| Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
| To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below: | ||||||||||
Archives |
| 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30 31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50 51,52,53,54 |
This page has archives. Sections older than28 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III. |
This is about[1] and[2]. Is this allowed?tgeorgescu (talk)07:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also discussed atUser talk:Pineapple Storage#Learning. See alsofr:Sans garantie du gouvernement.tgeorgescu (talk)09:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article". --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an essay that talks about what is allowed in a "Context" section (or previous history for the topic) of a wiki-article and what sources are permissible?
I often seeWP:OR in "Context" sections. It has been my belief that:
I have always wondered about (3).
So, for example, in theHitler article, editors should not include material about WWI or places he lived as "context" or "history"--unless it is in a source talking about the subject, Hitler. That article does seem to follow the three rules above. This issue doesn't seem to be spelled out atWP:OR.
Is my understanding correct?
If this is better atWikipedia talk:No original research, please let me know and I will move it.--David Tornheim (talk)21:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would asserting that someplural people visualize aheadspace when sources say thatTulpamancy is under plurality as aumbrella term. A final source does not mention plurality in any way but mentions that Tulpamancers visualise a wonderland (synonyms w/ headspace).
Some of the sources that include Tulpamancy in plurality say "when Tulpamancy is successful, it is seen as a form of plurality."
Specifically, these sources are:
The one that says Tulpamancers visualize is:
-Flower (she/her)24.155.147.109 (talk)15:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some systems are intentionally created through so‐called tulpamancy. Tulpamancy is a practice or set of practices undertaken with the intention of creating an autonomous sentient being “inside” (and of course using) one’s brain
Nonetheless, when tulpamancy is successful, the tulpamancer experiences their tulpa or tulpas as being autonomous beings, just as occurs in traumagenic systems: so, although the tulpamancer will be aware of their tulpa’s (say) actions, they will feel as though they (the tulpamancer) are not the agent of those actions. Phenomenologically, then, all plu‐rals seem to share something.
the term “system” is slightly different, referring instead to the collection of headmates all associated with one particular plural.
This group often has a very elaborately developed inner world with relationships rich in detail where all parts of the system seem to have knowledge and access, as well as awareness to where they do not have access and why
24.155.147.109 (talk)16:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply], there is a higher population with relational trauma due to neglect and some of these children create imaginary inner worlds to deal with the lack of presence of attachment figures (S� andor et al., 2021). In this way, fictives are, in part, at times, substitute introjects, and then the related rich inner worlds are further developed through maladaptive daydreaming (Somer, 2002, 2015, 2016a, 2016b).
Under the "Criticism" section of thearticle the sentence "The Gantt chart is also poorly aligned with modern user interface (UI) design principles" appears, attributing it to this article:https://www.figma.com/resource-library/ui-design-principles/. This article never mentions Gantt charts by name and so I think its fair to say this is Original Research.
(apologies if this is not the right place for this notice: I am fairly inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia)— Precedingunsigned comment added byKTXEDCMRZV (talk •contribs)17:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KTXEDCMRZV (talk)17:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The viewpoints of academic circles and social movement groups often diverge. My question concerns the selection of sources when documenting what a social movement is claiming. If the rationale for choosing a specific source is its high Amazon sales rank, would this be considered Original Research? I must emphasize that I am not intending to argue for or against the claims of any particular social movement; my sole objective is to summarize their arguments neutrally.--Otyuso23 (talk)21:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
National Iranian American Council has been consistently subject to vandalism, and over the last two years, politically charged/biased editors have sought to maintain the highly biased/not neutral lede intro to "lobbying group widely viewed as the de facto "Iran Lobby" in Washington, D.C. due to its history of lobbying for stances on behalf of, and aligned with, the Islamic Republic of Iran."
The lede is currently adopting rhetoric of critics and presenting a controversial label as fact. None of the articles cited to source/justify actually make, substantiate or even suggest this claim. The sources cited consist of politically motivated commentary, reports on calls for investigation, or litigation coverage, none establishing that the statement they are trying to assert is fact. They are combining unrelated material to create a new, defamatory conclusion not present in the cited works.
Here is some overview of each of the sources cited for this statement and how they are drawing a new, defamatory conclusion from unrelated sources:
1. Josh Gerstein (13 September 2012). "Iranian-American group, leader lose libel case against writer". Politico. Retrieved 13 September 2012.https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/09/iranian-american-group-leader-lose-libel-case-against-writer-135502 This source is a factual court-reporting piece describing the outcome of NIAC’s defamation lawsuit against critic Hassan Dai who claimed that NIAC was an agent of the Iranian Regime. The article reports that a U.S. court dismissed NIAC’s lawsuit but does not assert or verify that the critic’s claims were true. Defamation suits are often dismissed on procedural or evidentiary grounds, not on factual determination. WP:RS and WP:BLP, court reporting cannot be used as evidence that the allegations are true unless the judgment explicitly states such findings, which this case did not.
2. Eli Lake (13 November 2009). "Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules". The Washington Times.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/exclusive-did-iranian-advocacy-group-violate-laws//print/ This article speculates that NIAC might have engaged in lobbying-like activities without registration but provides no evidence of violations, official findings, or independent verification. This source is from a politically conservative outlet with a known editorial bias. The piece uses conditional language (“said to,” “may have”) and anonymous sourcing. According to WP:RS/NEWSORG, publications that mix opinion and reporting or use unnamed sources require careful attribution. This piece cannot serve as a factual foundation for defining the organization’s purpose or ideology.
3. Jerusalem Post (15 January 2020). "Senators call to investigate pro-Iran group - report". Retrieved 15 January 2020.https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Senators-call-to-investigate-pro-Iran-group-report-614191 This source is secondary coverage reporting that a small group of senators called for an investigation into NIAC. This article merely documents that a call for an investigation occurred. It provides no evidence, findings, or independent confirmation of the underlying accusations. Under WP:NEWSORG and WP:BLP, reporting that politicians called for an investigation is not equivalent to substantiating wrongdoing. Treating it as such misrepresents the source and constitutes synthesis.
4. Lake, Eli (13 November 2009). "Exclusive: Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules". The Washington Times. Retrieved 15 November 2024.https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/exclusive-did-iranian-advocacy-group-violate-laws/ A republication of the same 2009 article.Duplicate citation of an identical piece creates the false impression of multiple corroborating sources. This practice violates WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE by inflating the appearance of sourcing for a disputed claim.
5. Johnston, Susannah (24 May 2023). "Did the Voice of America Cave to Iran's 'Lobby'?". Middle East Forum. Retrieved 9 January 2024.https://www.meforum.org/64452/did-the-voice-of-america-cave-to-iran-lobby This source is an opinion essay published by Middle East Forum, an advocacy organization known for ideological commentary. The article is explicitly editorial, contains unverified accusations, and provides no independent corroboration. NIAC is mentioned only tangentially as part of a political argument, not in a factual investigative capacity. Under WP:RS and WP:OPED, advocacy essays are not acceptable as factual sources. Quoting such material as proof of organizational behavior violates neutrality and verifiability.
6. Dai, Hassan (29 June 2017). "How Trita Parsi and NIAC Used the White House to Advance Iran's Agenda". Tablet.https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/parsi-niac-advance-irans-agenda This source is an opinion essay authored by Hassan Dai, a long-time activist and litigant against NIAC. Tablet itself publishes a mix of essays, interviews, and editorials that often blur lines between reporting and commentary. The author’s involvement as a direct party in NIAC’s defamation case disqualifies him as an independent or neutral source. His claims represent his personal interpretation, not verified evidence. Under WP:RS and WP:BLP, self-interested or partisan material cannot be used to establish facts about living persons or their organizations. Relying on this article as proof of NIAC’s alignment with Iran constitutes a serious neutrality and BLP violation.— Precedingunsigned comment added byShawrami (talk •contribs)03:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia prohibits No Original Research (NOR). Separate from that, however, the Neutral Point of View policy—and the issue of FALSEBALANCE must also be upheld. There is a potential conflict between these two guidelines.
An issue arises when a 'specific source' either aligns with or contradicts the mainstream view, but there is no explicitly stated material confirming whether that 'specific source' is mainstream or not. In such a situation, can one violate NOR in order to uphold NPOV?--Otyuso23 (talk)19:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
Meanwhile, Meg Evans’ Genocide Clock warns of the dangers of prenatal autism screening, raising concerns about the erasure of autistic lives.
— Precedingunsigned comment added byOtyuso23 (talk •contribs)22:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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,Rosguilltalk16:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“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.”
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]
References
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 isNew Zealand Drug FoundationTraumnovelle (talk)18:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a way to find the optimal a_max, I just want to say is that original research?— Precedingunsigned comment added byLtypestar2 (talk •contribs)04:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
