I disagree this is original research as defined by Wikipedia:No original research.rkhusky wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:04 pmIt is worthwhile to note that these pages contain a lot of original research, e.g. all the tables and plots. If these pages were really Wikipedia-like, the vast majority of the text would be either a quote or a paraphrase of text from other publications. Perhaps the first section of the pages should be Wikipedia-like, i.e. heavily referenced, and a second section could include all the original research of Bogleheads' contributors. For example, a page the length of Traditional vs. Roth would probably have 30-50 references on Wikipedia.
All of the material is attributable to, and shows compliance with, IRS regulations. Rearranging equations defined in the IRS publications (and forms) would be a routine calculation. The time value of money equations are verifiable - even if the source is not cited.Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented....
The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.[a] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it; we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.
Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations.
If anyone has a different perspective, feel free to comment.