Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Include large RCT as primary research in text (RFC)

We have a discussion whether a large clinical trial should be mentioned in the flavan-3-ol text, even though it is primary research. Any comments to reach a consensus would be appreciated. There is no dispute whether the study is primary research - it is whether it meets the criteria specified in WP:MEDPRI to permit inclusion.

Lavender Oil Capsule Research

Lavender_oil#Uses current wording:

• A 2021 meta-analysis included five studies of people with anxiety disorders. All five studies were funded by the manufacturers of the lavender oil capsule used, four of them were conducted by one author of the meta-analysis,[13] and blinding was not clear.[14] In this analysis, an oral 80 mg dose of lavender oil per day was associated with reduced anxiety scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.[13] Due to the limitations of these studies, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.[11]

Where [13] is reference to (von Känel, 2021), [14] is (Generoso, 2017), and [11] is (NCCIH info page, 2020)

• Explanation of this wording choice by its author[1]

• Arguments that this is not WP:OR[2][3][4]

• Arguments that this is WP:OR[5][6][7]

• Current talk-page section: Talk:Lavender_oil#Anti-anxiety_content_and_sources_-_revision

• Background talk-page discussion: Talk:Lavender_oil#RfC_on_adding_more_sources_for_anxiety_treatment_section_and_summarizing_their_findings

Thank you for helping out.

Discussion of content provided that does not exist in cited sources

Hello, in the article BMW G 310 R, we are discussing the possible use of original research. The editor who added it states that information not found in a source, is true because it isn't found in a source. I'm pretty new so I may be wrong but I believe this is original research based on Wikipedia's core content policy. The discussion can be found here and additional expert input would be appreciated. Talk:BMW G 310 R#Not Feature Lists containing original research. A third opinion was obtained and they are in agreement that it is original research but the original poster is adamant it is not. Advice would be appreciated if this is original research.

Soviet Rbl

An editor (presumably TCG) argued that "Rbl" is the sign of the Soviet ruble, citing a document at an earthquake-related conference and a book on communist countries as source. However, both times around, there is a canned search for "Rbls rouble" without quotes. Therefore, I think it might be TCG cherry-picking sources that support them. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Soviet ruble. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• As I have written to NotReallySoroka at their talk page, I don't see why this question needed to be escalated to this noticeboard as it seems uncontroversial. The two "citations" for Rbl are not valid: they are (isolated) examples of use that may merely be the authors' convenient shorthand. The place that actually gives a firm assertion of an abbreviation is the CIA World Factbook, which says "R". As that is the only RS, that is the only one that should be shown. I'm not convinced that it is OR as such, just failure to comply with WP:BURDEN: (A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue isn't OR but WP:DUE. If there are only two cherry picked sources for Rbl, and the rest don't support it, then it's undue to include it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is an official Soviet traveller's cheque pictured on the article that uses the abbreviation. [8]

This was an official financial instrument of the Soviet government, so definitely would not have used something that didn't have official approval. 92.21.251.66 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Doing some surface level research it certainly appears "Rbl" is (or at least historically was) an acceptable and widely used abbreviation and definitely is not OR.

• Page 196 of World Monetary Units lists "RBL" and "RUB" as equally valid.
• Page 173 of Dictionary of Financial Abbreviations

It's a little disappointing to see lack of interest in finding new sources rather than just weighing up the merits of those already listed in isolation.

92.21.251.66 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Both of those are lists of abbreviations that show that RBL can be used for Ruble, neither show that RBL was used for the Soviet Ruble (which isn't the only Ruble). For instance RBL is used for Ruble on page 17 (of World Monetary Units) for Azerbaijan SSR (which suggests wider usage within the USSR), but I don't have full access to the book to check the USSR/Russia entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I did also do an online check for "Soviet Ruble" and RBL before originally commenting, but found no useful sources. If you have access to written works that would be very helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

NB that it was an abbreviation. Not a currency sign. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

I'd like to get some clarity on the use of Ancestry.com to establish dates of birth. Thanks to the Wikipedia Library, we now have access to extensive birth and death databases, including the Social Security Death Index and various state birth registries. This can allow us to verify the birth dates of article subjects, both living and dead. Question is, what are the parameters for use? I am thinking of two specific examples. One is a notable actress, a living person, whose birth date is unavailable in third party sources. However, New York City birth records and other records make her birth date quite clear. Another situation I've encountered involves a person who died within the past year. The articles currently contain no reference to birth date.

I notice that Ancestry is used routinely to confirm or correct birth dates of long-dead people, but living persons and recently dead people are a matter I haven't seen addressed. Would appreciate some input on this. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, it would not be appropriate to use public records via ancestry.com for DOB of living people, see WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPDOB. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks I imagine it would be different for even recently deceased persons? I'm thinking of Tim Rutten. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe WP:BLP still applies to the recently deceased. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see that BLP applies to persons deceased six months to two years, depending upon consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is considered a generally unreliable source (WP:GUNREL): WP:ANCESTRY. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on changing WP:OR regarding the use of maps and charts in Wikipedia articles

See the discussion at the village pump. BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

"Routine calculations"

JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The RfC has been expanded since announced here. The proposals are now:

• Proposal 1: original research
  • Alternative to proposal 1
• Proposal 2: What can be cited to a map?
  • Proposal 2a: reliable sourcing
  • Proposal 2b: image layers
• Proposal 3: history
• Proposal 4: notability
  • Proposal 4a: Notability - Significant coverage
  • Proposal 4b: Notability - Sourced only to maps
• Proposal 5: Reliability

New proposals are marked in bold. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Analysis/Synthesis dispute at articles on Iranian opposition

Hi, please check my contributions National Council of Resistance of Iran and its talk page.

Although relatively new to this subject matter, I have contributed to these in good-faith and what I believe to be a competent manner, and I believe that the WP:Verified facts that I've contributed, are allowed by our content policy. Please confirm that they are not "synthetic " statements of WP:Original research, which I understand are forbidden and agree to not make. Or else instruct - Have I inadvertently done "Synth"? Or are there other problems with my contributions of which I should be aware? Thanks for your help.

Also please review my contributions to and proposed move of The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement, currently in AfD.

Another editor @ParadaJulio has alleged that I've made "Synthetic claims", relying on an overly broad mis-application (IMHO), of an earlier AfD on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement. I understand and accept the decision and rationale of the closing admin in that case, @Vanamonde93, but I think it does not apply in the context of these other articles in the way the adverse editor thinks that it does. I thought we had agreed to 'ana-lyze' - which is the opposite of synthesize - and then merge the now-deleted article's content, and the other editor appears to believe that none of it is now acceptable anywhere.

If you could educate myself and us both on the Content policy and how it applies in this case, it may help to avoid misunderstanding and get back to the WP:Encyclopedia.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:NickWadley26 at DT Eightron

• NickWadley26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DT Eightron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NickWadley26 has repeatedly added his own analysis to the DT Eightron article, claiming that the indentured servitude experience by the characters of DT Eightron reflects the hard working conditions of Japanese animators. While Nick has produced a reliable source describing the hardships of these animators, they have not produced a source that ties the shows themes to those working conditions. That conclusion is Nick's alone. I have thrice reverted this editing, and while the reverting of vandalism can often override WP:3RR, I decided to avoid that problem, and bring the issue here. I have had some bit of discussion at User talk:NickWadley26 (see this revision for the latest version of the dialog), but Nick insists that this is a class project and he needs the material to remain in order to get a grade. I'd like an admin to block Nick from editing this page, at least temporarily, until the issue of original research can be fully understood by this new editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

References

User:Thomas Bluger at Michael von Faulhaber

• Thomas Bluger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michael von Faulhaber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bluger has self-published a book through Xlibris (The De-Judaization of the Image of Jesus of Nazareth... (Xlibris, 2021; ISBN 9781664149410)) which he is now citing here as a source for changes to the Faulhaber article. Since Xlibris is a self-publishing house, and there is no evidence that Bluger is a recognized expert in this field, or that any editorial review process was exercised over this book, this constitutes original research. I have tried to interact with Bluger on his user talk page (see this permalink) to no avail. I seek a temporary block on this user on this page until the matter can be properly understood. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Need input if choice in coverage is OR

In the article 2001, it goes over several different aspects of the year, and they're each supported by a source about that event. For example, it mentions the Insurgency in the Preševo Valley, and it's supported by a news article specifically about that insurgency. Compare this with 2002, which currently uses overview sources. For example, it mentions the Angolan Civil War, and it's cited to a source about major conflicts in 2002.

Does the 2001 example constitute original research because the source doesn't establish it as a significant event in the context of the year, or do editors have discretion about what should be included in an article? This issue is being discussed at Talk:2002#Expansion with overview sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Senicide

This article was written as an essay[9] from the start, and has remained so until now. The topic is notable, but the original approach plus random coatrack additions have turned it into an OR trainwreck (a "coat-wreck"?). Austronesier (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is a complete mess. Complete rewrite or TNT. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the worst parts and done some rewriting and referencing. But it is still a very poor article. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible serial synthesizer?

I've noticed a pattern of edits that appear to be synthesis, where the editor states in many articles something like, "This election, as of 2023, was the last time that (name of political party) elected a candidate..." (no citation given). Someone might review Special:Contributions/Rivirian King of the Rails to see if there is a problem, here. The tally seems to grow, weekly. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have left the following at the editor's Talk page:

I have undone many of your recent contributions for three main reasons: 1) State nicknames do not conform to WP:TERSE. 2) Statements about whether an event was the last/first one as of a date appear to be your original research, and not something cited in a source. 3) They are also problematic in that they would have to be tracked and updated when the status quo changes. I'm pausing in my reversions to give you the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Written Arguments Section in Supriyo v. Union of India

The written arguments are used by parties involved in the case, such as petitioners, respondents and intervenors. I believe, for this content, Primary Sources would be best sources as mentioned in Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As the intention of the section is to present the claims made by each party in the Court. Secondary sources, at the best case could misquote or make mistakes, and at worst case, they are influenced by their own opinion. The is secondary sources are included in the Reaction and Commentary section of the same Article.

Seeking input on an RFC related to WP:CATV and WP:SYNTH

Hello! For anyone willing to provide input, there's an RFC related to original research here, and any input would be greatly appreciated. The question is: "Should this article, concerning firearm-related violence with multiple persons injured, be included in mass-shooting categories, even though no sources directly refer to it as a 'mass shooting'?" The key debate concerns whether the current use of the "mass shooting" descriptor is improper synthesis—specifically, whether "mass shooting" a special term that requires labelling by a reliable source. Thanks in advance!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH at Slippin' Jimmy

I know this is well-trodden ground, but after repeated attempts to educate Flowerkiller1692 about WP:SYNTHesis in film/TV article lead sections, I don't quite seem to get through to them.

The editor is attempting to support the following summary statement of the critical reception in the lead with two cherrypicked reviews: Upon release the show received negative views for its poor writing and animation, and its completely different tone to the rest of the franchise. MOS:FILMLEAD, which is an analogous guideline, clarifies that any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources. Therefore, the sentence needs to be either removed, or a source needs to be added that explicitly supports this sort of summary statement. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I have added specific sources, specifically the negative reviews in question Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Flowerkiller1692, that changes nothing; it's still synthesis. Please carefully read again what I wrote on your talk page and what I wrote here. Please also carefully read WP:SYNTH. You cannot take two individual reviews, which may or may not be negative, and conclude that "the show received negative reviews". What you need is a source that says precisely that: that the show received generally negative reviews. For you to include summary statements about the critical reception in the lead, you need a source that itself summarizes the overall critical reception of a TV show. I really don't know how to explain it any more clearly. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I removed it Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is so confusing that it's hard to tell if it's synthesis or not. The show seems to have received very few reviews at all, so mentioning them in the lead seems a bit WP:UNDUE. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't list any professional reviews, and the two included in the article are from related, niche sources: Comic Book Resources and Screen Rant are owned by the same company. pburka (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Pburka, that might all be true, but we need to be unequivocal here. It's one of the most obvious cases of synthesis there are, and the editor needs to understand that. I've seen them add synthesis like this to lots of other articles, and they've somehow managed to sneak those through GA and FA reviews. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Reasons for teetotalism

I have noticed in the 'Reasons' section of tetotalism reads:

Some common reasons for choosing teetotalism are psychological, religious, health, medical, philosophical, social, political, past alcoholism, or sometimes it is simply a matter of taste or preference....

References

Is that a good place to use the tag? On one hand, it is indeed unsourced and it would not be a hard task to find citations for reasons that people choose not to drink. On the other hand, the reasons have been explicitly stated throughout the article and saying some people do not like the taste does sounds like an obvious claim that would not warrant a citation. I am genuinely curious if this is in dire need of a citation or not. Please call me Blue (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say it's not WP:OR because there are almost certainly sources that support this. But it definitely wouldn't hurt to find those sources and add them to the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Margery Jackson

Additional perspectives would be helpful at Talk:Margery_Jackson#Please_do_not_remove_content_from_article_without_discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC on how much article content can be sourced exclusively government agencies

Does the level of detail in this article section comply with NOT/PROPORTION? Does it matter if its only sources are a real-time map interface and/or the raw results from a NWS tornado damage survey? Discussion has stagnated; more input is needed. JoelleJay (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Reworded the heading, which was misleading. It's sourcing to government agencies, which includes data but isn't just data. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR at List of Shrek (franchise) characters

My initial edit to the article removed roughly 100k bytes worth of original research from the article, along with maintenance tags that had been in place for 10 years. I chose to keep short descriptions of characters that have stand-alone articles and added ref ideas to the talk page for editors to re-work and expand the article. The edit was then reverted unaltered by Yuotort, who called the removal "vandalism". I left a message on their talk page and have not heard back so far. The edit was reverted again by FishandChipper, who gave no explanation whatsoever as to the restoration. Am I missing something here? I feel as though I'm perfectly justified in removing the material. These two editors are also fairly new, so they might not have the fullest grasp of policy. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

How exactly do you propose they be sourced then? As most "List of characters" type articles just simply source the movie/show/comic etc they first appeared in. None of this is original research as it is immediately obvious from the title of the page that these are characters from the Shrek franchise, a franchise consisting entirely of 6 movies and a few spin-offs. It would be both excessive and pointless to source every claim by essentially just saying "Watch the movie". Also unrelated but there's no need to be condisending, ok? You're not some editing genius just cause you've been here longer. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTPLOT. Wikipedia should not primarily focus on in-universe info. A list of characters should focus on their scholarly analysis and cultural impact rather than a simple retelling of what they did in the films. P.S.: I never claimed to be an "editing genius", I'm certainly not. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, then I suppose you'd also argue for the deletion of every article listed here too? Or here? Or here? FishandChipper 🐟🍟 11:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion, no. Certainly major rewriting to conform with the policy I just listed above. Challenge me on policy, not based on what other articles look like. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)