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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Odd heads of state visit lists emerging

I recently noticed List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel-Hamas War, and looks for similar precedents and found exactly two: List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine and List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and to me, all three seem like bizarre creations. I have to question whether these lists fall short of the notability bar for standalone lists, per WP:NLIST, in a way that, pertinent to this noticeboard, strays too far into the realm of WP:OR to be tenable - because ... absolutely no independent sources appear to be producing lists like this, but, rather, they all seem just cobbled together out of different news sources, most of them probably in turn based on government press releases. Most of these visits, individually, have no notability (no one would dream of creating standalone articles on them), and, in all likelihood, most had very little to no impact or relevance. So really, what's the point of gathering up this historical detritus of mundane, trivial visits that no one would otherwise remember? In the first list, there isn't even a single overlapping source between entries, so what is the thread of meaning holding this list together (aside from the incredibly lengthy and niche title specifically created to hold the information together)? On the Russian invasion lists, there are a few news stories might say 'so and so' and 'so and so' visited X, but I still don't believe this qualifies as a list topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", per WP:NLIST, but rather more of a grand synthesis made up of otherwise extremely narrow and patchy pieces of news coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The very first google hit when I searched for this was The Dignitaries Who Have Visited Israel So Far in the WSJ. Also some less direct sourcing like NPR. Does that make the list notable? No, probably not, but at very least there's no OR here. Just an NLIST fail. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well neither actually obviously fail NLIST because the primary point of NLIST is that the subjects have been commented on as group or set, and both the WSJ and say Time RE Ukraine clearly show they have been in at least two quite high quality sources. The argument is really not an nlist one, its a GNG, and that has never really been applied that well to stand alone lists because by their nature, lists are often based on a grouping within a larger article (at least a couple of BBC articles on the Israel/Palestine conflict have mentioned who and where EU leaders have visited). So, the list grouping itself is clearly significant enough to be mentioned in high quality sources, is it significant enough to warrent a stand alone list article? Nominate it for AFD and find out. But its not OR. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've listed the first example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War as something of a test case. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This AfD closed as merge to List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War. Should I nominate the others? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism and the New Testament

Features many inappropriate citations to the Gospels for non-routine analysis. Not a great article in general Mach61 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a great article but it seems that most statements are backed up with a citation and not OR. Inclusion of gospel provisions seem to be for reference more than anything else. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, rereading it appears that only the very beginning of the "New Testament" section is problematic, and that the article just needs more footnotes rather than sources. Replacing banner with inline Mach61 (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Most does not appear to be OR. Although the article does seem problematic. There appears to be a debate in lead regarding what term should be used to describe anti-Jewish feelings that seems disconnected from the topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Legality of Isreali settlements synthesis

If you search the string "The international community considers Israeli settlements", you will see that some editor or group of editors has taken the time to insert an overarching note in every settlement, not specific to the subject of the article, that settlements in the West Bank/Golan Heights are considered illegal under international law, but Israel (and sometimes, it is added, the US) disagrees with this. Without commenting on the neutrality or veracity of this statement, it seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Is it not? --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand where the connective tissue would be regarding that. If that piece of information applies to those settlements as a whole, then it seems like an independent, analytic statement to include in articles about the settlements, as opposed to being a synthetic statement. Remsense聊 23:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I just found this, and there is no chance I have the energy to wade through or relitigate that. Apparently it has been discussed ad nauseum and there was a decision to add that somewhat noncontroversial statement to every settlement article. Fine by me. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on merging content boards

There is a discussion about possibly merging this notice board on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability of Anti-cosmopolitan campaign

Additional input welcome at the article or the talk page discussion (Talk:Anti-cosmopolitan_campaign#Failed verification and WP:RS issues) (t · c) buidhe 23:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship Second Integrated Flight Test

Does this section count as original research/synthesis?

While the second stage engines were planned to shut down at T+8:33, a frame-by-frame analysis of the SpaceX broadcast shows the following sequence: at T+8:03 telemetry indicated all engines had turned off, at T+8:04 a series of faint irregular flashes of light and an expanding gas cloud first become visible, at T+8:06 the final altitude velocity update is shown, and at T+8:12 the gas cloud reaches its largest apparent diameter. After some dead air, the commentators asserted Starship was entering the coast phase at T+9:50 before finally announcing "we may have lost the second stage" at T+11:40. At T+12:20 the commentators speculated the Autonomous Flight Termination System triggered. An official analysis of the exact sequence of events is still pending.

The citation only links to the official stream, which does not contain any "frame-by-frame analysis". 91.129.104.148 (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is OG. The passage is a surface-level description of happened, and any actual analysis is deferred the commentators. The question on whether its due for inclusion is whole another story. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Concur Sennalen (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm guessing it'll eventually be replaced with something more concrete once an official sequence of events has been determined and appears in reliable sources. 91.129.104.148 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

References

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_de_Vanguardia_de_Nicaragua#Generaci%C3%B3n_del_2000

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:LuchoCR

Is blocking edits without any base according to https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_de_Vanguardia_de_Nicaragua#Generaci%C3%B3n_del_2000 the Wikipedia article says that Francisco Ruiz founded la generación del 2000 here's what he says about that https://web.archive.org/web/20110928102314/http://www.leteoediciones.com/libros-poetas.php

LuchoCR isn't letting me add an author for which there is proof of involvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergara Acosta (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Vergara Acosta: I don't understand your concern, but 1) if you have a problem with some of LuchoCR's edits, then discuss it with him on the talk page or seek dispute resolution; 2) this appears to be a problem going on at Spanish Wikipedia. If that is the case, raise the issue there, not at the enwiki's OR noticeboard, of all things. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Variation of the example in WP:SYNTH

Is "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security. Since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." SYNTH given that the words "but" and "only" from the given examples have been removed? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say it depends entirely on the sum context of the paragraph. Juxtaposition of statements itself potentially creates implicit meaning, whereas the connective word 'but' and the qualifier 'only' create explicit meaning.
With these two sentences alone, there is a clear 'question' being asked, even if its preferred answer is not stated. (Frankly, putting biases aside, most people would see it as being a negative meaning being implicitly created, even if there is an academic discussion to be had about whether the UN has done a good job.) Remsense留 16:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I second that. You're cherry-picking two facts and putting them side by to make the point that the United Nations doesn't work. Or maybe that it works very well. Either way, the example serves. It might be good to have the earlier example and then also the current example without "but... only" with the point that "Look at this, it's done more subtly but it's also not OK."Herostratus (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it would be good for me to add it, or should I get consensus on the talk page first? Remsense留 19:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Dunno. Since it's just further explanation, not a change in any rule or procedure, no harm in adding it. You'll probably -- probably -- get shot down and have to get consensus anyway. Herostratus (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that's a good example of a case where caution and discussion is warranted. SYNTH is not a spectrum. It requires a synthesized claim in the text, not just by implication. By the letter of the policy, the example is simply not SYNTH. However, one of the sentences might be WP:UNDUE in the context. Sennalen (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's philosophically the case. Ultimately, this is human language, it's not perilous to admit that it is a spectrum. SYNTH is about claims, and juxtaposition creates an implicit claim. Remsense留 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

    It's a point of substance that's been discussed in the past and I believe the consensus is that there is such a thing as implied SYNTH. You can imply, for example, a violation of BLPCRIME, by stating circumstantial things that create an impression of problematic adjacency to guilt, when not stated explicitly in the sources. However, I do think there are probably sources that have explicitly stated that the UN isn't doing a good job, so why not use those? Andre🚐 21:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

    This is regarding the examples offered on the WP:OR policy page, not real-world examples, whoops! Maybe it was unclear after a bit. Remsense留 21:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, about needing discussion. I don't agree on the merits. Herostratus (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Herostratus, I've posted it on the talk page. Remsense留 20:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Rattus rattus

Resolved

Hi, I'm currently involved in a dispute with an editor who has been attempting to add original research to the Black rat article. This is not an area which I am qualified in, and to avoid misleading the editor or continuing discussion in an area I am not particularly knowledgeable in, I'm here to seek the help of editors who are either more qualified in this type of article, or can make a ruling on whether or not the information they are adding counts as original research.

• [1] - The suspected original research being added to the article.
• User_talk:GSK#Can_we_tell_people_about_this_color_black_rat? - The ongoing discussion between myself and the editor

I would appreciate any and all help to clear up this issue. -- GSK (talk • edits) 15:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the assist, User:Eucalyptusmint. GSK (talk • edits) 16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

of course, happy to help! Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Historical price data chart deletion: Citing NOR. Third opinion appreciated!

User deletion of chart below on the page Cardano (blockchain platform) in the revision history. Further debate can be seen on the talk page for resolution/ consensus.

Cardano price in USD over time. (as of February, 2023)

Having read the standards for NOR it appears to me that this is not a fact, allegation, idea where for which no sources exist. The chart is neither analysis or synthesis and is purely statement of fact/price data. Nasdaq data source is a highly trusted stock exchange for more than 50+ years and one of the largest on the planet. No conclusion / additional bias is added.

(For clarity, Cardano and the token ADA has a value. This value has fluctuated since its launch over many years. The price data is freely available for anyone to evaluate from many differing sources online.)

I would greatly appreciate any assistance by third party to provide an objective perspective. I do not want to instigate an edit war and would prefer a third party to make revisions with commentary if deemed appropriate. If deemed fair, I would like to request the figure be reinstated. Thank you in advance. Bob (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

For transparency, User:Blockchainus Maximus (Bob) is a WP:SPA who has only ever promoted this cryptocurrency and related projects on Wikipedia.

The reason I removed this chart is because the cited source doesn't specify this specific range, nor does it emphasize the peak price. This red line is likely factual, but it's also emphasizing an obvious fact without any context and for editorializing purposes. The chart only ends at February because, presumably, that's when Bob exported the spreadsheet to make the chart. Regardless, interpreting raw data to emphasize a specific conclusion which is not made by that source is original research. Even without the red line, and even if updated regularly, the chart would be decorative but uninformative without context from a reliable source. We're not here to dump raw data in readers laps based on our own biases, we're trying to provide context through reliable sources.

To put it another way, the importance of this specific data range is not indicate by any reliable source. Few sources bother to talk about how its price has fluctuated since 2019 specifically. Using this chart is falsely implying that this data is of primary importance, but as I have reminded Bob many, many, many times on the article's talk page, we use reliable independent sources to decide what is important. It is not up to involved editors to include information they personally believe is vitally important based on their own research. In addition to all the other problems with this approach, this is writing backwards.

As I'm sure most experienced editors have noticed, NASDAQ's website mostly publishes information from press releases or newswires, or dubious 'contributor' blog content. I don't know where it gets its info on cryptocurrency specifically, since NASDAQ doesn't handle cryptocurrency itself. How 'trusted' it is as a stock exchange has nothing to do with its reliability for a cryptocurrency price during an arbitrary range of time. Finding reliable sources for cryptocurrency is an ongoing problem, again, as I'm sure most experienced editors have already noticed. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the ad hominem attacks: I think it is pretty black and white. This is a chart with price data and yes a dotted red line. Nothing more, nothing less.

NASDAQ data linked is not in any way "interpreted" by any contributor, and in what way have I "interpreted" the data? Seriously, how? What conclusion am I reaching? It is quite literally price data, as transparent and objective as it gets. Arbitrary? At the time of the chart creation it was the range available from the source, no "arbitrary" time frame was selected (even today the "starting" date for data is the same and indeed the date is included "as of February 2023"). And again I find it shocking you are stating a pure NASDAQ historical price overview is somehow "biased" or "interpreted", it's just genuinely nonsensical. And this is not a "dump of raw data" but a simple plain chart. For Cardano, ADA, that clearly has a long price history worth billions it is neither irrelevant nor some "random chart" that I have included.

https://www.independent.co.uk/space/cardano-crypto-bitcoin-elon-musk-b1849021.html Bob (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't OR as it does just show what is reported but in a different form, it's probably allowable under WP:CALC as is the peak price line. However it does seem completely arbitrary, so I'm not sure there's any reason to include it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback @ActivelyDisinterested. The page is entitled "Cardano", ADA its token has a value where the marketcap is in the billions, not entirely trivial. To illustrate its value through time doesn't appear arbitrary (BTC, S&P500 have these for instance - not to state Cardano is in any way similar in importance but purely to illustrate the financial aspect). ADAs price however is important for its impact on the blockchain security to prevent sybil attacks (https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2018/10/29/preventing-sybil-attacks/) not included in the article yet so is most definitely of relevance. In essence as the price for ADA increases it becomes more difficult for a nefarious actor to control the network and perform a 51% attack. Sorry for getting into the weeds there but didn't think I would have to be defending a price chart. xD Thoughts from others also welcome of course. How do we proceed? I will of course not revert/make changes till consensus. Thanks again for your time - Bob (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but none of what you've discussed couldn't be explained in text, without an obscure chart being needed. Also if it is needed to help explain a concept not yet in the article, then quite simply it shouldn't be in the article until it's needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not have mentioned the importance of Sybil attacks, it was to clarify context. On the basis of purely financial aspect alone it seems valid. However this is no valid reason for inclusion? Bob (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• I would agree with ActivelyDisinterested. Per CALC, I don’t think creating a chart like this is a violation of NOR… but it does strike me as irrelevant. User-made charts and graphs can be allowable, but their purpose is to illustrate information that is discussed in more detail in the text - and the article text does not really discuss Cardano’s price fluctuations over time (ie, this particular chart isn’t illustrating anything discussed in more detail in the text). I would leave it out. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Would it be permissible to include the chart if a sentence were added from the source listed above / expanded upon in the Cardano article?

  ___________

  Cardano reached a market cap of $77 billion in May 2021, which was the fourth highest for a cryptocurrency at that time. (sentence currently in Cardano article)

  Additional line: It was noted by the Independent that ADA's price had risen from 0.04$ in 2019 to a value of 2$ at the time of writing in May 2021.

  ___________

  I thank both @Blueboar and @ActivelyDisinterested for your input. I will adhere to your view if you maintain its irrelevance. Side note: Shall I remove the BTC chart for consistency? Bob (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I would omit the chart completely. If you had a section on the historical price fluctuations… (goving a detailed outline of this aspect of Cardano’s history) a chart might help illustrate what you were discussing. However, I am not sure that the rise and fall in price over time is something that is vital information. It seems trivial. Certainly one short sentence isn’t complicated enough to require an illustration. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, understood - would it be possible for me to include the short one liner above instead? Cheers, Bob (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Since that is not an OR issue, the article's talk page would be the place to discuss that. But for convenience, I will mention again that not everything which can be sourced is due weight. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, since it was related to the chart inclusion criteria. However it appears you are going to insta-delete it anyway by the sounds of it. I suppose a 5000% increase in price is trivial... Bob (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The spike (and subsequent fall) in price wasn’t trivial, but does not need a chart to illustrate it. Discuss on article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again @Blueboar, @ActivelyDisinterested and @Grayfell. Will not add the chart but may add the sentence as it is most definitely relevant as a bare minimum.

Resolved

Bob (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Price movements will often be noted when a source happens to mention a crytocurrency (or a company that trades on a stock exchange, for that matter), but those mentions are usually trivia that is either out of date or soon will be, and should be left out of a Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the section. However there is a little bit of a chicken and egg situation here. It is clear there is a large financial component to Cardano, which apparently can not be talked due it being "trivial" and as such can never have a clear price chart that represents the entire history including all ups and downs - that was the entire point of the chart to not rely on anecdotes. Bit of a dilemma. I suppose price is never to be discussed? Bob (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References