Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Colonial Impact On Gender Roles And Fluidity In Indigenous Nigerian Cultures

The main subject of this article, indicated by the title, is/should be the impact of colonialism on conceptions of gender in Indigenous Nigerian cultures. The lead section indicates some ways in which this may be the case, though it's uncited. Importantly, none of the cited sections in the article discuss the impact of colonialism on Indigenous Nigerian cultures at all. Each of the sections is labelled as "pre-colonization". An earlier draft of the article also included the following sentence in the lead: "In navigating this complex terrain of colonial influence on gender roles and fluidity in Nigeria, it is imperative to acknowledge and respect the rich diversity of cultural expressions characterizing the nation's indigenous communities, each contributing to the ongoing narrative of gender dynamics in its own distinct manner." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on removal of image collages from Year articles.

There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years § RfC: Removal of image collages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian genocide victim

Palestinian genocide accusation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The victims section makes no mention of genocide, but other editors insist that it remains WP:SYNTH despite the violation because good information is lost. In Wikipedia:Edit warning it is written: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warning. I don't know if it applies here. Apart from that, this content that violates WP:SYNTH should stay? Parham wiki (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Multiple news sources, academic journal articles, and NGO websites have now been added as references that explicitly detail death tolls since the beginning of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War while also explicitly making reference to it being or potentially being a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it good;

Thanks Parham wiki (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Questionable claim in Johor Bahru

This issue is previously opened in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Questionable reference in Johor Bahru, but there seemed to be minimal participation. More review sought on this.

The sentence Johor Bahru was also the second largest GDP contributor among the first tier cities in Malaysia in 2010 uses this reference ("Urban Regeneration :The Case of Penang, Malaysia. Putting Policy into Practice" (PDF). Khazanah Nasional: 10. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 January 2016 – via The chart of the GDP contributor is in Page 10.). Diff for the addition is [1].

It seemed like a Powerpoint slide of questionable accuracy and/or reliability. It was never mentioned where the data for city GDP came from. Official GDP data in Malaysia are available down to state-level only, not smaller-level divisions like cities (https://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-state-). Could this count as original research, since the purported sentence and data are not verifiable in the cited slide? Slothades (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding text and adding sources which do not support the text

RusHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding unsourced texts User talk:RusHistorian#Unsourced statement, [2], [3], texts supplied with some sources which do not support the text Talk:Belarusian Americans#Belarusians identified as Russian , Talk:Belarusian nationalism#Nationalists were also opposed by the local intellectuals , Talk:Joseph Semashko#Latinization . Please check their latest contribution [4] if it's sourced properly, thanks! Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue continues User talk:RusHistorian#December 2023 . Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I support objectivity, and it is my firm commitment that Wikipedia should display differing viewpoints as objectively as possible for controversial topics, particularly those of ethnic, religions and political natures. I neutrally displayed opposing viewpoints that were historically held by some on controversial topics regarding Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

I give multiple citations and Manya erases them. She asks for proof that the citations support my statements, I give it, and then she says that the citations do not support some other point. She is moving the goalposts. This conduct is unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor.

Thusfar I have given her ample opportunity to pinpoint what is missing in my contributions. She cannot do it but persists in deleting cited, verified content.

These topics are sensitive and particular nationalists often try to cover up historical opposing viewpoints or facts that are incongruous with their narratives.

Please see the discussion I had with Manya on my User talk, under December 2023. RusHistorian (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The main issue I see is the content you've added content without any sources, if someone challenges your additions you are required to supply sourcing to a reliable source (see WP:BURDEN). You also seem to have tried to use Wikipedia as one of those sources but Wikipedia is never a reliable source (see WP:CIRCULAR).
There has also to be a lot of commenting on others editors and not content, editors should not comment on other editors or the possible motivations.
Finally if there is disagreement over whether a sources is reliable or not I suggest asking at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Jenna von Oÿ

Unsourced claims regarding the actress's sexual orientation removed as unreferenced OR. 96.246.238.31 (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, things like that do need to be referenced, but a simple search will tell you that yes, she is gay. Coming Out Late — and Finding a New Life in Midlife. Zaathras (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That source is good, but if that is all (also found [5]), I think including it fails WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox

I am having a WP:OR dispute with @NadVolum:. They believe that the two separate estimates of Palestinian children casualties have different classifications as to whether children are defined as a person below 18 or 14 years old. They claim that this is acceptable to add because it is WP:CALC. However, there is no reference for this claim at all. Related discussion: Template talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox#Template talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox

Ecrusized (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Solved between us, withdrawn. Ecrusized (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I said I would revert if I couldn't find a reference quickly and then found one almost immediatly but then they come here wasting my time because they think they might use one age for the children killed but refer to a second age and their proportion in Gaza just a little further down the same page. Sheesh. NadVolum (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Post Office scandal

Some more input at Talk:British_Post_Office_scandal#'Individual_cases'? would be helpful. We are currently split 3 versus 3. The article, for a long time, had a section about individual cases affected by the scandal. This was removed based on an argument that talking about individual cases when over 700 individuals were affected constitutes WP:SYNTH. That seems to me to be a misapplication of the policy, but I thought I would seek the views of people here with more expertise! Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the original removal is actually this one, and the policy-based reasoning, particularly wrt SYNTH, is expanded upon in the talkpage discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

MyrhaanWarrior

User:MyrhaanWarrior, has been adding original research content in multiple articles [6] [7] [8] [9] has decided to ignore the concerns and warnings i've placed on their talk page. Can other users explain this to them. Magherbin (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This man is lying, I have consistently been adding information backed by verified sources, while he has been adding lies and unverified facts which anyone well versed on East African history knows are lies and taken the time to continue lying and deleting the facts I have put up and verified MyrhaanWarrior (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Maghrebin Deleting verified information and making false edits

@Maghrebin Has been deleting my wiki edits which have been verified by multiple books and first hand authors and has been pushng false information on wiki pages backed by no details which are blatant lies anyone with an ounce knowledge of East African history would know, one example is his ethno nationalist tendencies, claiming his recently created ethnic group in the early 1800's had taken part in the wars of another ethnic group they are confused for which is over 5,000 years old. I have taken the time to explain on his talk page writing paragraphs with evidences and he has refused to engage or even bother refuting me, responding by giving me false warnings And even while I did verify my information he had deleted everything repeatedly making multiple edits MyrhaanWarrior (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This noticeboard is about possible violations of the original research policy stay on topic, for example where does reference #31 state "Somali" or "Harla" in the Ethiopian-Adal war article which you based your edit off of? [10]. The reponse you've given me on the article talk page, indicates you wont accept academic references because they dont align with your original research viewpoint.[11] Magherbin (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

We already spoke about this and I provided evidence Marehan fought the hardest and Hirabu was the Emir of all Somalis, yet you decided to delete all my edits and sources even while I provided images from the book and the exact page number which described exactly what I stated

If you want to use this logic, then where were Hararis mentioned? The ethnic group didn't even exist as I previously, they speak a Semitic language and are a mix of Orromo, Habesha, Harrala and Somali, Harrala is what you're trying to claim, an ancient proto Somali Cushitic group

According to all historians before the 1800's the region was not Harari but purely Somali, thus the name Barbaria

Keep on topic, refute my points with evidence, or remain silent? MyrhaanWarrior (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Aside from your original research theory, I suggest reading the cited content especially p.66 [12] which states Hararis were involved in the war. You simply changed the text to state "Somali" and "Harla", the references makes no mention of either. Also not sure which "all historians" state the region was not Harari until the 1800s, the state existed long before that see a source by Oxford p.486 "the Harari imanate within the kingdom of Adal was nearly destroyed by persistent Galla raids. A member of Gran's family transferred the seat of his Sultanate from Harar to the fertile valley of Awsa and began what Trimmingham has described 'the miserable history of the Imanate of Aussa'. The new Sultanate did notescape Somali raids and was overrun by 'nomadic Afar' near the end of the seventeenth century." [13]. Another historian is Richard Pankhurst who discusses the defeat of Emperor Gelawdewos in the 1500s by the Harari cavalry. His work is titled "The Ethiopian Borderlands: Essays in Regional History from Ancient Times to the End of the 18th Century" on p.246 [14] it states "Galawdewos was hit by a bullet, but continued to fight until surrounded by a score of Harari cavalry". Magherbin (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Westall UFO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editors are disrupting the progression of the article with the pretence of some idea of policy without following the necessary policy which they are using to stop the changes that I recently made, by enforcing the notion that consesus is necessary if the sources don't have the information in for the false information or non present in the sources information to have been added to the article in the first place.

I expected the editors involved would like to and think it necessary to review my changed to confirm or find error in my changes (@ 23:49, 7 January 2024 & 14:35, 8 January 2024) but all the editor did was revert the entire changes which has resulted in all the errors that I corrected being returned to the article. Now additionally another editor has posted a message on the Talk page, still not reviewing my changes to expect me to engage in a discussion on consensus of my "desired" changes, when the article simply now has errors in it.

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the WP:OR ? Bon courage (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The OR is a result of the reversion, the editor didn't choose to add the OR the reversion returned the OR. I showed the problem at the review link. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

14:35, 8 January 2024 facilitates access to the editorial pages for review. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The reversion additionally disconnected reference 1 from the necessary source link which is observable existing in the unreverted version here Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

the OR is specifically

• unidentified (@ 21:12, 7 January 2024)‎
• Approximately 20 minutes later the object reportedly reappeared, climbed at speed and departed towards the north-west. (21:31, 7 January 2024)
• purple hue (22:13, 7 January 2024‎)
• 11:00 am (22:26, 7 January 2024‎)
• descending, overflew the high school, and disappeared behind a stand of trees.(22:52, 7 January 2024)

the order here is the same as at the review links. The order is increasing changes downward (1 change top link, 5 changes bottom link)

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: we are probably moving forwards now so I retract the request Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed at at the fringe theories noticeboard and has been for a week. Simpul skitsofreeneea has today also taken it here as well as to ANI. What's with the forum shopping, Simpul skitsofreeneea? Spreading the issue thinly over an increasing number of noticeboards won't result in more or better discussion, on the contrary. It wastes everybody's time. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do you see this as rephrasing in own words or is this own analysis?

I think this is extrapolating and making inference rather than directly supported. I'd like to get additional perspectives. The prose in question is The Van Ryper ship models proved cost-effective for the government, as they helped in verfiying the accuracy of design, arrangements of naval deck fixtures, and alignment of various machinery components for larger ship constructions, based on source text of It is impossible to estimate the money saved in the construction of large ships by use of these ship models to check accuracy of design, arrangements of deck furniture and the lead of various parts of machinery. with regard to this edit from the source https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ithaca-journal-van-ryper-ship-models/138720698/ The source discusses two model makers and I do not see it discussing effectiveness in a way that directly demonstrates the cost effectiveness of Van Riper models. 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)