WebSafe 3.7en.wikipedia.org
|
|
🏠
Jump to content

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    • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

    Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine

    [edit]

    The artcle Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine has generated talk page debate relating to original research that would benefit from experienced editors' eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on Applying WP:OR to Site Classifications

    [edit]

    There is a content dispute about whether a source’s passing comment on a specific article, describing it as “completely illegible” and “obviously AI-generated,” can be summarized as a site-wide “fake news” classification, even though the source did not explicitly label the site as such. I have a COI with the website and am not editing the article; I am only requesting guidance. I would appreciate advice from experienced editors on how original research normally applies in cases like this.

    Source article: https://www.404media.co/why-404-media-needs-your-email-address/#:~:text=completely%20illegible%2C%20obviously%20AI%2Dgenerated%20article

    Talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fake_news_websites#c-N2225Lba2-20260125184400-MjolnirPants-20260124024200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2225Lba2 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Dead Internet Theory has an RfC

    [edit]
    icon

    Dead Internet Theory has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC is closed. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Need input on whether or not an excerpt qualifies as WP:SYNTH

    [edit]

    There is currently a discussion here (Started by a sock, the discussion then largely changed its subject when the original issue was resolved), on whether or not the Sangh Parivar is a fascist organization. Following this dispute, an editor added an excerpt from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a paramilitary which established the Sangh Parivar, where an argument is made by a scholar against classifying the RSS as fascist. The excerpt, and its related sources, do not contain any mention of the Sangh Parivar, for which reason I believe it to be a violation of WP:SYNTH. The editor has naturally disagreed with the assessment. We would appreciate any input from third parties on this question. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @EarthDude Can you provide the disputed excerpt here? It's difficult to say if it's SYNTH or not when the talk page discussion is so long, and the page version in question is unclear. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck The disputed excerpt which was added to Sangh Parivar#Fascism, is from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#Fascism. It is as follows:

    Jaffrelot argues that although the RSS, with its paramilitary style of functioning and its emphasis on discipline, has sometimes been seen as "an Indian version of fascism",[1] the "RSS's ideology treats society as an organism with a secular spirit, which is implanted not so much in the race as in a socio-cultural system and which will be regenerated over the course of time by patient work at the grassroots".[2] He argues that Golwalkar's ideology shared, with Nazism, an emphasis on ethnic homogeneity[3] but that the "ideology of the RSS did not develop a theory of the state and the race, a crucial element in European nationalisms: Nazism and Fascism"[1] and that, according to Jaffrelot, RSS leaders were interested in Hindu cultural homogeneity as opposed to racial sameness.[4]

    — EarthDude (Talk) 19:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, p. 51, ISBN 978-1850653011
    2. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, p. 63, ISBN 978-1850653011
    3. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, p. 61, ISBN 978-1850653011
    4. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, pp. 56–58, ISBN 978-1850653011
    I don't see how anything there is synthesis. If you object to it appearing in the Sangh Parivar article, what about introducing it with the sentence, "The RSS is the parent organization of Sangh Parivar." That should put it into context. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The source doesn't mention the Sangh Parivar in connection with fascism at all; it only addresses the RSS. While the RSS may be the parent organization, it is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations that make up the broader Sangh Parivar. As it stands, the excerpt is being used as a WP:COATRACK to present an opposing view to scholars who have argued that the Sangh Parivar as a whole is fascist. Even on the talk page, the editor claims that the author "addresses the Parivar as a whole by referring to the RSS," which is simply not true by what the source actually says. The author explicitly only talks about the RSS when dealing with the topic of fascism, and does not even hint about the broader Parivar. The editor also asserts that the Sangh Parivar and the RSS are by virtue not distinct entities. How is this logic of "A scholar says RSS is not fascist; the RSS founded the Sangh Parivar; therefore the Sangh Parivar is not fascist" not WP:SYNTH? Wouldn't it be more consistent with PG to include a paragraph citing sources that explicitly oppose classifying the Sangh Parivar as fascist? — EarthDude (Talk) 21:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. The lead of Sangh Parivar states that it is formed by, and affiliated to, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). If you're worried that the discussion of RSS is implying something about Sangh Parivar, again, add a clarifying sentence that establishes the connection.
    Note that WP:SYNTH does not apply to talk pages. The passage you showed above does not say that Sangh Parivar is not facist. You may infer that, but it is not stated or implied by the text, and so is not WP:OR.
    It sounds like you're objecting to WP:UNDUE weight being given to this scholar. That's okay, and you may have a legitimate content dispute. It is not, however, an WP:OR violation, and trying to paint it as such detracts from any legitimate arguments you have. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck Ahh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part, I guess it being WP:UNDUE is more accurate than it being WP:SYNTH. Should I ask for input from WP:NPOVN, considering that the editor who had introduced the excerpt in the first place has refused to comment further in the talk page discussion? — EarthDude (Talk) 08:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @EarthDude I think NPOVN is a better place, yes. I'm not well-versed in NPOV issues, so I don't think I could offer an informed opinion. Best of luck in finding a resolution! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Do sources make this claim?

    [edit]

    This is in regards to Winter Olympics 2022. I have persistent disagreement with another user over 3 cases of WP: SYNTH;

    • 1. They have added to the lede that China detained foreign journalists (plural) at the games. The issue is none of their provided sources say that.[1][2][3] What their sources describe is a single incident in which one reporter was escorted back to a permitted zone and allowed to resume reporting minutes later. There was no formal detention, and they are amplifying single events through loaded wording and giving the impression of numerous foreign journalists getting locked up in detention centres.
    • 2. Additionally they keep saying that dozens of suspicious Twitter accounts were released by the government.[4] The issue again is no sources say this. Throughout the entire article, not once does anyone say it's been confirmed. More importantly, Twitter never confirmed it and say they are still investigating and will disclose if they ever found clear evidence. They banned those accounts for a different reason.[5][6][7]
    • 3. They also want to add in that China censored discussion over the potential environmental impact of the games.[8] But not only do none of their sources support that. One of them is a dead link dated 2013.[9] Another only mentions some western countries taking burner phones to the 2022 winter Olympics.[10] None of the sources even mention that Chinese citizens were prevented from discussing Olympics-related environmental issues. I removed them per WP:SYNTH but they kept restoring. So it be nice to have a qualified third opinion to avoid an edit war.

    Smalledi (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    'Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China says reporters tailed and manhandled by security despite assurances from Games officials. The FCCC also highlighted significant online trolling and abuse of journalists who had covered Olympic events and related stories. “In some cases these attacks were fuelled by Chinese state media accounts and Chinese diplomats,” it said, describing an observed aspect of state-backed online harassment and propaganda campaigns.' [11]
    As this and other attacks on journalists fit a pattern of a state-backed campaign then this is significant enough to mention in the lede. Thus, "foreign journalists were harassed and detained" is fair. LionTank (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @LionTank The issue is that's not what the Guardian says. It says that the FCCC claims these things, but the Guardian has not confirmed it. This would be a perfectly fine source for an attributed statement (e.g., "The FCCC claims that reporters were tailed and manhandled...") but is not sufficient for a statement in Wikivoice (e.g., "Reporters were tailed and manhandled.") As for a pattern, we as editors cannot make that conclusion; that's very much WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia summarizes what WP:RS say, and unless an WP:RS says there's a pattern (e.g., of harassment and detention), we can't conclude that. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=1338354923"