This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I've noticed recently a number of additions of cartoon portraits to articles - see for example Célestine Hitiura Vaite and Chela Sandoval. While I'm aware OR rules are a bit looser around images, I don't think these are accurate representations of the subjects. Anyone have thoughts on how to approach these? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
We've had people uploading and using illustrations they've created for a long time. When there are no free images and it doesn't meet NFCC, it's often the only way we can get an illustration into an article. I don't think this is an area where NOR is an issue. I don't think BLP is a big issue in any case I've seen, either, since even a sub-par illustration is better than none (just like how Wikipedia uses thousands of really terrible photos of people because it's all we have). If the subject doesn't like it, the same advice applies as with the bad photo: give us a better one and we're typically happy to use it. Beyond people, a huge number of our dinosaur articles use user-created illustrations, and a lot of our scientific diagrams rely on user-created content, too. This is pretty common, and it's disappointing people think it's ok to insult these contributions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't this belong on WP:BLPN, or perhaps even WP:VPI? DFlhb ( talk) 20:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I see no problem with these portraits. More importantly this isn't the right forum to discuss it. An illustration is really no more likely to contain original research than a photo. pburka ( talk) 20:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
If you don't want to use lower quality images, find something better. No, we should not be doing that. No image at all is leagues better than a terrible amateur drawing. Zaathras ( talk) 03:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I find this subject interesting, so was talking to a non-wikipedian artist about these illustrations. Her take was that a lot of the illustrations work well (including all of the ones created through Wiki Unseen), but when it came down specifically to the three displayed above, she pointed out a lot of problems with the two on the left and I think I may be persuaded that they should be omitted from the articles. For Sandoval, in addition to arguably being a bit unflattering, the skin tone has been changed, and that's a potential BLP issue. For Vaite, it's not simply a low "resolution" illustration -- it just doesn't really depict the person it purports to show. The cheekbones, shape of the mouth, shape of the eyebrows, shape of the eyes, etc. are all off the mark. The main thing tying her to the photos is the flower, but it's a different flower worn on the other side (whether there's significance there I don't know). Fundamentally, would you be able to recognize the person based on the illustration? In that case, probably not, and that's probably the most important question. I have no problem with simple, user-created illustrations, but I guess I wasn't really scrutinizing the proportions/details. These should still be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on an actual analysis rather than simply "they're bad". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Another complication is that some of this has been done at Wikidata, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Turktimex3. Turktimex3 is aware of this discussion, but has thus far declined to participate. Zaathras ( talk) 18:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Please let me know if the image to the right is better than no image at all. Some1 ( talk) 00:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it because the artist of the former based it on multiple copyrighted worksYes. The idea is that if you look at many, you can have an impression of the person's likeness that you can use to draw them. To be deleted on Commons (where the copyright question should really be addressed), you typically need to be able to point to one or two specific images it's a clear derivative of.
Wouldn't it be, then, an OR issueNo, because we apply a looser definition of OR to images. Same with photos. Is the lead image at fish crow a fish crow just because I said it is? Verifiability comes from e.g. searching for other images of the subject and/or reading descriptions of the subject.
Where does that fall into this?- Currently, Commons applies the same "is it a clear derivative of one or two images" sort of examination to AI art, meaning most of them are allowed [for now -- it's very much unsettled legally]. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. The idea is that if you look at many, you can have an impression of the person's likeness that you can use to draw them.That's the definition of original research. Thanks for admitting it.
No, because we apply a looser definition of OR to images. Same with photos. Is the lead image at fish crow a fish crow just because I said it is?The policy itself reads: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light." And that's directed at photos, not random doodles by anonymous internet artists. Are you seriously trying to argue that the policy that prohibits photo manipulation as unacceptable distortion is just fine with wholecloth invention by an unaffiliated party—especially regarding living people? Please! As for your "fish crow" analogy, there is nothing to even hint at the possibility that the lead image isn't a photograph or that that photograph isn't of a bird. The fish crow is not an individual of which there is only one that looks the same—it's a species—of which people are freely able to find and photograph themselves. At worst the lead photo is not of a fish crow but of another species of bird, which a knowledgeable reader could then point out and correct. How, exactly, can someone "correct" a drawing? Or are you arguing that once someone slaps together a doodle of a person for a Wiki article, it's inviolate because "hey, I ' read a descriptions of the subject' and who are you to say otherwise"? -- Veggies ( talk) 23:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching haltin a way that reads more like a wiki guideline? We're not going to make a rule for one user's images, so what exactly at the limits here? You have multiple people above who seem inclined to prohibit any and all user-created illustrations on the ground of NOR, which would obviously take something more like a well-publicized RfC to take effect, you have people with opinions about the specific images mentioned here (sometimes varying between images), opinions about what should/shouldn't be considered when evaluating an illustration, etc. If you were to close this, what precisely would you say there's consensus for? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
If you were to close this.... Turktimex3 would be blocked, and we would continue to rid biographies of illustrations, if there are any left. Zaathras ( talk) 02:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Having no likeness of the person is a dire situation, no, have a terrible image is far more dire than no image at all.
those editors have said they are going through Wikipedia removing "cartoon" images they don't personally like need to stop right now. It is always peculiar when people speak with authority that they clearly lack. When we come across an unflattering, unrealistic cartoon illustrating a BLP, we are duty-bound by policy to remove it. Zaathras ( talk) 14:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Having no likeness of the person is a dire situationThere is absolutely nothing "dire" about an article without an image of the subject in question. There are plenty of featured articles that don't have any likenesses of the person. What silly hyperbole.
Anyone who thinks a camera doesn't lie or can't be used to flatter or ridicule the subject needs to do some learningThere's a reason why most biographies of people post 1880 have photos and not artistic depictions of the person. There's a reason why articles of animals and plants and objects all prefer photos rather than drawings. As I've argued above, photography is the most neutral medium for capturing the subject. No one here has argued that a photo can't "lie", "flatter" or "ridicule" someone. Quit throwing out straw-man arguments. -- Veggies ( talk) 17:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but that's more of a you problem. Neither I nor (I believe) anyone else has suggested a 100% blanket removal of non-photographic representations of living people from Wikipedia articles. Rather, it has been the removal of the most atrocious examples. I will personally nuke from high orbit any use of the File:Célestine Hitiura Vaite.png style in a WP:BLP. Finally, yes, illustrations are more fundamentally Original Research than photographs, the notion that anyone would claim otherwise is absurd. That is the core of the problem here, that until this discussion began, some BLPs were adorned with caricatures. Not authentic images, but caricatures. Zaathras ( talk) 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts (16), we get the pointAll users are welcome to participate fully in any complex debate without some ad hoc limit. I don't see anything Zaathras has written that was uncivil toward a user.
Not sure what Veggies point is, but I'm glad to see nobody is any longer suggesting (a) there is some policy against user-created illustrations and (b) NOR has anything to say about illustrationsSince you're having trouble, I'll make it as simple as possible. WP:NOR literally states: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image." This is a firm policy, directed at photographs. Is it your contention that the policy that prohibits image manipulation by a Wiki user on a photograph is copacetic with any doodle or Microsoft Paint scribbling being passable for a person's portrait? Please!
The very idea that illustrations are fundamentally OR or more OR than photographs is ridiculously naïve.I'm flummoxed as to how a person can type that with a straight face. Photographs per se are whatever passes through the lens of the camera onto the sensor. The setting, lighting, and object can all be staged beforehand or manipulated post-production, but it's as passionless and accurate a medium as possible. That's why we use them to illustrate virtually any article about a post-1880 person/object. It's the best medium for illustrating a topic. The idea that an illustration isn't OR or more OR than a photo is absurd. Even if you were drawing from life, which many of these "artists" obviously aren't, you are still limited by your skills with a brush, pencil, etc. That fundamentally introduces a bias that a camera does not have. Now, if you aren't drawing from life, then you're using other people's photographs (yes, that's right: photographs!) to try to circumvent the prohibitions against copyrighted material on Wikipedia. Are you seriously saying (with a straight face) that the photographs that these Wiki editors are using to make their illustrations from are more biased and OR than the illustrator who's literally copying them?? It's enough to make a cat laugh. -- Veggies ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Photographs per se are whatever passes through the lens of the camera onto the sensorI'm flummoxed as to how a person can type that with a straight face. Zaathras has made many uncivil posts. Guys, just stop. I get your arguments. They were wrong the first time you made them. -- Colin° Talk 21:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
particularly non-representative, original illustrations to be used
- there is the problem. A "WP:NOR" citation is an expedient veneer of procedural fact stuck onto what's really at issue: a subjective content dispute over whether a certain illustration is good enough for an article. You can just bypass the article-level consensus-building process by just citing "NOR" and use that as justification to mass revert, edit war, insult, and dismiss (mainly thinking of Zaathras and Veggies more than Andrevan and Masem). In other words, the NOR argument does not have merit in the context of our image practices, but that doesn't mean we have to display any image just because they exist, either. You just have to be ready to have the debate on a case-by-case basis rather than attempt to point to this as evidence. If a handful of people here are looking to follow through on the NOR argument, I'd be happy to help shape a straightforward RfC (which would need to be based on user-created illustrations and/or user-created illustrations based on many images of a subject -- BLP, quality, etc. are separate issue). —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 00:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts
, Zaathras has made many uncivil posts
. First off, Colin, it's pretty creepy of you to keep speaking about me in the 3rd person, within a thread in which I am an active f#$%ing participant. If you have a problem, then either 1) address me directly here, 2) come to my talk page, or 3) follow a course of action at
WP:DR. If you decline those options, then kindly keep my name out of your mouth.
Now, policy and consensus here already support the limiting of unrealistic image use in biographies, and I see no reason to change course. Also, as far as I am aware, the matter has largely cooled off. There was one rather belligerent user who refused to participate here and who edit-warred to restore a handful of images. But it appears the threat of a block by an admin has righted that ship.
Zaathras (
talk) 00:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
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." The words "original research" do not mean "user created" because the text on Wikipedia that is not inside quotes is supposed to be user created, and many of the photographs I've taken are user created. The policy explicitly exists for "facts, allegations, ideas" that cannot possibly be verified because they are not based on a published source. Our policy explicitly permits user created images, and that includes artworks of subjects whether living or dead (see WP:BLPIMAGE, which says nothing about artworks). Artworks may well be considered second-class to a good photograph by many users (though we have no PG to say that) but that doesn't mean they are in any way to be removed from articles leaving nothing. You can argue about an illustration that it is totally unrepresentative of the subject or puts them in an unfair bad light. And if the image is a copyright violation, it can be deleted on those grounds and I'd fully support that.
This started of as users mocking what they considered badly drawn cartoons.No. This conversation started out of concern that the cartoons were not representative of the subjects and were very low quality. And that's a point that many people in this conversation agreed on. How ironic that you bring up "inventing a consensus" elsewhere.
There is zero policy, especially not OR, to remove good quality illustrations of a subject.I'm not sure if you're aware, but many of those so-called 'high-quality' illustrations were proven to be straight-up copyvio derivative works that I had to spend my time investigating, tagging, and taking down. The "artist" who made them uploaded them as their own—basically copyright-washing other artists' photos—and licensing them as their own free-use work. (As an aside, I'm 100% certain that all of c:User:Little maquisart's drawings are derivative copyvio). And, now, when I take them (and other dubious illustrations) down, and raise the very serious question of where and how can these illustrators know what these people look like (apart from the equally-serious question over quality—for which many examples have been thumbnailed here), whether user-created illustrations of things as complex as a person's likeness constitute OR (I obviously argue that it does), and how editors dedicated to the project can ensure readers that an illustration actually is the person it's portraying (see the side-by-side images here), I get threatened with a topic ban. Colin: it's your privilege to go speak to an admin anytime you want. I'd be happy to answer for anything I've done. Go ahead. -- Veggies ( talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Either the artist making the cartoon is copying another work that can't be used due to copyright, or they're adding their own "interpretation" based on a blending of other people's work (cf. original research), or, in the worst-case scenario, they're simply inventing things out of zero.". For the middle clause of their claim, they are flat out wrong. And this flat out wrong is the only bit that is relevant to this noticeboard. If the images don't bear any resemblance to the subject (or are entirely fictional) then that's dealt with by existing explicit policy text, so no need to ask here.
Ugh, those are ungodly amateurish
If someone doesn't see a problem with the likes of the images to the right, then I'd be a bit gobsmacked. These are chintzy.
No image at all is leagues better than a terrible amateur drawing.(originally
"a shitty amateur drawing"when written, to give a flavour of the language being posted here)
this isn't strictly an Ugly Image Crusade
Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt
Drawings that at least have a semblance of professionalism/accuracy
This isn't Commons. Just because drivel is allowed to be uploaded there has no requirement that it be used here.
So I'm asking Zaathras to also self-revert.Well, no, I will not be doing that. As others have pointed out, my criticisms are directed at the poor quality of the content, not the contributor, so you need to kindly drop that tangent or go try to make hay of it at WP:ANI or wherever, but with your incessant bomb-throwing, I'd suggest ducking. Here's something you can do - pick one image that I have removed, and let's all have a discussion at that talk page. Any of your choosing. Zaathras ( talk) 22:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
"This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis."It is not a forum to discuss the artistic quality of images, whether BLP or not. This page is does not exist to change existing explicit and clear policy wrt user-generated images nor is it here to establish some minimum technical standard for artistic ability that can the be cited to permit mass removal.
We're not just going to go onsey-twosey with you to every article talk page about this, and if you continue to edit-war unabated, this will wind up at the Admin Noticeboard, WP:ANI, and that may not be a happy ending.This is an odd way of framing a reaction to the revert of a mass deletion, as though it is the other guy who is being destructive on a mass scale. We see Zaathras's reaction to the idea of having to argue about every image. But the thing is, those images were removed without individual discussion. Without consensus at all, just the opinion of an editor. So, no, I don't want to go around Wikipedia having arguments with Zaathras about their quality. That timesink is very much why I stand by my earlier comments that such mass deletion is destructive. Masem, no they can't be restored with the click of a button. There's an obstruction in the way, in the form of an editor who has so strongly and insultingly expressed their opinion on the Internet, that they have dug themselves into a hole wrt backing out, and who has demonstrated they are willing to revert to keep the images out. This asymmetry, where mass deletion without consensus is easy but individual restoration with per-article talk is hard, is why you are wrong, Masem. The first step is for Zaathras to restore the images they removed, and then if they wish, for Zaathras to work gain consensus at each article talk page for their removal. They don't have that consensus currently. -- Colin° Talk 09:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt" comment) and they responded
Turktimex3 would be blocked, and we would continue to rid biographies of illustrations, if there are any left.Perhaps Zaathras wants to strike that, as it is as clear a "Please take me to AN/I to get me topic banned" a statement as one could make. Secondly, that here they
"FYI, used User:GerardM/100_Women_-_BBC"to identify material they went on to remove. That's specifically targetting a community project in order to remove some of its output. Again, I don't know if Zaathras wants their account abbreviated, but actually telling people that you targeted a community project to destroy some of its output isn't helping. -- Colin° Talk 10:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
...artists who contributed in good faith. "Good faith" is irrelevant when discussing whether to exclude or include content in this project. The most well-intentioned human on the planet could have a great deal of prose to contribute to the English Wikipedia, yet if their mastery of English is poor, it will be reverted without a second thought. We see WP:CIR invoked at WP:ANI all the time. This is tbh no different, substandard artwork has been contributed to the project, which can and should be rejected. Lest some here need a reminder, Turktimex3 was on the verge of a block if they persisted in restoring bad images to BLPs. Their response was a (yet-unfulfilled) threat of off-Wiki brigading. Colin need to refocus on who the disruptive actor in all this is, cuz it ain't me. Zaathras ( talk) 20:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
As of today, the section of that list asserts without qualification that the Russian-controlled or occupied territories of Georgia and Ukraine are within the administrative domain of the Russian authorities. The authoritative source for the list, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) document LIST OF RECOMMENDATION ITU-T E.164 ASSIGNED COUNTRY CODES, does not recognise Russia's claims or its puppet "states". The article (as it stands) cites gov.ru and tass.ru as the basis for the assertion: TASS is explicitly deprecated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and gov.ru is Putin.
The disputed section reads:
- 7 – Russia ( formerly assigned to the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991)
- 7 840 / 940 – Abkhazia (interchangeably with 995 44)
- 7 850 / 929 – South Ossetia (interchangeably with 995 34)
- 7 856 / 949 – Donetsk (interchangeably with 380 71) [1] [2] [3]
- 7 959 – Lugansk (interchangeably with 380 72) [1] [2] [3]
- 7 6xx / 7xx – Kazakhstan (until 2025.)
Nevertheless, Russia does have de facto control and insofar as landlines exist, international access to them is via Zone 7. I tried to recognise this reality by replacing them with an NPOV statement: Telephony services in Russian-occupied territories of Georgia and Ukraine are operated by Russian entities and use the 7 prefix.
This has been reverted and the original claims have been reinstated.
Given that the statements made are only supported by unacceptable sources and are not recognised by the authoritative source, I identify the material as a WP:NOR violation and move that it be deleted. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability applies to the whole article: every entry that is not in the ITU list and not cited by an RS must be deleted because it is original research. That is the fundamental point. I am still waiting for anyone to refute it. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
First off, I recognise that I didn't help matters by framing the discussion around one specific case when the list has many more examples. But I think we have reached agreement?
Agreed? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The codes are defined by the ITU-T in standards E.123 and E.164., I suggest cutting it back to meet that statement unless actual references can be found to support anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The codes are defined by the ITU-T in standards E.123 and E.164, so if anything is in the list that is not defined by those standards it should be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 16:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
References
I started a discussion at Talk:List of Brazilian Nobel laureates and nominees#Laureates and non-laureates concerning what I believe to be WP:OR (as well as off-topic) at that article and three similar lists for other nationalities, but since several articles are involved, I'm wondering whether I should have started the discussion here instead. At any rate, I figure this is an appropriate place to post a notice of the discussion. Summary: When a Nobel Prize is awarded to an international organization, is it OR to treat national branches or employees of these organizations as laureates in their own right? In other words, if the International Red Cross receives an award, are Brazilian employees of that organization themselves "laureates" to be listed in a "list of Brazilian laureates"? Largoplazo ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Do the following 4 paragraphs from the article Ayrton Senna require citations to comply with the policy WP:Verifiability?
However, the biggest incident of the year happened at the Italian Grand Prix at Monza. With two laps remaining, Senna held a five-second lead over the Ferraris of Gerhard Berger and Michele Alboreto, who were closing in on the McLaren (Prost had earlier retired with a badly misfiring engine). Going into the Rettifilo Chicane, Senna closed on the Williams of Jean-Louis Schlesser (standing in for the unwell Nigel Mansell). Schlesser steered wide, attempting to give Senna room to lap him, losing then regaining control to avoid going into the sand trap, and the two collided; Senna's car was beached on top of a curb and had stalled. Ferrari went on to finish 1–2, the first in an Italian Grand Prix since the death of the team's founder Enzo Ferrari. This proved to be the only race McLaren did not win in 1988.
During the season, Senna rewrote the record books. His eight wins beat the old record of seven jointly held by Jim Clark ( 1963) and Prost (1984). His 13 pole positions also beat the record of nine held by Nelson Piquet (1984).
...
As Senna rounded the high-speed Tamburello corner on lap 7, his car left the racing line at around 307 km/h (191 mph), ran in a straight line off the track, and hit the concrete retaining wall at around 233 km/h (145 mph), after what telemetry showed to be an application of the brakes for around two seconds. The red flag was shown as a consequence of the accident. Within two minutes of crashing, Senna was extracted from his race car by Watkins and his medical team, including intensive care anaesthetist Giovanni Gordini. The initial treatment took place by the side of the car, with Senna having a weak heartbeat and significant blood loss from his temporal artery being ruptured. At this point, Senna had already lost around 4.5 litres of blood, constituting 90% of his blood volume. Because of Senna's grave neurological condition, Watkins performed an on-site tracheotomy and requested the immediate airlifting of Senna to Bologna's Maggiore Hospital under the supervision of Gordini.
...
He took part in the Masters Karting Paris Bercy event in 1993, an indoor karting competition held on a temporary circuit at the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy. This event is notable for being the stage for the last on-track duel between Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna.
This issue is being discussed at Talk:Ayrton_Senna#Unreferenced_paragraphs. Phlsph7 ( talk) 21:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
A WP:DRN in regards to this failed, so now I'm here. This is for the Picts article.
Short summary: The proposed content are the statements by Caesar and Pliny about Celtic Britons painting themselves, as a possible explanation of the etymology of the word "Picts".
The woad article currently states that the northern inhabitants of Britain came to be known as "Picts" by the Romans because they painted their bodies or possibly tattooed themselves. [1] The Picts article mentions that the etymology of "Picts" is that it means "painted" in Latin, but then says nothing about how the Picts possibly painted themselves. So, I want to include edits saying that Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder reported that the Celtic Britons would paint themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad", but originally may have meant "glass" and "green", respectively. [2] [3] Even Britannica's short entry on the Picts states: "Their name may refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing." [4] There seems to be confusion as to whether the Picts are Britons and if the comments by Caesar and Pliny can apply to them. From what I can tell, The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain, [5] which matches what the woad article currently says. Furthermore, I added an additional source by the Roman poet Claudian where he says the Picts were tattooed [6] and that was reverted as well, even though there was already consensus elsewhere in the article that the Picts tattooed themselves. WP:OR occurs if the editor didn't provide reliable sources that clearly state what the editor themselves are stating. Word for word, here are what my reliable and academic sources state: "Caesar describes the use of body paint by ancient Britons: "All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad.""; "There is a plant in Gaul, similar to the plantago in appearance, and known there by the name of glastum: with it both married women and girls among the people of Britain are in vile habit of staining the body all over, when taking part in the performance of certain sacred rites"; "the legion that kept the fierce Scots in check, whose men had scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts.". I see no reason why Wikipedia's woad article and Britannica's Picts article can state painting as the most likely etymology for the word Picts and cite Caesar, but not Wikipedia's Picts article itself.
Here is an additional source that makes the synthesis for me: [7] "Prior to the sixth century, the Pictish system seems not to have existed. However the very name "Picts" (from the Latin Picti) almost certainly means the "painted people." The original name for the inhabitants of Britain as a whole, the Prettani, may originally have meant the "people of the designs/symbols." Looking at both names in conjunction, it may well be that the pre-Roman Britons and the post-Roman Picts were both particularly associated with symbolic motifs long before the Picts developed their script. It is conceivable that the sculpted characters derived from earlier motifs used for body painting."
Also, one editor at the DRN case listed this source as a reliable secondary source: Fraser, James E. (2009), "From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 1, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0-7486-1232-1
This source cites Caesar on Page 27. Others argue the Celtics Caesar encountered were only in England, too far from Pictland, for his comments to matter, but I disagree. I feel even if one disagrees the Picts can be included in any sort of Celtic cultural shared identity across the British Isles, mentioning Caesar is still acceptable as background information on the etymology of the word "Picts". Furthermore, I see no reason why Pliny's statement wouldn't equally apply to the Picts as well as any other Celtic British tribe. LightProof1995 ( talk) 13:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once § Mention "most-awarded movie ever"?. There is discussion as to whether original research contradicting a source is sufficient to justify the omission of the source. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 15:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This edit erased the following sentence from a BLP: “Via spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump denied that his racist attack on Chao was racist.” So my question is whether or not the erased sentence fails verification, as alleged by User:SPECIFICO. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Background:
Politico: “Steven Cheung, Trump’s spokesperson who is Asian American, said in a statement that the former president’s criticism of Chao was centered on her family’s potential financial conflicts and not race. Chao has been scrutinized over her family’s shipping business….But few outside Trump’s inner circle dispute that the ex-president’s posts about Chao are racist.”
Newsweek: "Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Newsweek in a statement that 'people should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads' when asked for comment on Chao's response. 'What's actually concerning is her family's deeply troubling ties to Communist China, which has undermined American economic and national security,' Cheung added."
Washington Post: "Trump spokesman Steven Cheung, who did not immediately respond to The Washington Post’s request for comment, told Politico: 'People should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads.'"
The Blaze: "Politico reported that Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said via a statement that Trump's criticism focuses on Chao's family's possible financial conflicts, but not on the issue of race. 'People should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads,' Cheung said, according to the outlet. 'What’s actually concerning is her family's deeply troubling ties to Communist China, which has undermined American economic and national security.'"
Salon: "Trump spokesman Steven Cheung, who is Asian American, told Politico in a statement that Trump's criticism of Chao is focused on her family's shipping business and its ties to China, not her race. 'People should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads,' Cheung told the outlet. 'What's actually concerning is her family's deeply troubling ties to Communist China, which has undermined American economic and national security.'"
Raw Story: "Trump spokesperson, Steven Cheung, who is an Asian American, claimed that the insults "China-loving wife" had nothing to do with her race but her family's long-time shipping business that Chao's father began when he came to the United States."
MSN: "Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Politico that the former president’s criticism of Chao was related to her family’s potential financial conflicts, not race." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
"Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said Trump was more focused on Chao's conflicts of interest than on her race."Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I'm currently working on a script to add "Citation needed" tags to unreferenced paragraphs, see User:Phlsph7/AddCitationNeededTagsToUnreferencedParagraphs. I wanted to get some feedback on how to deal with articles that contain many unreferenced paragraphs. For articles or sections that contain no references, it is probably best to use the tags "Unreferenced" or "Unreferenced section" and add no inline "Citation needed" tags. But the question is how to deal with articles that have serious sourcing issues where these tags don't apply. Let's say, an article has over 10 unreferenced paragraphs spread across different sections. For such articles, should every unreferenced paragraph get its own "Citation needed" tag? Or is it better to just add the tag "More citations needed" to the top and let the other editors figure out for themselves where the problems lie? Or should both be added: the "More citations needed" tag at the top and the inline "Citation needed" tags? Phlsph7 ( talk) 17:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
See the discussion at the village pump. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to get some clarity on the use of Ancestry.com to establish dates of birth. Thanks to the Wikipedia Library, we now have access to extensive birth and death databases, including the Social Security Death Index and various state birth registries. This can allow us to verify the birth dates of article subjects, both living and dead. Question is, what are the parameters for use? I am thinking of two specific examples. One is a notable actress, a living person, whose birth date is unavailable in third party sources. However, New York City birth records and other records make her birth date quite clear. Another situation I've encountered involves a person who died within the past year. The articles currently contain no reference to birth date.
I notice that Ancestry is used routinely to confirm or correct birth dates of long-dead people, but living persons and recently dead people are a matter I haven't seen addressed. Would appreciate some input on this. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, please check my contributions National Council of Resistance of Iran and its talk page.
Although relatively new to this subject matter, I have contributed to these in good-faith and what I believe to be a competent manner, and I believe that the WP:Verified facts that I've contributed, are allowed by our content policy. Please confirm that they are not "synthetic " statements of WP:Original research, which I understand are forbidden and agree to not make. Or else instruct - Have I inadvertently done "Synth"? Or are there other problems with my contributions of which I should be aware? Thanks for your help.
Also please review my contributions to and proposed move of The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement, currently in AfD.
Another editor @ParadaJulio has alleged that I've made "Synthetic claims", relying on an overly broad mis-application (IMHO), of an earlier AfD on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement. I understand and accept the decision and rationale of the closing admin in that case, @ Vanamonde93, but I think it does not apply in the context of these other articles in the way the adverse editor thinks that it does. I thought we had agreed to 'ana-lyze' - which is the opposite of synthesize - and then merge the now-deleted article's content, and the other editor appears to believe that none of it is now acceptable anywhere.
If you could educate myself and us both on the Content policy and how it applies in this case, it may help to avoid misunderstanding and get back to the WP:Encyclopedia.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
NickWadley26 has repeatedly added his own analysis to the DT Eightron article, claiming that the indentured servitude experience by the characters of DT Eightron reflects the hard working conditions of Japanese animators. While Nick has produced a reliable source describing the hardships of these animators, [1] they have not produced a source that ties the shows themes to those working conditions. That conclusion is Nick's alone. I have thrice reverted this editing, and while the reverting of vandalism can often override WP:3RR, I decided to avoid that problem, and bring the issue here. I have had some bit of discussion at User talk:NickWadley26 (see this revision for the latest version of the dialog), but Nick insists that this is a class project and he needs the material to remain in order to get a grade. I'd like an admin to block Nick from editing this page, at least temporarily, until the issue of original research can be fully understood by this new editor. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
References
Bluger has self-published a book through Xlibris (The De-Judaization of the Image of Jesus of Nazareth... (Xlibris, 2021; ISBN 9781664149410)) which he is now citing here as a source for changes to the Faulhaber article. Since Xlibris is a self-publishing house, and there is no evidence that Bluger is a recognized expert in this field, or that any editorial review process was exercised over this book, this constitutes original research. I have tried to interact with Bluger on his user talk page (see this permalink) to no avail. I seek a temporary block on this user on this page until the matter can be properly understood. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
In the article 2001, it goes over several different aspects of the year, and they're each supported by a source about that event. For example, it mentions the Insurgency in the Preševo Valley, and it's supported by a news article specifically about that insurgency. Compare this with 2002, which currently uses overview sources. For example, it mentions the Angolan Civil War, and it's cited to a source about major conflicts in 2002.
Does the 2001 example constitute original research because the source doesn't establish it as a significant event in the context of the year, or do editors have discretion about what should be included in an article? This issue is being discussed at Talk:2002#Expansion with overview sources. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was written as an essay [3] from the start, and has remained so until now. The topic is notable, but the original approach plus random coatrack additions have turned it into an OR trainwreck (a "coat-wreck"?). Austronesier ( talk) 18:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! For anyone willing to provide input, there's an RFC related to original research
here, and any input would be greatly appreciated. The question is: "Should this article, concerning firearm-related violence with multiple persons injured, be included in mass-shooting categories, even though no sources directly refer to it as a 'mass shooting'?"
The key debate concerns whether the current use of the "mass shooting" descriptor is
improper synthesis—specifically, whether "mass shooting" a special term that requires labelling by a reliable source. Thanks in advance!--
Jerome Frank Disciple (
talk) 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
An editor (presumably TCG) argued that "Rbl" is the sign of the Soviet ruble, citing a document at an earthquake-related conference and a book on communist countries as source. However, both times around, there is a canned search for "Rbls rouble" without quotes. Therefore, I think it might be TCG cherry-picking sources that support them. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material.) -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I know this is well-trodden ground, but after repeated attempts to educate Flowerkiller1692 about WP:SYNTHesis in film/TV article lead sections, I don't quite seem to get through to them.
The editor is attempting to support the following summary statement of the critical reception in the lead with two cherrypicked reviews: Upon release the show received negative views for its poor writing and animation, and its completely different tone to the rest of the franchise.
MOS:FILMLEAD, which is an analogous guideline, clarifies that any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources.
Therefore, the sentence needs to be either removed, or a source needs to be added that explicitly supports this sort of summary statement.
Throast {{ping}} me! (
talk |
contribs) 17:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed a pattern of edits that appear to be synthesis, where the editor states in many articles something like, "This election, as of 2023, was the last time that (name of political party) elected a candidate..." (no citation given). Someone might review Special:Contributions/Rivirian King of the Rails to see if there is a problem, here. The tally seems to grow, weekly. HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I have left the following at the editor's Talk page:
I have noticed in the 'Reasons' section of tetotalism reads:
Some common reasons for choosing teetotalism are psychological, religious, health, [1] medical, philosophical, social, political, past alcoholism, or sometimes it is simply a matter of taste or preference. original research?...
References
Is that a good place to use the tag? On one hand, it is indeed unsourced and it would not be a hard task to find citations for reasons that people choose not to drink. On the other hand, the reasons have been explicitly stated throughout the article and saying some people do not like the taste does sounds like an obvious claim that would not warrant a citation. I am genuinely curious if this is in dire need of a citation or not. Please call me Blue ( talk) 13:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Additional perspectives would be helpful at Talk:Margery_Jackson#Please_do_not_remove_content_from_article_without_discussion. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Does the level of detail in this article section comply with NOT/PROPORTION? Does it matter if its only sources are a real-time map interface and/or the raw results from a NWS tornado damage survey? Discussion has stagnated; more input is needed. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence in the lead of this article states "Samrup Rachna is a form of calligraphic art." However, this source [5] states that "Samrup Rachna is a contemporary collection of calligraphic works" and that "by connecting ‘Hindi-Urdu’ with a hyphen and by calling it apni boli, the calligrapher provides a specimen illustrating the popular awareness of a common linguistic identity." According to this article [6] the artist also seems to be calling this specific style of calligraphy apni boli and his book featuring his 60 works of calligraphy is called Samrup Rachna: Apni Boli. So is the lead sentence OR since the sources seem to be saying Samrup Rachna is a collection of his art work and not a form of calligraphic art? Eucalyptusmint ( talk) 14:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a bit of an odd situation. In this case, EEng and 76.178.169.118 are essentially using original research and synthesis to question the veracity of the Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant and derail a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant. The goal seems to be to get the article either deleted or modified in some way; although no official AFD has been brought. My concern is, that none of the published coverage supports the assertions being made. With my academic hat on, I can agree with many of the points being raised, which are essentially poking holes in the published literature through a variety of 'lack of evidence' points which are not found in published RS, and original synthesis/analysis of primary sources and historic newspapers which are again found nowhere in published RS. All of this would make a great journal article, but essentially I am not seeing how any of it impacts how we treat the topic here at wikipedia. We can not use original research to impeach secondary sources generally considered reliable, and we can't criticize publications generally considered reliable without having some published RS doing that for us. WP:No original research and WP:WEIGHT would seem to apply here. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
We can not use original research to impeach secondary sources generally considered reliable– We can, and we do, all the time.
we can't criticize publications generally considered reliable without having some published RS doing that for us– We can, and we do, all the time.
Eeng has arrived at his conclusions by digging for evidence on his own– False. I arrived at my conclusion -- that none of the sources is reliable for the claim that a US president was arrested 150 years ago but history failed to notice until now -- just by reading the sources and applying common sense and good judgment. And several other editors have come to the same conclusion by the same route. This is an extraordinary claim for which some source should be able to offer actual evidence (and indeed it would be fascinating if it existed) but not a single source has.To be belt-and-suspenders I also scoured the largest academic library in the world for every source (about Grant, the presidency, or the history of Washington and its police force) that could conceivably touch on this, and found nothing. But that was just the suspenders. The belt was that, as I say, that it's obvious from the sources themselves that they are completely inadequate for a claim like this.
he may not have access to primary sources viewed by the journalists or scholars interviewed for these various media sources– Laughable. High-quality sources cite their evidence. The Washington police chief, asked on the radio to "describe a few funny stories in the history of the Metropolitan Police Department" [8], reeled off this one [9] and then went on to crow that
We actually have the firsthand written record of the Lincoln assassination in our logbook. Had she a written record of Grant's arrest, or any other actual evidence, one would expect her to mention it. She didn't because she doesn't.
article cites two different interviews with Grant scholar John F. Marszalek, the Executive Director and Managing Editor of the Ulysses S. Grant Association– We don't have two different interviews. We have two tiny snippets of longer interviews, which we're not able to hear in full. In one, he starts out by telling us
The story goes ...[10] -- I don't need to tell you what it means when an historian uses that phrase. In the second, the announcer introduces Marszalek with
He tells the story of an incident ...I have too much respect for the party who offered it to embarrass them by giving a diff, but the claim has been put forward that this change of wording telegraphs that somewhere between the first interview and the second, Marszalek must have discovered actual proof -- which nonetheless he doesn't share with us. Ridiculous.
in no way are we limited to topics on wikipedia that lack coverage in journals or from academic presses– We are for a claim like this. As I said elsewhere, we wouldn't report an alleged battle of the Civil War, unmentioned in any history book or journal, just on the say-so of some modern newspapers which don't say what they're basing their statement on, nor should we report the arrest of a US president 150 years ago under the same circumstance. No source is 100% always reliable for everything, nor 100% never reliable for anything -- but rather every source needs to be evaluated in each case, in light of the assertion being made. Puffy, fun sidelight stories adding comic relief to current events, and which universally fail to cite a shred of evidence beyond an old man's story 30 years after the fact, don't cut it.
they do go through a fact checking process with independent editorial oversight– This may come as a shock to you, but even the Washington Post doesn't apply a uniformly high level of fact checking and editorial oversight for all the material it publishes. The Rosenwald piece, for example, isn't even from the newspaper itself, but from
Retropolis, a blog about the past, rediscovered, at washingtonpost.com/retropolis. A blog. A blog is a source for President Grant being arrested?
Hi,
I have a request for the assessment of the following article: Substrate in Romanian. The article deals with a somewhat obscure part of Romanian language. I edited most of it (up to last two sections) based on the book Introducere în istoria limbii române(Introduction to the History of Romanian Language) by Romanian academician Grigore Brâncuș. Unfortunately, the book is only in Romanian. I believe that due to the lack of translated material user Borsoka considers it contains OR and has reverted a few of my link to the page. Anyone with time and interest to have a look and give another opinion? Thank you in advance!-- Aristeus01 ( talk) 18:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Yngvadottir stated that sable was "often described poetically" as diamond, Saturn, and nightshade. However, after reviewing the source it says this was only sometimes, not often, referred to as diamond and Saturn. Nightshade is not even mentioned alongside them. This particular system was sourced to by Ephraim Chambers, but Yngvadottir is clearly mixing other systems proposed by heraldists like Honoré Bonet, Jean Courtois, Conrad von Würzburg, Henry Spelman. I think for accuracy purposes these methods need to be separated and sourced to their author rather than misrepresented as a single system used across the entirety of Europe during the Renaissance period. So I reverted the edit and explained that the source material does not support the claims. Yngvadottir then reverted my revert stating it was a "poorly justified revert". I have to disagree; inaccuracies and inconsistencies are a perfectly good reason to revert an edit. I came up with the following plan to fix these issues and want the community's feedback.
First, I propose that Yngvadottir go back to their edits and review their sources, then rewrite their additions to the articles so they more closely follow the information in the cited material. Do not use opinions. Do not exaggerate the information. Just state the facts as they are.
Second, I propose that Yngvadottir clearly separate each system from one another so that there is no confusion between them and so they are not misrepresented a single unified method.
Third, I propose that Yngvadottir cite the originator of each methodology in the body of the article alongside their proposed system. This will help to separate the systems and avoid confusion.
Fourth, I propose that Yngvadottir expand and include other systems. There were several competing systems across Europe, non of which were particularly popular and none of which survived past the Victorian age. By presenting just one or two systems, Yngvadottir is editorializing. They are picking a favourite. And readers will walk way believing that those systems that Yngvadottir gave preferential treatment to were more historically significant than they actually were.
Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome. Giltsbeach ( talk) 06:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
My initial edit to the article removed roughly 100k bytes worth of original research from the article, along with maintenance tags that had been in place for 10 years. I chose to keep short descriptions of characters that have stand-alone articles and added ref ideas to the talk page for editors to re-work and expand the article. The edit was then reverted unaltered by Yuotort, who called the removal "vandalism". I left a message on their talk page and have not heard back so far. The edit was reverted again by FishandChipper, who gave no explanation whatsoever as to the restoration. Am I missing something here? I feel as though I'm perfectly justified in removing the material. These two editors are also fairly new, so they might not have the fullest grasp of policy. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 10:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Libel, nonsense, and vandalism. Even then, a lot of the removed content falls under WP:NOTOR. The article definitely needed cleanup, but mass removals are always going to be controversial. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
consideralternatives to removal. No improvements have been made whatsoever, so starting fresh seems to be the best option at this point. WP:CANTFIX applies:
Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. [...] Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia [...]. The article was filled almost exclusively with plot summaries. Regardless of whether or not content removal is controversial, if editors raise legitimate reasons for removal, no editor is justified to simply restore the material without previously discussing it per WP:ONUS. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
First things first, I have to say that I haven't watched the series yet, but I'm concerned about what's in there: a dozen elements that have only a little to do with the subject matter. But I haven't figured out how to clean it up next (since I can't actually find many sources), so I'll put the issue here first. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The article contains the original research of its main author.
It combine in an original way a set of criminal and civil cases related to the personality of Oleg Burlakov, which were conducted in different years between him and third parties, as well as between third parties without his participation.
The article does not cite and there are no reliable sources at all that would define the totality of these cases as the “Burlakov Case”. Acting in the same logic, all cases connected with the personality of any John Doe for the entire period of his life and proceedings after his death should be defined as the "John Doe Case", which is absurd. I suggest deleting the article. Джонни Уокер ( talk) 16:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. There’s this part of the lede of this revision of Satanic Verses that I believe misrepresents what the source says.
It’s written in its lede that:
However others disagree, Alford T. Welch, in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, argues that the "implausibility" argument alone is insufficient to guarantee the tradition's authenticity. He says that the story in its present form is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication despite the fact that there could be some historical basis for the story.
However, in the source,
Welch doesn’t say anything like the story in its present form is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication
Instead he says:
"It is possible that this story is another example of historical telescoping, i.e. that a situation that was known by Muhammad's contemporaries to have lasted for a long period of time later came to be encapsulated in a story that restricts his acceptance of intercession through these goddesses to a brief period of time and places the responsibility for this departure from a strict monotheism on Satan. This interpretation is completely consistent with what is said above regarding Muhammad's gradual "emergence as a religious reformer"
So I changed the part in question of the revision to:
Alford T. Welch, however, argues that this rationale alone is insufficient but does not rule out the possibility of some historical foundation to the story. He proposes that the story may be yet another instance of historical telescoping, i.e., a circumstance that Muhammad's contemporaries knew to have lasted for a long period of time later became condensed into a story that limits his acceptance of the Meccan goddesses’ intercession to a brief period of time and assigns blame for this departure from strict monotheism to Satan.
But the other user, @NEDOCHAN doesn’t like it and keep reverting it. I had invited him to discuss the matter, but he refused and instead attacked me with accusations of sockpuppetry. So what do you all think? Also in case I get mistakenly blocked, I would like someone to address the issue in the article. Kaalakaa ( talk) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Im thinking of putting Views on military action against Iran up for AfD, but i cant find any rule that would specifically apply to this type of article. Is it synth or OR to cobble together views on a specific subject at a specific time and say that those views represent a coherent topic? Even if you can, is it an appropriate subject for a stand alone article? This is the sort of material that would be appropriate for a more general article, say Foreign relations of Iran. Seems like if we allow this, we are opening a can of worms for any subject for which views have been published. Any advice? AfD? Rework? Ignore? Bonewah ( talk) 14:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
This http://www.wildernesstherapy.org/Wilderness/ForceRestraint.htm was used as a reference and I think it might break guidelines on no original research.
The website is sponsored by Mentor Research Institute and the page was written by one of its board members
http://www.wildernesstherapy.org/
https://www.mentorresearch.org/about -- 1keyhole ( talk) 11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Do sources support Steve Jobs being described as a "business magnate" and "investor" in the lead's first sentence? Apparently, the justification for the "investor" label was that Jobs made one investment in Pixar, though I found no source treating "investor" as an important label for him. No inline source supports "magnate", and I didn't find that term (nor "mogul", a synonym) in the two major Jobs biographies (Isaacson 2011, Schlender Tetzeli 2015), nor in reliable sources through a Google search.
Raised in Talk:Steve Jobs#Reverts to lead last week, which received no response. I tried to remove them as WP:OR and have been reverted twice. DFlhb ( talk) 22:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
a wealthy and influential person, especially in businessaccording to Google) to describe a person who, quite clearly, was a wealthy and influential businessman. Walt Yoder ( talk) 02:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
wealthy and influential. Of course we must use the same labels as sources, not choose our own.
business magnatewas added to all sorts of BLPs and BDPs in the last few years, and then added, again with zero source, to a completely unencyclopedic image gallery at Business magnate. DFlhb ( talk) 05:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
is finding a wp:reliable source that states a general truth enough to be narrowed down and used in articles or is it wp:synth?
example:
To me, this is like arguing someone wasn't arrested for being homosexual, but for violating sodomy laws.
The fact that the laws do not explicitly call for the criminalisation of the group in question is purposeful political obscurantism.
p.s. this is the "weak" version of general statements as synth. there is also a "strong" version.
Hello,
I hate to have to reach out but I added a controversy section to this article including citations from the Human Genome Project, American Society of Human Genetics, the World Health Organization etc which someone keeps reverting. Maybe my wording in the section is not the best but the section is well cited from trusted agencies in genetics and they factually discredit the article on a whole.
The rest of the article outside this section I added after seeing several other attempts by others in the talk to do the same is based on Original Research. I requested more than once that the reverter quote me the verification methodology used in the studies they are defending and they have never been able to. They cannot because it isn't in their citations. Each one was based on self-reported unverified data sets collected by a subjective source. Which is why the HGP and others discredited as antisemitism or more broadly bigotry while the Holocaust Musuems of Canada, the USA, and the State of Israel all literally defined it as Nazism. All of this was cited and I'm trying in good faith here. I created a talk section to hash it out which they ignored the first few reverts. I offered to let them re-write it with the same sources. I offered for them to add supporting documents to the controversy section since they felt it wasn't balanced.
Moreover Dr. Raphael Falk is misrepresented in the article. His paper "Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent" got cited several times as supporting documentation for stuff not at all discussed in the paper or stuff the paper was discrediting not supporting. It was a gross misuse of Dr. Raphael Falk's work and most of this article is based on misappropriating this as well as other papers to create the desired article instead of accurately reporting what is in the citations.
Hey I am trying here. I don't like this article. To me it is very much neo-nazi propaganda, and that is cited, but I am trying to in good faith do the right thing so all I wanted to do was add a section which deals with the controversial nature of this topic. If someone else needs to step in and write that section for me then by all means but as it stands currently outside the controversy section that keeps getting reverted so that it is no longer there is the only section which accurately represents the citations used.
"But how did they sample them? What were the criteria for Jewishness of the sampled individuals?", is a quote from Dr. Falk's paper and is the same exact question I have been asking in the Talk. What was the verification methodology used in the studies supporting the claims of the article which authenticated test subjects as Jewish? There is none and no one is even trying to answer that.
Thanks and sorry it came to this. I am really trying here. I even used my actual IP to make these edits by not logging in so the Mods would know I am trying to be legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358a:72ef:92a0:ca76:7ccb ( talk) 09:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a reliable source that states either:
where A is a property, B is a category and C are the qualifications for the category.
e.g. in all cases, people who are killed, die.
now, there is an article where a general statement applies. there is a reliable source that offer verifiability for the claim. is it original research or synth to narrow the general statement to the subject at hand?
hypothetical example:
p.s. this is the "strong" version of general statements as wp:synth. there is also a weak version.
In this case [ [14]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.Now, as a form of logic, it is basically unimpeachable. For Wikipedia purposes, I would personally not call it synth for one particular reason: in all cases I can imagine, the final proposition would be stated in the article about the general class of things discussed. Thus, if I take the conclusion that all men are mortal from a hypothetical source, and the fact that Socrates is a man from another, my conclusion (Socrates is mortal) is explicitly stated in the first source, just not explicitly applied to Socrates. So, not synth, but as above, for me, I also have a hard time imagining a situation in which the conclusion not explicitly connected with the subject is WP:DUE for inclusion. If it were a relevant factor, one would imagine it would make it into sources about the subject at hand. That said, anything is possible and I certainly can't imagine all possibilities.
I am in a dispute with someone who purports to be the father of professional footballer Ryan Trevitt, who persistently makes unsourced original edits (ie. original research) to the player's page. I have reverted them, but rather than get into an edit war, I thought I would bring it here. I've talked with him about on his talk page, but he is ignoring. He thinks that because he's the player's father, that he constitutes a reliable source. Beatpoet ( talk) 19:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I've made a talk page section there, so I figure I may as well say the same thing here: this map seems very bad to me.
The map shown to the right here was in the lead of this article until today. I was looking at it and scratching my head, when I looked at the actual source on Commons, which was... nothing. It was copied from a different map (in PNG form), whose description page just said it was copied from an en-wikipedia map which no longer exists(?).
I removed it yesterday, and someone tracked down a citation and put it back in (for the record, it is Chen, Bin; Wu, Shengbiao; Song, Yimeng; Webster, Chris; Xu, Bing; Gong, Peng (8 August 2022).
"Contrasting inequality in human exposure to greenspace between cities of Global North and Global South".
Nature Communications. 13.
doi:
10.1038/s41467-022-32258-4.). Looking through the
actual paper, though, there are a couple issues. First of all, it is not identical to our map: it puts French Guiana, Bosnia, South Korea, Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan in the South, whereas ours puts them in the North. But even apart from that, the paper does not give any citation for where it got the map or the classification of countries. They just say this: Global North cities (e.g., US, European, and Australian cities) have higher greenspace exposure (mean: 45.84%) than Global South cities (mean: 14.39%) (e.g., China, India, and the Middle East)
. That is, they are not making any claims about Israel or the UAE or Bosnia or Singapore or whatever. But possibly the most concerning issue is that, alongside the lack of a citation for the boundaries they draw, the shading is completely identical to that of our own map: it seems quite likely that they got the image from Commons (and modified it to fit the claims in their paper, which would make it a
circular reference, and completely unacceptable.
Overall, I question whether it is appropriate to have a map in the article that precisely assigns "North" or "South" status to specific nations unless there is a solid citation to a reliable source that specifically explains reasoning for each country's status (diplomatic influence, economic criteria, military power, trade agreements, HDI, whatever). If we can't have this, I think we should definitely not use a map that claims to objectively make pronouncements on individual nations' status (and implicitly claims to be official). jp× g 22:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Under "Etymology" Wikipedia is presenting an incomplete data abaut the name of Romania.
"Romania" derives from the local name for Romanian (Romanian: român), which in turn derives from Latin romanus, meaning "Roman" or "of Rome".[20] This ethnonym for Romanians is first attested in the 16th century by Italian humanists travelling in Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia.[21][22][23]"
The name of the Vlachs/Wallacians is attested by many Popes of Rome, Byzantine Emperor (Constantin) and other officials and many other scholars...before the XVI century.
CONSTANTINE FLAVIUS PORPHYROGENITUS (BYZANTINE EMPEROR 913-959)
From "De administrando imperio".Constantine's surname, PORPHYROGENITUS(that is, born in the Purple Chamber of the Imperial Palace in CONSTANTINOPLE).
"The emperor Diocletian was much enamored of the country of Dalmatia,and he brought folk with their families from ROME and settled them in this same country of Dalmatia,and they were called ROMANI (VLACHS) from their having been removed from ROME, and this title attaches to them until this day..."
"The territory possessed by the ROMANI used to extend as far as the river Danube"
(Constantine shows that the ROMANS(Latins, NOT Greek Romans or Byzantines) or Vlachs are the original Romans. "The country of the ZXHLUMI was previously possessed by the ROMANS, I mean, by those ROMANI whom Diocletian the emperor translated from ROME" (Constantine is talking about the Imperial Romans,who are going to be known under the name of VLACHS).
"The country of Diocleia was also previously possessed by the ROMANI(Vlachs) whom the emperor Diocletian translated from ROME"
"The country in which the Pagani now dwell was also previously possessed by the ROMANI(Vlachs) whom the emperor Diocletian translated from ROME and settled in Dalmatia".
"At that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the ROMANI(Vlachs) whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from ROME and settled there,and who therefore called ROMANI from their having been translated from ROME to those countries"
SUMMARY: In his description of the Greek Roman Empire,we can definitely identify two people,the Imperial Romans(VLACHS-those Romans who initiated the empire),called by Constntine,ROMANI, and the Greek Romans(BYZANTINES-those Romans who adopted GREEK as the language of the State and Church).
POPE CLEMENT VI (1342-1352).
"Olachi Romani,commorantes in partibus Ungariae,Transilvanis,Ultralpinis et Sirmus"
(In Hungary,Transilvania,Muntenia and Sirmia live the Roman-Vlachs) or "Tam nobilibus quam popularibus Olachis Romanis"
SUMMARY: Romanians = Romans (Vlachs).
POPE PIUS II (1458-1464) (Commentarium rerum memorabilium)
"VALACHI lingua utuntur Italica, verum imperfecta, et admodum corrupta; sunt qui legiones Romanas eo missas olim censeant adversus Dacos, qui eas terras incolebant; legionibus Flaccum quendam praefuisse, a que Flacci primum,deinde Valachi, mutatis litteris, sint appellati;quorum posteri (ut ante relatum est) "
SUMMARY: (The Vlachs are a people of Roman origin,born from an antic Roman Imperial colony,speaking a language close to Latin or Italian)
POPE Innocent III (in a latter from 1203). "Therefore, we, who have been appointed by the will of GOD and Father, unworthy as we are, as vicars and successors of the Apostolic See, to prove by the force of facts our fatherly love for the Church of the Bulgarians and ROMANIANS (VLACHS),who are said to be THE DESCENDENTS OF THE ROMANS,by their flesh and blood"
POPE Innocent III (in a letter addressed to IONITA, lord of the Bulgarians and Romanians,from 1203)
"Thus, taking this into account, we have decided since long, through our envoy or our letters, that we should pay a visit to your lordship, so that,realizing your faith to the Roman Church,Your Mother, we might then send to you,WHO SAY THAT YOU ARE A DESCENDENT OF THE NOBLE KIN OF THE ROMANS...As, he (God the Father) will help you to be a ROMAN in this wordily life and for your Eternal Salvation by your own striving, the same as you are BY YOUR DESCENT; and he shall help the people of your country, which say that they are the ROMANS,blood and flesh".
Francesco della Valle,1532,(Secretary of Aloisio Gritti,a natural son to Doge Andrea Gritti).
"The Romanians(Vlachs) are of Italian stock, and according to them, they are the descendants of the OLD ROMANS".
IOAN KINNAMOS(Imperial secretary under two Byzantine emperors, Manuel I & Andronic)
"It is said about the Vlachs that they are the old descendents of those from Italy".
Jan Dlugosz (1415-1480),Polish Chronicler.
"(1359) Stephano Moldaviae Voievodae, apud Valachos mortuo, quorum maiores et aboriginarii de Italiae Regno pulsi ( genus et natio Volscorum esse fuisseque creduntur) veteribus Dominis et colonis Ruthenis, primum sudole, deinde abundante in dies multitudine, ".
FOR MORE INFORMATION READ ADOLF ARMBRUSTER(Romanitatea Romanilor). Or( Romanian Foreign Sources on the Romanians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:7802:454f:88c1:e4c7:8713:cd18 ( talk • contribs)
Is this a real thing? The writing is idiosyncratic to say the least...all the references are in other languages...it's impossible to Google...it's about a far-right topic and clearly written by a sympathizer. A lot of reasons to delete it. But I would value other opinions, and frankly I don't really want to go through the AfD process. Prezbo ( talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
We have a discussion whether a large clinical trial should be mentioned in the flavan-3-ol text, even though it is primary research. Any comments to reach a consensus would be appreciated. There is no dispute whether the study is primary research - it is whether it meets the criteria specified in WP:MEDPRI to permit inclusion.
Lavender_oil#Uses current wording:
A 2021 meta-analysis included five studies of people with anxiety disorders. All five studies were funded by the manufacturers of the lavender oil capsule used, four of them were conducted by one author of the meta-analysis,[13] and blinding was not clear.[14] In this analysis, an oral 80 mg dose of lavender oil per day was associated with reduced anxiety scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.[13] Due to the limitations of these studies, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.[11]
Where [13] is reference to (von Känel, 2021), [14] is (Generoso, 2017), and [11] is (NCCIH info page, 2020)
Thank you for helping out.
Hello, in the article BMW G 310 R, we are discussing the possible use of original research. The editor who added it states that information not found in a source, is true because it isn't found in a source. I'm pretty new so I may be wrong but I believe this is original research based on Wikipedia's core content policy. The discussion can be found here and additional expert input would be appreciated. Talk:BMW G 310 R#Not Feature Lists containing original research. A third opinion was obtained and they are in agreement that it is original research but the original poster is adamant it is not. Advice would be appreciated if this is original research.
The written arguments are used by parties involved in the case, such as petitioners, respondents and intervenors. I believe, for this content, Primary Sources would be best sources as mentioned in Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As the intention of the section is to present the claims made by each party in the Court. Secondary sources, at the best case could misquote or make mistakes, and at worst case, they are influenced by their own opinion. The is secondary sources are included in the Reaction and Commentary section of the same Article.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I've noticed recently a number of additions of cartoon portraits to articles - see for example Célestine Hitiura Vaite and Chela Sandoval. While I'm aware OR rules are a bit looser around images, I don't think these are accurate representations of the subjects. Anyone have thoughts on how to approach these? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
We've had people uploading and using illustrations they've created for a long time. When there are no free images and it doesn't meet NFCC, it's often the only way we can get an illustration into an article. I don't think this is an area where NOR is an issue. I don't think BLP is a big issue in any case I've seen, either, since even a sub-par illustration is better than none (just like how Wikipedia uses thousands of really terrible photos of people because it's all we have). If the subject doesn't like it, the same advice applies as with the bad photo: give us a better one and we're typically happy to use it. Beyond people, a huge number of our dinosaur articles use user-created illustrations, and a lot of our scientific diagrams rely on user-created content, too. This is pretty common, and it's disappointing people think it's ok to insult these contributions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't this belong on WP:BLPN, or perhaps even WP:VPI? DFlhb ( talk) 20:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I see no problem with these portraits. More importantly this isn't the right forum to discuss it. An illustration is really no more likely to contain original research than a photo. pburka ( talk) 20:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
If you don't want to use lower quality images, find something better. No, we should not be doing that. No image at all is leagues better than a terrible amateur drawing. Zaathras ( talk) 03:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I find this subject interesting, so was talking to a non-wikipedian artist about these illustrations. Her take was that a lot of the illustrations work well (including all of the ones created through Wiki Unseen), but when it came down specifically to the three displayed above, she pointed out a lot of problems with the two on the left and I think I may be persuaded that they should be omitted from the articles. For Sandoval, in addition to arguably being a bit unflattering, the skin tone has been changed, and that's a potential BLP issue. For Vaite, it's not simply a low "resolution" illustration -- it just doesn't really depict the person it purports to show. The cheekbones, shape of the mouth, shape of the eyebrows, shape of the eyes, etc. are all off the mark. The main thing tying her to the photos is the flower, but it's a different flower worn on the other side (whether there's significance there I don't know). Fundamentally, would you be able to recognize the person based on the illustration? In that case, probably not, and that's probably the most important question. I have no problem with simple, user-created illustrations, but I guess I wasn't really scrutinizing the proportions/details. These should still be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on an actual analysis rather than simply "they're bad". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Another complication is that some of this has been done at Wikidata, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Turktimex3. Turktimex3 is aware of this discussion, but has thus far declined to participate. Zaathras ( talk) 18:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Please let me know if the image to the right is better than no image at all. Some1 ( talk) 00:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it because the artist of the former based it on multiple copyrighted worksYes. The idea is that if you look at many, you can have an impression of the person's likeness that you can use to draw them. To be deleted on Commons (where the copyright question should really be addressed), you typically need to be able to point to one or two specific images it's a clear derivative of.
Wouldn't it be, then, an OR issueNo, because we apply a looser definition of OR to images. Same with photos. Is the lead image at fish crow a fish crow just because I said it is? Verifiability comes from e.g. searching for other images of the subject and/or reading descriptions of the subject.
Where does that fall into this?- Currently, Commons applies the same "is it a clear derivative of one or two images" sort of examination to AI art, meaning most of them are allowed [for now -- it's very much unsettled legally]. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. The idea is that if you look at many, you can have an impression of the person's likeness that you can use to draw them.That's the definition of original research. Thanks for admitting it.
No, because we apply a looser definition of OR to images. Same with photos. Is the lead image at fish crow a fish crow just because I said it is?The policy itself reads: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light." And that's directed at photos, not random doodles by anonymous internet artists. Are you seriously trying to argue that the policy that prohibits photo manipulation as unacceptable distortion is just fine with wholecloth invention by an unaffiliated party—especially regarding living people? Please! As for your "fish crow" analogy, there is nothing to even hint at the possibility that the lead image isn't a photograph or that that photograph isn't of a bird. The fish crow is not an individual of which there is only one that looks the same—it's a species—of which people are freely able to find and photograph themselves. At worst the lead photo is not of a fish crow but of another species of bird, which a knowledgeable reader could then point out and correct. How, exactly, can someone "correct" a drawing? Or are you arguing that once someone slaps together a doodle of a person for a Wiki article, it's inviolate because "hey, I ' read a descriptions of the subject' and who are you to say otherwise"? -- Veggies ( talk) 23:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching haltin a way that reads more like a wiki guideline? We're not going to make a rule for one user's images, so what exactly at the limits here? You have multiple people above who seem inclined to prohibit any and all user-created illustrations on the ground of NOR, which would obviously take something more like a well-publicized RfC to take effect, you have people with opinions about the specific images mentioned here (sometimes varying between images), opinions about what should/shouldn't be considered when evaluating an illustration, etc. If you were to close this, what precisely would you say there's consensus for? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
If you were to close this.... Turktimex3 would be blocked, and we would continue to rid biographies of illustrations, if there are any left. Zaathras ( talk) 02:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Having no likeness of the person is a dire situation, no, have a terrible image is far more dire than no image at all.
those editors have said they are going through Wikipedia removing "cartoon" images they don't personally like need to stop right now. It is always peculiar when people speak with authority that they clearly lack. When we come across an unflattering, unrealistic cartoon illustrating a BLP, we are duty-bound by policy to remove it. Zaathras ( talk) 14:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Having no likeness of the person is a dire situationThere is absolutely nothing "dire" about an article without an image of the subject in question. There are plenty of featured articles that don't have any likenesses of the person. What silly hyperbole.
Anyone who thinks a camera doesn't lie or can't be used to flatter or ridicule the subject needs to do some learningThere's a reason why most biographies of people post 1880 have photos and not artistic depictions of the person. There's a reason why articles of animals and plants and objects all prefer photos rather than drawings. As I've argued above, photography is the most neutral medium for capturing the subject. No one here has argued that a photo can't "lie", "flatter" or "ridicule" someone. Quit throwing out straw-man arguments. -- Veggies ( talk) 17:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but that's more of a you problem. Neither I nor (I believe) anyone else has suggested a 100% blanket removal of non-photographic representations of living people from Wikipedia articles. Rather, it has been the removal of the most atrocious examples. I will personally nuke from high orbit any use of the File:Célestine Hitiura Vaite.png style in a WP:BLP. Finally, yes, illustrations are more fundamentally Original Research than photographs, the notion that anyone would claim otherwise is absurd. That is the core of the problem here, that until this discussion began, some BLPs were adorned with caricatures. Not authentic images, but caricatures. Zaathras ( talk) 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts (16), we get the pointAll users are welcome to participate fully in any complex debate without some ad hoc limit. I don't see anything Zaathras has written that was uncivil toward a user.
Not sure what Veggies point is, but I'm glad to see nobody is any longer suggesting (a) there is some policy against user-created illustrations and (b) NOR has anything to say about illustrationsSince you're having trouble, I'll make it as simple as possible. WP:NOR literally states: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image." This is a firm policy, directed at photographs. Is it your contention that the policy that prohibits image manipulation by a Wiki user on a photograph is copacetic with any doodle or Microsoft Paint scribbling being passable for a person's portrait? Please!
The very idea that illustrations are fundamentally OR or more OR than photographs is ridiculously naïve.I'm flummoxed as to how a person can type that with a straight face. Photographs per se are whatever passes through the lens of the camera onto the sensor. The setting, lighting, and object can all be staged beforehand or manipulated post-production, but it's as passionless and accurate a medium as possible. That's why we use them to illustrate virtually any article about a post-1880 person/object. It's the best medium for illustrating a topic. The idea that an illustration isn't OR or more OR than a photo is absurd. Even if you were drawing from life, which many of these "artists" obviously aren't, you are still limited by your skills with a brush, pencil, etc. That fundamentally introduces a bias that a camera does not have. Now, if you aren't drawing from life, then you're using other people's photographs (yes, that's right: photographs!) to try to circumvent the prohibitions against copyrighted material on Wikipedia. Are you seriously saying (with a straight face) that the photographs that these Wiki editors are using to make their illustrations from are more biased and OR than the illustrator who's literally copying them?? It's enough to make a cat laugh. -- Veggies ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Photographs per se are whatever passes through the lens of the camera onto the sensorI'm flummoxed as to how a person can type that with a straight face. Zaathras has made many uncivil posts. Guys, just stop. I get your arguments. They were wrong the first time you made them. -- Colin° Talk 21:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
particularly non-representative, original illustrations to be used
- there is the problem. A "WP:NOR" citation is an expedient veneer of procedural fact stuck onto what's really at issue: a subjective content dispute over whether a certain illustration is good enough for an article. You can just bypass the article-level consensus-building process by just citing "NOR" and use that as justification to mass revert, edit war, insult, and dismiss (mainly thinking of Zaathras and Veggies more than Andrevan and Masem). In other words, the NOR argument does not have merit in the context of our image practices, but that doesn't mean we have to display any image just because they exist, either. You just have to be ready to have the debate on a case-by-case basis rather than attempt to point to this as evidence. If a handful of people here are looking to follow through on the NOR argument, I'd be happy to help shape a straightforward RfC (which would need to be based on user-created illustrations and/or user-created illustrations based on many images of a subject -- BLP, quality, etc. are separate issue). —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 00:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts
, Zaathras has made many uncivil posts
. First off, Colin, it's pretty creepy of you to keep speaking about me in the 3rd person, within a thread in which I am an active f#$%ing participant. If you have a problem, then either 1) address me directly here, 2) come to my talk page, or 3) follow a course of action at
WP:DR. If you decline those options, then kindly keep my name out of your mouth.
Now, policy and consensus here already support the limiting of unrealistic image use in biographies, and I see no reason to change course. Also, as far as I am aware, the matter has largely cooled off. There was one rather belligerent user who refused to participate here and who edit-warred to restore a handful of images. But it appears the threat of a block by an admin has righted that ship.
Zaathras (
talk) 00:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
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." The words "original research" do not mean "user created" because the text on Wikipedia that is not inside quotes is supposed to be user created, and many of the photographs I've taken are user created. The policy explicitly exists for "facts, allegations, ideas" that cannot possibly be verified because they are not based on a published source. Our policy explicitly permits user created images, and that includes artworks of subjects whether living or dead (see WP:BLPIMAGE, which says nothing about artworks). Artworks may well be considered second-class to a good photograph by many users (though we have no PG to say that) but that doesn't mean they are in any way to be removed from articles leaving nothing. You can argue about an illustration that it is totally unrepresentative of the subject or puts them in an unfair bad light. And if the image is a copyright violation, it can be deleted on those grounds and I'd fully support that.
This started of as users mocking what they considered badly drawn cartoons.No. This conversation started out of concern that the cartoons were not representative of the subjects and were very low quality. And that's a point that many people in this conversation agreed on. How ironic that you bring up "inventing a consensus" elsewhere.
There is zero policy, especially not OR, to remove good quality illustrations of a subject.I'm not sure if you're aware, but many of those so-called 'high-quality' illustrations were proven to be straight-up copyvio derivative works that I had to spend my time investigating, tagging, and taking down. The "artist" who made them uploaded them as their own—basically copyright-washing other artists' photos—and licensing them as their own free-use work. (As an aside, I'm 100% certain that all of c:User:Little maquisart's drawings are derivative copyvio). And, now, when I take them (and other dubious illustrations) down, and raise the very serious question of where and how can these illustrators know what these people look like (apart from the equally-serious question over quality—for which many examples have been thumbnailed here), whether user-created illustrations of things as complex as a person's likeness constitute OR (I obviously argue that it does), and how editors dedicated to the project can ensure readers that an illustration actually is the person it's portraying (see the side-by-side images here), I get threatened with a topic ban. Colin: it's your privilege to go speak to an admin anytime you want. I'd be happy to answer for anything I've done. Go ahead. -- Veggies ( talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Either the artist making the cartoon is copying another work that can't be used due to copyright, or they're adding their own "interpretation" based on a blending of other people's work (cf. original research), or, in the worst-case scenario, they're simply inventing things out of zero.". For the middle clause of their claim, they are flat out wrong. And this flat out wrong is the only bit that is relevant to this noticeboard. If the images don't bear any resemblance to the subject (or are entirely fictional) then that's dealt with by existing explicit policy text, so no need to ask here.
Ugh, those are ungodly amateurish
If someone doesn't see a problem with the likes of the images to the right, then I'd be a bit gobsmacked. These are chintzy.
No image at all is leagues better than a terrible amateur drawing.(originally
"a shitty amateur drawing"when written, to give a flavour of the language being posted here)
this isn't strictly an Ugly Image Crusade
Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt
Drawings that at least have a semblance of professionalism/accuracy
This isn't Commons. Just because drivel is allowed to be uploaded there has no requirement that it be used here.
So I'm asking Zaathras to also self-revert.Well, no, I will not be doing that. As others have pointed out, my criticisms are directed at the poor quality of the content, not the contributor, so you need to kindly drop that tangent or go try to make hay of it at WP:ANI or wherever, but with your incessant bomb-throwing, I'd suggest ducking. Here's something you can do - pick one image that I have removed, and let's all have a discussion at that talk page. Any of your choosing. Zaathras ( talk) 22:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
"This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis."It is not a forum to discuss the artistic quality of images, whether BLP or not. This page is does not exist to change existing explicit and clear policy wrt user-generated images nor is it here to establish some minimum technical standard for artistic ability that can the be cited to permit mass removal.
We're not just going to go onsey-twosey with you to every article talk page about this, and if you continue to edit-war unabated, this will wind up at the Admin Noticeboard, WP:ANI, and that may not be a happy ending.This is an odd way of framing a reaction to the revert of a mass deletion, as though it is the other guy who is being destructive on a mass scale. We see Zaathras's reaction to the idea of having to argue about every image. But the thing is, those images were removed without individual discussion. Without consensus at all, just the opinion of an editor. So, no, I don't want to go around Wikipedia having arguments with Zaathras about their quality. That timesink is very much why I stand by my earlier comments that such mass deletion is destructive. Masem, no they can't be restored with the click of a button. There's an obstruction in the way, in the form of an editor who has so strongly and insultingly expressed their opinion on the Internet, that they have dug themselves into a hole wrt backing out, and who has demonstrated they are willing to revert to keep the images out. This asymmetry, where mass deletion without consensus is easy but individual restoration with per-article talk is hard, is why you are wrong, Masem. The first step is for Zaathras to restore the images they removed, and then if they wish, for Zaathras to work gain consensus at each article talk page for their removal. They don't have that consensus currently. -- Colin° Talk 09:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt" comment) and they responded
Turktimex3 would be blocked, and we would continue to rid biographies of illustrations, if there are any left.Perhaps Zaathras wants to strike that, as it is as clear a "Please take me to AN/I to get me topic banned" a statement as one could make. Secondly, that here they
"FYI, used User:GerardM/100_Women_-_BBC"to identify material they went on to remove. That's specifically targetting a community project in order to remove some of its output. Again, I don't know if Zaathras wants their account abbreviated, but actually telling people that you targeted a community project to destroy some of its output isn't helping. -- Colin° Talk 10:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
...artists who contributed in good faith. "Good faith" is irrelevant when discussing whether to exclude or include content in this project. The most well-intentioned human on the planet could have a great deal of prose to contribute to the English Wikipedia, yet if their mastery of English is poor, it will be reverted without a second thought. We see WP:CIR invoked at WP:ANI all the time. This is tbh no different, substandard artwork has been contributed to the project, which can and should be rejected. Lest some here need a reminder, Turktimex3 was on the verge of a block if they persisted in restoring bad images to BLPs. Their response was a (yet-unfulfilled) threat of off-Wiki brigading. Colin need to refocus on who the disruptive actor in all this is, cuz it ain't me. Zaathras ( talk) 20:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
As of today, the section of that list asserts without qualification that the Russian-controlled or occupied territories of Georgia and Ukraine are within the administrative domain of the Russian authorities. The authoritative source for the list, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) document LIST OF RECOMMENDATION ITU-T E.164 ASSIGNED COUNTRY CODES, does not recognise Russia's claims or its puppet "states". The article (as it stands) cites gov.ru and tass.ru as the basis for the assertion: TASS is explicitly deprecated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and gov.ru is Putin.
The disputed section reads:
- 7 – Russia ( formerly assigned to the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991)
- 7 840 / 940 – Abkhazia (interchangeably with 995 44)
- 7 850 / 929 – South Ossetia (interchangeably with 995 34)
- 7 856 / 949 – Donetsk (interchangeably with 380 71) [1] [2] [3]
- 7 959 – Lugansk (interchangeably with 380 72) [1] [2] [3]
- 7 6xx / 7xx – Kazakhstan (until 2025.)
Nevertheless, Russia does have de facto control and insofar as landlines exist, international access to them is via Zone 7. I tried to recognise this reality by replacing them with an NPOV statement: Telephony services in Russian-occupied territories of Georgia and Ukraine are operated by Russian entities and use the 7 prefix.
This has been reverted and the original claims have been reinstated.
Given that the statements made are only supported by unacceptable sources and are not recognised by the authoritative source, I identify the material as a WP:NOR violation and move that it be deleted. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability applies to the whole article: every entry that is not in the ITU list and not cited by an RS must be deleted because it is original research. That is the fundamental point. I am still waiting for anyone to refute it. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
First off, I recognise that I didn't help matters by framing the discussion around one specific case when the list has many more examples. But I think we have reached agreement?
Agreed? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The codes are defined by the ITU-T in standards E.123 and E.164., I suggest cutting it back to meet that statement unless actual references can be found to support anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The codes are defined by the ITU-T in standards E.123 and E.164, so if anything is in the list that is not defined by those standards it should be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 16:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
References
I started a discussion at Talk:List of Brazilian Nobel laureates and nominees#Laureates and non-laureates concerning what I believe to be WP:OR (as well as off-topic) at that article and three similar lists for other nationalities, but since several articles are involved, I'm wondering whether I should have started the discussion here instead. At any rate, I figure this is an appropriate place to post a notice of the discussion. Summary: When a Nobel Prize is awarded to an international organization, is it OR to treat national branches or employees of these organizations as laureates in their own right? In other words, if the International Red Cross receives an award, are Brazilian employees of that organization themselves "laureates" to be listed in a "list of Brazilian laureates"? Largoplazo ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Do the following 4 paragraphs from the article Ayrton Senna require citations to comply with the policy WP:Verifiability?
However, the biggest incident of the year happened at the Italian Grand Prix at Monza. With two laps remaining, Senna held a five-second lead over the Ferraris of Gerhard Berger and Michele Alboreto, who were closing in on the McLaren (Prost had earlier retired with a badly misfiring engine). Going into the Rettifilo Chicane, Senna closed on the Williams of Jean-Louis Schlesser (standing in for the unwell Nigel Mansell). Schlesser steered wide, attempting to give Senna room to lap him, losing then regaining control to avoid going into the sand trap, and the two collided; Senna's car was beached on top of a curb and had stalled. Ferrari went on to finish 1–2, the first in an Italian Grand Prix since the death of the team's founder Enzo Ferrari. This proved to be the only race McLaren did not win in 1988.
During the season, Senna rewrote the record books. His eight wins beat the old record of seven jointly held by Jim Clark ( 1963) and Prost (1984). His 13 pole positions also beat the record of nine held by Nelson Piquet (1984).
...
As Senna rounded the high-speed Tamburello corner on lap 7, his car left the racing line at around 307 km/h (191 mph), ran in a straight line off the track, and hit the concrete retaining wall at around 233 km/h (145 mph), after what telemetry showed to be an application of the brakes for around two seconds. The red flag was shown as a consequence of the accident. Within two minutes of crashing, Senna was extracted from his race car by Watkins and his medical team, including intensive care anaesthetist Giovanni Gordini. The initial treatment took place by the side of the car, with Senna having a weak heartbeat and significant blood loss from his temporal artery being ruptured. At this point, Senna had already lost around 4.5 litres of blood, constituting 90% of his blood volume. Because of Senna's grave neurological condition, Watkins performed an on-site tracheotomy and requested the immediate airlifting of Senna to Bologna's Maggiore Hospital under the supervision of Gordini.
...
He took part in the Masters Karting Paris Bercy event in 1993, an indoor karting competition held on a temporary circuit at the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy. This event is notable for being the stage for the last on-track duel between Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna.
This issue is being discussed at Talk:Ayrton_Senna#Unreferenced_paragraphs. Phlsph7 ( talk) 21:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
A WP:DRN in regards to this failed, so now I'm here. This is for the Picts article.
Short summary: The proposed content are the statements by Caesar and Pliny about Celtic Britons painting themselves, as a possible explanation of the etymology of the word "Picts".
The woad article currently states that the northern inhabitants of Britain came to be known as "Picts" by the Romans because they painted their bodies or possibly tattooed themselves. [1] The Picts article mentions that the etymology of "Picts" is that it means "painted" in Latin, but then says nothing about how the Picts possibly painted themselves. So, I want to include edits saying that Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder reported that the Celtic Britons would paint themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad", but originally may have meant "glass" and "green", respectively. [2] [3] Even Britannica's short entry on the Picts states: "Their name may refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing." [4] There seems to be confusion as to whether the Picts are Britons and if the comments by Caesar and Pliny can apply to them. From what I can tell, The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain, [5] which matches what the woad article currently says. Furthermore, I added an additional source by the Roman poet Claudian where he says the Picts were tattooed [6] and that was reverted as well, even though there was already consensus elsewhere in the article that the Picts tattooed themselves. WP:OR occurs if the editor didn't provide reliable sources that clearly state what the editor themselves are stating. Word for word, here are what my reliable and academic sources state: "Caesar describes the use of body paint by ancient Britons: "All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad.""; "There is a plant in Gaul, similar to the plantago in appearance, and known there by the name of glastum: with it both married women and girls among the people of Britain are in vile habit of staining the body all over, when taking part in the performance of certain sacred rites"; "the legion that kept the fierce Scots in check, whose men had scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts.". I see no reason why Wikipedia's woad article and Britannica's Picts article can state painting as the most likely etymology for the word Picts and cite Caesar, but not Wikipedia's Picts article itself.
Here is an additional source that makes the synthesis for me: [7] "Prior to the sixth century, the Pictish system seems not to have existed. However the very name "Picts" (from the Latin Picti) almost certainly means the "painted people." The original name for the inhabitants of Britain as a whole, the Prettani, may originally have meant the "people of the designs/symbols." Looking at both names in conjunction, it may well be that the pre-Roman Britons and the post-Roman Picts were both particularly associated with symbolic motifs long before the Picts developed their script. It is conceivable that the sculpted characters derived from earlier motifs used for body painting."
Also, one editor at the DRN case listed this source as a reliable secondary source: Fraser, James E. (2009), "From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 1, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0-7486-1232-1
This source cites Caesar on Page 27. Others argue the Celtics Caesar encountered were only in England, too far from Pictland, for his comments to matter, but I disagree. I feel even if one disagrees the Picts can be included in any sort of Celtic cultural shared identity across the British Isles, mentioning Caesar is still acceptable as background information on the etymology of the word "Picts". Furthermore, I see no reason why Pliny's statement wouldn't equally apply to the Picts as well as any other Celtic British tribe. LightProof1995 ( talk) 13:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once § Mention "most-awarded movie ever"?. There is discussion as to whether original research contradicting a source is sufficient to justify the omission of the source. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 15:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This edit erased the following sentence from a BLP: “Via spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump denied that his racist attack on Chao was racist.” So my question is whether or not the erased sentence fails verification, as alleged by User:SPECIFICO. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Background:
Politico: “Steven Cheung, Trump’s spokesperson who is Asian American, said in a statement that the former president’s criticism of Chao was centered on her family’s potential financial conflicts and not race. Chao has been scrutinized over her family’s shipping business….But few outside Trump’s inner circle dispute that the ex-president’s posts about Chao are racist.”
Newsweek: "Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Newsweek in a statement that 'people should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads' when asked for comment on Chao's response. 'What's actually concerning is her family's deeply troubling ties to Communist China, which has undermined American economic and national security,' Cheung added."
Washington Post: "Trump spokesman Steven Cheung, who did not immediately respond to The Washington Post’s request for comment, told Politico: 'People should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads.'"
The Blaze: "Politico reported that Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said via a statement that Trump's criticism focuses on Chao's family's possible financial conflicts, but not on the issue of race. 'People should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads,' Cheung said, according to the outlet. 'What’s actually concerning is her family's deeply troubling ties to Communist China, which has undermined American economic and national security.'"
Salon: "Trump spokesman Steven Cheung, who is Asian American, told Politico in a statement that Trump's criticism of Chao is focused on her family's shipping business and its ties to China, not her race. 'People should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads,' Cheung told the outlet. 'What's actually concerning is her family's deeply troubling ties to Communist China, which has undermined American economic and national security.'"
Raw Story: "Trump spokesperson, Steven Cheung, who is an Asian American, claimed that the insults "China-loving wife" had nothing to do with her race but her family's long-time shipping business that Chao's father began when he came to the United States."
MSN: "Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Politico that the former president’s criticism of Chao was related to her family’s potential financial conflicts, not race." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
"Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said Trump was more focused on Chao's conflicts of interest than on her race."Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I'm currently working on a script to add "Citation needed" tags to unreferenced paragraphs, see User:Phlsph7/AddCitationNeededTagsToUnreferencedParagraphs. I wanted to get some feedback on how to deal with articles that contain many unreferenced paragraphs. For articles or sections that contain no references, it is probably best to use the tags "Unreferenced" or "Unreferenced section" and add no inline "Citation needed" tags. But the question is how to deal with articles that have serious sourcing issues where these tags don't apply. Let's say, an article has over 10 unreferenced paragraphs spread across different sections. For such articles, should every unreferenced paragraph get its own "Citation needed" tag? Or is it better to just add the tag "More citations needed" to the top and let the other editors figure out for themselves where the problems lie? Or should both be added: the "More citations needed" tag at the top and the inline "Citation needed" tags? Phlsph7 ( talk) 17:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
See the discussion at the village pump. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to get some clarity on the use of Ancestry.com to establish dates of birth. Thanks to the Wikipedia Library, we now have access to extensive birth and death databases, including the Social Security Death Index and various state birth registries. This can allow us to verify the birth dates of article subjects, both living and dead. Question is, what are the parameters for use? I am thinking of two specific examples. One is a notable actress, a living person, whose birth date is unavailable in third party sources. However, New York City birth records and other records make her birth date quite clear. Another situation I've encountered involves a person who died within the past year. The articles currently contain no reference to birth date.
I notice that Ancestry is used routinely to confirm or correct birth dates of long-dead people, but living persons and recently dead people are a matter I haven't seen addressed. Would appreciate some input on this. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, please check my contributions National Council of Resistance of Iran and its talk page.
Although relatively new to this subject matter, I have contributed to these in good-faith and what I believe to be a competent manner, and I believe that the WP:Verified facts that I've contributed, are allowed by our content policy. Please confirm that they are not "synthetic " statements of WP:Original research, which I understand are forbidden and agree to not make. Or else instruct - Have I inadvertently done "Synth"? Or are there other problems with my contributions of which I should be aware? Thanks for your help.
Also please review my contributions to and proposed move of The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement, currently in AfD.
Another editor @ParadaJulio has alleged that I've made "Synthetic claims", relying on an overly broad mis-application (IMHO), of an earlier AfD on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement. I understand and accept the decision and rationale of the closing admin in that case, @ Vanamonde93, but I think it does not apply in the context of these other articles in the way the adverse editor thinks that it does. I thought we had agreed to 'ana-lyze' - which is the opposite of synthesize - and then merge the now-deleted article's content, and the other editor appears to believe that none of it is now acceptable anywhere.
If you could educate myself and us both on the Content policy and how it applies in this case, it may help to avoid misunderstanding and get back to the WP:Encyclopedia.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
NickWadley26 has repeatedly added his own analysis to the DT Eightron article, claiming that the indentured servitude experience by the characters of DT Eightron reflects the hard working conditions of Japanese animators. While Nick has produced a reliable source describing the hardships of these animators, [1] they have not produced a source that ties the shows themes to those working conditions. That conclusion is Nick's alone. I have thrice reverted this editing, and while the reverting of vandalism can often override WP:3RR, I decided to avoid that problem, and bring the issue here. I have had some bit of discussion at User talk:NickWadley26 (see this revision for the latest version of the dialog), but Nick insists that this is a class project and he needs the material to remain in order to get a grade. I'd like an admin to block Nick from editing this page, at least temporarily, until the issue of original research can be fully understood by this new editor. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
References
Bluger has self-published a book through Xlibris (The De-Judaization of the Image of Jesus of Nazareth... (Xlibris, 2021; ISBN 9781664149410)) which he is now citing here as a source for changes to the Faulhaber article. Since Xlibris is a self-publishing house, and there is no evidence that Bluger is a recognized expert in this field, or that any editorial review process was exercised over this book, this constitutes original research. I have tried to interact with Bluger on his user talk page (see this permalink) to no avail. I seek a temporary block on this user on this page until the matter can be properly understood. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
In the article 2001, it goes over several different aspects of the year, and they're each supported by a source about that event. For example, it mentions the Insurgency in the Preševo Valley, and it's supported by a news article specifically about that insurgency. Compare this with 2002, which currently uses overview sources. For example, it mentions the Angolan Civil War, and it's cited to a source about major conflicts in 2002.
Does the 2001 example constitute original research because the source doesn't establish it as a significant event in the context of the year, or do editors have discretion about what should be included in an article? This issue is being discussed at Talk:2002#Expansion with overview sources. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was written as an essay [3] from the start, and has remained so until now. The topic is notable, but the original approach plus random coatrack additions have turned it into an OR trainwreck (a "coat-wreck"?). Austronesier ( talk) 18:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! For anyone willing to provide input, there's an RFC related to original research
here, and any input would be greatly appreciated. The question is: "Should this article, concerning firearm-related violence with multiple persons injured, be included in mass-shooting categories, even though no sources directly refer to it as a 'mass shooting'?"
The key debate concerns whether the current use of the "mass shooting" descriptor is
improper synthesis—specifically, whether "mass shooting" a special term that requires labelling by a reliable source. Thanks in advance!--
Jerome Frank Disciple (
talk) 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
An editor (presumably TCG) argued that "Rbl" is the sign of the Soviet ruble, citing a document at an earthquake-related conference and a book on communist countries as source. However, both times around, there is a canned search for "Rbls rouble" without quotes. Therefore, I think it might be TCG cherry-picking sources that support them. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material.) -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I know this is well-trodden ground, but after repeated attempts to educate Flowerkiller1692 about WP:SYNTHesis in film/TV article lead sections, I don't quite seem to get through to them.
The editor is attempting to support the following summary statement of the critical reception in the lead with two cherrypicked reviews: Upon release the show received negative views for its poor writing and animation, and its completely different tone to the rest of the franchise.
MOS:FILMLEAD, which is an analogous guideline, clarifies that any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources.
Therefore, the sentence needs to be either removed, or a source needs to be added that explicitly supports this sort of summary statement.
Throast {{ping}} me! (
talk |
contribs) 17:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed a pattern of edits that appear to be synthesis, where the editor states in many articles something like, "This election, as of 2023, was the last time that (name of political party) elected a candidate..." (no citation given). Someone might review Special:Contributions/Rivirian King of the Rails to see if there is a problem, here. The tally seems to grow, weekly. HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I have left the following at the editor's Talk page:
I have noticed in the 'Reasons' section of tetotalism reads:
Some common reasons for choosing teetotalism are psychological, religious, health, [1] medical, philosophical, social, political, past alcoholism, or sometimes it is simply a matter of taste or preference. original research?...
References
Is that a good place to use the tag? On one hand, it is indeed unsourced and it would not be a hard task to find citations for reasons that people choose not to drink. On the other hand, the reasons have been explicitly stated throughout the article and saying some people do not like the taste does sounds like an obvious claim that would not warrant a citation. I am genuinely curious if this is in dire need of a citation or not. Please call me Blue ( talk) 13:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Additional perspectives would be helpful at Talk:Margery_Jackson#Please_do_not_remove_content_from_article_without_discussion. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Does the level of detail in this article section comply with NOT/PROPORTION? Does it matter if its only sources are a real-time map interface and/or the raw results from a NWS tornado damage survey? Discussion has stagnated; more input is needed. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence in the lead of this article states "Samrup Rachna is a form of calligraphic art." However, this source [5] states that "Samrup Rachna is a contemporary collection of calligraphic works" and that "by connecting ‘Hindi-Urdu’ with a hyphen and by calling it apni boli, the calligrapher provides a specimen illustrating the popular awareness of a common linguistic identity." According to this article [6] the artist also seems to be calling this specific style of calligraphy apni boli and his book featuring his 60 works of calligraphy is called Samrup Rachna: Apni Boli. So is the lead sentence OR since the sources seem to be saying Samrup Rachna is a collection of his art work and not a form of calligraphic art? Eucalyptusmint ( talk) 14:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a bit of an odd situation. In this case, EEng and 76.178.169.118 are essentially using original research and synthesis to question the veracity of the Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant and derail a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant. The goal seems to be to get the article either deleted or modified in some way; although no official AFD has been brought. My concern is, that none of the published coverage supports the assertions being made. With my academic hat on, I can agree with many of the points being raised, which are essentially poking holes in the published literature through a variety of 'lack of evidence' points which are not found in published RS, and original synthesis/analysis of primary sources and historic newspapers which are again found nowhere in published RS. All of this would make a great journal article, but essentially I am not seeing how any of it impacts how we treat the topic here at wikipedia. We can not use original research to impeach secondary sources generally considered reliable, and we can't criticize publications generally considered reliable without having some published RS doing that for us. WP:No original research and WP:WEIGHT would seem to apply here. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
We can not use original research to impeach secondary sources generally considered reliable– We can, and we do, all the time.
we can't criticize publications generally considered reliable without having some published RS doing that for us– We can, and we do, all the time.
Eeng has arrived at his conclusions by digging for evidence on his own– False. I arrived at my conclusion -- that none of the sources is reliable for the claim that a US president was arrested 150 years ago but history failed to notice until now -- just by reading the sources and applying common sense and good judgment. And several other editors have come to the same conclusion by the same route. This is an extraordinary claim for which some source should be able to offer actual evidence (and indeed it would be fascinating if it existed) but not a single source has.To be belt-and-suspenders I also scoured the largest academic library in the world for every source (about Grant, the presidency, or the history of Washington and its police force) that could conceivably touch on this, and found nothing. But that was just the suspenders. The belt was that, as I say, that it's obvious from the sources themselves that they are completely inadequate for a claim like this.
he may not have access to primary sources viewed by the journalists or scholars interviewed for these various media sources– Laughable. High-quality sources cite their evidence. The Washington police chief, asked on the radio to "describe a few funny stories in the history of the Metropolitan Police Department" [8], reeled off this one [9] and then went on to crow that
We actually have the firsthand written record of the Lincoln assassination in our logbook. Had she a written record of Grant's arrest, or any other actual evidence, one would expect her to mention it. She didn't because she doesn't.
article cites two different interviews with Grant scholar John F. Marszalek, the Executive Director and Managing Editor of the Ulysses S. Grant Association– We don't have two different interviews. We have two tiny snippets of longer interviews, which we're not able to hear in full. In one, he starts out by telling us
The story goes ...[10] -- I don't need to tell you what it means when an historian uses that phrase. In the second, the announcer introduces Marszalek with
He tells the story of an incident ...I have too much respect for the party who offered it to embarrass them by giving a diff, but the claim has been put forward that this change of wording telegraphs that somewhere between the first interview and the second, Marszalek must have discovered actual proof -- which nonetheless he doesn't share with us. Ridiculous.
in no way are we limited to topics on wikipedia that lack coverage in journals or from academic presses– We are for a claim like this. As I said elsewhere, we wouldn't report an alleged battle of the Civil War, unmentioned in any history book or journal, just on the say-so of some modern newspapers which don't say what they're basing their statement on, nor should we report the arrest of a US president 150 years ago under the same circumstance. No source is 100% always reliable for everything, nor 100% never reliable for anything -- but rather every source needs to be evaluated in each case, in light of the assertion being made. Puffy, fun sidelight stories adding comic relief to current events, and which universally fail to cite a shred of evidence beyond an old man's story 30 years after the fact, don't cut it.
they do go through a fact checking process with independent editorial oversight– This may come as a shock to you, but even the Washington Post doesn't apply a uniformly high level of fact checking and editorial oversight for all the material it publishes. The Rosenwald piece, for example, isn't even from the newspaper itself, but from
Retropolis, a blog about the past, rediscovered, at washingtonpost.com/retropolis. A blog. A blog is a source for President Grant being arrested?
Hi,
I have a request for the assessment of the following article: Substrate in Romanian. The article deals with a somewhat obscure part of Romanian language. I edited most of it (up to last two sections) based on the book Introducere în istoria limbii române(Introduction to the History of Romanian Language) by Romanian academician Grigore Brâncuș. Unfortunately, the book is only in Romanian. I believe that due to the lack of translated material user Borsoka considers it contains OR and has reverted a few of my link to the page. Anyone with time and interest to have a look and give another opinion? Thank you in advance!-- Aristeus01 ( talk) 18:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Yngvadottir stated that sable was "often described poetically" as diamond, Saturn, and nightshade. However, after reviewing the source it says this was only sometimes, not often, referred to as diamond and Saturn. Nightshade is not even mentioned alongside them. This particular system was sourced to by Ephraim Chambers, but Yngvadottir is clearly mixing other systems proposed by heraldists like Honoré Bonet, Jean Courtois, Conrad von Würzburg, Henry Spelman. I think for accuracy purposes these methods need to be separated and sourced to their author rather than misrepresented as a single system used across the entirety of Europe during the Renaissance period. So I reverted the edit and explained that the source material does not support the claims. Yngvadottir then reverted my revert stating it was a "poorly justified revert". I have to disagree; inaccuracies and inconsistencies are a perfectly good reason to revert an edit. I came up with the following plan to fix these issues and want the community's feedback.
First, I propose that Yngvadottir go back to their edits and review their sources, then rewrite their additions to the articles so they more closely follow the information in the cited material. Do not use opinions. Do not exaggerate the information. Just state the facts as they are.
Second, I propose that Yngvadottir clearly separate each system from one another so that there is no confusion between them and so they are not misrepresented a single unified method.
Third, I propose that Yngvadottir cite the originator of each methodology in the body of the article alongside their proposed system. This will help to separate the systems and avoid confusion.
Fourth, I propose that Yngvadottir expand and include other systems. There were several competing systems across Europe, non of which were particularly popular and none of which survived past the Victorian age. By presenting just one or two systems, Yngvadottir is editorializing. They are picking a favourite. And readers will walk way believing that those systems that Yngvadottir gave preferential treatment to were more historically significant than they actually were.
Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome. Giltsbeach ( talk) 06:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
My initial edit to the article removed roughly 100k bytes worth of original research from the article, along with maintenance tags that had been in place for 10 years. I chose to keep short descriptions of characters that have stand-alone articles and added ref ideas to the talk page for editors to re-work and expand the article. The edit was then reverted unaltered by Yuotort, who called the removal "vandalism". I left a message on their talk page and have not heard back so far. The edit was reverted again by FishandChipper, who gave no explanation whatsoever as to the restoration. Am I missing something here? I feel as though I'm perfectly justified in removing the material. These two editors are also fairly new, so they might not have the fullest grasp of policy. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 10:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Libel, nonsense, and vandalism. Even then, a lot of the removed content falls under WP:NOTOR. The article definitely needed cleanup, but mass removals are always going to be controversial. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
consideralternatives to removal. No improvements have been made whatsoever, so starting fresh seems to be the best option at this point. WP:CANTFIX applies:
Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. [...] Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia [...]. The article was filled almost exclusively with plot summaries. Regardless of whether or not content removal is controversial, if editors raise legitimate reasons for removal, no editor is justified to simply restore the material without previously discussing it per WP:ONUS. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
First things first, I have to say that I haven't watched the series yet, but I'm concerned about what's in there: a dozen elements that have only a little to do with the subject matter. But I haven't figured out how to clean it up next (since I can't actually find many sources), so I'll put the issue here first. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The article contains the original research of its main author.
It combine in an original way a set of criminal and civil cases related to the personality of Oleg Burlakov, which were conducted in different years between him and third parties, as well as between third parties without his participation.
The article does not cite and there are no reliable sources at all that would define the totality of these cases as the “Burlakov Case”. Acting in the same logic, all cases connected with the personality of any John Doe for the entire period of his life and proceedings after his death should be defined as the "John Doe Case", which is absurd. I suggest deleting the article. Джонни Уокер ( talk) 16:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. There’s this part of the lede of this revision of Satanic Verses that I believe misrepresents what the source says.
It’s written in its lede that:
However others disagree, Alford T. Welch, in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, argues that the "implausibility" argument alone is insufficient to guarantee the tradition's authenticity. He says that the story in its present form is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication despite the fact that there could be some historical basis for the story.
However, in the source,
Welch doesn’t say anything like the story in its present form is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication
Instead he says:
"It is possible that this story is another example of historical telescoping, i.e. that a situation that was known by Muhammad's contemporaries to have lasted for a long period of time later came to be encapsulated in a story that restricts his acceptance of intercession through these goddesses to a brief period of time and places the responsibility for this departure from a strict monotheism on Satan. This interpretation is completely consistent with what is said above regarding Muhammad's gradual "emergence as a religious reformer"
So I changed the part in question of the revision to:
Alford T. Welch, however, argues that this rationale alone is insufficient but does not rule out the possibility of some historical foundation to the story. He proposes that the story may be yet another instance of historical telescoping, i.e., a circumstance that Muhammad's contemporaries knew to have lasted for a long period of time later became condensed into a story that limits his acceptance of the Meccan goddesses’ intercession to a brief period of time and assigns blame for this departure from strict monotheism to Satan.
But the other user, @NEDOCHAN doesn’t like it and keep reverting it. I had invited him to discuss the matter, but he refused and instead attacked me with accusations of sockpuppetry. So what do you all think? Also in case I get mistakenly blocked, I would like someone to address the issue in the article. Kaalakaa ( talk) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Im thinking of putting Views on military action against Iran up for AfD, but i cant find any rule that would specifically apply to this type of article. Is it synth or OR to cobble together views on a specific subject at a specific time and say that those views represent a coherent topic? Even if you can, is it an appropriate subject for a stand alone article? This is the sort of material that would be appropriate for a more general article, say Foreign relations of Iran. Seems like if we allow this, we are opening a can of worms for any subject for which views have been published. Any advice? AfD? Rework? Ignore? Bonewah ( talk) 14:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
This http://www.wildernesstherapy.org/Wilderness/ForceRestraint.htm was used as a reference and I think it might break guidelines on no original research.
The website is sponsored by Mentor Research Institute and the page was written by one of its board members
http://www.wildernesstherapy.org/
https://www.mentorresearch.org/about -- 1keyhole ( talk) 11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Do sources support Steve Jobs being described as a "business magnate" and "investor" in the lead's first sentence? Apparently, the justification for the "investor" label was that Jobs made one investment in Pixar, though I found no source treating "investor" as an important label for him. No inline source supports "magnate", and I didn't find that term (nor "mogul", a synonym) in the two major Jobs biographies (Isaacson 2011, Schlender Tetzeli 2015), nor in reliable sources through a Google search.
Raised in Talk:Steve Jobs#Reverts to lead last week, which received no response. I tried to remove them as WP:OR and have been reverted twice. DFlhb ( talk) 22:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
a wealthy and influential person, especially in businessaccording to Google) to describe a person who, quite clearly, was a wealthy and influential businessman. Walt Yoder ( talk) 02:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
wealthy and influential. Of course we must use the same labels as sources, not choose our own.
business magnatewas added to all sorts of BLPs and BDPs in the last few years, and then added, again with zero source, to a completely unencyclopedic image gallery at Business magnate. DFlhb ( talk) 05:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
is finding a wp:reliable source that states a general truth enough to be narrowed down and used in articles or is it wp:synth?
example:
To me, this is like arguing someone wasn't arrested for being homosexual, but for violating sodomy laws.
The fact that the laws do not explicitly call for the criminalisation of the group in question is purposeful political obscurantism.
p.s. this is the "weak" version of general statements as synth. there is also a "strong" version.
Hello,
I hate to have to reach out but I added a controversy section to this article including citations from the Human Genome Project, American Society of Human Genetics, the World Health Organization etc which someone keeps reverting. Maybe my wording in the section is not the best but the section is well cited from trusted agencies in genetics and they factually discredit the article on a whole.
The rest of the article outside this section I added after seeing several other attempts by others in the talk to do the same is based on Original Research. I requested more than once that the reverter quote me the verification methodology used in the studies they are defending and they have never been able to. They cannot because it isn't in their citations. Each one was based on self-reported unverified data sets collected by a subjective source. Which is why the HGP and others discredited as antisemitism or more broadly bigotry while the Holocaust Musuems of Canada, the USA, and the State of Israel all literally defined it as Nazism. All of this was cited and I'm trying in good faith here. I created a talk section to hash it out which they ignored the first few reverts. I offered to let them re-write it with the same sources. I offered for them to add supporting documents to the controversy section since they felt it wasn't balanced.
Moreover Dr. Raphael Falk is misrepresented in the article. His paper "Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent" got cited several times as supporting documentation for stuff not at all discussed in the paper or stuff the paper was discrediting not supporting. It was a gross misuse of Dr. Raphael Falk's work and most of this article is based on misappropriating this as well as other papers to create the desired article instead of accurately reporting what is in the citations.
Hey I am trying here. I don't like this article. To me it is very much neo-nazi propaganda, and that is cited, but I am trying to in good faith do the right thing so all I wanted to do was add a section which deals with the controversial nature of this topic. If someone else needs to step in and write that section for me then by all means but as it stands currently outside the controversy section that keeps getting reverted so that it is no longer there is the only section which accurately represents the citations used.
"But how did they sample them? What were the criteria for Jewishness of the sampled individuals?", is a quote from Dr. Falk's paper and is the same exact question I have been asking in the Talk. What was the verification methodology used in the studies supporting the claims of the article which authenticated test subjects as Jewish? There is none and no one is even trying to answer that.
Thanks and sorry it came to this. I am really trying here. I even used my actual IP to make these edits by not logging in so the Mods would know I am trying to be legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4600:358a:72ef:92a0:ca76:7ccb ( talk) 09:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a reliable source that states either:
where A is a property, B is a category and C are the qualifications for the category.
e.g. in all cases, people who are killed, die.
now, there is an article where a general statement applies. there is a reliable source that offer verifiability for the claim. is it original research or synth to narrow the general statement to the subject at hand?
hypothetical example:
p.s. this is the "strong" version of general statements as wp:synth. there is also a weak version.
In this case [ [14]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.Now, as a form of logic, it is basically unimpeachable. For Wikipedia purposes, I would personally not call it synth for one particular reason: in all cases I can imagine, the final proposition would be stated in the article about the general class of things discussed. Thus, if I take the conclusion that all men are mortal from a hypothetical source, and the fact that Socrates is a man from another, my conclusion (Socrates is mortal) is explicitly stated in the first source, just not explicitly applied to Socrates. So, not synth, but as above, for me, I also have a hard time imagining a situation in which the conclusion not explicitly connected with the subject is WP:DUE for inclusion. If it were a relevant factor, one would imagine it would make it into sources about the subject at hand. That said, anything is possible and I certainly can't imagine all possibilities.
I am in a dispute with someone who purports to be the father of professional footballer Ryan Trevitt, who persistently makes unsourced original edits (ie. original research) to the player's page. I have reverted them, but rather than get into an edit war, I thought I would bring it here. I've talked with him about on his talk page, but he is ignoring. He thinks that because he's the player's father, that he constitutes a reliable source. Beatpoet ( talk) 19:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I've made a talk page section there, so I figure I may as well say the same thing here: this map seems very bad to me.
The map shown to the right here was in the lead of this article until today. I was looking at it and scratching my head, when I looked at the actual source on Commons, which was... nothing. It was copied from a different map (in PNG form), whose description page just said it was copied from an en-wikipedia map which no longer exists(?).
I removed it yesterday, and someone tracked down a citation and put it back in (for the record, it is Chen, Bin; Wu, Shengbiao; Song, Yimeng; Webster, Chris; Xu, Bing; Gong, Peng (8 August 2022).
"Contrasting inequality in human exposure to greenspace between cities of Global North and Global South".
Nature Communications. 13.
doi:
10.1038/s41467-022-32258-4.). Looking through the
actual paper, though, there are a couple issues. First of all, it is not identical to our map: it puts French Guiana, Bosnia, South Korea, Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan in the South, whereas ours puts them in the North. But even apart from that, the paper does not give any citation for where it got the map or the classification of countries. They just say this: Global North cities (e.g., US, European, and Australian cities) have higher greenspace exposure (mean: 45.84%) than Global South cities (mean: 14.39%) (e.g., China, India, and the Middle East)
. That is, they are not making any claims about Israel or the UAE or Bosnia or Singapore or whatever. But possibly the most concerning issue is that, alongside the lack of a citation for the boundaries they draw, the shading is completely identical to that of our own map: it seems quite likely that they got the image from Commons (and modified it to fit the claims in their paper, which would make it a
circular reference, and completely unacceptable.
Overall, I question whether it is appropriate to have a map in the article that precisely assigns "North" or "South" status to specific nations unless there is a solid citation to a reliable source that specifically explains reasoning for each country's status (diplomatic influence, economic criteria, military power, trade agreements, HDI, whatever). If we can't have this, I think we should definitely not use a map that claims to objectively make pronouncements on individual nations' status (and implicitly claims to be official). jp× g 22:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Under "Etymology" Wikipedia is presenting an incomplete data abaut the name of Romania.
"Romania" derives from the local name for Romanian (Romanian: român), which in turn derives from Latin romanus, meaning "Roman" or "of Rome".[20] This ethnonym for Romanians is first attested in the 16th century by Italian humanists travelling in Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia.[21][22][23]"
The name of the Vlachs/Wallacians is attested by many Popes of Rome, Byzantine Emperor (Constantin) and other officials and many other scholars...before the XVI century.
CONSTANTINE FLAVIUS PORPHYROGENITUS (BYZANTINE EMPEROR 913-959)
From "De administrando imperio".Constantine's surname, PORPHYROGENITUS(that is, born in the Purple Chamber of the Imperial Palace in CONSTANTINOPLE).
"The emperor Diocletian was much enamored of the country of Dalmatia,and he brought folk with their families from ROME and settled them in this same country of Dalmatia,and they were called ROMANI (VLACHS) from their having been removed from ROME, and this title attaches to them until this day..."
"The territory possessed by the ROMANI used to extend as far as the river Danube"
(Constantine shows that the ROMANS(Latins, NOT Greek Romans or Byzantines) or Vlachs are the original Romans. "The country of the ZXHLUMI was previously possessed by the ROMANS, I mean, by those ROMANI whom Diocletian the emperor translated from ROME" (Constantine is talking about the Imperial Romans,who are going to be known under the name of VLACHS).
"The country of Diocleia was also previously possessed by the ROMANI(Vlachs) whom the emperor Diocletian translated from ROME"
"The country in which the Pagani now dwell was also previously possessed by the ROMANI(Vlachs) whom the emperor Diocletian translated from ROME and settled in Dalmatia".
"At that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the ROMANI(Vlachs) whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from ROME and settled there,and who therefore called ROMANI from their having been translated from ROME to those countries"
SUMMARY: In his description of the Greek Roman Empire,we can definitely identify two people,the Imperial Romans(VLACHS-those Romans who initiated the empire),called by Constntine,ROMANI, and the Greek Romans(BYZANTINES-those Romans who adopted GREEK as the language of the State and Church).
POPE CLEMENT VI (1342-1352).
"Olachi Romani,commorantes in partibus Ungariae,Transilvanis,Ultralpinis et Sirmus"
(In Hungary,Transilvania,Muntenia and Sirmia live the Roman-Vlachs) or "Tam nobilibus quam popularibus Olachis Romanis"
SUMMARY: Romanians = Romans (Vlachs).
POPE PIUS II (1458-1464) (Commentarium rerum memorabilium)
"VALACHI lingua utuntur Italica, verum imperfecta, et admodum corrupta; sunt qui legiones Romanas eo missas olim censeant adversus Dacos, qui eas terras incolebant; legionibus Flaccum quendam praefuisse, a que Flacci primum,deinde Valachi, mutatis litteris, sint appellati;quorum posteri (ut ante relatum est) "
SUMMARY: (The Vlachs are a people of Roman origin,born from an antic Roman Imperial colony,speaking a language close to Latin or Italian)
POPE Innocent III (in a latter from 1203). "Therefore, we, who have been appointed by the will of GOD and Father, unworthy as we are, as vicars and successors of the Apostolic See, to prove by the force of facts our fatherly love for the Church of the Bulgarians and ROMANIANS (VLACHS),who are said to be THE DESCENDENTS OF THE ROMANS,by their flesh and blood"
POPE Innocent III (in a letter addressed to IONITA, lord of the Bulgarians and Romanians,from 1203)
"Thus, taking this into account, we have decided since long, through our envoy or our letters, that we should pay a visit to your lordship, so that,realizing your faith to the Roman Church,Your Mother, we might then send to you,WHO SAY THAT YOU ARE A DESCENDENT OF THE NOBLE KIN OF THE ROMANS...As, he (God the Father) will help you to be a ROMAN in this wordily life and for your Eternal Salvation by your own striving, the same as you are BY YOUR DESCENT; and he shall help the people of your country, which say that they are the ROMANS,blood and flesh".
Francesco della Valle,1532,(Secretary of Aloisio Gritti,a natural son to Doge Andrea Gritti).
"The Romanians(Vlachs) are of Italian stock, and according to them, they are the descendants of the OLD ROMANS".
IOAN KINNAMOS(Imperial secretary under two Byzantine emperors, Manuel I & Andronic)
"It is said about the Vlachs that they are the old descendents of those from Italy".
Jan Dlugosz (1415-1480),Polish Chronicler.
"(1359) Stephano Moldaviae Voievodae, apud Valachos mortuo, quorum maiores et aboriginarii de Italiae Regno pulsi ( genus et natio Volscorum esse fuisseque creduntur) veteribus Dominis et colonis Ruthenis, primum sudole, deinde abundante in dies multitudine, ".
FOR MORE INFORMATION READ ADOLF ARMBRUSTER(Romanitatea Romanilor). Or( Romanian Foreign Sources on the Romanians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:7802:454f:88c1:e4c7:8713:cd18 ( talk • contribs)
Is this a real thing? The writing is idiosyncratic to say the least...all the references are in other languages...it's impossible to Google...it's about a far-right topic and clearly written by a sympathizer. A lot of reasons to delete it. But I would value other opinions, and frankly I don't really want to go through the AfD process. Prezbo ( talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
We have a discussion whether a large clinical trial should be mentioned in the flavan-3-ol text, even though it is primary research. Any comments to reach a consensus would be appreciated. There is no dispute whether the study is primary research - it is whether it meets the criteria specified in WP:MEDPRI to permit inclusion.
Lavender_oil#Uses current wording:
A 2021 meta-analysis included five studies of people with anxiety disorders. All five studies were funded by the manufacturers of the lavender oil capsule used, four of them were conducted by one author of the meta-analysis,[13] and blinding was not clear.[14] In this analysis, an oral 80 mg dose of lavender oil per day was associated with reduced anxiety scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.[13] Due to the limitations of these studies, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.[11]
Where [13] is reference to (von Känel, 2021), [14] is (Generoso, 2017), and [11] is (NCCIH info page, 2020)
Thank you for helping out.
Hello, in the article BMW G 310 R, we are discussing the possible use of original research. The editor who added it states that information not found in a source, is true because it isn't found in a source. I'm pretty new so I may be wrong but I believe this is original research based on Wikipedia's core content policy. The discussion can be found here and additional expert input would be appreciated. Talk:BMW G 310 R#Not Feature Lists containing original research. A third opinion was obtained and they are in agreement that it is original research but the original poster is adamant it is not. Advice would be appreciated if this is original research.
The written arguments are used by parties involved in the case, such as petitioners, respondents and intervenors. I believe, for this content, Primary Sources would be best sources as mentioned in Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As the intention of the section is to present the claims made by each party in the Court. Secondary sources, at the best case could misquote or make mistakes, and at worst case, they are influenced by their own opinion. The is secondary sources are included in the Reaction and Commentary section of the same Article.