Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

There's an ongoing thread Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions on a contested edit to the article. The edit in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing). There is clear consensus of a WP:SYNTH violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are WP:STONEWALLING any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

See also this recent discussion at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)Reply

When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I linked it, you can read it yourself." They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not WP:DROPIT on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Wikipedia. I thought I knew but reading WP:NOR from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.Prezbo (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA § Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership on item (2) as to whether the statement that "Merivale are on the traditional land of the Njunga" is synthesis. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

[1] I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: [2] there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum.

The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: [3] which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement.

There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Numerous paragraghs of substantial length in Video game music have no sources; nothing cited, no references given. I have tagged several of these in this section: Early_digital_synthesis_and_sampling and am interested to learn if that content represents "original research". azwaldo (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Strictly speaking, we define original research as claims that aren't verifiable in reliable sources. Merely uncited material can be often be (and is usually encouraged to be) cited rather than removed. However, culture trivia like this is often of marginal utility or otherwise unencyclopedic even if it is verifiable, but these need to be weighed individually. Remsense ‥ 论 01:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Got it. Unverified is not unverifiable. So much to say that is lacking support...seemed it might be personal accounting. Thanks for the quick reply. azwaldo (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of OR and SYNTH issues in the White Mexicans article, but to focus on one at a time: White Mexicans#Distribution and estimations includes two relatively big tables of blood type distributions in different locations in Mexico. This info was added by Pob3qu3 (talk · contribs) a few years ago. I'm not getting anywhere trying to explain the problem on the talk page, so would appreciate some additional perspectives.

None of the three cited sources directly connect this specific data to 'White Mexicans':

• "Cruz Roja Espanola/Grupos Sanguineos". Donarsangre.org. Archived from the original on October 19, 2020. Retrieved July 15, 2019.

This is an info page for a blood bank in Spain which doesn't mention Mexico at all, or white people, or really anything directly relevant to the topic. According Pob3qu3 on the talk page, the source is to demonstrate that "the "O" blood type exists in Europe" but the source doesn't explain the connection.

• del Peón-Hidalgo, Lorenzo; Pacheco-Cano, Ma Guadalupe; Zavala-Ruiz, Mirna; Madueño-López, Alejandro; García-González, Adolfo (September 2002). "Frecuencias de grupos sanguíneos e incompatibilidades ABO y RhD, en La Paz, Baja California Sur, México" [Blood group frequencies and ABO and RhD incompatibilities in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico]. Salud Pública de México (in Spanish). 44 (5): 406–412. doi:10.1590/S0036-36342002000500004. PMID 12389483.

The DOI link is broken, but the journal's site includes a PDF on this page. This is a dense medical source. The source does discuss ethnicity and race a bit, but emphasizes that the topic is very complicated and makes no relevant claims about 'White Mexicans' or Mexicans of European ancestry.

• Canizalez-Román, A; Campos-Romero, A; Castro-Sánchez, JA; López-Martínez, MA; Andrade-Muñoz, FJ; Cruz-Zamudio, CK; Ortíz-Espinoza, TG; León-Sicairos, N; Gaudrón Llanos, AM; Velázquez-Román, J; Flores-Villaseñor, H; Muro-Amador, S; Martínez-García, JJ; Alcántar-Fernández, J (2018). "Blood Groups Distribution and Gene Diversity of the ABO and Rh (D) Loci in the Mexican Population". BioMed Research International. 2018: 1925619. doi:10.1155/2018/1925619. PMC 5937518. PMID 29850485.

The source mentions European ancestry once, almost in passing, without making any specific claims about how this relates to blood type. It doesn't mention 'white'. The source makes no direct claims about how this information relates to the topic of the article, but the authors say that their own study "is expected to generate deep interest in ethnologists and anthropologists" (so humble).

After the tables is an uncited paragraph which starts: Both studies find similar trends regarding the distribution of different blood groups, with foreign blood groups being more common in the North and Western regions of Mexico, which is congruent with the findings of genetic studies that have been made in the country through the years and could be attributed to different factors like migrations, nonrandom mating, and infectious diseases among others...

As far as I can tell, this is all original research and the article does a very poor job of defining what a "foreign blood group" is. For some additional background, Race (human categorization)#Clines helpfully explain why blood type is not a good proxy for race. Whether or not this is a WP:MEDRS issue, these are WP:PRIMARY medical sources. We need to summarize what sources are saying, not just what they are implying.

Courtesy ping to @Moxy:, who added the OR tag to the article earlier today. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the article White Mexicans only briefly and the majority of the article is about mixed European descent from Spain. To me this seems redundant to La Raza while using the term "white" without sufficient explanation of its significance as an independently notable topic. Ben Azura (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It used to be at Mexicans of European descent. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexicans of European descent might explain some of this history, or maybe not, I'm burned out on it for now. The article is written under the assumption that "white" is a pass/fail state that can be accurately measured, but from what I've seen, the article's own source don't really buy into that. Even before the lead is finished the article dives deep into primary genetics studies. Like I said, there are a lot of issues. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've had similar conversations with this user on their talk page (User talk:Pob3qu3 § December 2024) which simply went in circles as they refused to accept what they were doing was SYNTH and that CALC didn't work the way they were implying it did. I've been monitoring Mexico but they apparently moved on from editing over there, and moved to this page now. Extremely frustrating and multiple editors seem to have provided an abundance of good faith towards this editor and I'm discouraged to see that it is still occurring, just on a different page. TiggerJay (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Grayfell, you say here that the sources do not make a connection with diversity of blood types to White Mexicans, yet you have acknowledged in the talk page for White Mexicans that the second source indeed does mention that "blood type can give an idea of the amount of foreign influence in the country" so I have to ask you: which ethnic group do you think "foreign influence" referes to? consider that only one non-Amerindian foreign ethnic group has had a massive influence on Mexico's modern ethnic composition. On a friendlier note, I feel your complaint about the introduction's last paragraph mentioning genetic studies, I have actually wanted to move the content of that paragraph to the body of the article for some time now but haven't done so to avoid starting edit conflicts (because there are well known editors out there who love starting conflicts in Mexico articles under any reason, using multiple accounts[4][5]). Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The phrase "foreign influence" comes from you, not me, and not the cited sources. Here's the quote I used on the talk page: Moreover, blood antigens had been used to evaluate ethnic diversity of human populations, for which they have been widely studied in population genetics.[6] If "they have been widely studied" for the topic White Mexicans, cite and summarize what those studies are saying. A source which sort-of implies the existence of a bunch of related studies is not good enough. That article isn't about blood antigens, and it isn't about ethnic diversity, it is about 'White Mexicans'. The source says almost nothing at all about White Mexicans as a specific group. Using these studies to imply specific numbers for one specific ethnic group is original research.

Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Don't get distracted on small technicalities, adding prose is allowed and encouraged when writting articles on Wikipedia. The main point here is that the document does attribute the higher rates of diversity on blood types in the North and Western regions of the country to migration, multiple times. You have acknowledged this before and just qouted an example here[7], and here[8] I just quoted another. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Russian invasion of Ukraine 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. Particularly, the discussion touches on whether or not inclusion of Belarus in the infobox is based on original research. FOARP (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Over on Cass Review there is a dispute over whether a recent addition is WP:OR or not. Note that this page is subject to enforced BRD.

This edit added to the "criticism" section lengthy critical quotes on the basis of a sentence on page 43 of a September 2024 Council of Europe report:

the Italian Ministry of Health ordered an inspection of Careggi Hospital in Florence, which provides trans- specific healthcare for children and young people, potentially hindering access to puberty blockers for minors. In May 2024, the French Senate adopted a draft law that would ban hormonal treatments for young people before the age of 18 and would heavily restrict prescriptions of puberty blockers. A number of critical issues were identified by the Directorate-General for Health Planning who invited the Tuscany Region to implement, within a defined deadline, a series of corrective actions that were duly identified, particularly in relation to the administration of puberty blockers, and, consequently to report the results to the Dicastery. In 2023, NHS England announced that it would limit puberty blockers only to children and young people enrolled in a clinical trial. The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has also recommended the restricted use of puberty blockers and hormones to clinical trials.

I have bolded the sentence that it is claimed makes this relevant.

The talk page discussion is here. The reasoning for the addition is summed up in these comments: In general, the Cass Review caused a ban on puberty blockers for teens, which caused the CoE report. and it's a response to a response to the Cass Review

I argue this is WP:OR since this is not a "criticism of the Cass Review" explicitly made by the source, and one I also argue is not actually supported by the source or its citation. The CoE document says nothing about the Cass Review, and references the 2023 interim service specification which was based on the 2020 NICE evidence reviews and proposed the year prior to the April 2024 final report of the Cass Review. This is merely criticism of restricting access to puberty blockers in general. As such I suggest that it is more relevant to general pages like Puberty blockers or Transgender healthcare.

At current count five editors argue it is not WP:OR, while two believe it is, including myself.

Tagging all editors in the discussion for visibility: @HenrikHolen @Lewisguile @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist @LokiTheLiar @Bluethricecreamman @Barnards.tar.gz

Leaving aside other concerns, I would appreciate input from editors not normally involved in this contentious subject as to whether drawing conclusions or making connections not explicitly stated by the source in this way is WP:OR. Void if removed (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Cass Review recommended a policy to the NHS. When that policy was implemented by the NHS, explicitly on the advice of the Cass Review, the Council of Europe criticized it. Therefore, the Council of Europe report is also a criticism of the Cass Review's original recommendation.

It seems very simple to me, frankly. Loki (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I made clear, I'm looking for outside input, but I'll place a timeline I already mentioned here for clarity:

• In January 2020, NHS England set up a working group with Hilary Cass as chair, as well as commissioning systematic evidence reviews from NICE.
• In September 2020, NHS England commissioned the Cass independent service review
• In October 2020 NICE published its systematic evidence reviews
• In March 2022 The Cass Review published an interim report
• Between August and November 2023, NHS England ran a consultation on a proposed service specification, which clearly states it was prompted by the NICE evidence reviews, and that it would remain provisional until the conclusion of the Cass Review made recommendations. It is this which is referenced by the CoE report.
• In April 2024 the final report of the Cass Review was published
• In September 2024 the CoE published a report talking generally about bans on blockers in member states, that merely mentions the 2023 NHS interim service spec as an example.

The CoE report cites a provisional spec from 2023 before the final publication of the Cass Review made its recommendations, which resulted in a final spec in 2024. Void if removed (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

again, multiple other pieces have cited the CoE report as directly challenging the bans that came about as a result of the Cass Review. [9] [10] that other sources consider mentioning the report, especially with regards to the resultant ban on treatment, indicates some kind of dueness. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

in general think we can talk about resultant bans in the article and the response in the cass review article and just skip this debate i think Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

You missed a bit off the end of the quote. I've added it here for clarity.

These are the key parts:

• In 2023, NHS England announced that it would limit puberty blockers only to children and young people enrolled in a clinical trial. This was a key recommendation of the Cass Review interim report (and final report), and one of its most controversial.
• There are ethical implications of only offering treatment to a small group of patients, potentially violating the fundamental ethical principles governing research. [...] as for many young people the only way to receive treatment is to participate in the trial, therefore calling into question whether consent can be constituted as free and informed in these situations. This last part is a response to the impact of recommendations such as this, including the NHS one (based on the Cass Report).

If we want a better source to confirm the connection, there's also this Hansard debate: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-12-11/debates/03C1AD39-5B5E-4568-BFF3-FC6DB87575E6/Puberty-SuppressingHormones Kate Osborne, Carla Denyer and Wes Streeting discuss the Cass Review, the subsequent ban on blockers outside of trials, and the COE claims. Attribution of the relevant statements to these MPs/the Health Minister are, of course, a sensible option. Lewisguile (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Again, I'm asking for outside input where possible but I have to say, if I'm asking whether a claim is WP:SYNTH based on one source, I don't think trying to argue using a different source helps.

The point is not whether the Cass Review resulted in a ban in 2024 (it did), or whether some took issue with that (they did). The point is whether this particular source - which does not mention the Cass Review and only mentions the 2023 provisional spec for a ban - is "criticising the Cass Review".

IMO, if it isn't explicitly stated, we shouldn't be using it, but I'd very much like to hear from someone outside the debate rather than rehashing it here. Void if removed (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

You missed the NYTimes source I had already added to this section of the article (and which had already been used elsewhere in the article). That also says the ban was a result of Cass and that several parliamentarians objected to it based on the points raised by the COE. Hansard, of course, is a direct source for that. Based on this, I think we actually have scope to expand that paragraph to cover those viewpoints. Lewisguile (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

That NYT source is all it would have taken, next time start with that.

The report on its own was IMO insufficient, and you reinstated based on that source alone, and I would like to have had outside input on whether that's OR.

Now you are going through a primary source - Hansard - picking quotes and conducting your own evaluation and omitting the responses.

So I have a new question - is that OR? Void if removed (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply