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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Lord's Resistance Army

Hello together. I'm not entirely sure where exactly this dispute fits best, so for now I opted to raise it here. As summary: The African rebel group Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has a long tradition of disputed symbols and flags, as the group itself never paid great attention to these kinds of issues. Over time, various logos and flags were assigned to the group by third-party sources; most famous among these is a red-black-blue flag. A few months ago, a few editors -including myself, Wowzers122, and Borysk5 - tried to sort out the mess and eventually realized that there is only one indisputable symbol of the LRA (currently used as logo in the article's infobox), while the various flags were either not correctly assigned, used by the LRA on an ad-hoc basis, or of dubious origin. Borysk5 wrote a great summary of his research on the specific red-black-blue flag on Substack. Despite Borysk5's great private research, no reliable source outright confirmed that the red-black-blue flag was never used by the LRA; for instance, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence uses the red-blue-black flag for the LRA. As a result, we compromised by just mentioning the various dubious flags assigned to the LRA in a separate section dubbed "Symbols and flags".
Fast-foward to the last few weeks: A new editor, Thingsomyipisntvisable2, became active on the LRA article and began changing the symbol and flag section using photos, Youtube videos, Wikimedia files, and by referencing Borysk5's Substack research; in general, they seemed to abhor even mentioning the red-black-blue flag. They also repeatedly tried to insert copyright-protected files. When their changes were undone by myself and Wowzers122 due to violating Wikipedia:No original research and copyright laws, they repeatedly reinserted their views, often making small adjustments such as by not citing Borysk5's research and instead copying Borysk5's sources without reading them. To me, it appears that Thingsomyipisntvisable2 does not completely understand Wikipedia's rules on original research and copyright. Discussions with them led nowhere. Wowzers122 eventually warned them regarding edit warring, but Thingsomyipisntvisable2 persists with their actions to this day, even after an uninvolved editor, X-Wu-Z, weighed in and that "the flag section should be brought back, but the tricolor flag requires a better source for it to be included there"; the latter could be done by using the U.S. Director of National Intelligence source mentioned above.
So, what do you think? Applodion (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

In your note, there are four different issues: (1) Do some edits violate WP:OR? (2) Do some edits violate WP:RS? (3) Is an editor violating WP:CV? and (4) Is an editor exhibiting chronic issues that might fall under WP:ANI? On the talk page of the article in question: Talk:Lord's Resistance Army, there's a long, convoluted talk page section that weaves in and out of each of those four issues. My two cents is to try this: On that talk page, start over with specific sections devoted to each of the four issues, and in each of those sections, only discuss the one issue. I wouldn't do all four at once but just start with one of them, and work through it until it is resolved. I would not start with a conduct issue. Then, here, if and when you have a clear section over there just about OR, if you can't reach consensus there, try it here. Or if you want to get that OR issued resolved more quickly, just add a short statement here just about the OR issue, without weaving in the other concerns, if that's possible.Novellasyes (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: Thank you very much for your analysis. To break down the part relating to WP:OR, I would thus ask the following: If Thingsomyipisntvisable2 writes in the article: "However while the red-black-blue flag is often misattributed to the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)" with no source and then writes "An original editor’s note by François Burgos confirms the misattribution: 'I now know that it was reported as ‘State of Nile’ by François Chaurel in Le Figaro on 25 June 1969, and by Karl Fachinger on 26 August 1971'" referencing Borysk5's Substack article (as François Burgos does not say anything about the LRA flag outside of Borysk5's article), is this original research? Applodion (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I went over to the article's section where that is: Lord's Resistance Army#Symbols, Uniforms and Flags. It currently says "However while the red-black-blue flag is often misattributed to the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). An original editor’s note by François Burgos confirms the misattribution: “I now know that it was reported as ‘State of Nile’ by François Chaurel in Le Figaro on 25 June 1969, and by Karl Fachinger on 26 August 1971.” (ref South Sudanese rebels, “Le Million”, Volume X, Northern and Eastern Africa in 1972. /ref) There is no reference to Borysk5's Substack article so I'm confused about that. (Was it there in the last 24 hours but was removed after you typed this?) All there is, is a reference, with no link, to something called "South Sudanese rebels, “Le Million”, Volume X, Northern and Eastern Africa in 1972". With that said, the statement that "the red-black-blue flag is often misattributed..." is either OR or very poorly sourced. The following sentence borders on incoherent. This is the sentence that says "An original editor's note ... confirms the misattribution." What is an original editor's note? Where was it? Does that original editor's note appear in the non-linked-to piece of work called "South Sudanese rebels, “Le Million”, Volume X, Northern and Eastern Africa in 1972." If it does appear in that non-linked-to work, what does the alleged original editor's note actually say? If it doesn't use words like "often misattributed" that it's OR to claim in the article that anyone thinks that the act of "often misattributing" has ever occurred. So, yeah. There seems to be OR here but there are other problems such as the lack of a link so that it can be checked, the lack of an actual quote from the non-linked-article, etc. Novellasyes (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: The "original editor's note" stems from Borysk5's article where he emailed an editor at the website "Flags Of The World" named Jaume Olle who in turn cited an article by Francois Chaurel who described the State of Nile's flag. Essentially, the "confirmation" is an email between an Wikipedia editor and the editor of another website, either of them being Thingsomyipisntvisable2's "original editor". Applodion (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

19050 43.252.245.8 (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC regarding DOB

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonnie Blue (actress) § RfC for Blue's full DOB. Some1 (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Abel 2020

I have a quote from Jonathan Abel, a comparative literature academic that I'm trying to summarize for poop emoji:

What could explain the emoji's popularity beyond its culture of origination? I suggest that it is likely a kind of ‘reverse mimesis’: The remediation of the ‘poop mark’ into digital environments betrays a truth some of us might rather not admit but that Katy Perry is happy to concede: globally, a primary site of cell phone use is the toilet. What do we make out of this fertile mess? The poop character in our phones helps us to engage with our actual world, not simply to represent a universal condition; rather, it helps us to think about the poop on our phones. Emoji eloquently reaffi rms the toilet not just as a site of texting but also as a site of reading. The pile of poo suggests something we probably already know about our new media—too many of us are spending far too long on the toilet with our new media gadgets. According to one study, as many as one-sixth of all cell phones today are covered with fecal matter and dangerous bacteria such as E. coli (see Song 2011 ). This reversal of mimesis might show us the true reason why the poop emoji is so popular globally, which is to say that the ‘poop’ emoji is both a sign of our contemporary media consumption and a manifestation of its waste.

On the page currently I've summarized how the argument progresses. I would like to replace this with a shorter summary of the argument, along the lines of: Everyone uses their phones on the toilet, we all know on some level we're contaminating it or that it's otherwise something we shouldn't be doing, and by using the poop emoji we are trying to navigate the internal dissonance in some way.

Does the text meet WP:DIRECTLYSUPPORTS? If not, how can this argument be summarized to meet it? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what Abel is claiming in that excerpt and therefore, I'm not sure if his quote supports your proposed summary. For example, what does he mean when he writes, "...it helps us to think about the poop on our phones"? By "poop on our phones", is Abel referring to the actual physical fecal matter that is on one-sixth of all cell phones today, or is he referring to the online content people are scrolling through and reading/consuming, much of which, especially what people are likely to scroll through on the toilet, we would all recognize as unadulterated bs. I'd say he probably means the second of those interpretations. Using or enjoying or appreciating the poop emoji isn't a subtle nod to the fact that one's cell phone may have fecal matter on it. It is a subtle nod to the fact that on some level, we recognize the sheer unadulterated poopiness of much of what we wade through online. Also, when he says, "too many of us are spending far too long on the toilet with our new media gadgets" is he saying as per your summary, "we all know on some level we're contaminating it or that it's otherwise something we shouldn't be doing [because in so doing, we are getting actual, physical shit on our cellphones]" or is he saying, "we all know on some level, that is born home to use more immediately when we engage in this behavior while sitting on a toilet, that what we are scrolling through and consuming is [metaphorically speaking] worthless bs, which we all know on some level is a soul-numbing, mindless, worthless use of our mental attention and energy." I think the latter is what he is saying, and that he thinks there is widespread use of the poop emoji because it so conveniently captures and expresses this home truth.Novellasyes (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Novellasyes. My read was that he meant both, that there is something disgusting about using your phone on the toilet. I tried to convey the "unadulterated bs" media with otherwise something we shouldn't be doing, but I need to make that more clear. I don't think we can ignore the literal contamination point and say it is pure metaphor, given the amount of time he spends on it, and the point This reversal of mimesis might show us the true reason why the poop emoji is so popular globally, which is to say that the ‘poop’ emoji is... a manifestation of its waste, with the waste referent being the literal contamination. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting number paradox

Please see Talk:Interesting number paradox where editors disagree over whether running a script over multiple content pages on OEIS or on Wikipedia itself, and determining what is not included on those pages, should be considered either forbidden as original research or allowed as a routine calculation (and whether the Wikipedia part of this is allowed under WP:CIRCULAR), and contribute to the talk page discussion if you have an opinion on these matters. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this belongs on the noticeboard page itself, not this one. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

[context: I originally misplaced this notice on the talk page for the noticeboard instead of the noticeboard itself.] Yes, I agree. Moved. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Note that User:David Eppstein's summary is inaccurate in several respects. Please read the discussion rather than being influenced by that. Anomie⚔ 11:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. I was careful here not even to hint at which side of this debate I was taking. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Demographics of China

I was trying to cite the Population density and distribution section in Demographics of China and realised that much of the whole thing was written somewhat like a personal essay or report. Not sure if this is the correct place to raise it? If anyone can take a look that would be appreciated. Pksois23 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Santa Cruz

There are mutliple issues with the article Santa Cruz (album), it's full of speculation and the section §Album Art is currently sourced entirely to a reddit thread. After reverting some particuarly egregious OR I tried to address this with the editor Mukilman on on their talk page but they remain unconvinced - arguing that since it's an artwork open to creative interpretation, there's less of a requirement for authoratitive sources. Certainly this is not my interpretation of NOR. I may not have explained my concerns as well as I should have, so I'd like some input from other editors. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Is my conversion of fuel units OR?

Hi there, I was looking to update the Eurofighter internal fuel capacity. The source I have is in litres but the standard for aircraft on Wiki is in KG. To convert JetA1 form L to KG you multiply by 0.8. I am being told this is OR. This seems absurdly strict frankly. What do you guys think? Liger404 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This might fall under WP:CALC, which is explicitly not original research. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not OR if the factor 0.8 is verifiable. I believe it is a standard of some sort, though the actual value varies. Zero^talk 06:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah there is a standard industry value of 0.8 even though the real world value is a range. https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/products/fuel-conversion-factors-jeta1.pdf Liger404 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I consider that a clearcut WP:CALC case as long as there's an RS for the density, which looks like is the case here. If there's a known range for the density, you can note the corresponding range for the weight instead of using the single density value of 0.8kg/L. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a known range, it's just not industry convention to to allow for it, the conversion is just Lx0.8=KG. Some guys seem to think even doing that is original research. Liger404 (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There was more to Liger404's calculation than just the density factor (though I'd have to suggest that even if it is an 'industry standard', it may not be the one applied by the aircraft manufacturer, who might e.g. use a more accurate figure. 0.8 is a nice easy-to-remember factor, ideal for in-your-head calculations. Designing an aircraft will be done with the best data available.). Objections were more concerned with other assumptions being made, in the face of contradictory data: specifically, multiple sources giving different internal fuel mass. The actual figure seems to have been classified at some point, leading to estimates, and even now, the official Eurofighter website [1] states that "The maximum fuel capacity amounts 7,600kg" - a figure which only makes sense if one assumes it includes external tanks. And although we can make a good guess about the capacity of said tanks (probably 3 x 1000 l), we couldn't rely on guesswork. Hence the objections.

If Liger404 has a source stating internal fuel volume, where has it been cited? I can't see anything of the kind in the talk page discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I know nothing about aircraft design. But if RSs only have estimates, and their estimates vary, then the article should note that, per WP:SOURCESDIFFER. If RSs sometimes use mass and sometimes use volume for the fuel capacity, what is the purpose of converting all of the values into weight?

Liger404, unless you have an RS saying that it's the industry convention to use 0.8 and not the range, it would be OR to rely on your personal knowledge of what occurs in the industry. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I have a Civil aviation authority PDF linked above showing the method for converting fuel in litres to kilograms. But you can find this method and online calculators all over the place. It's not my personal method, it's the official method. As to Andys concerns that its a round number for ease of use, that's rather beside the point, but he is wrong. An aircraft manufacturer can't use a more accurate number because fuel, as with all things, is manufactured to within an acceptable tolerance range, not perfection. There is a SG range that the manufacture promises to stay within, but the SG of any given batch of fuel is not known and is not measured. Indeed the SG of fuel is not even constant, as it moves with temperature. The approved method is to assume a SG of 0.8. The inherent inaccuracy of this is allowed for in aircraft certification, just as the fact that passengers weigh different amounts but are not actually weighed is. Here is the reference from the New Zealand Civil aviation authority. https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/products/fuel-conversion-factors-jeta1.pdf Liger404 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to claim that there is an 'official method' through which Aircraft designers and manufacturers are obliged to use a factor of 0.8 when converting jet fuel volume in litres to fuel mass in kilogrammes, you will have to provide a source that says so. The document you link doesn't state that it is an 'official method' for anything. The filename describes it a 'sticker'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not required to prove these sorts of things Andy, you put up unrealistic barriers for seemingly unknown reasons. All I am required to do is show that the method of converting litres to KG is to multiply by 0.8. I would say YOU are the one required to provide a source that says manufacturers do it differently, seems you are the one postulating that they deviate from the provided source. Liger404 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to claim that there is an 'official method' for something, you are absolutely required to provide a source that explicitly backs that up. That is how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

With no diffs or a link to a discussion, it's very difficult to put things into context. You say that you have a source in litres that you want to convert to kg, while AndyTheGrump linked to the official source that mentions the maximum fuel capacity in kg (something that you're not disputing).

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the conversion issue aside, why are you trying to convert litres to kg when you already have a source in kg? M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

We had another source but it was in litres. They said I couldn't convert that to KG. It is conventional on wiki to report fuel in KG. That seemed incorrect to me, so I asked the question. And as we can see, it's still opposed by Andy but not by others. Liger404 (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. Please stop making vague allusions to sources, and instead tell us what it is you are proposing to cite. If this is from Janes, we have already discussed why the source is problematic: it has relatively little to do with the units used, and everything to do with the fact that Janes said that the fuel capacity was classified, and gave an estimate. It really isn't appropriate to lump together a recent authoritative source for total fuel capacity with a decades-old estimate for internal capacity, regardless of conversions etc.

Incidentally, it is normal practice to provide a link a noticeboard discussion concerning content for a specific article on that article's talk page, so others involved in the discussion can participate. That way, they can say for themselves what they have or haven't opposed. Probably necessary, given how disjointed the discussion there became. I'll add a link at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#Adjust internal fuel capacity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion started when I was told I couldn't convert L to KG, and that's quite literally all I was using the board for. It's not a, hey come join the Eurofighter page recruiting effort, or somewhere to air every concern you have about that article or my sources. And the purpose was most certainly not to expand a debate with someone who had already made their position abundantly clear, I was seeking other peoples opinions. You didn't have to jump in Andy, you choose to. The question is fairly simple, is it OR to convert 1L of jet fuel to 0.8KG of Jet fuel? Liger404 (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You don't get to decide who participates in discussions, and it is grossly inappropriate to take a discussion to a noticeboard without informing others already involved. As to your question, the only answer you are ever going to get is 'it depends' (and probably with the proviso that any conversion should be labelled 'approximate', since that is clearly true, given the documented variation in density of jet fuel). This notice board does not give authoritative rulings on abstract questions (it doesn't have any authority to do so - certainly not without a much broader discussion than this). We need to be told what is being cited, and what the proposed text is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Re read what I said Andy. I said you choose to join the conversation (whilst complaining about it) not that you are not allowed to join the conversation. And as you say, it's collaborative, you do not get to dictate the opinions others have or will hold on the topic. Indeed answers different to yours have already been given. Liger404 (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of argument: if you have a reliable estimate in litres that you want to convert into kg, then theoretically, it's doable, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct. Since there are RS stating that "the specific gravity of aviation fuels is around 0.8" (emphasis mine), then the most you can do is present the result of the conversion with the circa preposition (again, assuming that others agree). M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

To add to the above, I'd suggest if the source cited gives volume in litres, you should give that first: "Fuel capacity XXXX L C1 (approximately xxx kg C2)", where C1 is the citation for the volume, and C2 is the citation for the conversion factor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is original research. There isn't consensus on 0.8 - you'll see that I provided a link on the article talk page to a military JP-8 fuel manufacturer that give the density in the range "0.775 – 0.840 kg/L". That means the choice of 0.8 is purely arbitrary and is OR. TBH I still don't see what the fuss is. Military pilots load fuel by weight, measure weight and balance in their aircraft by weight and calculate fuel remaining in weight. Volume to them is irrelevant - not least because ambient temperature and in-flight temperature means the density and thus volume can vary. The reference is for weight, so leave it as weight. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear: 0.8 is not "purely arbitrary." If you round to the nearest tenth, everything in the range 0.775 – 0.840 rounds to 0.8. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Rounding up is not encyclopaedic. Again though I ask, why bother? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This encyclopedia certainly rounds figures at times (e.g., "The square root of 2 (approximately 1.4142) ...," and my objection was to your phrase "purely arbitrary," when it's not arbitrary. As for "why bother," I don't know. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

At least in airline work we are delivered fuel by volume and convert it to mass for the weight and balance calculations. The trucks measure how many litres or gallons they pump, not how many kilogrammes or pounds that weighed. That's what that reference I provided is for. And it's the source that uses 0.8 for fuel mass conversions. It's not arbitrary at all, it's the published method. Liger404 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

In that case, a range can be given. Whether one should bother is unrelated to the question of original research. Dege31 (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it's also worth noting that the article British RAF's other fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, quotes fuel weight not volume. So again, my argument is why bother? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

References