Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

I am working on an article about a SCOTUS decision. And to emphasize its notability, I checked GoogleScholar and found, that it was cited 2377 times as of today. Is the "2377" original research or not? There is no other way to provide a reference for such infor, if you want recent data. Here is the article draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georgia-Pacific_Corp._v._United_States_Plywood_Corp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scholar doesn't always have an accurate number for citation count, at least for academic citations (I doubt for law too). [Edit: thus it would not be intrinsically verifiable and thus it's OR.] But more to the point, let's say you put the citation count in the article text. Is 2377 a lot? A lot for a scotus decision? A lot for a modern scotus decision? Any way you cut it, to give any reader some comprehension (who is not a legal scholar themselves), you'd need a secondary source to contextualize such a number.

It reminds me of a joke I think from a Kip Thorne book. Carl Sagan was famous for saying "billions and billions" when communicating so-called "astronomical numbers" (but it of course never mattered what precisely the number actually was). But since then, citing the trillions of the US GDP, trade deficit, and debt in the news, Thorne(?) suggests instead calling them "economic numbers". The point is no matter what the number or the name, it's meaningless in communication. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you say that a case has been cited numerous times, it is an implicit statement about its significance, which is OR. You should use a source that explains its significance.

Also, it isn't meaningful information that a case has been frequently cited unless you mention what aspect of the case was cited. Often what lawyers find interesting about a case may be something minor, sometimes even dicta. TFD (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all for your comments. I forgot to mention (and this is clearly stated in my draft here):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georgia-Pacific_Corp._v._United_States_Plywood_Corp. "According to Google Scholar on 2024-10-14, [3] [original research?] this decisions has been cited 2377 times, making it THE MOST CITED DECISION OF THE USFEDERAL COURTS IN 1971.[4]" [4] Slottje, Daniel (25 October 2006). Economic Damages in Intellectual Property: A Hands-On Guide to Litigation. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-05625-7. I am citing a book from 2006 that explicitly states, that it was the most cited decision of US Federal courts in 1971. AND then, I add updated citation count from Google Scholar today. (I can check how this number compares with all other cases from 2006 -but then I will get really worried about OR. It seems to me, that citing a 2006 book, which explicitly states, that is was highest cited decision of 1971 proves the notability of this case. (The question of notability for a wiki-article is the reason I decided to research the number of citations). If this is not the right way to prove notability, than what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 11:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The same thing that demonstrates notability of anything. Have multiple reliable and independent sources written about the subject in reasonable depth? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you say "it has a citation count of 2377 on Google Scholar as of October 2024" instead of that it has been cited 2377 times, then that'd be accurate and imo not OR. You need to lead with Slottje, not Google -- Slottje is your sole source for the case being well-cited, while the Google count is just a bit of flavor sprinkles (and should probably be in a footnote and definitely not in the lede prose).

To add to and amend my previous reply, GS has stability in indexing its citation counts I think (it's search results that are unstable). At issue is that GS indexes across all subjects, so it includes counts of, say, non-legal history or sociology papers that may cite the case. LawCite also provides a citation index for 318 FSupp 1116, but it's not a complete count (I believe the stars go up to three). The place I can think to get a complete law-only citation count would be Lexis Nexis or Westlaw, the former which you can access at some libraries. Regardless, it's not necessary or usually even useful information for article prose, per my previous reply. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a note when including the Slottje details, it should include the date if that publication, eg "As if 2006, this case was the mist-cited in other US legal cases" Masem (t) 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If Slottje is saying it's the most cited case of 1971, then it would take a significant change in existing law or historical scholarship for that fact to change going forward, and anyone can check the date of publication by the source. The "as of" is only necessary for a rapidly-changing fact, such the raw number of citations this month. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's actually necessary in all cases. Article text should be as accurate a thousand years from now as today, so if something could conceivably change, it needs an "as of", whether such a change is likely or not. That also provides a temporal context. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Under no circumstances should Google hits or citation counts be used in articles, period. Same goes for WestLaw or whatever. There are too many uncertainties and provisos to what the results mean. This is a superb example of why secondary sources are used instead -- a scholarly paper on the influence of this case will know how to use tools in an expert manner to give meaningful numerical results, if such results are appropriate. EEng 07:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Exactly this. Is Foo v. Bar showing a citation count of 2000 significant? I'd have no idea. Is that more impressive for a newer case than an older one? Probably, but how much so and over what time frame? A legal scholar will be able to actually interpret and contextualize that number, and say "Yeah, that's really a lot" or "That's not all that impressive" or "That number is rather artificially inflated." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all for your comments. May we get back now to my original question: what is the most appropriate way to show a notability of court case? I proposed to show

1) how the case is ranked in terms of the number of citations it received among all other cases that year at the appropriate level (Federal or State). 2) someone objected to it, because the ranking may depend on the database used (which should NOT be true, because this a finite and well-know number of court cases in the US for each year - unlike the number of citations a journal article receives). 3) the fact, that the case is cited in a textbook does not mean much. This is because unlike the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Men change often. Even, if an old book mentions Baker v. Nelson as highly cited, it is not a good law today. 4) I feel, that Wikipedia must have an explicit policy on case law notability. If such policy does not exist today, should we make it?

The most appropriate way to show the notability of court cases is the same as the appropriate way to show the notability of anything, and already exists. Have reliable and independent sources extensively noted it, by writing a good deal about it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If Slottje says it's the most cited law of 1971, then that's the appropriate way to show notability in the lede, as you have done. As I said before, the inclusion of a Google Scholar count in that sentence is unnecessary (and definitely problematic especially to be in the lede).

All that said, I don't see in Slottje where it says that Georgia-Pacific is the most-cited case of 1971, so you have to provide a page number. It does say on p.4 that it is among "several of the most significant cases [in IP law on economic damages]", and a significant part of the book is about applying "Georgia-Pacific analysis" in legal practice.

Imo if a single other source confirms that "Georgia-Pacific analysis" is an existing term of art in law, then the article clears notability by a mile. Citation counts mean nothing by comparison. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree, if the point is 'it's influential' number of cites does not even do it for most readers, it sounds rather like trivia -- go to where you always have to go for 'it's influential' or even 'number of cites matters', a scholar who writes those things, don't try to put that together yourself with data (that is original research). (besides which, the OP has an error as to time in the way they have tried to jam those two things together) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• List of wars involving Gujarat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The creator, User:JingJongPascal created an originally researched list of supposed wars, inventing the names of supposed wars, and supplying broken citations by copying them from other articles obviously (sfn without the full citation). When asked to identify the source and to quote the part of the source which discusses the ostensible thing which they named "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War", they said: there is nothing like that in book. They previously explained that they invented the names of the wars. They then clarified that I should refer to Wikipedia content at Karna I#Other campaigns, which they've linked from "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War", to see how whoever edited that article described the event. I was able to connect a paragraph from that section with the purported "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War", based on JingJongPascal's provided "R. B. Singh (1964). History of the Chāhamānas p.125"; the last section has this citation.

The section is as follows:

There is more on User talk:JingJongPascal#List of wars involving Gujarat.

There is no such thing as the "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War".

The entire list is like this.

—Alalch E. 14:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Other "List of wars involving X" pages created by this user are:

• List of wars involving Magadha (contested WP:BLAR; the page is a copy of List of wars involving India)
• List of wars involving the Indian Subcontinent (WP:BLARed as a POV fork by User:NXcrypto)
• List of wars involving India (disambiguation)
• Draft:List of wars involving Hindustan
• Draft:List of wars involving Kerala
• Draft:List of battles involving major India
• Draft:List of wars involving Subash Bose
• Draft:List of wars involving Southern India
• Draft:List of wars involving Jerusalem

—Alalch E. 14:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

So what I am supposed to do? Leave it as blank?

I am following common naming conventions

As seen in Maratha-Rajput Wars

Mughal-Rajput Wars , etc.... JingJongPascal (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kingdom of Ajmer (Chamamans) is an rajput clan (for context) JingJongPascal (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

the book and sources simply lay out the belligerents of the war and how it happened they don't mention its name.

So I am supposed to leave it blank? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here is what you are supposed to do: You are supposed to fundamentally and comprehensively change your approach to editing. You need to understand that what you have been doing is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and that it can not continue. The pages you have been creating are terrible. —Alalch E. 14:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me hours I have spend on creating articles which are terrible. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

okay then why don't you tell me what am I supposed to be naming those conflicts ? I have to leave them blank ? Is that what you want? JingJongPascal (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You've already asked that question. Do you think that asking it again makes everything okay and magically makes your original research into valid content? —Alalch E. 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Readers don't come to Wikipedia for your personal survey of history. Presenting them with that instead of relating what reliable sources say is a disservice to readers and is a timesink for other editors. Like Alalch said, you need to fundamentally change your process, working from what sources say only and not adding your own analysis or commentary, or inventing your own names for things. Remsense ‥ 论 22:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then tell me what the hell I am supposed to name them? JingJongPascal (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have you considered that if a conflict doesn't have a name, it may not be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic list of conflicts? Remsense ‥ 论 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

this kingdom isn't very well known, it has only two or three well detailed books , the names of the wars are given in books but in descriptive sense like "Xyz Emperor war against Xyz kingdom"

None of these wars have actual name, I am using basic naming convention

If you found a war between Gupta Empire and Bengal Empire

What would you name it? Obviously Gupta-Bengal War JingJongPascal (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have spent hours on this list.. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We reflect what reliable sources say; we're not a publishing house for original research. You are not entitled to host your original research here because you spent a lot of time on it, unfortunately. It would have been better if you became aware of this issue sooner. Remsense ‥ 论 12:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will fix them, but I will take some time JingJongPascal (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to reiterate what other editors have already said what you're doing is original research. You content may be better suited to one of the military wiki's on fandom that don't have Wikipedia's policies on such content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also list of wars involving Magadha is not a copy. I am the one who made it in List of wars involving India aswell as that article. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Prostitution statistics by country seems like a mess of OR. It's inconsistent in what metrics are used, population percentages aren't consistently calculated from the same year as the data, and it compares these separate measurements for some countries against each other. Could use a look from editors familiar with statistics type content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the chart as currently constructed is an OR mess. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Titius–Bode law contains a lot of discussion on the provenance of one of the cited sources (a 1913 article by Mary Adela Blagg), and devotes a portion of the article to suggest, citing only the Blagg source itself, that the article in the ADS and journal archives is a forgery. It seems to use the information contained in the source, but not in a way the source directly supports. Of course, there's always the possibility that it really is a forgery, though if that's the case I'd personally prefer that statement to come from a source that isn't the 'forgery' itself. Regardless, I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know what parts of the discussion of the Blagg paper or the article subject itself should be removed, so I'm wary of messing with the article too much (some parts of the article appear to genuinely discuss the content of the source as intended, but I'm not sure where that starts and ends in the article structure - the forgery suggestions seem mixed in pretty deeply to me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by InkTide (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just reverted to the 2024-07-18 page revision, which seems to be clean. Also left a note on the talk page. Arcorann (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The source (Braune 2019) is cited in the following sentence:

However, since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory popular among the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis. [emphasis added]

We are currently divided on whether the bolded part constitutes a synthy use of the source. Could editors please take a look and report either here or, preferably, on the Marxist Cultural Analysis talk page, where we have an ongoing discussion? 87.116.182.140 (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most everything written here is original research. The citations are not to experts in ancient Egyptian literature making the claims, but to wholly new claims. It seems that the material dates all the way back to 2008 with the article's inception. A rewrite and better sources is sorely needed, as well as the removal of just a "list" of motifs, the likes of which do not appear in other well-written articles on literature. Chris Weimer (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this sentence in Baalbek SYNTH?

"Baalbek is a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, and its tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon, particularly the 1975–1990 civil war, the ongoing Syrian civil war since 2011, and the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)."

Three people think it's not. Two people (including me) think it is. Arguments are in here: Talk:Baalbek#Requesting_explanation_for_revert. FunLater (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A similar issue previously came up at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#Are these reliable sources for Baalbek -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If I understand this issue correctly, no one disputes these three items: (1) Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold; (2) the tourism industry has had struggles and challenges; (3) RS attribute the tourism industry's struggles and challenges to military conflicts that have occurred. The dispute is over whether in the absence of an RS that explicitly ties the fact that Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold to the military conflicts that are one source of problems for the tourism industry, it is SYNTH to tie the Hezbollah-strongholdiness of Baalbek to the tourism problems. If I got all that right, I agree that it is SYNTH. Novellasyes (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like the sentence just needs to be split in two. Add a full stop after the part saying it has been a Hezbollah strong hold, that could use some additional details anyway as the sources for that go back decades and aren't just related to current events. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Before there’s any chapter, the first paragraphs in the article show no reference. Hadjnix 07:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The lead of an article are meant to summarise the rest of the content, so it's not necessary to have to references in the lead. Instead those details should have references found in the main body of the article, which the lead is then summarising.

Leads sometimes have references, usually if a particular detail is controversial, but that's not the norm. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The question is, if a source takes the position that having to pay postage when returning a ballot is a constructive poll tax, is this a sufficient basis for claiming that this is a form of voter suppression?

To be clear, there is no claim that every form of voter suppression is illegal, just that there is no "line to draw" as to what constitutes voter suppression and that anything which has a tendency to discourage voting, by definition, constitutes voter suppression to a greater or lesser degree.

Here's the pertinent part of the original discussion from Talk:Voter suppression in the United States#Reconsidering the gist of this article:

I understand from what you are saying here that you do not believe that it is WP:OR to decide that the meaning of the term "voter suppression" is self-evident and does not require further definition. I do believe that it is WP:OR but of course I could be wrong.

The specific ask is presumably that there must be a source which explicitly states that having to put postage on the return envelope may discourage some people from voting (i.e. that this would in fact constitute voter suppression), while my contention would be that this is implicit, particularly when there is no assertion of any countervailing benefit, e.g. in terms of reducing voter fraud. Fabrickator (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The term “Original Research”, as used on Wikipedia, refers to statements, arguments or conclusions not directly stated in any external source (but instead originating on Wikipedia). So, the question here is very simple: is the conclusion that postage constitutes voter suppression found in a source? If so, then it is not OR … if not, then it is OR. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Flat-out OR. EEng 19:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Blueboar and EEng: What about a source stating that the postage requirement imposes a "burden on the right to vote"? Does that also fail to support the claim of "voter suppression"? Fabrickator (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  To be clear, I think ballot envelopes should be postage-prepaid, because who the hell has stamps around the house anymore? But it's not for us to make the jump from "burden" to "suppression". I think you'll find the examples at WP:SYNTH on point. EEng 21:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  If the source says “burden” we should say “burden”.

  Indeed, I would say that “burden” is actually a stronger word, since rain on Election Day can “suppress” the vote. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oil paint contained an assertion that "For several centuries the oil painting has been perhaps the most prestigious form in Western art[...]". To better comply with WP:NPOV, I changed it to "For several centuries, the oil painting was considered the most prestigious form in Western art[...]"; however, I could not find a source for a claim like this anywhere in the article and I am unsure if there are sources to back up the idea that this was the consensus in the past. Any help sorting out this dilemma would be appreciated. Thanks, Tarhalindur (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't see how your edit brought any improvement, especially removing the "perhaps". I don't think either statement has NPOV issues - market prices alone would bear this out. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do WP:RS say, when going through the history of art, that oil painting was the most prestigious, etc.? Maybe. But that doesn't seem like a very interesting thing to say so I wonder if art historians actually bothered saying that. They might have been more inclined to observe that oil was the preferred medium for many renowned artists throughout history or that many iconic works in the western tradition were done in oil. For example this long history of oil doesn't mention the prestigiousness of oil but mentions what are to me more interesting summaries of why it mattered. Novellasyes (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and removed that pretty egregious OR; I've also gone through and removed a handful of other OR or peacocky terms in the article. It'll still need a bit of improvement but it's (in my eyes) a bit better for now. CoconutOctopus talk 11:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

An editor continues removing content from the lead at Centre-right politics because they believe that the sources are fake and written by leftwingers. Can we get some more input here? Talk:Centre-right politics#Wording of the lead Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note that if the Sfn sources don't match anything in the references list, it's because the editor is deleting those too. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply