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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Anthem of Napoleonic France[edit]

The Wikipedia article for "Veillons au salut de l'Empire", the unofficial national anthem of Napoleonic France, has been listed as not citing any sources since January of 2015. What should we do with it? 70.124.147.243 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locate some sources and cite them! Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources in the French-language version. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veillons_au_salut_de_l%27Empire. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular graphics[edit]

Molecular graphics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a disaster zone. Huge amounts of the content are unreferenced and likely basedon OR, and much of the content seems to be disorganized and repetitive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Group[edit]

The claimed casualties of the Wagner Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) during the Russian invasion of Ukraine are quite concerning. The estimated total is 3000, but we have a 4 killed (confirmed) using the following "references"

• Institute for War confirms Senior Lieutenant Sergey Zavadsky was killed on March 13
• Myrotvorets Research Center (see Myrotvorets) says Sharypov Oleg Anatolyevich was killed on March 3
• vgorodekirove.ru says Alexander Kiselev was killed on March 13, and makes no apparent mention of the Wagner Group
• A Telegram post says Ivan Mikheev was killed on March 20

As far as I'm concerned, this figure goes above and beyond WP:CALC since it involves searching news stories (and less reliable references) and claiming the result of that research represents some kind of casualty figure. Surely this isn't acceptable? FDW777 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the English-language source, I have to agree. This is one of the stupidest WP:SYNTHs I've seen. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777:} Oh, you might want to check the other death tolls, as they look suspiciously low — I've already removed an entry about the Mali War as another WP:SYNTH. One of the sources mentioned that a Russian mercenary was killed, but not that he was part of the Wagner Group. The other didn't even mention the Wagner Group. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: The sources for the four deaths in Ukraine were added as a temporary measure until better sources became available. Indeed all four were described as Wagner members by the conflict tracker Necromancer who was quoted/cited by the Institute for War for that first death (Sergey Zavadsky). However, since no better sources have apparently shown up I have no problem with the removal of the "4 killed (confirmed)". Also, no need for comments like "stupid", lets be WP:Civil. As for Mali, I do not agree with the removal. First, to be clear, there are no reliable or unreliable sources confirming/reporting the presence of more than one Russian mercenary group in Mali, just the Wagner Group. Now, first source clearly states multiple times its talking about the Wagner Group which it describes as "Russian mercenaries" in several instances and states a Russian mercenary was killed. Second source also clearly states two "foreign soldiers" were killed, part of a group of "foreign soldiers – identified by several sources as Russians". Further, subsequent reports on the incident from the second source state the Russians were mercenaries and note to be Wagner members [1][2][3]. If this isn't considered verifiable enough to confirm the three deaths, then I won't argue it further. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: But is there a cumulative death toll among the Wagner Group? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment no, just the individual reports, hoping a source with an overall figure shows up at one point and keeping an eye out for that. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there was a report late last month regarding the first officially confirmed death [4] (by two Malian officials, including one who described him as a "Wagner agent"). Based on this I think we could add just this one death, as for the other three, we could only make a mention of the two incidents (with source attribution) in the notes section, without saying directly they were Wagner members (instead Russian "mercenaries" and Russian "foreign soldiers" as per sources), since their Wagner background was only indirectly stated. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cooper[edit]

99.183.184.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been persistently engaging in original research on Jeff Cooper, by adding that he was a "racist and a fascist" and "far-right", despite this not appearing in any of the sources.

Diffs: [5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9] Loafiewa (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours for repeated BLP violations EvergreenFir (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But this guy died in 2006! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue at Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War § The state of this article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loren L. Coleman[edit]

I believe that this addition is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The IP editor who added it said that "Loren L. Coleman is, as far as I can tell, the current owner of CGL- and was, I believe, one of two co-owners at the time of the article. The article does not name him explicitly, but refers to 'an owner' and was written to address community outrage directed *at him*, thus he is the de facto subject of the article." Opinions? BOZ (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is far from sufficient for such a claim, especially in the context of a WP:BLP, as it only discusses an anonymous "owner". As the reference clearly states the are multiple such owners, we can't draw a line from "one of the owners" to the article subject. The only way I could see the diff's content being included is if there was a reliable published source that explicitly states that the owner mentioned in the press release is the article subject. Ljleppan (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

Flavan-3-ol has an RFC[edit]

Flavan-3-ol has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Ggux (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf crisis[edit]

There's a discussion over whether the so-called Persian Gulf conflict has continued. I have discussed the matter on the article talk page with other editors but no one has provided even a single source backing their claims. More specifically, the sections covering 2022 sections like January 2022 and March 2022 are not featured with reliable sources that "directly related to the topic of the article". Your feedback please. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies mate, unfortunately we are discussing the critical topic over the accuracy of the height of a small hill just outside London. Hopefuly this major controversy can be recitified so we can talk about this international conflict. Barney1995 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, just crossing my fingers so that the crisis of 'the hill height dispute' is resolved very soon, while waiting for feedbacks. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the content of the references, the January and March 2022 incidents do not need to be in the article as they do not mention the wider conflict. Additionally, the name of the article can remain as it is in my opinion. Barney1995 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneleigh, Surrey[edit]

User:Barney1995 has added to Stoneleigh, Surrey, the highest and lowest elevations for the settlement, by looking at two highly detailed maps and then trying to spot the highest and lowest numbers on each map. Both maps were included as references: [10][11]. I told Barney1995 at Talk:Stoneleigh, Surrey#Elevation that I have identified locations on both maps that are higher or lower in elevation then what they had found, and that this method of determining exact elevations was inaccurate and original research. The input of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not inaccurate, and doubly referenced. I used the figures which are found in the Stoneleigh Wards (Auriol and Stoneleigh) A non controversial, cited edit on a non BLP page. Barney1995 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot heights on maps are just that: the height (relative to some datum) as measured at that specific position. They aren't necessarily located on the highest/lowest points on the terrain. Accordingly, this is not only WP:OR, but quite possibly wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All true, but if you use the flood map (which uses detailed OS data, you can see that it is right. The 52m is at the summit of the hill, clearly nowhere higher to go!In theory it could be wrong, but if you look at the references in the Stoneleigh area you will see that it is clearly right. And by the way,the higher and lower areas are outside of Stoneleigh, hence why they are omitted. Barney1995 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like that a small hill in suburban Surrey takes precedence over an international conflict. Thanks guys! Barney1995 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as clearly original research, and when you need this much explanation, I tend to think it a bad idea to include. I would say should be taken out of the article, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, It is just the highest and lowest points in the said area of the article in a sentence, backed up by references. I could not know and provide this info without the references. I am surprised this thread is not busier, since the majority of Wikipedia is original research. Barney1995 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump and Dumuzid: I concluded there was consensus this was original research, and removed the elevations from the Stoneleigh article. However, it was reverted by User:Barney1995. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unreferenced (although obviously correct) low-lying bit in the edit. Everything in the new edit is referenced. Have a good afternoon Barney1995 (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]