Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

By /

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard

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  • “Original research” includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Talk:Neurodiversity

While researching neurodiversity organizations, I came across some information. These articles, by any measure, seem to indicate that neurodiversity groups oppose disability-selective abortion.

Neurodiversity organizations acknowledge that abortion is a pregnant person’s right. However, they argue that unlike non-selective abortion, disability-selective abortion constitutes discrimination. I included this point in an Article, but it was deleted by another user who cited ‘original research’ as the reason. Yet, the material below, in my opinion, clearly shows opposition to disability-selective abortion from any perspective. and the organizations themselves seem to have made their position known without concealing it.

Evans, M. (2020). The Autistic Genocide Clock. In: Kapp, S. (eds) Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.

The Autistic Genocide Clock was created by Autistic activist Meg Evans in 2005. The Clock was a ten-year countdown in the image of a clock in response to researcher Dr. Joseph Buxbaum’s public pronouncement that genetic research on autism could lead to a prenatal genetic test within 10 years. Evans’ point was that a prenatal genetic test for autism could lead to abortions of fetuses that test positive for autism: a form of genocide in her view. The Autistic Genocide Clock warned about the risk of genocide to the autistic population that drew parallels to historic attempts to eliminate minority groups. Evans took the clock down in 2011 after the prenatal test seemed unlikely and the culture had moved much further towards acceptance.

John Pring on 4th November 2021, Autistic campaigners’ anger over Spectrum 10K protest lock-out and ‘scare tactics’, disabilitynewsservice.

Nicky Vere-Compton warned that the research could eventually be used to encourage parents to abort unborn babies that had a genetic link to autism.

She said: “We have already seen what happened when they found a DNA link for Down’s.

“They used that as an opportunity to have conversations with the parents of unborn Down’s babies, saying, ‘Would you like to abort your child?’

“And as a consequence, less Down’s babies are being born now.

“If they find the DNA link for autism, which they won’t, because I don’t believe it exists, but if I’m wrong and they do, what will happen is that every doctor will be speaking to the parent of an unborn autistic and saying, ‘Would you like to abort your baby?’

“The level of ignorance about the autistic neurotype means that more parents than not will say, ‘Oh no, I don’t want an autistic child’ and there will be less of us being born.

David Gray-Hammond, who read out the statement, added: “On a personal note, I think most of us were lost for words when we saw this research come out… it’s yet another attack on the autistic community.

“Yet again, people are trying to find out what causes autism, rather than actually support the ones that are already here.

“Because we are here, we are human beings, we exist and we deserve support, and instead £3 million is being poured into research which could potentially be used to eradicate us.

“We have a right to exist.”

Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Letter to ACLU on Wrongful Birth and Life Statements, May 25, 2012

We are writing as members of the disability community to express disappointment with your action alert this past March defending wrongful birth and wrongful life lawsuits. As civil rights advocates, we are grateful for the ACLU’s tireless work. However, we strongly feel that your defense of these suits fails to address issues that reach beyond reproductive choice and that profoundly affect people with disabilities. We would like to schedule a meeting with you to begin a dialogue between our organizations. People with disabilities see these lawsuits as involving distinct issues unrelated to abortion, namely the harm to society when courts make decisions about the value of the lives of individuals with disabilities who have already been born. We are disappointed that an organization committed to and with a long history of protecting civil liberties and human rights, particularly the rights of traditionally marginalized or underrepresented communities, would support a policy that dehumanizes people with disabilities and devalues their lives.
Wrongful birth and wrongful life lawsuits have as their basis the assumption that life with a disability is not worth living, which goes against the principles of the disability rights movement and the Americans with Disabilities Act. These actions require parents to publicly reject their child because of a disability. Only parents who convince the court that their child should never have been born are eligible to win a wrongful birth or wrongful life lawsuit. Similarly, because not every disability will be considered significant enough to win a wrongful birth or life lawsuit, courts are required to make decisions about which types of disabilities are “so bad” that parents should be compensated for having the child.

Autistic Self Advocacy Network of Australia and New Zealand, “History of Autistic Advocacy: How we got here”

Meanwhile, Meg Evans’ Genocide Clock warns of the dangers of prenatal autism screening, raising concerns about the erasure of autistic lives.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otyuso23 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there’s a bigger WP:DUE concern than OR, but I’d agree with the revert of the addition on the basis that it seems unwarranted to add an entire level-two section on autism advocacy groups’ views on selective abortion to an article whose topic is Neurodiversity. There’s also a bit of OR to take statements that are largely (although not exclusively) WP:PRIMARY statements by autism advocacy groups and then assert in wikivoice that neurodiversity groups acknowledge that abortion is a pregnant person’s right. However, they argue that disability-selective abortion, as opposed to non-selective abortion, constitutes discrimination. To make such a sweeping statement in wikivoice, you should be relying on coverage of neurodiversity advocacy groups in non-advocacy publications (e.g. peer-reviewed literature, mainstream news press) that frame their perspectives in such terms. Generalizing primary statements to make wikivoice claims about a broad category of groups purported to be similar to those making the statements is OR. signed, Rosguill talk 16:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I interpret this text as specifically stating that ‘neurodiversity’ opposes ‘selective abortion’?
Steve Silberman, NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity, Avery Publishing, ISBN 978-1-58333-467-6, pp.470.

“Neurodiversity advocates propose that instead of viewing this gift as an error of nature—a puzzle to be solved and eliminated with techniques like prenatal testing and selective abortion—society should regard it as a valuable part of humanity’s genetic legacy while ameliorating aspects of autism that can be profoundly disabling without adequate forms of support.”

Otyuso23 (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill Otyuso23 (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The independent sources would probably justify a sentence or two in the section about neurodiversity in the disability rights movement. signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original dispute appears to have been putting a short section on disability selective abortion into Neurodiversity. It was reverted as WP:OR which seems a bit of a stretch unless there’s a bunch of sources disputing the claim. It’s a tiny bit WP:SYNTH but certainly not the worst I’ve ever seen from someone trying to make a summary of a view that seems widely held. I am a bit on the fence about whether the material is WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NZDF response: With its narrow focus on harm reduction, the NZDF has been unable to exert any influence over what has been described as “a serious and rapidly escalating public health crisis.” Executive Director of the Foundation, Sarah Helm, suggests “a much larger investment in addiction treatment” is needed and “an extension of Te Ara Oranga”, the methamphetamine harm reduction initiative that was trialled in Northland.[1] However, in December 2024, Northland had the highest consumption of methamphetamine in the entire country.[2]

Note the second reference does not mention the programme nor does it ascribe any fault towards the NZDF for this increase. The article in quesiton is New Zealand Drug Foundation Traumnovelle (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are trying to give a neutral notice, but making sense of the issue or the rambling discussion at Talk:New Zealand Drug Foundation is difficult. Is there a diff that sums up the claimed problem? That is, exactly what text do some editors want to add and which others want to remove and/or change? You can comment at article talk with a link to here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specific issue is this diff [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a way to find the optimal a_max, I just want to say is that original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltypestar2 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and even if it weren’t, the derivation is much too long for the article. I think you should revert your addition. Perhaps you could write a blog post with your findings instead. Elestrophe (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the new section from the article. Elestrophe (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on secondary sourcing, rather than a place to just include something. Unless this is something already published elsewhere it doesn’t belong here. — LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently trying to add stock charts to an article.

They come from the commercial and financial chronicle, a business newspaper and as such a secondary source.

I was told that this is a case of original research, unless i find other sources that discuss the stock price, i cannot quote it in the article. Is that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2455:8423:4800:60C6:3C72:764A:3D45 (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The details of what article you where editing, or a link to the edit itself wpd be helpful. — LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sylvania Electric Products
Nothing special about the company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylvania_Electric_Products&oldid=1318284754 includes collapsible tables that were deemed inappropriate. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:D3E6:5C4B:F95:F7A3 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the disagreement is about whether the tables are too long/overly detailed, rather than whether it’s OR (doesn’t seem to be). I’ve made a suggestion to try and resolve this disagreement on the talk page. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add this section to the article on SpaceX Starship:
In a update on their website in late October 2025,[1] SpaceX stated that Starship is “SpaceX is self-funding representing over 90% of system costs” [sic], which combined with known public contracts (like the one for Starship HLS [2]) representing the remaining 10 or less percent would put the cost of the “core Starship system and supporting infrastructure” at the moment of the release at no less than $27 billion.
But I’m not sure if that would be synthesis, or merely arithmetically combining two different sources (we know from one that it is 90% self-funded, and we know from the other what the remaining 10% translates to at the minimum). Thoughts? Hal Nordmann (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s OR because you don’t know on what basis each of the sources computed their numbers. One number is from 2021 and one is from 2025, and you don’t rule out that NASA or other agencies made additional contracts. There is a lot of uncertainty involved and your estimate could be quite silly and therefore IMO leans towards not legit even as a clearly stated estimate. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:4A09:B9E2:5AE8:60AE (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The intent was to estabilish a lower bound for the costs (and clearly state so), as the SpaceX estimate is too vague for anything more. But if you say so… Hal Nordmann (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t even know if the 90% claimed by SpaceX was not a bullshit PR claim. It’s not in any kind of official document. Uncertainty upon uncertainty. I would not be comfortable at all relying on such an estimate.
I am not strict about OR if the wording makes clear that it is, but in this case it is a stretch. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:4A09:B9E2:5AE8:60AE (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling is that this goes beyond simple arithmetic because we aren’t really sure if these figures are apples to apples or apples to oranges. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“James I & VI” is a name used for the person who was both King James I of England and King James VI of Scotland. It is easy to find reliable sources with the name.
The man known as Pedro I of Brazil was also known as Pedro IV of Portugal. Editors at his article wish to add the name “Pedro I & IV” to the infobox. I have asked for sources for the name on the talk page but none have been provided (in any language). I believe it is contrary to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Alternative names to use a name that is not found in reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the directions tool of Google Maps to find the distance along several highways in California. Is this original research? If not, do I need to cite Google Maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latiasprismstar (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s OR. If no reliable source cares to mention these distances, why should our articles? EEng 00:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article Evie Magazine
There are sources that describe it as conservative
NYT
Guardian

There are sources that say it is alt-right
futurism
opendemocracy

CNN makes the point that some call it alt-right:

“This was Evie Magazine, a publication and website founded in 2019 by married couple Brittany and Gabriel Hugoboom. The magazine has characterized itself as a “conservative Cosmo.” Some, pointing to its record of publishing conspiracy theories, vaccine misinformation and tradwife nostalgia, have characterized it as “alt right.” (Evie Magazine did not respond to requests for comment.)”

My opinion is that, in this case, we should write: “women’s magazine described as conservative by some and alt-right by others”, but other users insist on writing “conservative alt-right women’s magazine”. I think this is a case of SYNTH. Moreover, by definition, alt-right is an extremist movement that often disagrees with both left and conservative. I don’t know what scholar would write “conservative alt-right”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evie_Magazine&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll copy what I just wrote at Talk:Evie Magazine: The issue, or at least one of them, is that neither The Guardian nor The New York Times sources call Evie “conservative” in their own voice. The Guardian article avoids descriptors, but the overall point is that Evie is anti-feminist. The New York Times style guide specifically says to avoid using terms that might be seen as pejorative or extreme, so they tend not to use phrases like “alt-right”. Instead, The New York Times article says that Evie publishes articles that promote positions that are fringe even within conservative circles. That is the NYT’s way of saying that Evie is more than conservative. Woodroar (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reposted Guardian article to the right one that calls it conservative.
“Momfluencers and tradwives celebrate RFK Jr’s “Make America Healthy Again” policies while wearing breezy milkmaid dresses. Evie Magazine, a politically conservative version of Cosmo, appropriates the trending visuals of feminist magazines with headlines that decry body positivity and promote vaccine skepticism. As the New York Magazine writer Brock Colyar described young Republicans at a post-election night party: “Many are hot enough to be extras in the upcoming American Psycho remake.”
The NYT says that there are articles that are fringe even for right:
“But readers who click past “hot girl” health trends and Adam Brody appreciation posts will find articles that promote positions that are fringe even within conservative circles.”
But it recognizes a general trend towards conservative:
“Many of Evie’s writers have been affiliated with conservative institutions, and the website regularly publishes content that reflects today’s conservative positions, including opposition to abortion, transgender rights and vaccines, as well as support for the Trump family. People have labeled Evie “far-right,” which the Hugobooms find irritating; they repeatedly called it a “double standard,” arguing that outlets like Teen Vogue and Refinery29 aren’t always described as explicitly left. The couple, both of whom voted for President Donald J. Trump, said they felt that the way conservatives were portrayed in mainstream media was outdated.”
The way it says “People have labeled Evie ‘far-right'” suggest that the author of the NYT piece distances themselves from this position.

Another NYT piece

“She said she has used the apps Flo and 28, the last of which was founded by the creators of the conservative Evie Magazine and backed by the right-wing kingmaker Peter Thiel. Both are part of a fast-growing, multibillion-dollar market for women’s health technology.”

NYT, again

“The Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show was on Wednesday. Some Christians were sharing an article online that had called for a return to “a hyper-feminine showcase of genetic beauty,” published in the conservative Evie Magazine.”
I have changed the sources cited in the article to the two Guardian and NYT pieces that make no mention of Evie being anything other than conservative.

—Deamonpen (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia permit any exemptions for its Background sections when it comes to sources and content having to be “directly related to the topic of the article” part of WP:OR? My recent edits to three articles to flag sources that do not refer to the article titles, read broadly, have been undone either on the basis of the content or sources being “factual” or because an editor did not believe the statements in question had to be directly related to the title subject if the information was “relevant and uncontroversial”. Human to human, I understand editors’ urge to want to provide more context, but is there merit to the points from the perspective of Wikipedia?

I’ll pick two examples from the edits in question. In Grokipedia, the Background section talks about efforts to create an alternative to Wikipedia, with Conservapedia being given as an example. The cited source is from 2007, predating Grokipedia by many years. In Epic Games v. Google, the Background section says that the Epic Games’ CEO has been outspoken in criticizing the 30% fee of digital storefronts. The cited article mentions stores like Steam and GOG, predates the title lawsuit by three years, and makes no mention of Google. Daisy Blue (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s an interesting question. I tend to avoid adding “background” that no sources on that article topic have mentioned as relevant. Once background information is established as relevant by sources on that article topic, it’s reasonable to provide brief context for the reader which might entail the use of a source not on that article topic. I think original research comes into play when an editor decides for themselves that information is related even though sources on that article topic haven’t made that connection. I don’t know how the community as a whole views it though. Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a battle in the Second World War could contain a background section on the state of the war at that point, even if the sources used in that section didn’t directly mention the battle specifically. Doing so wouldn’t be OR. — LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What guidelines would you reference to make that case though? A question for everyone, even if I’m replying to just one person. Daisy Blue (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a good question. I personally try to always find a source linking any background information to the article subject. To my knowledge, this isn’t codified as a guideline anywhere. As an aside, similar questions could be asked of “See also” sections, which tend to become a coat rack of barely related topics. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is original research, and I’d argue it’s also POV editing. These sections are a result of editors adding coverage that’s not given weight in the source. For the Grokipedia case, that’s an editor coming to their own conclusion about Conservapedia and Grokipedia being comparable, based on their own POV. If something isn’t covered in sources about the subject, then it doesn’t belong in articles about the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are meant to be comprehensive so that they can be used and understood while offline. Background sections are generally needed to help with that approach, particularly around events, so the reader does understand how events did not just magically crystalize from nothing. We do want to make sure we don’t go so far back or so far away from the topic to be excessive (like the common joke “Start at the beginning…” “Well, first the Earth was made…”). This type of reasoning is equivalent to the same processes we use to summary sources for a topic, the type of required “original research” to make the decisions as to the most relevant points, and thus appropriate. Further particularly for topic that involves a sequence of events that are separated by some time, you will get coverage of one step of the event which often will point back to their previous coverage of the earlier event, but rarely would cover the entire sequence in full. Obviously, it would be great if there were sources that did that, but as long as we reasonable can follow the line of logic from sources on the event sequence, and again applying common sense to what is appropriate, these background sections are fine. Masem (t) 13:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The key is that any “line of logic” has to come from a source that directly presents that line and links A to B to C. Using our own logic is Original Research. The source does not have to be directly “about” the topic of the article… but it does need to explicitly state the line of logic we present. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe that, when the line of logic is deductive, such as with the example I gave below (where a source says that X is a member of group Y and another source says that all members of group Y have property Z), we need to have the logic ‘X has property Z’ explicitly spelled out in a source used in the article X. But I also acknowledge that this type of sourcing is often used for more defeasible lines of logic, such as a source which states that X is a member of group Y, and another which states that ‘many’ members of group Y have property Z, while not explicitly mentioning X as one which does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Epic Games v. Google (which I am a primary contributor of), there is a ear series of events starting from Sweeney’s comments on revenue share to the onset of the lawsuit. I know I have the sourcing that clearly links each set of consecutive events in thus chain (newer articles on a new event linking back to at least the previous event), just not sourcing that is specifically about the lawsuit/trial that doesn’t dig back that far. I would definetly be more concerned if I brought up some event in the best that has no clear sourcing linkage, as that becomes a true OR problem, just like with the deductive logic issues above. Masem (t) 15:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that sourcing exists. However, I don’t think the article’s current sourcing needs improvement, at least not based on this question. I outlined my logic below, but to summarize: there is no claim in the article, implicit or explicit, which isn’t sourced in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a situation I’ve encountered before. It actually pops up with some regularity on WP:FRINGE topics, where I edit frequently, and where it’s usually done to push a pro-fringe POV.
Despite that, my thoughts are that it’s not as cut-and-dry as some people believe. I’ve had conversations about the question of “does every source need to be on the topic of the article or on the topic of the claim?” and most editors seem to agree with the latter. That is my interpretation, as well. If the information is relevant, verifiable and WP:DUE, then I don’t see the problem. Indeed, the best argument against doing this is arguing that it’s undue, as the sources aren’t about the topic. That can be a very valid complaint.
Despite that, the specific type of WP:OR looks to be WP:SYNTH. And calling these examples synthesis seems seems a bit of a stretch. After all, synthesis is when two or more claims are combined to produce a third claim that isn’t verifiable in either source. The first claim in either case seems to be that the subject of the article exists. That’s reliably sourced. The second claim, which is also reliably sourced, are the ones you gave about. So what is the third claim, in either of these cases?
In the first case, the third claim is that ‘both Gockipedia and Conservapedia are WP clones that push a right-wing narrative’. Sources extant in both articles are explicit that each is a WP clone that pushes a right-wing narrative.
In the second case, the third claim is that the 30% fee is pivotal to the lawsuit. Well, that claim is actually reliably sourced elsewhere in the article.
In neither case can I find a claim that is not supported by reliable sources. In both cases, it appears to be just a summary of the sources, and summarizing sources is explicitly within our remit. Indeed, it’s our very purpose here.
So here’s the tl;dr. When encountering issues like this, we need to carefully consider what WP:SYNTH means, not just what it says, or what we remember it saying the last time we checked that page. Comparing that section and the essay WP:SYNTHNOT is a good idea. My personal advice is always to carefully think through what WP is explicitly saying, and try to separate that from what we’re reading into it, as well. There are some fundamental tenets of logic which are inescapable, after all. If all X are members of group Y, and all members of group Y have property Z, then I don’t think using a source that says “all members of group Y have property Z” is original research in an article about X. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining her 2005 edit that introduced the “directly related” part to WP:OR, SlimVirgin said:
today we have a new user trying to add an explanation of what the term “fair comment” means in an article saying that a court in New York judged that to call Lyndon LaRouche an anti-Semite was fair comment. The new editor is trying to argue that what fair comment means in law is not what it means in everyday language, and in so doing (whether he’s right or wrong), he’s trying to build a case, which is not allowed. I’m going to try to come up with a paragraph explaining why this is original research.
Like the policy wording itself, that challenges the idea that it’s our job as editors to provide context or background explanations via sources that are not “directly related to the topic of the article”. From looking at the prior discussions about Background sections, I also found an essay by Phenylalanine, who takes the opposite position, similar to Masem’s and that of a number of other editors. The essay cites WP:AUDIENCE (previously at WP:PCR) to make the point, but that guideline does not support the idea, as it explains “providing context” merely as not using jargon, pointing out simple facts like the Ford Thunderbird being a car, or wikilinking. There is no hint at sources being within that scope.
Nevertheless, given that we do have these discussions and debates, I think it calls for even more clarity in WP:OR, like adding a footnote to say that a directly related source cannot be used as a proxy for using unrelated or indirectly related sources with respect to the article topic. Daisy Blue (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A term like “fair comment” in the context of a legal case is a far cry from “jargon”, there are exact terms of art that have legal history and meaning, and if we don’t already have a blue link to explain the term, a law person explanation provided by an unrelated but reliable source is absolutely in line. It would be OR to try to interpret the term in another manner without the use of sourcing. On the other hand if we were talking cars and we had “the driver souped up his car”, “soup” is clearly jargon that can be replaced without an explanatory source. Masem (t) 23:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to Blueboar for how “directly related” doesn’t mean the same thing as “explicitly mentions”. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it does, as further underscored in WP:NOR/EX, which provides an example similar to SlimVirgin’s, containing what looks like helpful and valuable context classified as original research simply because the source does not mention the subject of the article:
Intelligence officers of the attacking forces claimed to have telephoned the residents of buildings where military assets were suspected of being stored, to warn them to leave before it was bombed.[Sourced to an article about the bombing] During the war, 90% of the telephone system was down.[Sourced to an article that does not mention the bombing] (Implied: Thus the attacking forces could not have warned 90% of the residents whose buildings were bombed.) Daisy Blue (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a SNYTH logic problem that was discussed above, as it is making a direct and not-necessarily-true inference from a disparate source. On the other hand, explaining what a legal term if the sources on the lawsuit where the term was used with a disparate source is not trying to create a novel conclusion but to help inform the reader. It is the same as if we blue linked the legal term to an article about it (eg we frequently blue link the term en banc without explanation when it comes up). As long as we do not try to twist that definition to interpret the decision in the case, absent any other source that actually does that. Basically, stuff like this falls under Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable-type of providing necessary context to the reader as needed. Masem (t) 13:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline is similar to WP:AUDIENCE in that it deals with jargon, wording, summarizing the body for the lede, and formatting, but does not hint at allowing sources that aren’t “directly related to the topic of the article”. It tells us how to present information rather than how to source it. If anything, it too reminds us to avoid original research, whether by synthesis or not. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the relevant part of the quote you provided above re; the ‘fair comment’ bit is …and in so doing (whether he’s right or wrong), he’s trying to build a case, which is not allowed. (emphasis added)
The ‘case’ that user is trying to build is the claim that’s not supported by the sources.
Masem was responding to that and your argument which referenced it. I don’t read their comment as implying that the guideline he linked gives remit for us to include background information. Both of us have addressed that already with different arguments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that example is that a source which shows that 90% of the telephone system was down does not show that 90% of the telephone lines in that building were down. That building could have had complete telephone service at the time of the bombing, by dint of being part of the 10% that did have service. (It’s worth noting that most apartment buildings have a single telephone connection point, so if one telephone in the building worked, then it’s highly likely that all or at least most of them worked.)
It’s introducing a third claim which is not supported by either source. Again, in both of the examples you give, that ‘third claim’ is, in fact, supported by sources, just not the same sources as are used to support the out-of-context meaning of each claim.
I would say that it’s a poorly-written example. In fact, I’m fairly certain I have previously said so about that exact example. I don’t think that implied claims are as cut-and-dry, because the implications aren’t necessarily the same for each person, though I will acknowledge that that example provides a particularly bad instance of an implied claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello. I am involved in a content dispute in which another editor has used personal speculation and personal statistical analysis to advance his position.
I am requesting guidance on a possible case of No Original Research in a content dispute.
First, I should say that the text is somewhat long in order to fully explain the problem. I apologize for that.

The issue is related to a sensitive data regarding the percentage of Afghanistan Ethnic Percentage Table , and we have discussed this for a long time and made some progress.
But now the discussion has reached an stalemate with another editor because he refusing to accept the violation of NOR.

I should also say that all the information in Afghanistan Ethnic Percentage Table is base on the entire territory of Afghanistan and includes all 34 provinces of Afghanistan.

but what is the problem?
To understand the problem, I invite you to look at pages 39 and 40 of this ABC News survey.Please look at this PDF. https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1083a1Afghanistan2009.pdf
On pages 39 and 40, you will see the names of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan in which the survey was conducted.
And the numbers in front of the provinces indicate the number of data collection centers and information.
The year and time of the survey are also written in the top row of these statistics.
For example, the years 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007 and 2009.
Everything is written very clearly and understandable.

pages 39-40 explicitly shows incomplete and flawed geographical coverage for certain years:

Year 2004 = Information is available for 28 provinces. (Two provinces were not yet formed at that time)

Year 2005 = Information is available for 31 provinces.

Year 2006 = Information is available for 31 provinces.

Year 2007 = Information is available for all 34 provinces.

Year 2009 = Information is available for all 34 provinces.

As we can see,The source clearly states the fact of incomplete coverage. the data for 2004, 2005, 2006 are not from the entire territory of Afghanistan.
The Original Research Violation:
(another editor SdHb insists on keeping this geographically incomplete data in the main national table.
to support this position, he have introduced his own novel statistical analysis, arguing that:

( these provinces that are not in the statistics together account for 2.8% of the Afghan population and it is not important and this is smaller than the sampling error (Margin of Error) of ±3.5%.” Therefore, this incomplete and defect data still provides a reliable national representative )

The editor’s argument confuses two distinct statistical concepts:

Sampling Error (Margin of Error)‘= Uncertainty measures the size of a given sample. For example, in Year 2005 sample, it measured the uncertainty of 31 provinces.

Coverage Error: Occurs when parts of the population are systematically excluded from the sampling frame.

The Margin of error only measures the uncertainty due to sample size. 

Margin of Error is fundamentally different from Coverage Error.

An example to help you understand:
Suppose you want to measure the average temperature of the “whole” of a lake.

The “margin of error” says: “I measured 100 random points on the lake, so my measurement Uncertainty is ±1 degree.”

The “coverage error” says: But I completely omit all points to the north of the lake from the measurement.

the result is You have measured the average temperature of a part of the lake, not the whole lake, because the points to the north of the lake are not covered. So the claim that the data are for the whole lake is completely disproved.

The truth is that SdHb have no right or permission to ignore or downplay the lack of statistics for three different provinces.
– The editor uses his false personal speculation and personal statistical analysis to advance his position.
This is a case of NOR that is prohibited in wikipedia.

Question for the Community= Please tell me whether this problem violates No Original Research rules or not? thank you very much.
Badakhshan ziba (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn’t seem like OR on SdHb‘s part. If a poll claims to be tracking national statistics, it’s not original research to say that. Without knowing the poll’s methodology, it’s impossible to say how they accounted for those missing provinces. As a compromise, possible limitations with the data could be mentioned in a footnote. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody, I’m deeply disappointed that we couldn’t solve this without escalating to WP:NORN. That said, I want to clarify that my edits don’t violate said policy. At no point have I introduced unpublished analysis or synthesis. I have relied strictly on what the ABC News survey reports state explicitly in their published methodology reports (https://abcnews.go.com/images/International/1026MethodologyNote.pdf, https://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/998MethodologyNote.pdf), which is that these polls were designed and executed as nationally representative opinion surveys based on stratified random sampling proportional to population size. The sources themselves also explain that sampling points were allocated according to population distribution and that margins of sampling error already account for design effects and clustering.
Badakhshan ziba argues that because some provinces had no sampling points in 2004, 2005, and 2006 because of security and accessability problems, the results are illegitimate on a national level. This is a misinterpretation of what national representativeness means in survey methodology. Coverage of all first-level administrative units (in this case provinces) isn’t a methodological prerequisite but proportionally distributed sampling is. This doesn’t invalidate the national estimate unless the survey organisation itself says so. And ABC News doesn’t ever state that the data for these years are invalid or non-national. On the contrary, they explicitly present the statistics as national findings ([2], [3]):

An ABC News poll in Afghanistan — the first national survey there sponsored by a news organization …

… ABC News has sponsored five national public opinion polls in Afghanistan …

The claim that including these survey years would be “original research” by me is ridiculous. I didn’t interpret raw data or calculate new statistics. I merely summarised what the survey documents already state, which is that the surveys reflect national opinion and that their uncertainty is reported through a margin of sampling error of ±3.5%. Anne drew said:

As a compromise, possible limitations with the data could be mentioned in a footnote.

That’s exactly what I proposed, thank you for confirming that this is an acceptable compromise. Including these years in a chronological table, accompanied by a transparent footnote identifying the unsampled provinces and noting that they together represent maximum 2.8% of the population, just reflects verifiable, published data from an otherwise mutually agreed upon reliable source. No interpretation or synthesis beyond what the ABC methodology itself states has been introduced by me. For even more details you can follow the discussion on the talk page. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne drew Please look at the above post by @SdHb. This is in my opinion a clear violation of Wikipedia’s rules on WP:NOR.
@SdHb The word “national” that I initially mentioned is not a media headline or media claim, but rather the full coverage of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan and the entire territory of Afghanistan. @SdHb You are using an article in ABC News site that claims that this was a “national poll”. This is a media claim.
The problem is not about defining the word “national“. The main problem here is that the poll data (ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD POLL) in 2004, 2005 and 2006 does not cover the entire territory of Afghanistan.
Incidentally, ABC itself has also fully confirmed that in those three years, the entire territory of Afghanistan was not covered by the survey.
The information mentioned in the Afghanistan Ethnic Percentage Table , is all based on information from the entire territory of Afghanistan (all 34 provinces of Afghanistan) and we are not allowed to include data( that does not cover the entire territory of Afghanistan) in this table with personal interpretations and opinions.
As Wikipedia editors, we must follow the policy of “”No Original Research”. This means that we must base our edits on verifiable facts from the original source, not on claims, whether personal claims or unverified media claims.
We want to use the data and statistics of this source in Wikipedia ( (ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD POLL ).
In fact, this is the main source cited. So what does the main source tell us? It is clearly stated on pages 39 and 40 of the main source that the survey in the three years 2004, 2005 and 2006 does not have complete coverage (it does not cover all 34 provinces of Afghanistan and the entire territory of Afghanistan)
Note = I did not see anywhere in the main source that claimed that a survey was conducted in entire territory of Afghanistan in 2004, 2005, and 2006. If any person find anything about this, please show us. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the PDF explicitly identifies this as a national public opinion poll, I completely understand your objection: how can a survey be “national” if it excludes entire provinces? The reality is that polls often rely on statistical methods to correct for incomplete samples.
Regardless, it isn’t our job to peer-review the methodology of reliable sources. If the source claims the data is national, we should describe it as such. Excluding data based on our personal analysis of their sampling is simply editorial overreach. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne drew I do not intend to completely delete this survey.
The statistics of Afghanistan Ethnic Percentage Table are based on the entire territory of Afghanistan and 34 provinces.
I have been discussing this table with @SdHb for three months. He is not impartial and neutral.
He has always been trying to find sources in these three months to increase the percentage of Pashtun statistics. (I will register a request in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view soon in this regard) Now, if we want to put incomplete and incorrect data of 2004,2005,2006 in the table, the number of Pashtuns will be artificially increased. And in my opinion this is the possible reason why @SdHb insists on including these incomplete statistics in the table.
Therefore, we cannot include the data of 2004, 2005, and 2006 in this table.Instead, the data of 2007 and 2009 can be included in this table. Instead, the data of 2007 and 2009 can be included in this table. This way everything will be perfectly fine.
Let’s leave aside the discussion about the definition of the word national. My main objection is the lack of complete coverage of all 34 provinces of Afghanistan. Not the discussion about the word national. Please someone address my objection. Why should we include information that does not include 3-4 provinces of Afghanistan in the Ethnic Percentage Table of Afghanistan؟ Badakhshan ziba (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SdHb Again, you have made the wrong interpretations and personal opinions.
Let’s compare what the s—sourcesays with what the editor @SdHb adds.
1. What the authoritative source (ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD POLL) states as fact:
Fact A: For 2004, 2005, and 2006, the poll was conducted in 28, 31, and 31 states, respectively, not all 34 states.(Source, pp. 39-40). Fact B: The poll has a margin of sampling error of ±3.5%.
The source reports these as two separate facts. The two item are completely unrelated with each other.The source never links this two facts together.It never states that fact B (the margin of error) makes fact A (incomplete coverage) statistically un important.
2. What the editor (@SdHb) adds is Original research:
The editor makes a Wikipedia:Synthesis. that is not found in the source:he calculate that the omitted provinces constitute 2.8% of the population. then he correlate and blend this 2.8% with a margin of error of 3.5%.then he draw a new conclusion and say: Therefore, the data are “reliable” and “representative of the entire territory of Afghanistan” despite the incomplete coverage.
The editor is not reporting the findings in the source; he is creating a new, derived conclusion to advance his own personal position.
3. The editor’s entire argument is based on a fundamental statistical error.
He is confusing two different concepts: Sampling Error (Margin of Error): and Coverage Error:
I have already explained the difference between the two in detail ( this link.), but (@SdHb) still insists on his wrong position and apparently does not understand the difference between the two.we cannot use “Margin of Error” to justify “Coverage Error”.
They are different types of problems.
The editor @SdHb is doing original research to justify his mistakes. thank you. @Anne drew Badakhshan ziba (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no problem.@Anne drew We have nothing to do with defining and interpreting the word national.
Let’s talk about this text . This text clearly demonstrates @SdHb faulty reasoning and analysis. Do you agree that this is original research? if No why? Badakhshan ziba (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an involved editor. I would just like to add that WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages:

This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

So, even if SdHb’s reasoning would be considered OR if used in an article, its putative use in a talk page to evaluate a source’s reliability would not be a violation. Also, these ABC polls are particularly strong relative to other sources also in use because they disclose so much detail about their methodology that others don’t, giving them relatively better compliance with WP:V, allowing readers the ability to judge their reliability for themselves instead of us doing that for them as the filer would have us do—which would be a potential violation of WP:POV, and what SdHb and I are attempting to avoid by including sources the filer would have us remove. Xan747 (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like input on some mythological genealogical trees that were made a while ago. Some are pages, some are templates.

Template:Three generations of Hyuga
Template:Eight generations of Izumo
Template:Generations of Jimmu
Family tree of Japanese deities
Family tree of Japanese monarchs

I have two primary concerns with these:

1. They often present myth as fact. This is particularly evident in the last two which show how the emperors of Japan are decended from the gods. While this is the official claim, there is obviously no proof this is true. I think having an “official genealogy as published by the Imperial household” would be fine, because then we’re just stating what they’re claiming, but the current trees are questionable.

2. There is no single source for the genealogy of Shinto deities, meaning any attempt to make a single genealogy requires synthesis. There are two main primary sources, the Kojiki and the Nihon shoki (as well as several other minor primary texts) which have conflicting versions of the same myths and it is common for Shinto scholars to synthesize the information between them, but a Wikipedia editor should not be the one doing it. All these templates use several sources, often citing both the Kojiki and the Nihon shoki directly. An example would be Ōyamatsumi in the Three Generations of Hyuga template, who is said in his article to have different genealogies in the different texts. The same can be said of Takamimusubi who is in four of these five trees.

My gut is that we could have genealogies that were created by scholars, but that we shouldn’t cobble together sources in order to create our own genealogies.

We could potentially have some minor genealogies “according to the Kojiki” as it’s the most straightforward, but the Nihon shoki also exists and it would be misbalanced to ignore it, and it contains several conflicting stories, so someone would need to make a decision on what story was “right”.

I personally feel it might be better to do away with the templates and handle it like it was for Ōyamatsumi where it lists his relations as they are the two major primary texts.

Please let me know what you think.

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version