edward Snowden), is "To spy on ones own allies, really is very dirty !" It's as simple as that. Putin didn't want to give a rational answer (not there and then, at least) so he changed subject. This can be verified by anyone who watch the interview series. But now have we heard your hypothetical theoretical possibilities in absurdum. I would very much appreciate constructive inputs. Boeing720 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And therein lies the crux of the situation. As Wikipedians we record what the reliable sources say. We do not interpret. Find a reliable source that says Putin avoided the question and you're fine, but you absolutely are not allowed to draw that conclusion yourself. It does not matter how obvious you think it is.

Furthermore, frankly your comments here and elsewhere on this subject are almost incoherent. It is obvious you struggle with the finer points of English (and often the not so fine points), despite your expressed self assessment. (Do you even begin to understand the irony of your statement on your talk page that your English is at such a level you could "study the English language at an academical level, at a British university"? I'm left to wonder whether this really is the place for you. Remember, competence is required. - Nick Thorne talk 06:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Instead of self-reporting, I suggest to wait until someone else reports you. Meanwhile, you can, like everyone, try to improve. If this long thread was at ANI, it could be construed as trolling, which could result in sanctions for unnecessarily wasting everyone's time (but is more likely to be hastily closed). Nick's advice about summarizing sources is right. —PaleoNeonate – 07:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It appears to be already at ANI as WP:ANI#Possible behavioral OR problems by myself in The Putin Interviews (?), but your suggestion about trying to improve is a very good one and hopefully the OP will decide to do just that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
To PaleoNeonate - I did first suggest to another contributor to go to AN/I. Boeing720 (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry - this was all along meant for AN/I. I have only one earlier experience of that. It's entirely my fault that this complaint was posted here. And for that am I sorry. Please continue at AN/I. For those who just want to pick on my grammar, please make another complaint at AN/I. My self-complaint is about any possible OR violation and whether obvious matters can be observed without outspoken statements or not, related to our Plots and Summaries of film/motion pictures, TV-documentaries , novels etc. Or in other words, parts of articles where we are using primary sources. Naturally can such sources not be interpreted by us. Not under any circumstances. What can be observed or not, is however a different matter. In absurdum, can we for instance not write "...then Oliver Stone asks..." , unless Oliver Stone in his interview actually states that he is asking a question, as he just possibly may give a statement, without any intention of asking a question. (While my position is, that we are allowed to observe, listening in this example. Hence can we, without any interpretation, write what's obvious observations. I believe that the border between interpretation and observation goes where we begin to think actively. If a person doesn't reply to a question, but changes the subject, is this an example of how to avoid a question, and such matters do we observe without thinking actively) Boeing720 (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA