Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.
Click here to purge this page
(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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:


Steele dossier - I'm requesting input regarding what appears to me to be a classic case of noncompliance with WP:NOR (SYNTH), and WP:NPOV. I am also of the mind that if one issue is resolved, the other with possibly self-correct. I'm going to focus on a single paragraph from a rather lengthy and detailed lead in a topic area I just know all editors and admins love to edit. You can thank me later. 😎

Contrary to a conspiracy theory[1][2] pushed by Trump,[3] Fox News,[4] and many of Trump's congressional supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign.[5][6] It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page[7] in terms of establishing FISA's low bar[8] for probable cause.[9]

I realize we can state several facts in a single sentence citing different sources as long as we don't reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources; however, the various sources that were cited in that paragraph were used to not only form an absolute conclusion but to justify stating it in WikiVoice, which is not only SYNTH, it is noncompliant with NPOV.

The CBS News report that was cited for "probable cause" in the last sentence of the above paragraph also states: "However, the Horowitz report is not the final word on the origins of the investigation. U.S. Attorney John Durham is leading a separate review of the FBI's investigation, and after Horowitz released his findings, Durham also questioned the conclusions." There is no mention of this important fact. It is also a known fact that the IG is limited in both scope and reach outside the department which the IG report and Horowitz himself admitted - again, no mention. Durham's probe is a criminal investigation, and it includes information from outside the Justice Department, to include testimony from witnesses outside the US. There is also the AP report published by PBS News Hour that corroborates the information, and like the CBS report, is neutral and presents all relevant sides, which is what WP articles are supposed to do.


  1. ^ Blake, Aaron (January 2, 2018). "Republicans' Steele dossier conspiracy theory was dealt a big blow this weekend". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 6, 2019.
  2. ^ Shear, Michael D.; Benner, Katie; Fandos, Nicholas (August 17, 2018). "Embracing Conspiracy Theory, Trump Escalates Attack on Bruce Ohr". The New York Times.
  3. ^ Kruzel, John (July 23, 2018). "Trump falsely says Steele dossier triggered Russia probe". PolitiFact. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
  4. ^ Rupar, Aaron (March 22, 2019). "Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation". Vox. Retrieved March 23, 2019.
  5. ^ Mueller, III, Robert S. (March 2019). "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. Retrieved April 20, 2019. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  6. ^ Goldman, Adam; Savage, Charlie (November 22, 2019). "Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts". The New York Times. Retrieved November 23, 2019.
  7. ^ Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice (December 9, 2019). "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" (PDF). Retrieved December 9, 2019. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  8. ^ Sanchez, Julian (December 11, 2019). "The Crossfire Hurricane Report's Inconvenient Findings". Just Security. Retrieved December 23, 2019.
  9. ^ Herridge, Catherine; Hymes, Clare; Segers, Grace; Quinn, Melissa (December 9, 2019). "Justice Department watchdog releases report on origins of Russia investigation". CBS News. Retrieved December 10, 2019.
  1. Is it SYNTH?
  2. Is it compliant with NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talkcontribs) 18:19, January 12, 2020 (UTC)


I agree that this is problematic under NPOV and SYNTH. A qualifier, such as "according to the Horowitz report," might be useful. Snuish2 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Each part of the statement is supported by citations that back that part of the statement. It is undoubtedly true that the right-wing media pushed the false narrative that the Mueller investigation was predicated on the Steele dossier, seeking to invalidate the entire Russia investigation by poisoning the well. Whether this is the most neutral way of reflecting that is a legitimate subject of discussion where reasonable people may differ. It is safe to say that any editor who uses the term "Russia hoax" probably lacks competence to take part in that discussion. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Silly question[edit]

Bit of a silly question but does removing untrue content from Wikipedia amount to original research if you can't provide a source to verify that the content is untrue? Tonight I had a difference of opinion with another user, and that user is now reviewing and reverting my other recent edits. A few weeks ago I removed a sentence from an article because I knew that a particular person was no longer in a particular job. [1] The official website hasn't been updated yet so the user has reverted my edit. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, removing it is OR. We have to wait for the sources to catch up. SarahSV (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
If it's unsourced you can remove it, but if it's sourced then your personal knowledge doesn't matter. But there's often a middle ground: the source only supports the fact at the time it was published, so you could reasonably change the text to say, e.g., "As of 2019, Elizabeth Bennett was the Kilgore Trout Professor of Comparative History at Unseen University." This doesn't say the she's left the university, but it does hint to the reader that the information may be dated. pburka (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. jamacfarlane (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It depends. See WP:VNOT / WP:ONUS; verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, so we can choose to ignore a source, especially if the sourcing is weak or the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS are often also useful policies or guidelines to point to if something new and breathtaking seems clearly dubious. Often, in other words, if a source is blatantly wrong there will be other underlying problems you can point to to argue that we should wait until a better source appears. However, if the sourcing is strong enough for the claim and the topic is WP:DUE, you're usually going to have a hard time convincing other editors to omit something based solely on your own factual disagreement with what it says, since that alone isn't really a policy-based objection. In this particular case, though, the claim is unexceptional, so the solution is probably just to reword the text to more closely say precisely what it can cite (ie. they were employed at that specific date.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I was going to post a reply but Aquillion covered it nicely so I will endorse what they said. Springee (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Another aspect is that if information is not widely covered in secondary sources, then it may lack weight for inclusion in the article. In this case, the source for the headteacher of Clovenfords Primary School School is the Scottish Borders Council. Is this information necessary in an article about CLovenfords? Unless the headteacher was a notable person, then probably not. TFD (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Brian Sicknick[edit]

Some recent (and rather blatant) introduction of unsourced and OR material, including some "false equivalency" text apparently intended to draw a moral equivalency between a violent mob and the police officers whom they attacked. I have been taken care of these issues as they have arisen (example A, example B), but more eyes would be valuable. Neutralitytalk 04:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Veterans and People's Party[edit]

There are quite a few things here that seem to be OR and POV pushing.

  • Islamophobia is sourced only to the party's manifesto (i.e. there's an OR judgement that the manifesto is Islamophobic). Ditto for the 'anti-islam' tag
  • 'Far right' is pejorative in most cases, and should be sourced to a RS.

There appears to have been a multiyear edit war by User:Uamaol to include the unsourced claim that the party is far right. 2001:448A:106B:5533:DB9:3510:1D16:CD5F (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Take Me To Church[edit]

@User: ALI ANSARI85 has added unsourced content stating that Take Me To Church contains atheist/antireligious messaging four times based on their own interpretation of the lyrics. The user has also displayed an unwillingness to understand WP:OR policy after being warned repeatedly by User:Fyrael and myself. They have also accused editors of "think[ing] stupid" and making fun of themselves. Despite a slew of warnings on their talk page, their contributions are solely revolved around these disruptive edits. In my opinion, this is borderline WP:NOTHERE and possible WP:PA behavior, alongside a willful misunderstanding of WP policy. --Bettydaisies (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: I've blocked them from editing the article - they can still use the talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed Bijeh[edit]

Hi. Some registered and anonymous users (Possibly socks of User:سهراب بارسایی; reasons explained below) keep changing the birthdate in this article. Recently, birthdate changes based on original research in Persian Wikipedia (by above user), while a source (no. 1 from YJC) in the article indicates he is born on 1982 (equal to 1360–1361 in iranian calendar) resulted in protection of the article and the user is now changing the date here to prove he's right. user سهراب بارسایی has no purpose other than changing material in this specific subject and insists to change the date on my local talk page and that's why i think other single-purpose accounts/IPs editing the date are socks of this user. Regards. —Jeeputer (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User-performed currency conversions[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train about whether user-performed currency conversions are WP:Routine calculations or not. This has implications for what box office gross we can report for a particular movie, since it affects which sources we can use and in what way.

My viewpoint is that they are not routine calculations, because currency conversion is not an exact science. It has furthermore been demonstrated (see the linked talk page discussion) that the method employed in this instance produces different figures than those that WP:Reliable sources (such as, in this case, Deadline Hollywood) report. Hence, I would argue, we should defer to WP:Reliable sources that directly support a given currency conversion.

Another editor disagrees, arguing that so long as we have a reliably sourced quantity in the original currency and a reliably sourced exchange rate corresponding to that point in time, we can multiply one by the other and report the result in the new currency.

For further details about the discussion so far, please see the indicated talk page section. TompaDompa (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a Template:To USD (US$ is the standard on here, right?).Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed there is, but that's not what's being used here. Nor could it be (yet), since (part of) the gross is from this year and the template does not work for 2021 figures yet. Rather, the method that has been used here is multiplying the weekly gross in the original currency with a snapshot exchange rate sourced to a currency conversion site once a week, and then adding the results up for each week to get the total gross. Which to my eye is rather too advanced to be a WP:Routine calculation, and which is also not the method WP:Reliable sources use. It's not necessarily the "correct" way to do it (I go into more detail about other possible ways of doing it in the linked discussion), so I don't think it counts as a routine calculation (unlike, say, converting miles into kilometers where there is an inarguable correct way of doing it). TompaDompa (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I see. I don't really want to get into all the gory detail but that method you are describing is OR and susceptible to error (I doubt that sort of "accuracy" is required for the exercise anyway).Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, that it is WP:OR is the point I have been making. The reason I brought it here is that the discussion at the talk page reached what was pretty much a deadlock position where I was saying "this is WP:Original research" and the other editor was saying "no, it isn't". I suppose this settles the matter, so I'll go ahead and replace the WP:OR figures with something that is properly sourced. TompaDompa (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I am the person who also added weekly conversions from local currencies into US$ to the Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train article. First of all, I agree that the comparisons should be done not using independent wikipedia sources but rather using more general sources. But at the same time, there has been no agreement in the method of currency conversions. Indeed, many articles on films have currency conversions based on not unified methods, most of which are not claimed to be orginal researches. Actually, Crunchyroll article (US$414,385,913, 45,833,982,679 yen) as of April 5th overestimated worldwide gross in JPY. (If conversions into JPY have been calculated weekly, it is still around 43.5 billion JPY for 414 million US$, and now is still around 45 billion yen for 430 million $). I will later revert the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train to the one I made, but I will not add the calculated data to this article. Anyway, if a unified agreement for the conversions of local currencies into US$ has been made, I will agree to use it. Orichalcum (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Orichalcum (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand your line of reasoning. The currency conversion is just as much WP:OR on that page as on all the other pages it has been used on. You yourself point out that there's no consensus for your method of currency conversion. Even if there were, it's not like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overrides WP:NOR. If other pages use different methods that are also WP:OR, we should fix those pages rather than accept WP:OR on this one—see WP:OSE. The solution to widespread WP:OR is not more WP:OR. Sometimes we just have to accept that the information we would like sources to contain (in this case, currency conversions) simply can't be found—at least not yet. TompaDompa (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Orichalcum: Care to respond? TompaDompa (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
First of all, conversions of local currencies into others are not at all WP:OR if specific dates for the calculations of conversions with the appropriate website to convert are given properly. At the same time, there is no consensus for the method of currency conversions to compare in total gross revenues.
For the cumulative methods of conversions, MOJO originally provided total gross revenues in US$ by applying such conversions as I have done for Demon Slayer. Indeed, you can find them by comparing revenues in JPY and USD, for example, original releases of Spirited away in 2001 and Frozen in 2014, where total gross revenues to date never decreased. But in 2016, MOJO stopped such conversions, so decrease in total gross revenues can happen for those converted into US$ since 2016. In case of Demon Slayer, total gross revenues in US$ decreased since February, 2021 according to MOJO, although roughly 3 billion yen (roughly 25 million US$) has been actually earned in Japan. To prevent this, cumulative conversions as MOJO previously did or conversions at release dates (as used in Chinese article of Demon Slayer the Movie) can be introduced.
Anyway, I also feel that too much currency conversions are included to the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train. For example, total gross revenue in each country or each continent is summarized in the article, but I think the summarized Tables are enough to get such information.
In addition, comparing gross revenues in different films by using such calculated gross revenues can be [[WP:OR]. According to the 2020 ranking in MOJO, Demon Slayer ranked 4th, without counting additional $25 million in Japan (because of change in currency rates) and $30 million (mainly for Taiwan), but both "The Eight Hundred" and "My People, my Homeland" did not count Taiwanese revenues, which are counted for "Tenet" and "Sonic the Hedgehog". This can happen because MOJO provides data provided by the distributors in USA and some western countries, while MOJO does not pay attention for others, although Taiwanese revenues and admissions are freely available. Thus, the revenue of "My People, my Homeland" can be still higher than Demon Slayer, if such data are added to the revenues. Anyway, comparisons can be reliable only when comared in the same conditions, so I think it's better to use more generalized information for the comparison in such ranking articles rather than using data in each Wikipedia article.Orichalcum (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Orichalcum (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, comaring revenues of MOJO or The NUMBERS by revising data from outside can be WP:OR, but I will not care of this.Orichalcum (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
conversions of local currencies into others are not at all WP:OR if specific dates for the calculations of conversions with the appropriate website to convert are given properlyOrichalcum, the reason we are here at WP:NORN is that this assertion is incorrect. In order for a calculation to be able to be considered to be a WP:Routine calculation, the result of the calculation has to be obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. That is very clearly not the case here. If this were a routine calculation, we would not see other sources arriving at different figures when converting the same quantities of the original currency, as indeed we do (I give a few examples of this over at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train, relating to Deadline Hollywood and a couple of other sources). You have combined two different sources—one that gives the gross in the original currency and one that provides an exchange rate—to reach a novel conclusion which is not explicitly stated by either source, namely the gross in USD. That's textbook WP:SYNTH. Not only that, you have done this repeatedly (with various sources for various local currencies) and then combined the results to reach an even more novel conclusion. This is rather egregious.
You have not presented any argument whatsoever as to why this would not be WP:Original research, you've merely asserted that it isn't with nothing backing that up. TompaDompa (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not notice the argument taken in Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train. Actually, I added such calculations (weekly conversions) to stop the edits of intentionally overestimated figures. OK, I agree to use the worldwide total gross of Demon Slayer in US$ presented by the Crunchyroll, (although the amount in JPY is apparently overestimated by converting the cumulative data in US$ back to JPY in the latest simple currency conversion). I also agree not to use weekly cumulative conversion method that I introduced for the conversions in the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train, but I will keep simple conversions based on the release date for countries where cumulative data are not available, because such calculations can help people to understand the situation of the total gross. At the same time, I will keep the calculated result only limited in the Table. I will edit the article later.Orichalcum (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
TompaDompa (talk · contribs) and Orichalcum (talk · contribs), the gross of the film is underestimated. As per my calculation, it should be $432.67 million but the number $414 million placed here are overestimated for 45.83 billion yen. Also, Wikipedia is the only site maintaining the data of the film. No website has updated its number since March 16. Could you all please reconsider your decision of Original Research for some times. Till any website updates its number. Catropst Benzt (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
There are many articles that use OR, it's better to check them out first rather than disturbing this article. Because the gross in Japan is highly underestimated making an estimated loss of $15 million due to money fluctuations. Due to this problem, weekly revenue and its system of the exchange rate are more suitable as fluctuations isn't high in the weekly exchange rate, maintaining the gross well. (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
If different editors can calculate different amounts then it is OR. It requires judgment on which source to use for conversion and whether to apply the rates in real times, daily, weekly, etc. There's also the issue of completeness of the takings. Also, we are using these calculations to determine rankings, which may differ from what reliable sources report. This doesn't help readers. Suppose for example that movie A was the top-grossing film according to reliable sources, while our calculation says it was movie B. The correct answer for a film studies examination is movie A. If the student wants to say B, he or she has to prove it. TFD (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand that but the gross of the film is underestimate too much. The problem is not only about the ranking but how actual is the gross on conversion. And verification of the source so that the film gross is underestimate and at this moment of time no one have the same data as per Daryl Harding. Catropst Benzt (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
However frustrating it might be, best is to await reliable sources (and/or the conversion template).Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It just make no sense to use 360M for DS when it just wrong, Boxoffice Mojo and other sources convert the whole number every week into dollars so some week the number somehow decrease even, with the Japanese distributor reporting the numbers every week in yen, the only way is to convert the the numbers to dollars every week as soon as they are reported and the source currently being used for DS is CR which literally take the reported gross in Japanese and just convert it to USD as there is no official source in USD. Just for example CR reported that the movie in January grossed 35.70 billion yen (US$342.5 million) and in April it grossed 39.40 billion yen (US$362.14 million) so the movie increased 3.7 billion yen and US$19.64 million for that to happen it would require the yen to equal USD$0.005 which hasn't happened in the last twenty year. Adab1za (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  • If it's impossible to maintain the List of highest-grossing R-rated films page without performing complicated and arbitrary calculations to come up with a disputed USD value for each film, then perhaps the organization of the page needs to be rethought. Articles which require constant updating and debatable calculations aren't compatible with Wikipedia's policies and might be better suited to a different website. Not everything that exists needs to be on Wikipedia (see WP:NOTDATABASE). pburka (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for your explanation and violation as per WP:OR and WP:RS. But, I would like to say that I didn't look problem for ranking. Ever since the film was released on October 16, 2020, many articles were published and gross as per USD was updated as adjusted to the current exchange of JPY which was slightly (~0.0001-0.0023) lower as compared to weekly exchange rate. Making no difference between the weekly conversion of revenue as per weekly exchange rate and conversion of whole revenue as per daily exchange rate. This conversion was so stable that JPY was maintaining a fixed value against USD almost three months. (neglecting the point difference) But, after the arrival of New Year, the exchange rate of JPY reached a high level of unstablity against USD making increasing difference between daily and weekly exchange rate. (These differences were directly observed by the table, maintained by Orinhalcum, before it's removal by TompaDompa). At present, the conversion of the gross of film stands at $358-$365 million as per current exchange rate and fixed and stable conversion of weekly revenue, stand at $380.1 million as per weekly exchange rate. (A huge difference of about $15-$22 million, a objection placed by TompaDompa, if Orinchlam was correct regarding the data placed on the table.)
    Regardless the objection, I have a doubt in my mind that I like to share to you all.
    If JPY>>> then likewise USD>>>, but I see that the opposite is taking place, (for reference, you all can visit the weekly revenue collection report by BOX OFFICE MOJO) USD value of the film is falling against the increasing JPY value. I would also like to asked if both Anime News Network and Crunchyroll are considered reliable source as per WP: Reliable Sources, then why are the articles of both website are not reporting the same value of USD, sometimes Crunchyroll overtake ANN data, later ANN report higher gross than the former one. To make everything clear, I have myself gone through the source, upon some minute calculation, one thing came to the conclusion that these differences are due to current exchange rate of JPY against USD definitely Money Fluctuations.
    Some important points that I observed:
    • Daryl Harding has accepted that no one can have the same data as per his tweet.[1]
    • Although, there is a huge difference between conversion of weekly revenue as per weekly exchange rate and conversion of whole revenue as per daily exchange rate in the field of USD. But, a point of interest was observed that JPY remain unchanged in either method of conversion backed from USD. The conclusion I establish through this is that neither $414.3 million nor $433 million are wrong. Difference is only the method of conversion.
    • As per @meJat32's tweet, he placed a argument to a User that neither daily exchange rate nor weekly exchange rate differ much. But, if anyone follows current exchange rate then, it would provide an inaccurate data.[2][3] (This is the reason why Crunchyroll and Anime News Network articles are not collaborating each i.e, not supporting each other statement.)
    Directly to the point, I would like to ask you all
    • Whether it is better to switch the worldwide gross of the film to JPY like the article Your Name and Weathering with You.
    • Or restore the page and maintain the gross of the film as done earlier by a experience User.
    I do understand the policy that says Wikipedia is not a Database. But, since early March, no articles are publishing the gross of film. Many new websites are maintaining the gross of the film as per verification from Wikipedia. The gross of the film is highly determine by the value of JPY against USD. If JPY keeps falling against USD, then the gross of the film can fall below $300 million if we all follow daily exchange rate. But If the opposite take place then, the gross of the film can reach as high as $526 million (for ¥40 billion), which can be overlooked as major editing problem. For some interval of time I would like to ask keep aside the policies and restore the earlier version of the article till a relevant source noticed the method of conversion and published a article regarding the gross. So, that any one of us can cite it as reference and remove the User performed conversion as per policy of Wikipedia on Original Research.
    Why can't a Box Office Analyst tweet be placed as reference? I don't know any policy which abstract the edit. As per mentioned talk page, TompaDompa has stated that Sources should convert the regional currencies for users to edit. But @meJat32 is a Box Office Analyst, who has already convert the currencies to USD. Could someone clarify this doubt of mine? Catropst Benzt (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    According to my calculations, it should be near about $380.1 million for Japan. I would like to see how high it could once USD fall against JPY. The problem is only in the gross of Japan. I would think of switch to JPY but wants to know what are the other possible ways of solving this problem. Catropst Benzt (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    This is now something of a moot point, since Deadline Hollywood has published an article with a figure for the worldwide gross that more-or-less matches the figure that the user-performed currency conversions resulted in, so we now simply cite that instead of relying on WP:OR. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

List_of_highest-grossing_films#cite_note-Frozen-41.--寒吉 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I believe the issue of the Frozen gross is something you are very familiar with and thus in a good position to address. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see currency conversions as an OR issue, but I think they can come under WP:SYNTHESIS. WP:CALC permits simple calculations, and currency conversions are for the most part simple: if you have the base figure and the conversion rate it is easy to work out. I doubt anybody would dispute that. Box Office Mojo has changed since the Frozen incident, but what used to happen was that they would report the weekend grosses in dollars along with the exchange rate they used for the conversions. We needed the weekly figure to increment the total, so we just used the same conversion rate as Box Office Mojo i.e. the base figure and the conversion rate both came from BOM. The problems with conversions occur when editors get a figure and feed it through some random conversion calculator. In the case of Frozen we ended up with a figure that BOM would have produced if they had just done it themselves. The only conversion that was a problem was the German reissue because the figure jumped over a period of several months, so we didn't know which conversion rate to use. What we did though in this single case was provide a lower-bound estimate (what we knew from BOM though was that the euro never fell below parity so we knew the absolute minimum it could have earned). So to recap: we did perform some conversions in the case of Frozen, but the conversion rate in all but one case was given to use by BOM itself. I would say these calculations would qualify under CALC. The one questionable calculation was for Germany where we didn't know what the conversion rate was, but we did know the minimum it could have been, so we just produced a lower-bound figure for in that one particular case. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@TompaDompa:, The problem is solved and I am happy that Deadline Hollywood has published the correct figure. The figure is similar to Box Office Analyst @ichika_kasuga and @meJat32's tweets[4][5]. Hope that in future, this type of problem doesn't arise again.Catropst Benzt (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


MRA and Mackinac College[edit]

On June 25th 2018, I requested an edit of a statement that precedes the Mackinac College article: In this link, see text that begins ‘REPLACE’ and is then followed by ‘RATIONALE.’

The thrust of my request is that the following statement is incorrect: “This article is about the college created by founders of the Moral Re-Armament.” This statement, created for the Mackinac College article in Wikipedia, is Original Research posted on 0:32, 20 June 2014 without source or support, and is contradicted by numerous references including those listed in the RATIONALE. My edit was denied on the grounds that my sources are connected and I have a conflict of interest. I would like to appeal this decision, and if unchanged, would like to understand why an unsupported statement overrules a challenge from high-quality connected sources.

--The references are well published books. I can provide PDFs or e-text of relevant portions at your request. --The Mackinac College article is an important part of the biographies of still-living students, faculty, and staff from Mackinac College, Michigan. Our continuing involvement with the College is seen in our active Facebook Page (134 members), 3 recent Zoom calls (35, 36, and 39 people approximately), reunions (70 attended in 2017), and scheduled attendance at our 2020 reunion, now rolled over to 2021 (51st Reunion). Our list of 331 active addresses, emails, and phone numbers spans 38 American states and 18 other countries. Karin D. E. Everett (talk)