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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:19, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

Early 21st-century civil rights movement

See my concerns here: Talk:Early_21st-century_civil_rights_movement I think this very recently created and lengthy article is synthesizing current events into a narrative. I thought about nominating it for AfD, but thought I'd seek advice or input here first, given the sensitive nature of this topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone else nominated it for deletion. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Solution to the problem in the 3D tic-tac-toe

Quasistellarprimate (talk · contribs)

The 3x3x3 version of the game cannot end in a draw and is easily won by the first player unless a rule is adopted that prevents the first player from taking the center cell. In that case, the game is easily won by the second player. By banning the use of the center cell altogether, the game is easily won by the first player. By including a 3rd player, the perfect game will be played out to a draw. By including stochasticity in the choosing of the side the player must use, the game becomes fair and winnable by all players but is subject to chance. By making the choice of the player piece (x or o) subject to chance, the game becomes fair and winnable by all players.

This problem can be solved by forbidding the players from making two consecutive moves in the same layer.

References

1. The edit was saved.
2. The edit was reverted; they were warned for original research
3. The edit was reinstated.

And at that point, they just didn't learn from the general note. Bringing the concern here since 2 reverts is edit warring. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 17:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

They reverted you once, it's not edit warring. Not following BRD isn't automatically edit warring. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown drama

Lockdown drama contains virtually no sourcing other than to a link to a newspaper article that quotes this very article's definition of a lockdown drama! It also has myriad other problems such a lack of context, no intro, and what attracted my attention is the wording has me concerned about possible copyvio as it reads like something taken from a textbook. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the copyvio part: not unambiguous copyright infringement imo. Likely doesn't meet the threshold of originality anyway. CVDetector shows up one flag, and that's The Guardian who are quoting Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Judaism

The following passage has been repeatedly restored, or its 'citation needed' markup eliminated by vague allusions to the Enc.Britannica.

Within Judaism there are a variety of movements, most of which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism, which holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah. <ref name="What is the oral Torah?" /> Historically, all or part of this assertion was challenged by various groups such as the Sadducees and Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period

• The Enc.Brit has two articles, one on (a) Judaism, the other on (b) Rabbinic Judaism. The former encompasses the latter, rabbinic Judaism being a subset of Judaism, for a simple reason: Judaism began several hundred years before rabbinic Judaism, which, yes, became overwhelmingly the dominant form of Judaism. Neither of those articles supports the incoherent synthesis we have here. So what we have is a numbskulled piece of WP:OR posing as reliably sourced. I.e.

Rabbinic Judaism, the normative form of Judaism that developed after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem (ad 70). Originating in the work of the Pharisaic rabbis, it was based on the legal and commentative literature in the Talmud, and it set up a mode of worship and a life discipline that were to be practiced by Jews worldwide down to modern times.

Even today the various Jewish groups—whether Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform—all claim direct spiritual descent from the Pharisees and the rabbinic sages. In fact, however, many developments have occurred within so-called normative or Rabbinic Judaism. In any event, the history of Judaism can be divided into the following major periods: biblical Judaism (c. 20th–4th century bce), Hellenistic Judaism (4th century bce–2nd century ce), Rabbinic Judaism (2nd–18th century ce), and modern Judaism (c. 1750 to the present).

In my reading, there is nothing to warrant the unhistorical assertion that a movement that arose in the Ist century ce was challenged by two movements that predate it by some centuries, and which expired before Rabbinic Judaism was formed.Nishidani (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well I read that as 'challenged' in the sense of 'disagreed with', rather than the 'upstart/fringe/newcomer challenging existing authority' which is I think how you are reading it (and can easily be read that way)? I dont think its intentional, just bad wording. I agree completely its a sentence construction that should be worded less ambiguously and in line with the timeline. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it intentional either, but the phrasing does illustrate that the article on Judaism is being written from the viewpoint of its dominant form, as is also shown by the non-RS link to Torah.org (the page linked tells you nothing about the Oral Law, you have to go and explore it. There are hundreds of academic works on all of this, why such an atrocious partisan link? It's a bit like a fervent Catholic writing the history of Christian sects by citing canon law, conflict of interest. My point from the beginning is that it is clumsy, and I gave the citation needed notes (agains eliminated) to ask editors to fix it. No deal.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

ps. I could fix it with several scholarly notes, but everything I add to this area is reverted automatically, with zero talk page explanation. So I'm not going to waste my time working notes up, only to have them chucked down the memory hole.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

And again, note that the Brit Enc. dates the beginning of Judaism to 2000 BCE, giving the fundamentalist viewpoint as factual, once more. No scholarly work exists which would underwrite that notion. Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch that article, but for heavens sake Aish Hatorah aren't reliable for the time of day. Torah.org is a religious site, not a proper source for a neutral encyclopedia. Same with chabad.org. Then we have an argumentative essay by Gil Student, and even a dead link to a defunct Usenet newsgroup FAQ. Britannica is an OK tertiary source but we should only have recourse to such sources when no suitable secondary sources are available, which is not the case here. Zero^talk 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've no problem with the EC when the article is signed by an known expert. There are, on this topic, literally several hundred of them the reverter's justification for his addition of this source shows that they are unfamiliar with the relevant scholarship ('Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. This website is reliable for what the Torah says, at least from an Orthodox Jewish point of view.') The bolded part is sheer ignorance. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me reframe this query which arose from examining a sentence that combines synthetically two articles from the EB to make a generalization (poorly written).

Let's focus on method and how core policy asks us to source articles. We have several hundred books and articles published each year on Judaism and its ancient history etc. Most are readily available, in libraries or on the net. In this context, is (a) https://torah.org/ Torah.org appropriate as a resource and (b) Should we use snippety articles on the Encyclopedia Britannica online version when, with equal rapidity, one can access up to date recent scholarly articles on everything here?

My view to (a) is no. I'd erase on sight any use of a website on Catholicism as an historical source, and the same should apply here.

As to (b) the default encyclopedia for this specific area is the magnificent Encyclopaedia Judaica which anyone can download, is written by experts, and, unlike the Britannica, is not interfered with by online anonymous contributors. If one is unfamiliar with the scholarship, then that is the encyclopedia to use.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Namaste Trump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved through editing. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Whole issue revolves around this modification. The word "criticised" is not supported by any reference. Obviously because Criticism is different than that.

Main question is, on Wikipedia, should we describe a statement which is predictable and a part of regular attack against opposition political party as "criticism"? Or just say what source said. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a shame you chose to bring this argument here, especially given that we have a consensus on the talk page for leaving the edit as it is. However, I'll make the following points. Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) made the point pretty well here when s/he said, "The usage of "criticised" is hardly qualifies as a loaded term and is semantically consistent with "raising objections" and "accusing" in the context. Replacing that with a "described" as you have done on the other hand is inconsistent with the source".

Ironically, the one who has engaged in original research is you, when you said, "these remarks ultimately shown their own poor understanding of the event.".

Finally, it's worth pointing out that this IP has been reported to WP:AN3. — Czello 07:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Czello: You appear to be having a gross misunderstanding about what constitutes WP:OR and what is WP:DR. Argument on talk page is exempted from WP:OR but the IP was basing his view on the party's misunderstanding that who organised the show. Ultimately, bringing the query here was a good step to resolve content dispute and this page isn't for complaining about user's conduct.

As for the original question by the IP, I think he is ultimately correct that "criticism" needs to be sourced. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious how you feel this is a "gross misunderstanding" of OR. The IP appears to be altering the phrasing because he believes the party has misunderstood something (unless I've misunderstood his edit?). This would appear to be his own interpretation of events finding its way into the article (again, unless I've misunderstood here). I would back the use of the word "criticism", however -- as for the reasoning given by Tayi above. — Czello 10:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." It doesn't matter how you want to twist the people's personal views, but the requirement of WP:VERIFY has been clearly upheld by the IP, which contrasts with your non-policy based reasoning so far. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what I meant by this is that the talk page comments were being used as justification for main page edits (basically, like an edit summary). — Czello 11:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Czello are you poisoning the well because you know you are wrong? I was altering the phrase to reflect the source. Whinning by an opposition party does not qualify as "Criticism" unless the source supported the phrase. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have asked in the past for you to assume good faith, which you seem to struggle with doing, so I'll as you again. This isn't "poisoning the well", it's disagreeing with edits. That's why we're discussing this. — Czello 11:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Then why you are the one who completely dodged the question I asked here but instead focused on making unubstianted complaint about me? Read WP:FOC and comment only on content. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What question do you believe I have dodged, and what unsubstantiated complaint do you feel I've made? — Czello 11:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@IP user, Aman.kumar.goel, the Times Now source in question described in great detail how the opposition party had multiple doubts about the whole issue. The title of the article itself says "Congress fumes over extravaganza". I don't see how it is not an accurate summary of the source to describe it as "criticism". In any case, I have added a new source now. Next time please WP:DOITYOURSELF. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OSM Location maps

A user has been repeatedly removing an OSM location map that I have created at Dhola Post. I have recreated it in my sandbox so that you can actually see it. (OSM location maps don't show when viewing old versions in history.) Despite citing a reliable source and making adjustments as per the source, his objection persists. He says:

There is no "old" or "new" objection. There is only the same objection: the map was created by you and hence violates WP:NOR. Despite your penchant for technicalities, you admit that it was you who marked the locations on the map. You admit that it is you who "interprets old sketch maps." Therefore, the map created by you is WP:OR. The fact that we are arguing whether a map created by you constitutes "original" research is yet another example of the extreme dishonesty and bad faith discussion that you have repeatedly engaged in.

What would you say to that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: As you admit, you created the map. Your excuse that this isn't original research is that your created map is based on a cited, reliable source. Then why not use the map from the reliable source directly?Erik-the-red (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

For reference, I have taken a screenshot of the source map on page 139 of Hoffmann (1990) that @Kautilya3: cites here: https://i.imgur.com/YCN6h6y.png The differences between the source map and the map created by Kautilya3 are obvious.Erik-the-red (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

State the differences please. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The "corrected" map of your creation, which relies on user-sourced location "data," places Khinzemane in India. The actual source map https://i.imgur.com/YCN6h6y.png on page 139 of Hoffmann (1990) does not.Erik-the-red (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The source map does not have any India–China border, whereas OpenStreetMap essentially puts it. So that is not something we can do anything about.

If you are contesting the location of Khinzemane, then that is what you should discuss. Let me remind you that you thanked me for it.

The reason for the change is that it is at the end of a foot path in the source. So that is where I placed it on OSM. It is possible that footpath goes longer. Things are not really visible on satellite maps because of the shadow of the mountains. If you would like, we can measure distance (1.5 miles as stated in the source) and place it there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes, I did thank you for the edit you made. To repeat what I wrote there, your decision to "correct" your own previously marked location of Khinzemane from being clearly in China 27.80295°N 91.7457°E / 27.80295; 91.7457 to just inside India 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E / 27.7848997; 91.7349505 perfectly demonstrates why the map of your own creation violates WP:NOR.

Furthermore, you admit that the source map from Hoffmann (1990) does not have any India-China border. Therefore, your own created map violates WP:SYNTH because your own created map "implies a conclusion (Khinzemane is in India) not explicitly stated by any of the sources."Erik-the-red (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly care which side of the border it is on. I will be quite happy for you to give me the coordinates for Khinzemane, which I will use as long as it doesn't contradict anything on the page. We are here to get outside input on what constitutes WP:OR in this context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: If you don't particularly care which side of the border it is on, then why not use the original source map from Hoffmann (1990) which does not have any India-China border? No WP:OR violation, no WP:SYNTH violation.Erik-the-red (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, this user appears to believe that you can copy and paste maps published in books. Can you tell us what we are allowed to do? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa Speaking for myself, my position is that if @Kautilya3: is relying on one (singular) map from a reliable source of his own choosing, then the article should use that one (singular) map instead of a map that he created by himself and by his own admission, relies on his "interpretations."Erik-the-red (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the copyright question, it's not okay to upload scans of maps from copyright books. — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: One map does not qualify as fair use?Erik-the-red (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No, because freely licensed alternatives are available.— Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: To clarify, the singular map in question refers to a disputed area between two countries. It's not clear to me that there are freely licensed alternatives in this case (or that there would always be freely licensed alternatives in this type of case).Erik-the-red (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The details could be copied over to an open source map.— Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: That's the problem: the singular map in question doesn't have longitude/latitude coordinates. So it's not a matter of copying the details to an open source map; instead, it's a matter of guessing the coordinates from the details. For example, @Kautilya3: originally guessed that a certain location was at 27.80295°N 91.7457°E / 27.80295; 91.7457 and subsequently "corrected" his guess to 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E / 27.7848997; 91.7349505. However, neither of these coordinates are on the actual source map https://i.imgur.com/YCN6h6y.png ; and it just so happens that Kautilya3's "correction" places the location from one side of the disputed border to the other side, a conclusion which is not explicitly stated by the source.

That is why I'm asking whether including that one, singular map from the actual source constitutes fair use. There are no freely licensed alternatives to my knowledge, and the actual source map does not contain any coordinate details to copy over to an open source map.Erik-the-red (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Visually copying details (e.g. coordinates or precise locations) from a published map onto open-source maps is naturally guesswork, especially when the locations are in areas with governmental geographic data restrictions (Chinese nation-wide GPS data restrictions and Indian restrictions on areas within 50km of its borders). Attempting to use fine details like coordinates based on visually copying the map is WP:OR. Using it for broad imprecise information is fine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment As Diannaa said, since the map in the source is not open sourced, copying the details to OSM while maintaining as much accuracy as possible should be fine. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: This is the original map in the source. It has no coordinates and the bottom right has a disclaimer, "sketch not to scale." What details can be accurately copied to OSM? Erik-the-red (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Erik-the-red, the user has admitted to interpreting the map to the best of their abilities. You do not seem to be assuming good faith in his edits. If anything, if you claim to have knowledge of the topic, you should help him to improve upon his work, instead of dismissing it completely as WP:OR. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: As I showed you, the original map has no coordinates and is disclaimed with "sketch not to scale." So you say copying the details to OSM while maintaining as much accuracy as possible should be fine. I asked you, What details can be accurately copied to OSM? Respectfully, you didn't answer.

Instead, you said I didn't seem to assume good faith in Kautilya3's edits. That's your opinion, and I won't argue with you on that. But I will ask you, if the original map has no coordinates and is disclaimed with "sketch not to scale," then how exactly can anyone get coordinates precise to 7 decimal places like 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E / 27.7848997; 91.7349505 from such a map?

Of course, you don't have to answer that either. Either way, I echo MarkH21's comment: Attempting to use fine details like coordinates based on visually copying the map is WP:OR. You may not agree with that in every case, but it must apply in this case when the original map has no coordinates and is not to scale. Erik-the-red (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Unpublished memoir material

I have a copy of a memoir written by a member of a WWII combat unit. It was printed and distributed to other unit members in 1972. The memoir adds details to events during and after the war in Europe. I can provide a PDF of the work. Is this type of firsthand source material acceptable? If so, how does one establish its authenticity for other editors to review and accept?NileCity (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be seen as a primary source and hence could have only limited value even if it were reliable. But ask yourself, are you confident that every date, place name, person's name, regiment name, etc. is accurate? If you were a military historian, you could check the information and use your judgment to determine how reliable the narrative was. Then your paper would be considered a reliable source. But Wikipedia editors are not assumed to have the expertise to do that, so we cannot use it as a source. TFD (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:League of Legends champion

There are concerns that have been raised about whether the article as a whole inappropriately synthesizes information from its sources. Looking for some insight on how to improve the draft.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Frank Ocean - Birth Name

There are multiple reference to Frank Ocean's possible birth name (allegedly "Christopher Edwin Cooksey") on that only come from original resource by 1 user and this is not cited anywhere else, where there are articles that show his name to be "Christopher Edwin Breaux".

Further, in his songs he uses his legal name for writing credits - "Christopher Breaux .

The name Christopher Breaux was used for the songs "Cayendo" and "Dear April" which were released in 2020.

While there may be confusion about his birth name, it is clear he still uses "Christopher Breaux" as his legal name. Thus, shouldn't we only being his legal name, if we can't prove his birth name from a reliable source?

Doublebside (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Popular castles of Scotland

I'm in disagreement with QuakerIlK over whether the methodology and sourcing of Popular castles of Scotland constitutes original research. As far as I can tell, all the sources are primary, and their listings are tallied to arrive at a conclusion that is not in made in any source. I think that matches ours description of synthesis: to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Before I take it to AfD, I'd appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


Yes, and I will add in my two cents' worth.
1) I admit that I am not as experienced a Wikipedian as Vexations is. I'm not sure that should matter, though.

2) To start off with, yes, perhaps my work on the article in question is a synthesis of sorts. Let's look at that a little more closely. As the Synthesis of published material rule currently states, it begins with "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Well, to start off with, nearly all of the sources are in agreement on what constitutes the very top of the list. There is general consensus in the sources. Also, as I stated in one of my responses towards vexations in the discussion he/she and I have had on the talk page for the article in question, all anybody has to do to verify the reliability of the list is to take a mere fraction of the sources and tally them up to see if there is a general agreement with the overall list. Moreover, in addition to merely applying the suggestion on synthesization as it currently stands, I think that an underlying question of why the rule currently stands should be considered. Doesn't the rule exist so as to help combat bias in articles published on Wikipedia? I should think so. If that is part of the reason the rule stands, then I think that my article should be judged by - can any bias be proven? In answer to that, I can merely state that I found as many lists as I could at the time. The only ones I didn't use were a handful of ones that were made on Youtube for which no external re-directing source could be found.

3) In addition, I also already stated on the talk page for the article in question that I had other types of information, other than the tallying done there, that could be added to show the general agreement of the tallying with other sources of information, just that such information is old (a decade old), and yesterday evening, in fact, I sent a query to the publisher of such information to see if I could obtain more recent figures. I received an e-mail today from said publisher as a follow-up. Terms of agreement are currently being agreed upon as far as that situation is concerned. As I also already stated in the discussion between Vexations and I on the talk page of the article in question, I stated that even when such information is added (as I intend for it to be, and which I shall do as soon as is practicable as possible after I receive said information), there is a bias in that information because, for reasons I stated on the article's talk page and that are easily explainable, financial matters influence that information, and that is a bias.

4) If any other experienced Wikipedian has any doubts as to the reliability of the tallying done, perhaps they can suggest to me an easy way to display the results of the tally? Maybe it would help if I constructed a table showing the nominations for each list and providing the citation for each list, so as to add transparency to the article? Also, if anybody has any more such pre-existing sources as the ones I have used that could be added to the information to make it even more inclusive than it already is, they can either add them, themselves, or send me the link/source, and I will be glad to add them. Edited to add Again, I have no problem creating any such table or document, such as what I am suggesting, that would provide transparency to the article, but I can say that it would become so large that it would grossly interfere with the presentation of the article. It would need to be a file of its own that could be displayed or linked-to on the page. In that case, I would need guidance in creating that file. I don't think that the article should be taken down just because of the technical superiority of whatever detractors it might have. I think that it should be the responsibility of more senior editors to provide guidance rather than just strike something down without anywhere near the effort and consideration that a creator demonstrates.

Thank you for your time and consideration. QuakerIlK (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)