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) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N 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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47

Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot.

International Chemistry Olympiad country comparison[edit]

The International Chemistry Olympiad page publishes a list of cumulative results of countries. The reference for this table is the http://www.icho-official.org/results/ page. One one hand summing up those results in the database constitutes original research. It is far from a simple summation. On the other hand the database explicitly prohibits the use use of the data not in line with olympiad regulations (i.e. to publish national rankings). This table should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.4.210 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that the simple catalogging of all the data at the actual reference, http://www.icho-official.org/results/countries.php, is WP:SYNTH, as the data are linked from each country's entry. I cannot find any page on the site which restricts the use of this data. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is on the main page (http://www.icho-official.org/results/): "It is prohibited to use the data not in line with IChO regulations (i.e. to publish national rankings)." 89.132.120.4 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I'm still not convinced that it was sYNTH, but if it's againstthe organization's data policy then we can delete it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, @LaundryPizza03. Someone who did a ton of irrelevant changes has reverted your deletion of the national ranking table. That gives one a strange impression. There should not be a revert war on this. 89.132.120.4 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include large RCT as primary research in text (RFC)[edit]

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

Clam chowdah's discussion of "Big Pharma" at President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief[edit]

Despite being reverted by three users, Clam chowdah has been waging a slow-motion edit war at President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) since January to insert a lengthy paragraph about the U.S. government "defend[ing] the patents of Big Pharma" (softened to "defend[ing] the patents of multinational drug companies" in more recent revisions), citing three sources ([1], [2], [3]) that long predate PEPFAR and consequently do not mention the program. In his edit summaries, Clam chowdah has defended the disputed content, saying it "Added very important context so people can find the true heroes." Two contributors, one of them an IP, countered that Clam chowdah's proposed addition "was clearly biased, unsourced, and didn't belong in the article" and violated "WP:OR/WP:SYNTH," sentiments that I agree with and have also expressed (e.g., "RV POV-pushing WP:OR edits about 'big pharma' using sources that do not even discuss PEPFAR"). Despite this, Clam chowdah—who has previously been warned about non-constructive editing and violations of WP:UNDUE at 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential primary campaign ([4], [5], [6]) has refused to listen to these concerns, dismissing them as the "Orwellian propaganda" of "Bush lackey" (i.e., me) and an accomplice who is "most likely affiliated with Bush fan". By my count, Clam chowdah has now reinstated this content six times since the initial edits ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Because the PEPFAR article clearly seems to need additional eyes, and since Clam chowdah acknowledges that his sources do not address PEPFAR directly but instead provide "very important context so people can find the true heroes" (which sounds a lot like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to me), I decided to take the dispute to this noticeboard. To wit: Is this valid background information that may be useful to readers interested in PEPFAR or simply a textbook case of original research and synthesis by an inexperienced contributor? All feedback is appreciated!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This official UN report has everything I added for context AND mentions PEPFAR. Furthermore, all of this can be backed up by my original footnote links which are contemporaneous news articles. Read pages 21-23 and you will see it has the exact same facts I found in contemporaneous news articles. The first paragraph now is BS and none of it can be found in contemporaneous news articles. Fauci and Tommy Thompson visiting Africa in 2002 is the first mention of the Bush administration focusing on the crisis in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/MDG6Report_en.pdf

Here are the direct quotes from the UN officials that make clear Western governments were protecting patents and thus blocking distribution of HIV medication:

The pharmaceutical industry had a tight grip on government policies and an even tighter grip on prices. And donÕt forget this was also the time when world leaders were negotiating protection of intellectual property rights at the WTO [World Trade Organization]. Any concession could open the floodgates for exceptions. US$ 100 So when Brazil and Thailand started manufacturing generic antiretroviral medicines they did something very smart: they revealed that the pills were relatively low-cost to make. This took the wind out of industry claims, and it opened the door for UNAIDS to start negotiations with companies to bring down prices

Meanwhile, activists were getting creative, too. The Treatment Action Campaign sued the government of South Africa to force the country to make antiretroviral medicines available, and protesters were pushing for changes to patent protection to bring prices down. MICHEL: I cannot give enough credit to AIDS activists. Activists used all avenues available to keep pressure on everyone. The push on WTO to recognize the limits of patent protection in a health crisis led to TRIPS [the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] flexibilities for compulsory licensing and waivers.“ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More on the patents and WTO: A discussion of ways to overcome this obstacle began at a WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar in November 2001. WTO ministers recognized that countries with insufficient or no pharmaceutical-manufacturing capacities could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing, and they instructed the Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to this problem before the end of 2002. WTO member nations, however, were unable to agree upon the terms under which poor countries could import generic drugs.

Progress on easing generic-drug importation restrictions was held back primarily by the US, which, under pressure from a strong pharmaceutical lobby, expressed concern about the ability of generics producers to export drugs that the pharmaceutical companies had spent millions of dollars to develop. Sale of AIDS drugs in developed countries is a multimillion-dollar industry for companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Merck and Co., and Roche Holding AG.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228482/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We aren't here to right great wrongs nor to conduct original research nor string together sources to make a point not found in the sources. Also we do not call people liars in edit summaries no matter how much you dislike the former President and his administration.Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Slywriter just called Jeffrey Sachs a liar. You need to read my links instead of bullying me!! Please use the Talk page!! You 3 are bullies that are trying to trip me up so you can ban me because editing Wikipedia makes you feel powerful. You 3 are no better than a middle school bully picking on a new kid. This is like the Stanford Prison Experiment and I notice it when websites allow top commenters to moderate comment sections and the power goes to their heads. You guys won’t even respond to me because you just end up showing your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills…pathetic! Clam chowdah (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in that report on those pages that call out anything close to what you are saying. That drug prices are high and that USAIDS has tried to work with companies to bring down prices is there, but that's nothing about the US Gov protecting Big Pharma. So this is 100% original research and cannot be added. --Masem (t) 02:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^^^this guy just wrote USAIDS—it is UNAIDS!! USAIDS doesn’t exist. Here is the quote from UN—“The pharmaceutical industry had a tight grip on government policies and an even tighter grip on prices.” And here is the quote from JCI via NIH-“Progress on easing generic-drug importation restrictions was held back primarily by the US, which, under pressure from a strong pharmaceutical lobby” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research—those are quotes!! I didn’t write an essay!! The links are right there, how can you not see that!?! It is getting added because it is what happened in 2000-2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So one guy thinks I wrote an essay when I copy and pasted from official UN and NIH documents…and another guy thinks he read USAIDS when it is obviously UNAIDS?? Am I on Candid Camera??? Seriously?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I apologize to Times, but I did make the changes he advised me to make. But you can see that Times wanted to get a desired outcome here because the first two people to weigh in have misread my contributions because Times wrote such a biased introduction. I want these facts included because they are important and I don’t want my bad behavior to keep them out and so I will take all of your advice to heart…but Times should also be a little more careful because he is coming off as a bully even as I admit my bad behavior and promise to keep it civil going forward. Oh, and a Quartz article I originally linked to used the term “Big Pharma” and I do believe the UN officials’ are relating that “Western hegemony” was keeping life saving medication from poor nations at the turn of the century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from the Quartz article I originally linked to which is backed up by multiple articles published in 2001 by the NYTimes which is what “the article” refers to:

According to the article, Cipla was offering to sell the AIDS cocktail for $350 a year per patient, or roughly $1 a day, as compared to Western prices of between $10,000 and $15,000 a year, but was being blocked by the multinational drug makers that held the patents, who were being backed by the Bush administration.

News of Big Pharma’s patent protection efforts in the face of the global pandemic and the Bush administration’s support of them sparked international outrage and stoked street protests from Philadelphia to Pretoria, even accusations of genocide.

https://qz.com/india/1666032/how-indian-pharma-giant-cipla-made-aids-drugs-affordable/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PEPFAR began with President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, and their interests in AIDS prevention, Africa, and what Bush termed “compassionate conservatism.” According to his 2010 memoir, Decision Points, the two of them developed a serious interest in improving the fate of the people of Africa after reading Alex Haley’s Roots, and visiting The Gambia in 1990. In 1998, while pondering a run for the U.S. presidency, he discussed Africa with Condoleezza Rice, his future secretary of state; she said that, if elected, working more closely with countries on that continent should be a significant part of his foreign policy. She also told him that HIV/AIDS was a central problem in Africa but that the United States was spending only $500 million per year on global AIDS, with the money spread across six federal agencies, without a clear strategy for curbing the epidemic.[5]

This is currently under History and it’s from a primary source (Decision Points which is Bush’s memoir), shouldn’t it already be deleted???Clam chowdah (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the editor that initially deleted my text edited Lee Harvey Oswald’s article to say he was “accused” of “assassinating” JFK…so that is the individual that started with deleting my work instead of working with me on the Talk page. Thanks to the more experienced editors trying to help me instead of ignoring my links that go to reputable entities and news sources.Clam chowdah (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You went to see [then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice … in early 2001. Were you talking about the Global Fund then, and what was her reaction?

I came in to the White House, the first year of the Bush administration. I came in to see Condoleezza Rice, with whom I worked in 1989 when I was advising the new post-Communist Polish government, and she was in the National Security Council. ... I went in 2001 to say, "Here's another chance for a wonderful initiative; we need to help treat people that are dying of AIDS; ... here's a $3 billion-a-year plan," and put it forward.

It was interesting, the reaction. Well, first Condoleezza Rice said, "The president is interested in this." Thank goodness. And "It's interesting to hear you discuss this, but our experts tell us that people can't be treated." And I said: "Well, that's not true. Not only have I seen it with my own eyes, but I'm lucky to have as colleagues some of the world's leading scientists and clinicians in AIDS, and they've all just agreed on the fact that treatment is feasible, and it's even feasible in the clinical conditions you would find in impoverished places." Well, there was lots of philosophical argument -- no, it's only cost-effective to do prevention, and all sorts of misunderstandings. ...

I was utterly shocked, I think, completely stunned, when the newly appointed head of USAID [United States Agency for International Development], Andrew Natsios, then made the most remarkable and chilling set of statements about all of this as he was coming into office. He said: "Well, you can't treat Africans. Africans don't know Western time. They won't know the time to take their medicines." He said: "They may know mornings; they may know noon; they may know night. But they don't know Western time." Hard to fathom, actually, how a senior American official could ever make such a statement. But that was the statement of the USAID agency -- in his early days, admittedly, but absolutely shocking. And I talked to [then-Secretary of State] Colin Powell and others, and of course Secretary Powell said: "I've been to hospitals all over Africa. This statement is not our policy." But it showed how steep the hill was going to be with this administration.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/interviews/sachs.htmlClam chowdah (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly carrying a POV and trying to justify original research to include claims not directly made by these sources. This is the classic WP:SYNTH argument that WP does not allow. --Masem (t) 02:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are quotes from Jeffrey Sachs via PBS “original research”?? And how are quotes from Bush’s memoir not a primary source? Does bullying people make you feel powerful??Clam chowdah (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the quotes from Bush's memoir are from a WP:PRIMARY source. Being from a primary source is not reason enough to exclude properly attributed information on an otherwise notable topic. They are certainly not lies, unless you believe Wikipedia is misrepresenting the two sources and the information is not found in those sources. Slywriter (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Jeffrey Sachs interview from Frontline right above this!! You can’t square his recollection with Rice’s recollection. And Kofi Annan never heard Bush or Rice discuss PEPFAR prior to shortly before the 2003 State of the Union—do you believe Sachs and Annan or Bush and Rice?? And remember—Sachs and Annan’s actions were recorded by the news media in real time while Bush’s version of events was recorded in 2010 when his memoir was published. You can’t be this gullible!?!Clam chowdah (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about being gullible, it is that we as editors cannot engages in the speculation and interpretation of sources like this. Sources have to be pretty direct to say that the US Govt is defending the patents of Big Pharma. You are trying to link many disparate pieces of factual information (what some people like Sachs have said) to create a picture that doesn't exist in the sources. That's original research.

You also have continued to try to add this at PEPFAR, which is edit warning and you should be fully aware that if you continue to do so, you will be blocked for that. Masem (t) 12:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Cipla was offering to sell the AIDS cocktail for $350 a year per patient, or roughly $1 a day, as compared to Western prices of between $10,000 and $15,000 a year, but was being blocked by the multinational drug makers that held the patents, who were being backed by the Bush administration.

News of Big Pharma’s patent protection efforts in the face of the global pandemic and the Bush administration’s support of them sparked international outrage and stoked street protests from Philadelphia to Pretoria, even accusations of genocide.

https://qz.com/india/1666032/how-indian-pharma-giant-cipla-made-aids-drugs-affordable/amp/Clam chowdah (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you 3 mean girls seem intent on pushing racist White Savior narrative from a primary source that is contradicted by a Nobel Peace prize winner and Harvard economist?!? You 3 are awful, I’m done trying to reason with you when you’ve gotten everything wrong here and you refuse read links and refuse to use the Talk page to come to a consensus and you follow the lead of a JFK conspiracy theorist.Clam chowdah (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you are incapable of discussing the issue in a collegial manner, your behavior is now at WP:ANI. Civility is not optional.Slywriter (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extrasolar planet counts[edit]

We have the template {{Extrasolar planet counts}}, that displays the following text inside of an article

As of 1 June 2022, there are 5,059 confirmed exoplanets in 3,733 planetary systems, with 824 systems having more than one planet.^[1]

The idea is to have a nice and centralized template with the current number of known exoplanets, so that when that number increases it is updated just once and all related articles are instantly updated, avoiding the risk of leaving one out during a manual mass update and then that article would be outdated.

The problem is the source: it is a catalog of such planets. We say that there are (as of May 31, 2022) 5017 exoplanets because that's the number of items in the catalog. Is this a valid way to reference this? Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero, the template is saying in Wikipedia's voice that there are a definite number of confirmed exoplanets. Confirmed by whom? Other sites have higher numbers. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero, it would be better to have the template say "As of 1 May 2022, the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia reports 5,017 confirmed exoplanets in 3,694 planetary systems, with 822 systems having more than one planet." It is now maintained by a team mostly associated with the Paris Observatory, but still lists Jean Schneider as the author, so the reference is fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question was actually if the raw number of entries in a catalog was a valid reference for a claim like this one. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero, the number of catalog entries is fine to use. That sort of thing is not considered a "raw number" which usually means data needing more processing. However the template needs to say which database the numbers come from as I suggested above. The three main exoplanet databases use different criteria for inclusion so report different numbers. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about "lists" instead of "reports?" It is important that the encyclopedia does not claim to list all confirmed exoplanets. Since there is a delay between the confirmation of a new exoplanet and its listing in the encyclopedia, it will usually not include all of them. TFD (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Kinsey[edit]

This is about:

According to the Austin Institute, a conservative, right-wing institute from Texas^[1] (data published in 2014) about 20% percent of US women aged 18 to 60 years old had at least once lesbian/bisexual sex (11%) or attractions (9%)—that is without being sure about counting the 3.9% of US women who identify as lesbians or bisexuals.^[2]

Help me understand: the percentage of all those women is 20% or 23.9%? This is for Alfred Kinsey. I would incline for 23.9%, but since I'm not absolutely sure about it being the correct reading, I have submitted it here. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, this does not seem to be a reliable source, nor do their claims seem noteworthy. This does not seem relevant to the topic of Alfred Kinsey, so using it to comment on that topic seems to be OR. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Mark Regnerus is not an amateur, he is a full professor of sociology at a reputable university. And the source does mention Kinsey, albeit passingly. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a report from a politically biased institute, as your own source acknowledges, rather than a published paper in a journal. That source and the sources in our article on Mark Regnerus also show how controversial his work has been. That source also only mentions Kinsey as the originator of what is usually called the Kinsey Scale, which is not enough to mitigate the SYNTH issues here. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this SYNTH?[edit]

See this edit, in which I removed material I believed to be novel synthesis of published material, and the ensuing talk page discussion: Talk:Stephen F. Cohen#Brookings et al and NATO. Who's correct? Is that material SYNTH? Endwise (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental number[edit]

I've noticed that the topic of transcendental numbers tends to attract OR regarding specific mathematical constants, specifically regarding their transcendance.

• At Laplace limit, a user on 23 January 2022 claimed to prove that this constant is transcendental, using the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem. The proof was correct, but no reliable source makes this claim, so I reverted it on February 5.
• Lambert W function claimed to prove transcendence for ceratin values, including that which gives the omega constant, using the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem. I was unable to find reliable sources which explicitly make this assertion, particularly for the omega constant.
• In the case of Cahen's constant, there is a reliable source that proves transcendence, but the sources used did not support the claimed calculation of the irrationality measure of Cahen's constant.

I have recovered as many references as I could fin the main list from the main article. Some more eyes are appreciated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested at our article on the Jan 6 hearings[edit]

It's a relatively minor disagreement, but input from editors interested in OR issues would be welcome at article talk in this thread NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]