Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Is use of Google Maps to determine a specific location original research?

A few editors (myself, User:Doncram, and User:Bubba73) are disagreeing about what to list as the location of Covenant College. One of the questions on the table is whether it's original research to use Google Maps to determine the location of the college in contradiction to the (mailing?) address the college has posted on its website and registered with the U.S. Department of Education. Opinions from editors experienced in identifying original research are welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, maps, including Google maps, provide definitive information about borders of cities and counties. Follow the instructions put into the note I added to the Covenant College article. You can also check Mapquest, which even more easily shows where the county line is. And I have asserted already that colleges are unreliable, in fact, about their assertions of location, which is presumably for marketing reasons and/or to keep things simple for the public. It would take some digging but I could present some other examples, however that is not necessary. This is just about the facts. --Doncram (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI Stanford University, widely known to be in Palo Alto, California, is not. Siena College claims to be in the hamlet Loudonville, New York which is not so, although the Wikipedia article on Loudonville has been contorted to try to allow that stretch, despite past clear discussion if i recall correctly at the college and/or hamlet Talk pages. The marketing of other colleges is not directly relevant again, what matters are the facts about Covenant College. But of course many colleges have set themselves up on open land just outside some town or city, and then it makes sense to use the town/city name to avoid confusion, so students take the bus to the right city, so parents can find it, so it sounds "cooler" than explaining they are in "Podunk" or an unincorporated area. --Doncram (talk)

Let's not get bogged down in specific cases, stick to the generic question. My tuppence worth is that it is entirely reasonable to use Google Maps to find a latitude and longitude of a location. Where the problem of OR arises is when an editor reads a map to infer that a particular location is on the other side of a county line. Maps may not be that precisely accurate. If the reliable source says that X at this (fashionable) address and not that (unfashionable) address, then we have no business contradicting it no matter how obviously wrong it reads on the map. Find another RS that disagrees first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Their own campus map on their website shows where it is. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, their own campus map goes to Google maps in fact.

Interestingly, the college's Our Location page does not give the mailing address location, because they know that it would be wrong to assert the college is located in the city of the mailing address. What we have here is NO sources really asserting that the college is actually located in the mailing address city. And we have plentitudes of maps (Google, Mapquest, Dade County tax assessor, Walker County tax assessor, Dade County Comprehensive Plan, Walker County Comprehensive Plan, City of Lookout Mountain document, and one could go on and on) all showing that the college is in Dade County instead of city of Lookout Mountain which is wholly in Walker County.

What the original poster does not understand is that all the map systems nowadays are extremely accurate in their databases of line files (borders), which actually originally derived from U.S. Geographic Service or other governmental map database systems. In the past, when I got up to speed in using two different types of mapping software (MapInfo, and SAS) to do mapping, I recall that I had to download from a government site, or get on a C.D., the U.S. GIS database covering the U.S. state where I was doing the mapping. If I recall correctly, it was an annual file, which would presumably reflect some minor updates in its point files that label landmarks, etc., but the city and county border line files would practically never change.

Bubba73 and I and other NRHP editors have done tons of extremely exact locating of places, using satellite view to identify exactly where a given historic building is, and often checking/confirming on which side of a county line or whatever it is located. We do have to determine, occasionally, which is the exact city or town for historic sites that were listed as being in one city or town some time ago, before city/town borders changed. Here, there has never been any change in all history, or at least modern history, for these entities.

Basically, modern mapping software is extremely accurate for showing borders, and these borders exactly match county tax assessor map borders, and it is extremely easy to look up exactly which city/town holds any given building. Mapping services are extremely reliable reference sources. I think there are never any contradictions between mapping services, because they all fundamentally rely upon the same base GIS data, including the individual legal parcel plot lines that show in county tax assessor GIS data. And in this discussion, there is certainly no counter-example whatsoever, so the appropriate conclusion is "No, the use of extremely reliable GIS reference sources (which all perfectly agree with one another) to perform a simple lookup is not original research." It is merely appropriate use of the definitive reference source(s) for this type of thing. Also it is not use of primary research (as has been questioned, too), and also it is not "unreliable" (as has been questioned also): every single person who does such a lookup will find exactly the same results as every other person. -Doncram (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I have checked the location of hundreds of places, mostly on the NRHP and corrected maybe 100 of them. There are many sources of errors. First many use pre-1983 coordinate system, which can be hundreds of meters off. Secondly, there are a significant number of typos. Third, NRHP usually gives UTM coordinates and these get translated into lat/long, causing more errors. Fourth, in recent years, the coordinates given are where that street address is on the road, and there are usually several buildings near that location. (Sentence added:) Fifth, if the property is larger than 1 acres, the NRHP forms give the corners of the property, and you have to find the house/building within that. I use the NRHP photos and Google street view to find the right building, or use the building footprint or a sketch in the NRHP form to scour the satellite view for the correct building, or sometimes verify the location in person. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So there is an entire group of editors routinely engaged in original research? That's very troubling. ElKevbo (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Since when did consulting reference material, i.e., a map, turn into original research? We are all aware that the references given on the NRHP documentation is frequently wrong, sometimes grossly so, or at least not terribly accurate, so we don't take them as gospel - we do some fact-checking. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"I use the NRHP photos and Google street view to find the right building, or use the building footprint or a sketch in the NRHP form to scour the satellite view for the correct building, or sometimes verify the location in person" doesn't sounds like consulting reference material to me. It sounds like Wikipedia editors using primary sources and personal observations to make judgments i.e., original research. ElKevbo (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The use of Google Maps is not original research. Neither is street view, in the narrow sense of determining the specific location of a building, when one has a street address or a picture but no coordinates. The use of graphical references is not proscribed. Going to see if it's the right building is sometimes a good idea, once one has some basis in references for an approximate location. It's about accuracy, not undertaking geospatial survey work. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider it original research. It is correcting errors or getting accurate coordinates. I match buildings to their photos or information in the NRHP forms. The HRHP forms often include maps or hand-drawn skethces of the location. If someone does their own work in science, math, history, etc, that is O.R. The main source of information for these locations is NRHP forms and their photos. If some published source gave the incorrect coordinates for the White House, would you use that or the correct coordinates? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't realize that WP:OR only applied to science, math, history, etc.! Can you please point that out to me in the policy so I can correct my misunderstanding? ElKevbo (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Taken to its extreme, you might extend your argument that going to the building and taking its picture is OR - but that's what we do, what we're encouraged to do, and what's good for the encyclopedia. I have taken thousands of pictures, many of which have either camera GPS metadata or coordinates that I've found by going to the map and adding to the file description - as we're encouraged to do - to indicate the location at which I stood for the image . Would I use that data for a reference? - no. But photography requires a certain amount of research to make sure it's the right place. The same argument could be applied to any image of anything in an article - is that really Queen Elizabeth in that user-submitted picture? Where's the reference to prove it? Practically all of the pictures in Wikipedia projects are a product of some level of original research, the more so since we usually can't use published materials on copyright grounds. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded over 5,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons, almost all of sites on the NRHP. Checking the HRHP with satellite views and/or street views with the NRHP data is essential. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy close. I !vote "speedy close", because this is silly. This duplicates discussion at Talk:Covenant College#Located in Dade County, not in city of Lookout Mountain, not in Walker County. Where Elkevbo is complaining about duplication of discussion, meanwhile they are duplicating discussion here and at my Talk page! --Doncram (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about US geography means that I am free to comment :-) Reading the above, it seems to me that Elkevbo is posing a generic question about using Google Maps, not about any specific instance of it. So let's not get bogged down in the details of a particular case. Make the rule first, then look at its effect. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, okay, so I comment above about how extremely accurate/reliable the mapping services are, for exactly the purpose used here and in general for any lookup of location for anything approaching the size of a building. --Doncram (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the original poster has indicated elsewhere that they do not plan to follow up here, so I don't think there is any real discussion to be had, so I do think this discussion topic can be closed. --Doncram (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I said that I had posted my question and was patiently waiting for others to respond. It's poor practice to hound other editors or continue to make the same point(s) over and over again. ElKevbo (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay i am sorry, i am not going back to look there, but i guess i did mischaracterize that. --Doncram (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is not original research to use a reliable reference work to look up the exact sort of information that the work is intended to provide. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's an insultingly simplistic and inaccurate summary of the question that was asked and the situation that motivated it. ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to close this discussion. It's clear that my understanding of this policy is not in alignment with how editors understand and apply it. Belaboring the point here isn't helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think i ought to confess that i have not been entirely friendly and helpful throughout this (here, my Talk page, Covenant College Talk page). User:ElKevbo did have reasonable questions and reasonable points. While i was more argumentative than i should have been. I should apologize, sort of, but honestly i was irked a bit by how this started and developed (i say a little bit more, here, see the bottom part if interested). Okay I do apologize for being ornery. But out of this discussion here, I think it is a certain accomplishment to identify/state that the mapping systems are extremely detailed and all agree with each other, and that they form a general reference source (per Bubba73 saying somewhere in this), and that simple lookup of point location vs. borders can be done reliably and does not constitute OR or non-RS or anything else bad. That's my takeaway. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In many cases, editors consider a problem to be about the reliability of sources rather than weight. If no reliable sources including the college itself (other than google maps) say where it is located, then there is no reason to mention it. It might be better to rename the field "address" in these cases. TFD (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, TFD, about what to say at least in the lead of the college article, where the current version is in fact jarring that there is a correction or different-than-usual assertion being made. (This was going to be fixed, but it seemed to me we needed to agree on the facts, first.) We could avoid the issue there, perhaps yes by labelling that city as the mailing address city. However, I also do think there is a need for Wikipedia to state the truth, and in fact this college has been misleading / many people have been misled. For sensible reasons from the college's perspective, that it is simpler and/or sounds better to imply they're in the mailing address city, from which they do get some services, and through which comes most persons coming to the college. And the city itself glosses over this too, speaks of the college in a list of its major institutions, and so on: it is symbiotic. But then here I think it is actually important for the encyclopedia to state the truth, with appropriate sourcing, at least in a footnote and/or much further below. The location of the college is such a basic fact, it does need to be said, and we shouldn't simply go along with fudging about it. Clarifying here adds value, even more so where there is some surprise for some/many readers perhaps. So there is some reason to state it, though your point about weight still stands (i.e. we shouldn't make a big deal about it). --Doncram (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not original research - Per Google itself the map is generated by reliable sources, none of them user generated or submitted. That said, making a statement that some institution isn't reliable about where it is, is plain nuts and fails WP:BLUESKY Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• What is reading? - Is reading a map different than reading a book? You read a source, you make some interpretation of that source based on your command of the language of the source and then cited based on that interpretation. A map has its own language which is read and interpreted, then cited. Same for a photo, article, book, music, (printed or performed) blueprint, etc. They each require different (though overlapping) reading skills, but in the end, aren't they all the same? If reading and citing a journal is not original research, I would think that in general, the same holds true for all the other sources. For me, the only question here is is it (Google maps, Mapquest, etc.) a reliable source? The definitive conclusion above seems to be "yes". (Kenyoni (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC))

NOR query for database sources used in drug pricing articles

Could editors experienced with NOR (specifically, simple calculations vs. calculations requiring expert knowledge) please offer opinions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#NOR sample discussion ? The rest of the lengthy talk page discussion contains numerous other examples, concerns and issues, but the current attempt before formulating an RFC is to hone in on how several specific database-style sources are being used, and discussion of these examples might benefit from further input. @SlimVirgin: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it original research to take a table from an article on genetics and interpret it?

For about two weeks User:Tursclan and I have had a slow moving argument at Etruscan civilization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Latins (Italic tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with User:LambdofGod and their earlier IP User:185.218.35.216 over the use of (FigS29) which can be seen on p70 here. An example of its use is at Latins (Italic tribe)#Genetics which is currently fully protected by User:Swarm. I suspect there is cherry-picking from the article in the entire paragraph, and I don't think we should say "A 2019 genetic study by Stanford", but my main problem is with this sentence:

"In addition, genetic analysis (FigS29) shows that the Iron Age population had a much lower frequencies of SNPs associated with both light skin and light eye pigmentation compared to modern Italians, who instead are similar to other modern Europeans (British, Finnish and Spanish), although the authours are cautious about these results

Note that the quote isn't from the article but, like FigS29 from the supplementary materials [ here] although it's sourced to the article.

LambdofGod's last reinsertion is with the edit summary "Considering that neither Tursclan or Dougweller responded to my talk page, It's obvious that you guys have no argument beside "it hurts my feeling"" despite my posts at User talk:LambdofGod and User talk:Doug Weller#Etruscan civilization where I try to explain policy and they reply " I am exposing a fact, not my personal opinion, and the data are autoevident for anyone with a minimum of genetic knowledge. You can't really expect the authours to write a paragraph for all their 40-50 images." See also Talk:Etruscan origins#Genetic studies: recent edits on SNPs associated with light skin and blue eye where Tursclan has tried to explain to him. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

More reinsertions, the latest being "In addition, genetic analysis (FigS29) shows a massive increase in the frequencies of SNPs associated with light eyes and light skin from the Iron Age to Medieval and Early modern population period, with the modern population resembling other modern European populations." with an edit summary "Fig. S29. Allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance. Imputed genotypes for alleles previously shown to be of functional importance (and under selection), denoted by putative function, associated gene, variant ID, and derived allele, are shown for study individuals from central Italy, ordered by time on the x-axis. For reference, the population allele frequency for three present-day populations in the 1000 Genomes Project (British/GBR, Finnish/FIN, Spanish/IBS) are designated by" which is an excerpt from the only comment on S29 I can see, "Allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance. Imputed genotypes for alleles previously shown to be of functional importance (and under selection), denoted by putative function, associated gene, variant ID, and derived allele, are shown for study individuals from central Italy, ordered by time on the x-axis. For reference, the population allele frequency for three present-day populations in the 1000 Genomes Project (British/GBR, Finnish/FIN, Spanish/IBS) are designated by the first letter of the population name. Sample points for study individuals are colored by their time period. For each variant, a LOESS (locally weighted smoothing line) is plotted all points excluding the three modern populations." Again this appears to be OR. I wish we had a policy on genetic peer reviewed articles not allowing us to use material not in the abstract (and that only if written by the authors) or the concluding discussion. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I think best practice is to use only quotes from the source for conclusions. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• Left a note at WT:MED. GMG^talk 11:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• I saw the note at WT:MED. Doug, do you have a genuine concern about the fundamental factual claim being incorrect, i.e., you think that the skin color likely didn't change during those ~25 centuries, or that skin colors might have gotten darker during that time? I haven't looked at the source, but I'm pretty sure that if you wrote to the authors and asked them if that's what their paper meant, when brought down to the simplest words, that they would add some hedging (because what if their 1000 genomes aren't truly representative?) but agree that it was accurate summary of the relevant material actually in the source (and therefore not a case of original research). The problem for Wikipedia (and the reason that I haven't bothered to look at the source) is that including information from any single recent primary source isn't WP:DUE for these articles. That content isn't important enough to mention in such general articles unless and until it's picked up by a secondary source, such as a textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This the actual description from the article.

Fig. S29. Allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance. Imputed genotypes for alleles previously shown to be of functional importance (and under selection), denoted by putative function, associated gene, variant ID, and derived allele, are shown for study individuals from central Italy, ordered by time on the x-axis. For reference, the population allele frequency for three present-day populations in the 1000 Genomes Project (British/GBR, Finnish/FIN, Spanish/IBS) are designated by the first letter of the population name. Sample points for study individuals are colored by their time period. For each variant, a LOESS (locally weighted smoothing line) is plotted all points excluding the three modern populations.

Pay attention to the last part. They used an algorithm to show graphically the change over time of frequencies of certain SNPs.

I'm awaiting for your response. LambdofGod (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"That content isn't important enough to mention in such general articles unless and until it's picked up by a secondary source, such as a textbook"

The content is shown in the fig29 of the original article so it's important enough to be mentioned. LambdofGod (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That is wrong and is not how Wikipedia works—anyone can edit does not mean that anyone can cherry-pick factoids and use them to slant an article in a particular manner. As explained above, a secondary source would be required to conclude what Fig. S29 represents, and to demonstrate that the conclusion is WP:DUE for the article. The caption quoted above does not mention "skin" or "eye" or "pigmentation" so concluding that the figure proves certain findings regarding those matters is classic original research and is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Johnuniq--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"The caption quoted above does not mention "skin" or "eye" or "pigmentation" so concluding that the figure proves certain findings regarding those matters is classic original research and is not permitted."

Skin and eye are mentioned in the actual graph (fig29), so it's proven. There is no slander at all considering that now all archeogenetic papers includes analysis about functional SNPs and the results are often commented. Case in point this is from the article about the Yamnaya culture:

"Physical characteristics The genetic basis of a number of physical features of the Yamnaya people were ascertained by the ancient DNA studies conducted by Haak et al. (2015), Wilde et al. (2014) and Mathieson et al. (2015): they were genetically tall (phenotypic height is determined by both genetics and environmental factors), overwhelmingly dark-eyed (brown), dark-haired and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European.[28][7] Despite their pastoral lifestyle, there was little evidence of lactase persistence.[6]" LambdofGod (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

A caption at least has a chance of being a summary of the author's view (which still would not overcome the primary source problem). However it is original research (and UNDUE) for an editor to interpret a graph. You might browse WP:INDENT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have looked at the graphs shown on Fig S29. I have several concerns about Lambdofgod's interpretation.

My first concern is that, as far as I can tell, each dot on the graphs represents a single "study individual", i.e. one person. The sample size is small.

The authors do not include R-squared values to establish the quality of fit of the regression curves. This makes it difficult to know how well-modelled the regression curves are.

No statistical analysis is provided to show if allele frequency is significantly different between the different age-based populations. I suspect that the reason for this absence is that the differences are not statistically significant. This is also related to the small sample size.

As humans, we have evolved to be very good at pattern recognition—to the point where we see patterns even where patterns don't exist. Even though it looks like there may be a trend, can we be sure that a trend really exists? This is why the semi-objective techniques of statistical analysis are so helpful.

My interpretation: these findings might imply a trend towards lighter skin in more modern populations, but this requires further analysis of much larger sample sizes before we could declare this with any certainty. Of the genes tested, SLC24A5 looks like the most promising. In any case, our interpretations of these graphs should not be included in Wikipedia's article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

occupational stress

I am looking for advice on the occupational stress article. There is a large heavily weighted section in the lead which is not even discussed in the actual article itself. It has no real relevance to the article and seems promotional. It appears to be original research. Would appreciate other's opinions. Lightningstrikers (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that second paragraph needs to not be in the lead. You can change it yourself if you like.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

SYNTH, NPOV

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 pushed by Trump, Fox News, 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. It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page in terms of establishing FISA's low bar for probable cause.

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.

Sources

1. Is it SYNTH?
2. Is it compliant with NPOV?

Protests of 2019

Protests of 2019 was controversial almost immediately after its creation. I was not its creator, but I felt that the sources tended to support the creator's claim, so I developed the article. The final result of the deletion discussion, mainly about concerns for OR/SYNTHESIS, was no consensus and the article was kept. Subsequent mainstream media a month later seems to support the existence of the topic as a valid encyclopedic topic.

In the last week or so, a new user who is clearly quite enthusiastic and is making a good effort to provide sourced material has been adding quite substantial content. Since I've contributed most of the material to the article, I'm in a highly non-neutral position for judging what should or should not be in the article; the article is not mine. However, the new user does not seem to realise that what s/he is contributing is really pushing the limits of OR/SYNTHESIS in an article that started off with these concerns, and s/he does not understand that the talk page is the place to respond with concrete counterarguments, and that edit summaries are not sufficient for sorting out a serious content disagreement. The Protests of 2019 article is presently just two clicks from the main page (click (1) In the News/protests; click (2) infobox - Protests of 2019 at the top), so the OR could risk becoming embarrassing - or result in a new deletion proposal because of the added OR material - if there are no other editors participating and explaining to the new user. New users have the right to learn, and it's understandable that the new user is suspicious about listening to the opinion of just one person. Boud (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC) (minor copyedit Boud (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC))

The new editor has finally responded on the talk page, but by creating a new section rather than responding in specific talk page sections on specific editing issues; and in parallel has done a wholesale revert. However, s/he does seem to have made an effort on the Common causes section, without (in my judgment) quite getting the idea of OR in this context. Help in recommending that the editor focus on specific talk page sections concerning specific issues to work step by step, and independent opinions on these specific issues, should not be difficult for people who watch this noticeboard. The two specific issues/talk page sections are include Brexit? and include immigration/xenophobia paragraph?. Boud (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Interpreting a source

For several weeks now, members of WikiProject Motorsport have been debating the meaning of the Sporting Regulations for the World Rally Championship. These are the rules produced by the governing body of motorsport, the FIA. The passage in question is Article 26, which reads as follows:

26. SEASONALLY ALLOCATED COMPETITION NUMBERS

26.1 MANUFACTURERS

P1 drivers may request a specific number provided that the application is endorsed by the FIA and the Promoter. Number 1 may only be chosen by the World Champion driver of the previous season. Requested numbers may not be greater than 99.

26.2 OTHER DRIVERS

Competition numbers shall be allocated rally by rally, according to the provisional classification of the Championships concerned.

It is this idea of "seasonally allocated competition numbers" that is proving problematic. One of the editors involved, Tvx1, put forward the following interpretation of Article 26:

Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple seasons, we can't really be certain of that.

His argument is that because the section is referred to as "seasonally allocated" numbers, that means a driver chooses a number for one year at which point they need to reapply for that number. I believe this to be original research on his part for the following reasons:

• The numbers are only referred to as "seasonally allocated" in the title of Article 26. The body of Article 26 refers to "permanent numbers", and the phrase "seasonally allocated numbers" is never used again.
• I have searched several times for sources that support Tvx1's claim. When I use a search term for wrc "seasonal numbers", the only hits I get related to the subject are the WT:MOTOR discussion where Tvx1 made his claim.
• There are a variety of sources out there detailing the number system—the rule was first introduced in 2019—which use the term "permanent numbers". These include the FIA website, wrc.com, Autosport and Speedcafe. These are four of the most reliable publications, which are routinely used across the scope of WP:MOTOR.

Furthermore, the FIA website details the specific changes to the Sporting Regulations year on year. This passage outlines the nature of Article 26:

In order to give consistent identity to drivers and assist with promotion, Priority 1 drivers will be free to choose their permanent car number from 2019, except number 1, which will always be reserved for the reigning World Rally Champion.

This specifically refers to "permanent numbers" rather than "seasonal numbers". I have requested that both Tvx1 and Pelmeen10—who supported his interpretation—share any sources that they have to substatiate the "seasonal numbers" argument. They have either refused, ignored the request, or claimed that the burden rests with those who disagree with them.

In the past week, a new source has become available: the entry list for the first round of 2020. It shows that two drivers (Sébastien Loeb and Takamoto Katsuta) are competing with different numbers to the ones they used in 2019. This source was not available at the time Tvx1 made his claim. Tvx1 is claiming that this proves him right; however, the entry list only shows that the numbers have changed. It does not explain how the number changes came about. I believe this to be synthesis.

There are three things that I would like to see happen in this discussion:

1. I would like Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 to share whatever sources they have to substantiate Tvx1's original claim.
2. I would like members of this noticeboard to evaluate all of the sources presented and determine whether or not Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 have engaged in original research.
3. I would like members of this noticeboard to offer some idea of how to handle the paradox created by the Monte Carlo entry list for future reference.

Finally, I know that this seems like a very minor thing to come to a noticeboard for. However, the discussion is taking place at WikiProject Motorsport (rather than WikiProject World Rally) and so has the potential to affect every single article within the scope of WP:MOTOR. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me start with a disclaimer. I am an on-off contributor to the discussion in question.

I have to agree with Mclarenfan17 that when Tvx1 came forward with the claim originally it constituted original research. I also think that Tvx1's claim that drivers must reapply for numbers every year is still original research. However I have to agree with Tvx1 that the Monaco entry list shows that driver numbers can change, this is supported by this source: [1]. How or why these number changes came about is irrelevant and this source shows that numbers can change (I.e. they are not permanent) - this means that it would be original research to assume the numbers would stay the same (as explained to Mclarenfan17 in the WT:MOTOR discussion).

To conclude up until the release of the Monaco entry list I believe that Tvx1 and Pelmeen did engage in original research but they're not anymore as more sources have come to light. And articles should reflect the most recent sources when various sources contradict each other (ie. The articles should list numbers as TBA or TBC until an entry list comes out for that season).
SSSB (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SSSB, can you actually point to a diff of a comment where I (or Pelmeen10 specifically stated that I/they think that crews have to physically reapply for the their numbers at the end of each season? And how does it even matter? As you point out yourself, how or why the number changes come about is irrelevant. The only point I and Pelmeen10 ever made was that there was no evidence whatsoever that these numbers were fixed for their entire careers, which is what I have reiterated time and time again during that WT:MOTOR discussion. Even before the Monte Carlo entry list was published you stated repeatedly that there was insufficient evidence for Mclarenfan17's claims and that listing the numbers as TBA was a sensible way forward. What's wrong with being prudent? In the end, because of Mclarenfan17's antics we ended up listing incorrect numbers for a couple of crews on that article for weeks. I would like to know why we are being accused of engaging in OR, when actually Mclarenfan17 actually did so even more clearly by claiming and insisting that crews' numbers are fixed for their careers without ever providing any concrete evidence for that claim, forcing us to actually have incorrect information in an article for weeks. Even now with clear evidence that these numbers aren't fixed for entire careers and without any support in the WP:MOTOR discussion, within the last 24 hours [2][3], they kept reinstating crew numbers that have not been announced for 2020 yet in the 2020 article on the basis that that "they stay the same as last season".Tvx1 18:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Tvx1 and Pelmeen did engage in original research but they're not anymore as more sources have come to light.

That does not justify what they did in the first place. They had no way of knowing that source would become available when they made that claim and their ongoing refusal to provide sources amounted to disruptive editing. It's especially galling considering that they insisted others produce sourcses.

Furthermore, the Monte Carlo entry list does not actually prove the original claim to be correct because the source does not offer any context. Tvx1 specifically claimed that every driver would have to go through the process of reapplying for a number, but the entry list only demonstrates that some numbers have changed. Two potential scenarios emerge:

1. Every driver had to reapply for their number. Where most kept the same number, some changed.
2. Every driver had a permanent number, but some decided to change and applied separately.

The Monte Carlo entry list does not establish either scenario as having happened, so Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 cannot claim to be right. They're quick to point out the two drivers that changed, but they're ignoring the six that did not. They should still show the sources that they used to justify the original claim that they made in November, or at least admit that they never had a source, because this sort of behaviour should not be overlooked. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a diff were I made that specific claim? And exactly what justifies what you did? What evidence did you ever provide that supported your claim that these numbers were supposedly fixed for their entire careers??Tvx1 18:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a diff were I made that specific claim?

I already have.

What evidence did you ever provide that supported your claim that these numbers were supposedly fixed for their entire careers?

I have already posted this, too—the four sources from the FIA, wrc.com, Autosport and Speedcafe that all refer to "permanent numbers". I have posted those sources both here and in the WT:MOTOR discussion. They are also used in the 2019 World Rally Championship article to explain the regulation changes. I don't know how you keep missing these. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

And where exactly did my comment in that diff state "they have to re-apply at the end of each season". Sorry but these words are just not there. As I have explained multiple times, my point was that there was insufficient evidence that these numbers were fixed for there entire careers. And as multiple editors have pointed out to you time and time again during the WT:MOTOR discussion, your sources do NOT support your theory. None of them state that they are career numbers of numbers fixed for the entire careers. In fact the Autosport source literally uses the word season with regards to the numbers (Ogier's Citroen team-mate Esapekka Lappi will carry #4 in his first season with the French manufacturer...; A number was not assigned to Sebastien Loeb, who is currently competing on the Dakar Rally, at the unveiling, but the nine-time world champion's Hyundai will carry #19 on its six outings this season.). Yet for some reason you utterly refuse to accept that even though no one agrees with you.Tvx1 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The part where you said:

It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season.

So what happens at the end of that season if the number is only reserved for a year?

It's obvious what happened here. You never had the sources to support your claim, obviously engaged in original research, and now that you think you have a source that justifies it, you're trying to talk your way out of it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, while you insisted us to provide sources that car numbers can change, you yourself failed to provide evidence that they stay the same. The sources you provided do not explain what is a "permanent number", and now with the number changes we know it was premature to write those wrong numbers in the first place. Content of Wikipedia should not be poorly sourced. You did the same thing with writing the "WRC-2 Pro" championship will run in 2020. Remember that you wrote in May that the championship will run, while is reality it does not. The false info stayed in the article for 6 months, when on 5th of October I finally removed it. Then you demanded sources and consensus from me. Talk:2020_World_Rally_Championship/Archive_1#WRC-2_Pro_in_2020 [4] [5]. Now I ask do you understand what All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source means? Do you plan to write poorly sourced content in the future? Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)