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.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific ors, 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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:


Use of dbase in music articles[]

Is this original research:

article:

See You Again

content:

As of May 1, 2019, [the video] has received over 4 billion views and 23.7 million likes,[1][2] making it the site's third most viewed and second most liked video. It is one of 163 videos to exceed one billion views,[3] 34 videos to exceed two billion views, seven videos to exceed three billion views and three videos to exceed four billion views.

References

  1. ^ "All Time Most Viewed YouTube Videos". dbase.tube. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  2. ^ "All Time Most Liked YouTube Videos". dbase.tube. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  3. ^ "All Time Most Viewed YouTube Videos". dbase.tube. Retrieved May 1, 2019.

Please comment here:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dbase.tube

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Citing film footage or photos[]

Can footage in a documentary film or a still photograph alone (ie, without a caption) be used to support a point? I'm referring to a situation at Sympathy for the Devil where user:Kenotoo is citing a filmed performance (included in the documentary One Plus One) and a photo to support specific contributions on the released recording. As I understand it, this is original research – an or watches a film, sees a musician playing a certain percussion instrument, and takes their understanding of a visual image to state something as fact.

I have read it somewhere on Wikipedia (I'm not trying to be vague) that including personal interpretation of a photograph constitutes original research. In the case of individual musical contributions in a song article, I can see that documentary footage would be a useful guide in deciding which sources to use if there's some disagreement across the sources. But we'd still need a reliable source to explicitly state that Musician 1 played Instrument C on the recording, rather allowing our eyes (or ears) to determine the point. If someone could advise on this, I'd be grateful. Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Too bad that what is noted here isn't all true on what I did and didn't cite or say. I simply noted to him (to get him to stop harassing me and repeatedly taking down my work) - when he asked me, where I got my info that Brian Jones played the bongos on the song Sympathy for the Devil, and his claiming I wasn't using citations - when I did for all of the work he questioned (he's the one that wasn't citing anything), so to get him off my back, I noted to him (only) that the photo of the Stones in the studio when recording the song Sympathy for the Devil for the movie One Plus One and shown on the movie's cover (DVD and Tape box cover), showed Jones playing drums . The photo is on the Wiki page in question for the song, that's why I told him that so he could see it for himself. However, I didn't cite that photo as source on the page , I cited the movie, where the photo comes from. I did also check with you guys first about this before I used such citations (since I'm a new or here and that seems to be a crime to him). There are so many incorrect crs on the Stones many different pages on Wiki and I'm only trying to correct them. The Stones management came to me and hired me years ago to work on their official web site when it was being rebuilt because they knew of me and that my work is credible. What he is claiming about me is a falsehood. Plus the movie in question, at least the part of it that is about the Stones, is 100% filmed in the studio and it shows 5 days of them recording and working on this song. Kenotoo (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a forum for discussing whether sources are reliable and can be used in Wikipedia's articles, not for slugging out any differences that might lead to a thread being started here. I didn't mean to imply that you were citing the cover photo as a source in the article – the diff links I added provide the context for each one – although I do make a connection between interpretation of film footage and photographs because of the guideline or policy I've read on photos in the past. I only mentioned you by name, incidentally, to ensure you'd be able to see the responses that other ors give; raising the matter here is not intended to be an accusation, just as this noticeboard is not a place where ors pass judgment on that side of the matter.
So, if we could keep this thread on-topic, that would be great – otherwise, it's hardly a discussion that others will want to join. To repeat, I'd appreciate some input from NOR/N regulars, because they're most likely well versed in what is and what is not original research. JG66 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017‎[]

Outside input requested on: diff. Specifically -

  1. with signs like Poland was not the aggressor, it was a victim", "Poland should receive compensaton, not give it", “Treat anti-Polonism like antisemitism” and 'Stop slandering Poland in the media' - does not appear in the cited reference.
  2. The Polish American Congress, the biggest Polish-American organization - does not appear in the cited source (which is PAC itself, an organization with some "issues" - e.g. [1], [2]).
  3. "According to the accounts of activists in a counterprotest, who described the anti-bill protesters as "Polish nationalists", some of the protesters carried antisemitic signs such as referencing the Holocaust Industry or the Jewish greed stereotype, and some engaged in Holocaust denial rhetoric." - the cited sources - [3][4][5][6]:
    1. do not use "Jewish greed".
    2. do not attribute "Holocaust industry" to the "accounts of activists in a counterprotest".
    3. "who described the anti-bill protesters as "Polish nationalists"" - not attributed in the cited sources (nor Deutsche Welle here) tocounter-protesters - the cited sources simply describe the protesters as "Polish nationalists" and do not say anywhere that counter-protesters described them as such.

Discussion at - Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017#Arbitrary Break. Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Still this discussion?
  1. While they do appear in the photos, we ought to rely on the author's written account first. The image can be referenced directly, but in this case the caption would precede our interpretation of the image, unless the caption digresses to the absurd. Here the written account and the text diverge, as do the caption and the text.
  2. Unless supported by sources, the statement is WP:OR. Note WP:CALC may apply, depending on the case.
  3. Three out of the four sources use the terms "nationalist" and/or "antisemitism" themselves (Haaretz being the exception). All refer to a third source - who I'm not sure can be deemed an "activist", as the text does - but insofar as they are convinced enough by that source that they use these terms in their own voice, so should we.
    1. Go with the sources.
    2. See #3.
    3. See #3.1.
François Robere (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2019 Greek legislative election[]

I think user Impru20 is conducting original research. He keeps changing the data from polls sources without consensus, using his own math formula. Shouldn't the numbers of the citations correspond to the ones in the table? Can anyone try to supplant the original pollsters research? I tried to correct the numbers, but he reverted, what should I do? You can see the discussion here A I am waiting for a response. Thank you! Gomoloko (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC for Appeal to nature[]

Talk:Appeal_to_nature#RfC_for_Singer-referenced_content is considering whether it is original research to include an example into the article with a reference that does not mention "appeal to nature". --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A year ago I stated and published 3 Conjectures about normality of Pi digits and other numbers[]

Conjecture1 π is not normal to any base b > 1, but it is normal to some order s that imply that ∃S ∈N, such that π is normal for ∀s ≤ S and not normal for ∀s> S

Conjecture2 π is not normal to all orders that are greater or equal 19 ∀s> 18 or S =18

Conjecture3 Conjectures 1 and 2 are correct to a wide class of fundamental constants and possibly can be extended to all algebraic numbers. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Michael Fundator Application of Multidimensional Time Model for Probability Cumulative Function to Experimental and Statistical Investigations into Statistical Randomness and Normality of Pi Sqrt2 Etc JSM Proceedings 2017

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.120.98 (talkcontribs) - 23:44, May 16, 2019‎

And this belongs here -- why? --Calton | Talk 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this OR or not?[]

Input requested for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_map_images_with_missing_or_unclear_data

There have been repeated reports that this article is mostly OR over many years on the talk page, and nothing has ever been done, seemingly no-one cared enough to sort it out - until now.

To prevent violation of 3RR, I request that someone review the recent changes and advise.

Thanks.

WP:OR was the basis for a very spirited AFD of that article in 2007, just adding that link for background. Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the part that the or above is referring to is the Examples tables, which seemed to have been collected by ors looking at online maps (Google, Bing, Live) and identifying sections as "blurred" (some called them "censored"). A lot of ors over the years have stated that was original research; a lot of ors over the years vehemently disagreed, stating the online map was the source. (I've just been watching the page flip back and forth because I think both sides have a point.) Schazjmd (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

List of NCAA schools with the most Division I national championships[]

The entire list of NCAA schools with the most Division I national championships seems to be original synthesis:

(This should not be confused with the list of NCAA schools with the most NCAA Division I championships, which has a much more conventional list of NCAA championships with citations.) OCNative (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hydration_system article completey not sourced[]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydration_system

This both reads like original research and has zero references, citations, or even additional resources from external sources. It was last updated a month ago. But was flagged in 2009 for readability.