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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Do you see this as rephrasing in own words or is this own analysis?

I think this is extrapolating and making inference rather than directly supported. I'd like to get additional perspectives. The prose in question is The Van Ryper ship models proved cost-effective for the government, as they helped in verfiying the accuracy of design, arrangements of naval deck fixtures, and alignment of various machinery components for larger ship constructions, based on source text of It is impossible to estimate the money saved in the construction of large ships by use of these ship models to check accuracy of design, arrangements of deck furniture and the lead of various parts of machinery. with regard to this edit from the source https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ithaca-journal-van-ryper-ship-models/138720698/ The source discusses two model makers and I do not see it discussing effectiveness in a way that directly demonstrates the cost effectiveness of Van Riper models. 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like the prose in question is making an inference by stating that the ship models 'proved' to be 'cost-effective' when the original source is stating that "it is impossible to estimate." To me, those two things don't appear to be the one and same, in that, impossible to estimate doesn't equate to proving that something is cost effective. The original sentence is saying money was saved from the ship models but it would also need to say or have similar wording to say that it was also cost effective. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right to query it. "It is impossible to estimate the money saved" might be read as implying that there was some saving, but as the sentence in the original source stands, the saving could be zero or perhaps even negative. So it's hazardous to conclude from the wording that there was a saving.

And even a saving may not be cost-effective if it involves a loss of function or resilience (of which there seems no indication, but the two concepts aren't the same). Quantist (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Using comic books to overrule secondary sources

A user at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)#Misleading content is insisting that content from reliable secondary sources should be deleted because it contradicts his own understanding after reading comic books featuring the character. I asked him to make a post here to settle the dispute, but he instead went to seek support at WP:WikiProject Comics. He seems to be making this argument because he believes I'm trying to emasculate the character by removing the laundry list of character feats cited to comic books (as he says here and here). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an inevitable result of MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PLOTCITE, which I feel badly need revisiting, since they unacceptably attempt to contradict WP:V. The simple answer is that as core policy, WP:V (and WP:NOR, but V is necessary in this case because editors will simply claim their plot summary isn't OR and without the sourcing requirement this can't be resolved) override WP:PLOTCITE; once you've challenged any text in an article, including a plot summary, an in-line citation must be produced for it, per WP:V's statement that All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Note that the direct and unequivocal contradiction between the two polices; obviously, as core policy, V cannot be overridden (certainly not by the mere manual of style) and always takes precedence, meaning PLOTCITE only applies as long as the summary isn't challenged (or likely to be challenged, in the case of summaries that make obviously controversial interpretations of the text.) At best, all PLOTCITE accomplishes is lightly discouraging editors from going around challenging every single plot summary for the sake of doing so, but it can't prevent anyone from challenging the text in any specific instance or remove the requirement for an in-line citation once that challenge occurs. --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion, the contested content isn't even a plot summary. It's a statement about the character that's already cited to two reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I may have been overly suspicious, given your editing history here in Wikipedia, but my autistic mind is nearly unable to filter my thoughts or to play insincere manipulation games, and my social skills and emotional intelligence are very low, and I also have very high pattern-recognition, so I unfortunately tend to say exactly what I think without subterfuge.

It is not about emasculation, but rather about that the cited secondary sources list an extremely misleading specific statistic for the character without any explanation regarding how they arrived at this conclusion, which completely contradict virtually all stories featuring the character, and even makes Thor seem enormously weaker than Spider-Man, who has lifted tens of thousands of tons on occasion, and that after Thebiguglyalien removed enormous amounts of useful content for the article, it also seems to draw ties from the character to Nazism and Viking raiders, which is also extremely misleading and offensive for anybody remotely familiar with the character.

Thebiguglyalien also stated himself that the comic books are inconsistent, which is true, but by following that argument to its conclusion, no specific statistics should be included at all in the article, yet he adamantly and completely inflexibly refuses to budge an inch to remove even that particular brief phrase, even though I have otherwise begrudgingly accepted that he suddenly decided to destroy lots of work that I had put into the page. David A (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I will unfortunately not be able to actively participate here, as I am trying to juggle work duties and being on vacation at the same time currently. My apologies.

Helpful input in the linked to talk page section above would be greatly appreciated. 🙏 David A (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

(Coming from WT:COMICS) It's great to see the Wizard issues on archive.org being used in articles! That issue's language would support "over 100 tons" as well. Wikipedia's policies are against analysis of primary sources in the body text. If you'd like a list of how articles handle factually incorrect secondary sources check out Wikipedia:When sources are wrong. I don't see anything about Thor being a Nazi. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the old "100 tons" claim originated as a very symbolic, rather than remotely literal, scale in the old 1980s Marvel Comics handbook, and it is constantly contradicted to extreme degrees by the actual stories that this character appears within, sometimes, as you can see by clicking here, even to a literally infinite degree, so I find it ridiculously misleading to suddenly insert such a blatantly absurd claim into the text. David A (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not convinced that the Marvel handbook is a secondary source, to begin with. This sounds like a dispute regarding conflicting primary sources. pburka (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing primary/secondary with dependent/independent (Wikipedia:Independent sources#Relationship to primary and secondary sources). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's secondary. The handbook is itself a Marvel comic book, and from what I can tell contains quite a bit of original content. Either way, it's certainly not independent and probably not reliable. It would be far better to find a reliable, independent secondary source rather than argue about which comic books are authoritative. pburka (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Like the magazine cited in the article? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Any source that mentions "100 tons" is per definition citing the Marvel Comics "handbook", which in turn just made up a random symbolic number without any basis in the feats that Thor has actually performed within the stories themselves. David A (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What definition? For better or worse, we trust independent, secondary sources, and it's not our role as editors to second guess their research. If you do believe it's wrong, find a better secondary source. pburka (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The 100 tons value was first mentioned in the 1980s Marvel Comics handbook, and very badly informed people, who have likely never actually read stories featuring these characters, have occasionally cited the number ever since. The only other alternative would be that they made it up out of thin air, and to state the blatantly obvious, secondary sources are not automatically correct, no matter how absurd their claims. How exactly do you explain all of the listed and referenced feats that I linked to above being performed by a character that can supposedly only lift a truck? David A (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You're probably right, but this is original research. You need to find a reliable secondary source that supports your position. pburka (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

My point here is that we cannot just blindly cite any form of random claim that is very blatantly inaccurate, nonsensical, and completely contradicted by hundreds of feats by the affected character in question. The statement in question also originates from a Marvel Comics handbook, which is a much less reliable primary source than the main comic book stories. In such cases it is better to say nothing at all. David A (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The cited information also comes from opinion piece articles about fiction, not scientific research. Citing numbers indiscriminately regardless of reliability and logical basis is very inappropriate. David A (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a verifiability, not truth issue. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

What about changing it to "several tons", without a specific number? The references would still verify it, it would be consistent with the character's usual in-story characterization (that he's really strong, even by superhero standards), and I don't think it would contradict anything. Cambalachero (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid that I think that still sounds very misleading, given just how ridiculously extreme feats of strength that Thor has performed on quite many occasions, sometimes to a literally infinite scale, so I would personally prefer if we either restore the powers and abilities section to how it was before the recent page overhaul or say nothing specific at all. David A (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The previous version was sourced exclusively to the comics. Per WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation and Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. If you're using the comic books themselves or your knowledge of them to write an article about a comic book character, then you're doing it wrong. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the issue here is that any source that claims that Thor can only lift a truck when he has explicitly moved multiple universal space-time continuums through sheer physical strength, and performed a few even greater feats when in possession of his father Odin's power, is per definition unreliable and does not know what it is talking about. David A (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own definition of reliable/unreliable, at WP:RS. That you think a source is wrong does not make it per definition unreliable, not according to how we do things on this site. MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't that I merely subjectively think that the source is wrong. The issue is that the claim in the source has been extremely explicitly disproven hundreds of times, so all that I am asking for is that we avoid stating any specific statistics at all. David A (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

So are any of you willing to let me remove what is equivalent to a very blatant lie from this page? David A (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

McLauchlin (1998) would support a change from "approximately" to "over". Would that seem more accurate? And if not, is there a reliable secondary source for "moved multiple universal space-time continuums through sheer physical strength"? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not certain. I found the following links, but they lead to a site which I have blocked my access to, so I unfortunately cannot verify yet. [1] [2]

However, the feat happened in Thor volume 1, issue 494, January 1996, and you can overview it yourself via the following link in order to verify, if you wish. [3] David A (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have checked a bit. Is it acceptable if I use the following two pages, and other similar sources, as references for Thor's powers and abilities section? [4] [5] David A (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? David A (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate some kind of confirmation here. David A (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

But that's when he's in possession of a special power. We don't expect or (if we are being honest) trust editors to be responsible for reviewing all the comics available and presenting a comprehensive analysis. The analysis must be done by secondary sources. Always. Cornsimpel (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No, Thor moved at least 9 universal space-time continuums in his base power state, without the Odinforce or even the warrior's madness. When in possession of the Odinforce he has performed a few far more impressive feats than even that extreme scale. And this in combination with all of Thor's other feats makes it absurd to claim that he can only lift a truck and that's it.

Anyway, is it acceptable to use the pages that I linked to above as alternative secondary sources for some of Thor's feats and powers instead of the extremely false "100 tons" claim? David A (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Could different writers have depicted Thor differently? It seems to be about so and so's Thor so maybe it is true for the creators/edition of thor the magazine was writing about. Cornsimpel (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Marvel Comics and DC Comics characters are often depicted very differently depending on the writers, yes, but taking old extremely unreliable Marvel Comics handbook statements, that were not based on anything, as gospel and using them here, is unwise, to say the least. At the very least we should use secondary sources that reference specific events that happened within the stories themselves. David A (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Pornhub

Can someone check [6]? It seems rather odd. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in the cited sources, the foundation's website or the websites of Ethical Capital Partners, who acquired the company that owns the website last year. Very weird edit. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Eugene N. Borza additions

Hello. Due to a content dispute on Eugene N. Borza, I need editors to confirm whether the following additions (1, 2, 3 and 4) constitute original research. Apart from these additions, it'd be great if editors could look at the whole Views section and determine whether it contains original research. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Bicameral mentality

Snarcky1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding criticism which is improperly synthesized from sources which do not direct mention either the theory being refuted or even the author of theory to Bicameral mentality and The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Skyerise (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

User Skyerise persist in deleting sourced content added by previous users which is highly relevant and directly linked to the topic of the articles and keep wrongly arguing that said content is neither sourced (it is) nor appropriate to keep in the articles in question (despite being completely relevant to the theory discussed in both articles). Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snarcky1996: I have explained to you that we may only report on direct criticism. The source must mention the theory being refuted. None of the sources you are synthesizing mention Jaynes. And they must mention Jaynes to be considered to be criticism of Jaynes. Have you even read the policy (WP:OR) I linked? Skyerise (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise you clearly abuse, in bad faith, this policy of (WP:OR), as this rule does not justify the removal of content directly linked to the topic when it is clear that it is linked to the topic at hand, even if it is not something that explicitly mentions the author of the theory discussed. Furthermore, in the case of the Bicameral mentality page, you are removing content which was not added by me, but by previous, several users who seemed to have reached a consensus on the matter. I simply added it to the relevant section in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind page. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snarcky1996: Nope, not at all. I've been an editor for over 17 years and have made over 100,000 edits, and I am accurately informing you of our policy. READ IT. Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise That argument of authority won't be enough I'm afraid. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snarcky1996: I've been trying to explain our policy so that you don't get blocked. If you don't want my help, then go ahead and continue. But you will end up blocked for violating both WP:OR and WP:3RR. Skyerise (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise You also clearly violated WP:3RR, and arguably first. Snarcky1996 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snarcky1996:: Not true. I can count and I have not made four reverts to the same article within a 24 hour period. But you have. I took it to your talk page and the article talk page, where you did not bother to engage in discussion about the matter but rather continued to revert. That's edit warring. Skyerise (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snarcky1996 it doesn’t matter who added it, the question is do your sources discuss Jayne’s (fringe) concept. I strongly suggest you stop adding this unless you get consensus here. Doug Weller talk 21:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller The sources directly contradict Jayne's concept, therefor, they are relevant in the article. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snarcky1996: As I posted this quote on your talk page, but you removed it without reply, I will post it again here where you may not remove it. WP:SYNTH states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." Since none of the "critical" sources mentions Jaynes or his theory, no conclusion which mentions Jaynes' theories may be constructed from them. Skyerise (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise "Since none of the "critical" sources mentions Jaynes or his theory, no conclusion which mentions Jaynes' theories may be constructed from them."

Absolutely ridiculous claim considering that the facts highlighted by these sources contradict directly the sole basis of Jayne's theory. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller It should also be noted that, as it currently stand and apparently thanks notably to the efforts of users such as @Skyerise, both of these pages are strangely rather supportive of Jayne's theory, treating it as a serious scientific theory despite its fringe status. It is at most, and barely, described as a "somewhat controversial theory" in both articles. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snarcky1996: I am completely neutral about Jaynes' theories. However, criticism must be sourced to actual critics of Jaynes. We, as editors, may not construct criticism out of sources which do not mention Jaynes. Skyerise (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise See my previous reply then:

"Since none of the "critical" sources mentions Jaynes or his theory, no conclusion which mentions Jaynes' theories may be constructed from them."Absolutely ridiculous claim considering that the facts highlighted by these sources contradict directly the sole basis of Jayne's theory. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think it is "ridiculous" - that's exactly how our policy is intended to work. It's very explicit and I linked it (WP:SYNTH). You may want to read the explicit examples and the talk page archives of that policy page where you will find that you are incorrect about how to interpret it. We are allowed to report the direct criticism of others; we are not allowed to construct our own criticism out of whole cloth. Skyerise (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise This is like saying putting a source which state that the earth is a globe on the flat earth theory page is unwarranted because it does not directly name the flat earth theory. Nonsensical.

Also it is clear that unlike what you pretend, you have an interest in the matter, as your user page indicate, this Jayne's book is among your "Books on consciousness" that you highlight on your user page. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My primary interest is integrity in sourcing and use of sources. Yes, I edit fringe topics, reviewing sourcing and sources. For most topics, I remove far more "pro" material than "con". However, we are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. We primarily report what secondary sources have said. Like a newspaper, we have to say "X criticized Y". If the critic X cannot be identified as directly criticizing Y, then it is the editor who is the critic. So please identify by name the name of the person who intentionally and explicitly levied that criticism against Jaynes. I am pretty sure it's likely to have been done - so find actual criticism that we can report. So-and-so said such-and-such specifically about Jayne's theories blah blah blah... TLDR: criticism must be direct and attributable. I'm done here, as I'm sure the other denizens of this board will agree. Skyerise (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise Numerous Wikipedia articles have sourced material which while not necessarily naming explicitly the title of the article, whether a theory, a person, or anything else, but still are directly connected to it and therefore are considered relevant and acceptable. I gave the example of the flat earth theory page, but countless others exist and are accepted as valid.

That you refuse to acknowledge that these sources and the written content that you want deleted clearly talk about what is presented in these articles is very perplexing. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You're just not getting it, are you? Skyerise (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I am not. The content in question can without a doubt be called a "refutation" or a "contradicting fact/element", warranting in itself its presence in the article(s). Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The point is that a reliable source didn't make that refutation; you did. If you want to dispute Jayne's theory with contradicting facts, get your paper published in a reputable medium. Editors only summarize what reliable sources have written about a topic. Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd I do not dispute Jayne's theory, the sources that I maintain on the article (I did not added them) do. That's my whole point since the beginning.

"Editors only summarize what reliable sources have written about a topic" : exactly what the content targeted for potential removal does: it summarizes what the reliable sources used say about introspection of characters of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which, I cannot stress this enough, is directly linked to Jayne's theory. About half of the article is about that specific point already. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd @Skyerise Furthermore, it should be added that there is another element as to why it is incorrect to say that what is written in these sources is not linked to Jayne and his theory, i.e that it is (WP:OR), since Jayne himself dedicated time to try to explicitly refute what is said in these sources, by explicitly citing them. That response from Jayne is included in the content targeted for removal and is sourced, judge by yourself :

"Jaynes noted that the most complete version of the Gilgamesh epic dates to post-bicameral times (7th century BCE), dismisses these instances of introspection as the result of rewriting and expansion by later conscious scribes, and points to differences between the more recent version of Gilgamesh and surviving fragments of earlier versions: "The most interesting comparison is in Tablet X.": 252"

(Section : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality#Epic_of_Gilgamesh_as_a_counter-example) Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The text begins: As an argument against Jaynes's proposed date of the transition from bicameral mentality to consciousness, some critics have referred to the Epic of Gilgamesh. No source cited. The rest of that para is about the dating of the epic, citing a source about the age of the epic and a source about the age of the old testament. What needs to be sourced is that some critics argued against Jayne's proposed date referring to the epic. The next section mentions what Jaynes wrote about the epic (as you quote above), but is followed by His answer does not deal with the generally accepted dating without citing a reliable source that argues that Jaynes did not "deal with the generally accepted dating". Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to make the same point. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Bicameral mind is pseudoscience, granted. Gilgamesh epos contradicts his ideas, granted. But you are simply wrong about how Wikipedia works and about what is acceptable in articles. Several editors have explained that to you, but you are not listening. Read the policy pages they are giving you. And read WP:IDHT. Really.

If you still do not understand why you are wrong, you should at least accept that you are wrong and postpone the understanding. The alternative is that you will be blocked eventually. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed specializing more and more in promoting pseudoscience Snarcky1996 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project data at List of ongoing armed conflicts

• List of ongoing armed conflicts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article makes extensive use of data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project. Howecer, it appears this data is being misinterpreted by editors. Case in point the Armed conflict for control of the favelas in Greater Rio de Janeiro entry says there have been 14,383+ deaths, citing the project's Brazi page as a source. This was recently remarked on by an IP at Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts#Conflict for control of the favelas in greater rio. As a result of this various changes to the article have been attempted, such as this one changing the upper threshold of 2023 deaths from 6,976 to 336, then a similar change to the 2024 deaths, then a possibly ill-advised wholesale reversion of the article to a much earlier version.

However all these edits have the same problem, they involve interpretation of the data. While the Brazil page does give a total deaths for the country of 15,020 (14,625 in non-state violence), zooming in on the map shows that only 788 have occurred in Rio (plus a smattering of deaths in the vicinity of Rio). Therefore the 14,383+ figure is simply wrong. As well as this, the ACLED "dashboard" is cited consistently, for both the 336 deaths in 2023 and 10 deaths in 2024 (as well as many other entries on the list. I have absolutely no idea what options are being used to filter the data to arrive at those figures, I fear they are simply claiming all deaths in the Rio area are being lumped in as part of the favelas conflict, and the same applies for virtually every other entry on the list. Objections are met with claims such as "Those numbers are from ACLED, not mine", which ignores the entire basis of the objection. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Deaths by country section shouldn't have been deleted, but the change that happened ruined the list. Regarding the data from ACLED, it's a reliable source because it shows the number of casualties for each country in real time and there is not an alternative option to it. Some conflicts, like the one in Brazil and more specifically in Rio, require better sources perhaps, since it's a conflict that takes place in a city and not in the entire country, but there is no other source that provides real time data every week, so this makes the whole thing difficult. The other conflicts of the page are easier to edit and update since they take place in specific countries and areas which are easy to locate and connect them with their casualties. I always follow the same strategy with every conflict, like the one in Palestine, with multiple sources and a minimum and maximum number of casualties, in this way we have a clear view of the range of casualties with no mistakes. This can apply in every conflict, but there needs to be reliable sources. That is why I choose ACLED, for example, when there are no other available sources for a conflict, especially real time ones, we cannot have an outdated number or no number at all until we find the perfect source and even if we do find the perfect source, it won't be real time and the next update may have to wait for months, this wouldn't help at all. In my opinion, the method that we currently use is the most consistent and trustworthy for the page, since we have updated numbers for every conflict, every week, that are always compatible with numbers that we get from sources at the end of the year, or when a big change happens in a conflict. Whitesin21 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

List of train songs

I'd appreciate some opinions on List of train songs. It appears to have become a dumping ground for any song that mentions trains in any way. The references are mostly to WP:ALLMUSIC or other sites that serve only to verify that the songs exist. I spot checked several and couldn't find anything in their references to suggest they had been classified as a "train song".

I think there might be a kernel of notability in the concept of the folk railroad song, but it's currently highly obscured. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

it is OR to use census data to produce a map?

I saw this map and was wondering if anything needs to be done. The immediate source website seems to have disappeared, the data is apparently from the US census. Without OR can one produce a map like this?

File:Absenceblacks.png JMWt (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say yes, it is. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely OR by my lights. Even if relatively straightforward, making a map requires a level of interpretation and input from the editor that I would say is beyond policy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok. What's the procedure for an xfd of this type? Seems to me it doesn't fit the normal criteria for files for deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The original file is on the Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/no_blacks.pdf. Even if it was created by the uploader, I would not call it OR if the source had a list of these counties and all the uploader did was highlight them on a map. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would not be OR if the only thing an editor did was to take data directly given in a table from an RS (like the US Census Bureau) and fill in a state or county map based on those numbers, as long as the data is cited in the resulting image file. If the data required some massaging before this transformation could occur, then one is getting into OR. — Masem (t) 16:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

but if it is just a visual way to present the data, with no manipulation beyond simple math, then its OR status is no different to using a wikitable or a bar chart/pie chart etc. A picture is worth a thousand words. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on this particular example, but I can think of lots of ways you can intentionally or unintentionally mislead people by converting numbers into bar charts/pie charts.Scribolt (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)