Talk:Balanica

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Caves

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CavesWikipedia:WikiProject CavesTemplate:WikiProject CavesCaves articles

Geology

	Geology portal Talk:Balanica is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that mandible BH-1 excavated in Mala Balanica in 2006 is the third oldest hominin fossil in Europe, being dated up to 525,000 BP? Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054608
- ALT1: ... that remains discovered in Velika Balanica suggest possible exchange of cultural innovations, ideas and technologies between Neanderthals and modern humans 300,000 years ago? Source: https://news.uwinnipeg.ca/neanderthals-from-the-balkans-had-cultural-ties-to-levant-300000-years-ago/
- Reviewed:

Created by PajaBG (talk). Self-nominated at 19:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Balanica; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - n

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - n
Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @PajaBG: Good article but it doesn't look like the sources verify the hooks. Can you provide new sources or an exaplanation? Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to mention but there looks to also be lots of copyright issues. That will need to be addressed too. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onegreatjoke:. Hook 1. Source [1], in its Discussion segment, names only Sima de los Huesos and Mauer as older (per maximal minimum range). Source [2], in the very first line says "Mala Balanica, koja krije tajne trećeg najstarijeg ljudskog fosila u Evropi...", meaning "Mala Balanica, which hides secrets of the third oldest human fossil in Europe...".

Hook 2. Source [3] in its segment Cultural connections in the Middle Paleolithic era, though they say, "Neanderthals or some other species". Source [4] cites University of Belgrade's Faculty of Philosophy's statement which basically says the same as the previous source, "neandertalci ili druge vrste ljudi" meaning "Neanderthals or other species of humans". Source [5], head of the Serbian team Dušan Mihajlović also talks about the connections and says the project, of which the Balanica caves survey is part of, is called ""Neanderthal and Early Modern Human interactions in the Central Balkans". So, maybe Hook 2 could add "early" before "modern humans". Also, the last source gives the range of this happening from 300,000 to 240,000, so maybe that can be added, too. I left both out due to the length issues.

It is hard to rewrite scientific texts into your own words, replacing every single word with its synonym. I do try it and spend a lot of time on it, but frankly, I don't really care about, however it is called here, copyright, plagiarism, etc. Despite being imperfect to the perfection, Wikipedia is world's Number 1 starting point for knowledge. So, if we cite some scientists, and properly reference them, with links to their papers and journals, what's the fuss? They should say thank you. For whom are they making discoveries? If that was the point of mentioned "copyright issues". Real, printed, general encyclopedias never referenced anything, maybe just had a general list of literature listed at the end. At least in my part of the world, they were there to spread knowledge. Plus, this is just DYK, I didn't nominate it for GA or something. Take care! PajaBG (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if the nominator doesn't dispute the validity of the copyvio claim, but simply doesn't want to engage with it, the nomination should just be closed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PajaBG: It should be noted that plagiarism and close paraphrasing are serious issues on Wikipedia. Even when WP:LIMITED applies, we strive to avoid direct copies or paraphrases as much as possible. Also, while it is true that DYK is not GA, paraphrasing/copyright issues are a DYK criterion: in fact, every DYK nomination has, as part of its notice, a message that says that articles should be "free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem, it shouldn’t be so serious. A group of people (“the people”) who don’t know what encyclopedia is wants to arrange it and set its rules. Encyclopedia is a compendum of knowledge, it can incorporate any data without having any obligation to reference it. Granted, Wikipedia is specific, but instead of unburdening editors and including minimal need for references, or to make them visible for only those who wish to see them for example, we got serious issues.

Wikipedia is a compilation. It is not a scientific paper. It is not a dissertation. That’s what we are being told all the time – no original research. But “the people” obviously believe Wikipedia is more than it really is. A fact that they brainwash people to refer to incorporated strictly technical scientific text without many changes as “plagiarism” (!!??) shows the level of delusion and mindless absurdity of the stand. We are nobodies, nicks on Wikipedia, but we “plagiarize” people who are fully referenced while spreading their knowledge?

It is utterly wrong. Maybe this way “the people” feel they themselves are doing some serious scientific work, and they grow in their own eyes, gaining upper hand over the “plebs”. Will it end like the Stanford or the Third Wave? There is a possibility, some sections of Wikipedia do go in that direction, so having that in mind, for the sake of everyone, chill out a little with reference cultism. I know I am just wasting my breath because nothing will be changed for the better, but as an editor I see this only as a molestation and hindrance to the spreading of knowledge.

Specifically for DYK, my point was that the plagiarism nonsense should be removed from it. Now, I am sorry I wasted anyone’s time on this, and I am especially sorry I wasted my time, but it’s my bad. I agree with previous editor that this nomination should be closed. Is it enough for me to say that here, or I have to do it somewhere else? PajaBG (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]