This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Cartoon portraits
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)
I would say no, unless we know it is a portrait done with the acknowledgement of the person. Unlike realistic attempts at portraits that do not exaggerate details, cartoon portraits may unintentionally exaggerate parts that the person does not want. Masem (t) 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Some of the captions are also not in English. All of the images were uploaded to Commons by Mina Kara (talk·contribs), but these images were added to the articles by Celinea33 (talk·contribs) along with their infoboxes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Ugh, those are ungodly amateurish, they should not be used as the primary image for a BLP article. NOTE - at least one of the images thus far has been added by user Turktimex3. Not by adding the image directly here, but rather by making a call to Wikidata, where the image was uploaded. This may get messy to untangle if there's more of this. Zaathras (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
There are allready quite a few portraits of renowned people which are paintings Joan of Arc, Jesus and with no real clue if these are realistic depiction.
IMO having a drawn portrait is better than having none, and so far there were only two complaints of living persons and the pictures have been replaced and / or changed according to their wishes, or the personnalities have themselves given a free licensed photograph.
Most of the drawings were made by professionals, I would not call them "ungodly amateurish".
The same problem exist with photographs (who was the famous actor who complained about his picture in a press article?).Of course if the persons don't like these, we can change them, but if they don't I don't see the rationale for retrieving them. Hyruspex (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
+1 to Hyruspex — these are professional, Free representations of the biography subjects. WP:BLP would obviously apply if these were derogatory, but I think it's a big stretch to suggest that professional illustrations cannot be used to illustrate a biography, especially when no other Free images are available to do so. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
For deceased persons that were prior to the age of photography (and thus generally will be in the free image realm), I would expect that we use imagery that academic works have identified as that person, rather than original images. So while the Joan of Arc lede image is clearly not photorealistic, it is, for the time it was created, an accurate representation of her, based on historians. Masem (t) 13:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wiki Unseen, an initiative by the Wikimedia Fundation that I think is great.
Portrait drawings are very regularly used in the national press (Le Monde, The New Yorker...) and I think it is a very good solution to illustrate Wikipedia. Alacoolwiki (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Its a terrible idea for living persons, and too amateurish for WP. It was a really bad idea for WMF to run that without thinking of the outcomes on the individual wikis. Masem (t) 04:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't share your point of view. This type of illustration is tending to become widespread in the major newspapers and newspaper websites. There are professional illustrators who contribute to WP and it is a very good way to diversify and acquire new members. Alacoolwiki (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
If we had a professional illustrator that showed a body of freely licensed works that clearly met the expectations of reasonable accuracy to the subject, that might be allowable. But without that, we're looking at amateur works that simply just don't pass muster. Masem (t) 02:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I see someone already mentioned Xavier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 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. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
User-created diagrams are one thing. I've contributed some myself. Even some cartoons for example from the infamous JJ McCullough are good illustrations like villain. However the idea that it's OK to use illustrations of living people without in any way an RS or those people personally stating it ABOUTSELF is problematic because we have no way to know verifiably if it depicts them accurately (without I guess, doing original research, right?) Andre🚐 23:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
How is it different from any other image that relies on a Wikipedia user taking the photo or creating the image? None of those involve RS, either. You're taking the word of the photographer that it depicts the person/subject claimed. The people depicted in these illustrations will be more "verifiable" than many subjects we have because there are almost always going to be publicly visible photos of them that you can just search for (as is the case with the person at the top of this thread). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Other images aren't necessarily a living person, and a caricature of unknown relationship to that person. A photograph tells 1000 words as they say. A cartoon tells the brush strokes and line strokes that may or may not be "on model" to use a term of art. Andre🚐 23:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, my concern is not all illustrations, but these particular cartoons; and the concern isn't quality but accuracy. A user-created illustration can accurately represent something, or it can ... not. IMO these fall under the latter. Compare the Xavier discussion cited above - I actually quite like the design/quality of the image in that case, but it too does not accurately represent the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 2 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)
Examples
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. Zaathras (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree. Some of the previously mentioned images have some merit, but these don't really add anything to the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree, they don't add much and I can see people finding them problematic or upsetting. Which isn't automatically a reason to remove them, but is there a good reason why we should have them? Particularly these like those shown on the right: not particularly accurate, simplified, caricature-like illustrations. Not very flattering or descriptive. Andre🚐 23:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The images are fine, but most importantly they're not original research. Sketching a likeness of a person based on a reliable source is no different than writing prose in your own words expressing the same ideas as a reliable source. They may not be to everyone's taste, and if you think they can be improved you're welcome to do so. pburka (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I kind of think it is different. It involves interpreting the material and recreating it in your own style. Andre🚐 01:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
What we get is the artistic vision of the creator. It's not necessarily what we want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
You could pull up any of literally thousands of low quality photos for ridicule, too. Are they ideal? No, but they're what we have access to. If you don't want to use lower quality images, find something better. If we have an illustration of a subject, then absent of clear arguments as to why they don't adequately depict the subject, we should include them. That is, default to include but decide on a case-by-case basis, like we do for photos. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:04, 2 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)
Agree. Which images are terrible/shouldn't be used may require case-by-case discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Photographs don't artificially create new styles or the like (outside of choice of lighting and positioning used in some portrait photos). These images are user-added creativity (beyond simple mechanical changes) that go well beyond what a photograph does. Masem (t) 04:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
My take: Our goal with an image is to accurately present what the subject looks like. A photograph is the most accurate, and thus preferred over drawn/painted portraits. A realistic drawing or painting is acceptable if no photo is available. A non-realistic drawing or painting (such as a cartoon) is acceptable ONLY if nothing more realistic is available.
And… upgrading from less realistic to more realistic is encouraged. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Update. This issue is becoming a bit concerning, as another user Turktimex3 (talk·contribs) is going on a rapid spree of additions of inappropriate images. I'm not sure where this discussion should even continue, as the issues are multiple. Something blatantly unflattering and cartoonish, File:Ellinah_Wamukoya.jpg, is being used on Ellinah Wamukoya, thus a BLP concern. Johanne Nielsdatter is adorned with File:Johanne Nielsdatter.jpg, the description tag of which is literally "An illustrated idea of Johanne Nielsdatter, whose actual appearance is undocumented", thus blatant Original Research. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
One of those looks like it might be a traced derivative work therefore a copyvio too. Andre🚐 01:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Yep. The one of Wamukoya should be removed. Not because Zaathras doesn't like it, but because it's obviously a derivative of this photo. The Nielsdatter image is the first one I think makes sense to talk about on this noticeboard. An illustration does need to be based on something. The illustrations at the top appear to be based on an impression from many other photos/illustrations. If there's enough written about her appearance (or, in this case, death) such that not too many details are pulled from the artist's imagination, it might be ok. That particular illustration looks like it might as well be a stock image of a woman being burned at the stake, though. In other words: if there really is too much OR involved, it should probably be removed; if there are no extant images, but there are very detailed descriptions (kind of like what WikiProject Dinosaurs bases their "dinosaur restorations" project on), then there may be cause to include them; if the images are created based on an impression from many extant images then they're almost always going to be better than nothing as long as they're not a clear derivative. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, tap the brakes a little here, this isn't strictly an Ugly Image Crusade. The quality of the images is just one aspect of the issue here, but the first few that I stumbled upon were really bad, I find the style of File:Célestine Hitiura Vaite.png particularly distasteful and unflattering. I'm not opposing paintings en masse, have come across some that are rather good, e.g. the one at Nancy Tuana is decent. But there is a lot of lax sloppiness out there that should be discussed. Zaathras (talk) 13:56, 3 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". — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The portrait on Robina Asti is fine and not cartoon style like the others presented here. If there are further proper portraits like Asti's, then I oppose the removal of those ones. Also, I don't see a consensus here on this subject yet, so please don't go on a removal spree of your own accord, Nikkimaria. SilverserenC 02:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Rather than a "spree", I'm assessing whether the images appear to be a accurate depiction of the person. I wouldn't agree that that one is, but if you feel otherwise we can discuss it specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Is that drawing a derivative of this photo (from the New York Times article[1])? Some1 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
It certainly resembles this. And it shows why we really shouldn't be drawing illustrations based on copyrighted work. Andre🚐 03:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
That is a shame if it is a copyright issue, as that image is actually quite nice. Zaathras (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose to sketches used for living people or subjects for whom it should be possible to eventually find a photograph. For historic subjects, there's obviously a precedent of using paintings or drawings, but in almost all cases those paintings or drawings were done by professional and often notable artists, not by hobbyists. The recent additions from User:Turktimex3 are for the most part ridiculous and embarassing for an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
That's much further than what's even being asked here. You oppose all sketches (what about other forms of illustration) for BLPs, because we might get a photo of them at some point in the far future? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Drawings and digital simulacrums
Strongest possible oppose - It's a question of original research or copyright washing. 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. This is a very important discussion that have. Please see here for a discussion on this topic on Village Pump from a few years ago. I cringe every time I see File:Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi painted.jpg. I don't think it should have ever been allowed on Wikipedia. That's just my "strict-constructionist" interpretation of No OR. Why, for instance, should that cartoon be allowed (and featured on the Main Page) but others be deleted given that they're both based on copyrighted works? Is it because the artist of the former based it on multiple copyrighted works and, thus, diluted his derivativeness? Wouldn't it be, then, an OR issue? And remember that modern technology can create digital simulacrums of people based on multiple copyrighted pictures. Where does that fall into this? -- Veggies (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it because the artist of the former based it on multiple copyrighted works 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. 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 issue 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? 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]. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 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)
@Veggies: Hey, I commissioned that drawing of Jashodaben. If you think it might be a copyright violation, then either you or I can bring it to commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I support that, and you can present your reasoning. I do not think it is a copyvio because it is an original portrait based on a lot of photos and videos that I listed in the Commons metadata.
There is a separate issue of whether this or any drawing is any good, or whether we should have original art at all. In this case I wanted the art because the person is extremely high profile but also out of public view, and unlikely to be photographed with a free license. I think this has been a top 0.01% article by popularity since I published it, and readers like having images. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I understand. I'm not planning on nominating it for deletion. I simply dislike the principle of a Wiki editor drawing a picture themselves of an individual person for an article. It's the definition of NOR to me. -- Veggies (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Is this turning into a vote? I'm against inclusion of such images in almost any circumstance. The one thing I want to clarify is that something brought up above is whether an image is "flattering" or not. While images certainly shouldn't be used as attack images (and policies already exist to delete them on other grounds), and very low-quality work obviously never "has" to be included, I don't think this should be the major fulcrum of analysis. The main concern is accuracy. If a flattering, yet imaginary, image is created of a subject, it should still not be used, and probably deleted from Commons as well. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that we feature portraits painted in the 1600s of figures from the Greco-Roman classical era that are based on wild guesses, or for that matter 1600s noble portraits that aren't accurate either. But those weren't done by random Internet users. In the unlikely scenario of a notable artist independently creating such artwork and licensing it freely and at least attempting to be accurate... maybe, because then the art itself might be relevant. But if some well-meaning volunteer artist decides to just take every person missing a portrait and let their imagination run wild? No. It's better to have no image in such circumstances, especially if there are subtle factors in play that might get solidified by a misleading representation. Maybe the subject is French and the artist depicts them wearing a beret and carrying a baguette, but the artist didn't notice that the subject's parents and family were immigrants to France from Spain and thus wasn't part of the "standard" cultural milleiu. That example is fairly harmless, but it can get bad real fast, like that famous bar painting of the Battle of Little Bighorn (I think?) that depicted the Sioux with Zulu-style shields. The rare cases where a modern imaginary portrait are allowed should be WP:YESBURO style approved - here's the family giving a sign-off, here's proof the artist did some research, etc. It should be the exception, not the rule. SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this meandering discussion (flattery? copyright? quality? professionalism? accuracy? WMF influence? BLP?) can really end in a clear consensus except as it relates to some of the specific images, but just in case someone decides to cowboy-close this with some sort of quasi-binding finding of consensus, here's a summary of where I fall: we should illustrate articles. If we have a good photo, use it. If we don't have a good photo, an illustration is perfectly acceptable as long as it's not a copyright violation (something which can be sorted out in Commons DRs rather than on enwp) and as long as it depicts the person reasonably accurately (ask whether you could recognize the person based on the illustration). Just like we don't typically remove our only photo of a subject because it's low quality, so, too, we shouldn't remove illustrations just because they're low quality or "unprofessional". Remove them if they don't accurately depict someone. If it's a BLP, then whether it's particularly unflattering can be considered. So support use of amateur illustrations in general, but oppose certain cases (which I described above). All in all, this is something that should be determined on an article-by-article basis, and not based on the personal preferences of a couple editors following amateur illustrators around to multiple articles to impose their own version of wikipolicy. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I strongly object to your characterization of the matter, consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt. User Turktimex3 has had nearly all of their additions reverted, by several editors. Their tactic of going to Wikidata to shoehorn the images in there has also now been raised at that project's admin noticeboard, as this has for the moment necessitated the addition of a suppressfields=image parameter to every biograph in question's wikidata line. Zaathras (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Could you articulate consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt in 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? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 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)
Since I asked what there's consensus for, you're saying there's consensus in this to remove all illustrations from biographies? All user-generated biographies from biographies? All illustrations added by Turktimex3, but not others? Just the ones identified in this thread? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
This side tangent of yours is no longer worth my time. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
If we don't allow information in BLPs other than what reliable sources have verified, how can a drawing by an editor pass BLP? It can't. The only exception to RS use in BLP is WP:ABOUTSELF. These drawings fail BLP by a mile. And a larger discussion should be had at VPP if policy needs to be clarified but honestly BLP already covers it. Slywriter (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
FYI, used User:GerardM/100_Women_-_BBC to weed out a few more of the glaringly obvious cartoon images. Drawings that at least have a semblance of professionalism/accuracy e.g. Zheng Churan have been left as-is, though others may object. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Although there seems to be no consensus on using / not using such illustrations on wikipedia, there seems to be a tracking of some editors work to remove all of their content related to uploading such images. I don't think this is done with a collaborative spirit. Such illustrations when there are no others provided is useful and brings value to the articles. Photographs are also providing depictions of BLP that may not be "realistic" all of this is very subjective. These mass removal are problemetic IMO. Hyruspex (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Your assessment of the consensus of this discussion is rather off the mark, as all but 3-4, including yourself, have expressed concern or outright opposition to the usage of some of these types of images in biographies. User Turktimex was approaching a block for his belligerence until finally backing off. I would say that if you are about to visit these articles and restore bad images back to the lede or infobox, that would be, well, unwise. Zaathras (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
From my point of view, I would find it very serious if the images were deleted in a grouped and systematic way from Commons. Alacoolwiki (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
This isn't Commons. Just because drivel is allowed to be uploaded there has no requirement that it be used here. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Once again, the point has been dodged. The more important question isn't whether doodles like the one on the right provide anything of value. I would argue they don't. It's whether these drawings are passable given the BLP and NOR (and copyright) issues that have been brought up above. I haven't read a convincing argument to the contrary as yet. Many of these drawings are simple copies of copyrighted photos found on the internet. I've tagged many of the obvious ones on Commons for deletion as derivative works. It's little different than trying to Flickrwash a photo as your own. As for your silly argument farther above that we have illustrations of Jesus and Joan of Arc: well... yes, they didn't live in the time of photography and, more-importantly, the images of Jesus and Joan of Arc and other historical figures on those articles are not ones scribbled up in the past few years, but historically significant works dating back centuries, usually notable per se, typically some of the earliest depictions of that figure, and all necessarily in the public domain. It's farcical to expect a photograph of Jesus and beyond egotistical to compare the ancient manuscripts, frescos, and statues that editors have selected for their quality in portraying these historical figures in their respective articles to no-name amateur caricatures, some plagiarized, and others totally invented out of nothing by Wiki editors and calling them "professional" and "commissioned" works. Further, however "subjective" a photograph might be, it presents whatever passes through the lens and onto the photo sensor. The photographer can choose the moment and maybe the lighting and setting if it's a staged shot, but whatever goes through the lens is recorded. For that reason, photo manipulation is greatly frowned upon on Wikipedia. The subject should be presented as clearly and close to reality as possible, when possible. That's why the preferred medium is photography. -- Veggies (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Rhododendrites. There's a mix of deep ignorance combined with a juvenile attitude that it is ok to mock people on the internet. If you don't like these portraits and don't think they add value to the article, say so respectfully on article talk page and discuss what better options there are. Having no likeness of the person is a dire situation, and one that Wikipedia is fairly unique in having since most publications can afford to licence professional material. Anyone who thinks a camera doesn't lie or can't be used to flatter or ridicule the subject needs to do some learning, frankly. I think this sort of discussion demonstrates clearly some of the problems of Wikipedia, where you get effectively a "Lets ask a random person on the street a complicated question they've never thought of before" combined with "Yes you know nothing at all about the subject, but please tell the world the opinion you just made up right now" invitation. Certainly, those editors have said they are going through Wikipedia removing "cartoon" images they don't personally like need to stop right now. Go read Wikipedia:The parable of the wildflowers. -- Colin°Talk 12:08, 26 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)
If someone took an unflattering or illegible photo of a living person whom we don't otherwise free imagery available, we are not required to use it. For example, we'd reject a highly-zoomed image of a living person that is blurry and barely recognizable. The same principle would clearly apply to illustrations created by Wikipedians. We have no requirement that every BLP (or biography page even) must have an image. We'd like an image, but the image should be of the person in a recognizable fashion and does not unfairly portray the person. Masem (t) 16:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Having no likeness of the person is a dire situation There is absolutely nothing "dire" about an article without an image of the subject in question. There are plenty offeatured articlesthat don't haveany 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 learning There'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 (16), we get the point. Masem's now seems to be arguing we should apply the same principles to photographs as to illustrations (such as whether they are unflattering (well, that's not necessarily our priority to flatter), illegible, barely recognizable) whereas earlier he argued the problems were specific to illustrations. 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 illustrations. It is a red-herring to bring this complaint to this noticeboard. Pick up any portrait photography book and you can learn how to add or remove 20 years from a subject, make the ugly beautiful and vice versa, make the powerful weak, make the weak powerful, add or remove femininity or masculinity, add or remove weight, curves, chins, spots, rosacea, make someone grey go white-haired, give someone dead eyes like a shark or twinkle like a fairy, make someone look like they are about to cry, or make them look malevolent. The very idea that illustrations are fundamentally OR or more OR than photographs is ridiculously naïve. By all means discuss their qualities respectfully, but don't go deleting stuff because it is a user generated illustration. There's no policy behind that at all, and positively destructive to our mission to educate within our limitations. -- Colin°Talk 21:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I disagree, there is a NOR issue with creating a caricature or a likeness of a person by looking at 8 photos of them and trying to capture their essence. That is original artistic thought. I don't think it's a clear-cut case of a violation of the policy. I think it's just that we should probably discourage the creation of images that BLP subjects might dislike, disagree with, or find offensive. The idea of a photo used for someone on Wikipedia can annoy or upset the subjects of the articles even if it is a likeness of them. We should tread carefully on the "educational value" of a crude drawing of a human. Aside from the potential copyright and derivative work issue, there could very well be a lot of problems with your idea that anyone can modify a photograph or an illustration and claim that it is a reasonable representation of the original subject. Not to mention in 2023 we have issues with AI created art and deep fakes which can affect copyright. I think this practice should be discouraged. User-created illustrations should be used for inanimate objects, diagrams, or charts and graphs or other aides to understanding a concept, like maps and timelines - NOT for human beings. Andre🚐 21:09, 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)
Andrevan, you can write words on the page, and have done several times in this section, but that doesn't make them so. An illustration is no more OR than when I read sources and write a summary of their facts in words that are entirely of my own choosing thought up out of my own head. The only NOR we have for images is at WP:IMAGEOR and you will notice the use of "image" and not "photograph" and that "Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light". You could argue that an individual illustration fails that criteria just as a photograph may, but the various points you have made in this discussion are entirely false. You have an opinion, but it isn't in any way based on policy or practice. -- Colin°Talk 21:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A false or disparaging light is exactly what I'm referring to. You just quoted the exact policy and practice that supports my argument. Andre🚐 22:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts (16), we get the point All 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 illustrations Since 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 sensor I'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)
I suppose I'll take that as it is—which is you dodging every argument and disputation that many users here have already made. -- Veggies (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Well I don't feel the need to specifically argue against all the wrong stuff on the internet. It is up to you guys to point at policy and say here, in black and white, is text supporting the argument that has been agreed on by the community. All we have are a few opinions of people who clearly don't know much about portrait photography or illustration and that don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Life is too short to pull them all apart. You can for sure argue that a random photograph might generally be superior to an illustration and might often capture the subject more faithfully, but there isn't anything about the latter that is forbidden, and we have lots of illustrations of people both historical figures for which there are no photographs and less so for recent figures. That you may be unfamiliar with the use of illustrations to depict a recent person perhaps suggests you should expand your reading material, for it is more common that you think. -- Colin°Talk 22:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Colin, your tone is getting quite combative and I think you should consider that at best, opinion is split on the approach here and that there is if anything, no consensus for some of the particularly non-representative, original illustrations to be used. Andre🚐 22:23, 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). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 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)
It has "cooled off" in the sense that you and Veggies have been edit warring across many articles and even across projects to remove these images, citing this discussion to say "no cartoon portraits" and "NOR issues". That you have forced your way and insulted people sufficiently to get your edits to stick doesn't mark this issue as resolved. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, only Turktimex3 was "edit-warring", for which he was reprimanded. That user has since uploaded several non-free images as replacements, which may or may not be suitable but that is up to another venue to discuss if someone wants to. I note your acknowledgement of the image relocation at Esra'a Al Shafei, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The majority of the contributors to this discussion are opposed to your views. You have dodged the many points and argumentations that have been brought up. Now you have the chutzpah to declare ipse dixit that we "forced our way" and "insulted people sufficiently". Remarkable. -- Veggies (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
This started of as users mocking what they considered badly drawn cartoons. I look at Veggies contribs and see them edit warring to remove high quality illustrations. You guys need to stop. There is zero policy, especially not OR, to remove good quality illustrations of a subject. Numbers of people in this discussion are not relevant. It isn't a vote. It doesn't need lots of people to say "you are flat out wrong" before you should be getting the message. The policy page itself explicitly says you are wrong. At the moment, Veggies, you are on a WP:IDHT path to an AN/I topic ban on removing images.
This policy begins, "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.
Veggies, unless you have copyright reasons, and an ongoing deletion review on Commons/Wikipedia for an image, please will you self-revert your image removal. Otherwise, I think I may be required to ask an admin to prevent you removing them. I hope that is clear. Your insulting colleague may also end up joining you on the naughty step. -- Colin°Talk 08:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Maria Felipa de Oliveira or Luisa Mahin? How can we know?
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 manyof 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)
I've just looked at Zaathras's contribs back to 16th and discovered they also removed a bunch of images from articles citing this discussion. And those were specifically discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive333#Image question which was very positive about them. This kind of action, where an editor invents a consensus that isn't there, and goes on a spree deleting stuff from articles, is very much the kind of thing folk get blocks and bans for. So I'm asking Zaathras to also self-revert. The editors working on those articles are perfectly capable of judging if images are appropriate and don't need someone going around the project with a scythe.
This sort "destruction of things I don't like" activity is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is about. This is a collaborative editing project where the whole community work in various ways, in writing, in photography and in art, to inform readers about a subject. Smashing stuff that others created (whether with insults as on this page or with the editor removing illustrations) is not on. -- Colin°Talk 10:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The changes made to remove the images from pages appear to be fairly easy to undo, and certainly far from "smashing" the work of others. Images are still available at Commons. Also I am having a hard time find the claims of insults being thrown around by Zaathras in this discussion. That's not helping to keep this civil. --Masem (t) 18:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, nobody has disputed that images that are copyvio should be removed and discussion of that belongs on another forum. But Veggies first post here was "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.
Masem, as for "claims of insults", here they are:
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.
None of those comments are appropriate on this project. I don't know how you can have a hard time finding them as I have a hard time finding a post by Zaathras that isn't concerned with mocking people's contribution to the project. There are ways of commenting on the work without insults and mocks. That needs to stop. Masem, I don't think an argument that an editor going around deleting content from articles is "fairly easy to undo" is in any way relevant to whether that behaviour is acceptable, particularly when accompanied with edit warring and insults and an editor who is dislaying IDHT on the policy. I don't think "Well, my edits are fairly easy to undo" ever got anyone out of jail at AN/I. It is a wiki, we all know any edit is intrinsically easy to undo. You are just inventing reasons to defend Veggies, and that's not helpful. -- Colin°Talk 19:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
None of those are insults directed at editors, only the content added. I routinely see normal text only edits removed on the basis of being too amateurish, or other factors along WP:CIR, and the comments above are all in the same ballpark for images.
The problem is that these are umprofessional-looking images, particularly if we are talking BLP and a photograph is possible. There is a very valid concern that several editors agree with here. Sure, the language could be less colorful, but the end of the day the issue is that there is something wrong with these non realistic images that does come down to artistic skill. There's no way to not discuss the amateur nature of the works with pointing out how poor they look. So no, no kne is going out of their way to insult the contributions, as that's the essential element of this discussion.
And in term of "easily indone", the bar we use is at WP:FAIT.. mass changes that put a difficult onus on editors seeking to undo (such as mass AFDs) are strongly discouraged. Whereas the image removals from articles are a simple undo click away.
You also may want to step back and look at the accusations that you are throwing against other editors, including myself. Eg, I am not defends Veggies here, I am standing on the need to avoid the cartoon-like images since they do not provide a respectable image for the subjects given. That aligns with Veggies' take but that doesn't mean I am scrambling to find reasons. I know what us expected of images via policy and MOS and these simply aren't appropriate. Masem (t) 19:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
At the top of this page is says "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.
There was a discussion on four images at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive333#Image question. The images were regarded favourably. All four were deleted from articles by Zaathras, citing NORN, which falsely implies there were OR policy issues. One of the articles has got a good quality photo now. The other three do not. I note that these images were created as part of "Les sans images" and "BBC 100 Women" projects, so their removal is doubly concerning in that they are the destruction of big community projects' output. They should be restored.
Earlier Zaathras wrote wrote at Talk:Marie Magdelaine Mouron that "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)
Two earlier statements are most concerning. Firstly Zaathras was asked how they might close the discussion (and rephrase their earlier "consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt" comment) and they respondedTurktimex3 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)
At least with the four images from that prior discussion, those would have a chance (IMO) of being kept, though still need to merit discussion. They are at a midpoint between amateur and professional works.
And while I agree that per ONUS, should the consensus reflect that we keep all amateur-looking image, then I would expect Zaathras to restore the removed ones. But right now, the consensus appears to be keeping them out, so Zaathras appears to have taken a bold step to remove them. That said, they should also be careful about performing any additional removal of images until this consensus is decided, per ONUS as well. Masem (t) 13:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm honestly no longer going to read or reply to Colin's messages going forward, just a brief skim at most for the slight possibility of something useful, as his behavior is unsettling and bordering on harassment. As for "any additional removal of images", I think that would need to be evaluated case-by-case. If Colin goes on a unilateral revert-spree, that obviously won't be allowed to stand. Or if I find any further images we missed of the File:Célestine Hitiura Vaite.png style, I will remove it as a WP:BLP violation. Zaathras (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your consensus, Masem, and remind you this is not the forum to discuss whether "amateur-looking" images should be deleted from Wikipedia articles. Most reasonable editors haven't sought to use it for that and chose not to comment on that. That not everyone here wants to argue against editors who insult and bully others and boast of using a wiki project page to find material to destroy doesn't mean they agree with them. It seems mainly those editors who think Wikipedia is a place to insult people's artwork thought this was a page to enlighten us of their artistic opinions. Its the NORN noticeboard. If you wanted to establish that kind of consensus, never mind the blanket removal of illustrations on biographies that Zaathras above claimed to be permitted by the consensus they imagined at that time, you'll need to go big, really big. I don't think you stand a chance of doing so on Wikipedia. And what really do you think would happen if you had such a doomed RFC. It would just be another place where juvenile ignorant insults were thrown at the work of artists who contributed in good faith. I'd have no doubt these two editors here would create a gallery for mocking, and throw every insulting adjective they have. This is Wikipedia at its worst. Please both of you, stop this now. Go find something construtive to do. There was never any OR issue. Zaathras is now boasting he'll block any reverting. You see Masem, there's a fait accompli. -- Colin°Talk 20:19, 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)
Wikipedia requires images to avoid being an unpleasant wall-of-text. Photographs often include an element of originality in the composition and selection of the subject and this seems unavoidable. I could give more details and examples for the cartoon case but don't think this is the correct forum for this discussion which is mainly a matter of image policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires images to avoid being an unpleasant wall-of-text. Requires is a rather assertive word, that implies a basis in policy. Can you provide a link to that policy? Zaathras (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see this link. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You make a dubious assertion, are questioned about it civilly, then infer bludgeoning. What a fascinating psyche. Perhaps you should see thislink. -- Veggies (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Andrew, cope better with opposing viewpoints. Zaathras (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
List of country calling codes: use of deprecated Russian sources to imply legitimacy of de facto control by Russian administrative domain in occupied Georgia and Ukraine
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.
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)
The more general point is how these puppet "states" should be handled because few reliable sources give them any credence. So anything we write about them inevitably teeters on the edge of OR. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
As I have noted on the talkpage, the article is structured like this throughout, and it's hard to see how a consideration of OR ends up highlighting one of the few sections with any sort of sourcing, however deprecated. The replacement text was also unsourced. One of the few other sources on the page, here, suggests Abkhazian codes at least are supposedly operated by a local entity. The reliable source availability argument also misses the problem at hand. There are huge bodies of literature on these puppet "states", what there isn't is a huge body of literature on country calling codes... CMD (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I see no basis for that assertion. The Country Calling Codes are well documented, the ITU document does so in full detail.[4] What the ITU does not do is go into detail of local area codes within an administrative domain. The Russian-occupied provinces of Georgia and Ukraine are not independent states, they do not have E.164 codes (assigned or otherwise). The article is pretending that an area code assigned by the Russian authorities is a country code. It is not.
Specifically as WP:No original research is defined, we have no reliable evidence that these area codes have any meaningful existence. That gov.ru and tass.ru assert it as fact does not make it fact: they have a solid track record of creative accounting. So on what basis other than OR do we have to retain them, unless it is to give credence to Putin's narrative?
Yes, I agree that my suggested replacement text is uncited and thus OR too and I would not try to defend it. That Russia has de facto control of northern Georgia and south-eastern Ukraine is not in doubt; whether it actually operates any telephony services in Ukraine is certainly conjecture (and we know that they have turned off the cellular network because their conscripts were failing to obey radio silence orders). I am content to let it drop.
If there are other OR problems with the article, they should be dealt with too but let's resolve the most egregious case first. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
A primary source documenting country codes is not a substantial body of literature. At any rate, they're not the most egregious case, they're similar to various degrees, including very close degrees, to other cases throughout the article. (Or even less egregious, as they have some semblance of a source.) Long before you even get to this section, there is for example "Morocco (including Western Sahara)", which reflects a less coherently controlled territory, and doesn't even put the irredentist claim in a separate bullet point! CMD (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The difference is that the ITU documenent is the authoritative source. Any "substantial body of literature" must inevitably rely on it as sui generis data: any source (such as gov.ru or tass.ru) that purports to do otherwise is lying.
The position of Western Sahara is not nearly as egregious, given UN recognition of its "complicated" status. But yes, we should delete that "clarification", since without supporting citation it is just scent marking and more OR.
As I'm sure you know, WP:other stuff exists is not a acceptable argument so can we stick to the main issue: these Russian area codes are not country codes and there is no reliable evidence that they match the facts on the ground. To retain them is OR (and WP:ADVOCACY for the Putin narrative). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
OSE is about deletion discussions, and is about comparing articles. This is the same sort of content from the exact same article. Poisoning the well with unfounded suggestions of advocacy for Putin narratives is deeply unappreciated. CMD (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I did not suggest that you are advocating the Putin fantasy, I was referring to whoever put it there. Same sort of scent marking as the Morocco entry.
Yes, the OSE essay is overtly about "that article exists so why can't I have this one" but the logic is readily generalised to "that section exists so why can't I have this one" and even "that line exists so why can't I have this one": all are fallacious arguments – see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for many more, for example
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.
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)
That is also a stretch to assert for whoever put it there. I would expect a proposal concerned about NOR and V relate to the article vis a vis the official ITU list to propose removing all the area codes and the regional sectioning, turning it into a plain list in line with the ITU document. What has been proposed so far is a selective treatment of one particular issue with reference to UN recognition, despite other situations having consistently for decades received even more severe UN opprobrium being present with even less sourcing. CMD (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I support unequivocally deletion of any and all examples of unsourced content. Whether or not the UN has passed a resolution is entirely incidental. The article says that it is a list of country calling codes. If it is not in the ITU list, it is a fake. An area code assigned by a neighboring country, whether for convenience or revanchism, is not a country code. To say otherwise without a reliable source is original research. As soon as we affirm that principle here, we have authority to clean up the article. Do you accept that principle? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You mentioned the UN above, I was replying to that. I believe the comment I gave above about NOR consistency covers my opinion on the question. CMD (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
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?
The only valid country calling codes are those given in the ITU document. Any other numbers that purport to be country calling codes are ipso facto not verifiable and it is a WP:NOR violation for an editor to attempt to add them.
Specifically, area codes are not country calling codes. It is a WP:NOR violation for an editor to identify an area code as a country code. Consequently the list needs to be weeded to remove any such entries.
Application by a country of one its own area codes to the territory of another is outside the scope of the article and should not be recorded. This is true irrespective of the motives of the country concerned.
A country's name should given as that of its respective article, without embellishment.
Any exceptional cases can be discussed at the article talk page. These are likely to be tiny islands and the like and can be treated as non-contentious de minimis cases.
Looking at the references neither of the refs for Abkhasia mention "995 (44)" as the country code for Abkhasia, and so fail verification. This appear to be a greater issue than just Abkhasia, as the reference for Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir doesn't mention their specified country codes either. Looking at the ITU documentation doesn't show any of these either. The list includes 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)
Also maybe where referencing can be found, for instance where Russia supplies local codes outside of its borders, have a heading explaining that these areas can also be reached using the using the 7 dialing code. So as not to imply in wikivoice that they are part of Russia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The core question seems to be whether the article is about the ITU codes, or about how to call countries. Currently the page setup appears to be the latter despite the list lead. If it is shifted to the former, then that should be applied across the entire article. In either case, I have had difficulty finding good-quality secondary sources on the topic. There are a couple of extensions we could source, for example the ITU simply lists everything in the North American Numbering Plan as +1 and notes an "integrated numbering plan", but I've only found a primary source and don't understand the interaction between the ITU and NANPA (my assumption is NANPA can do what it wants within +1, and the ITU doesn't care). CMD (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
And I suggest strongly that the answer to that core question is the same as the answer to "what is a country calling code?" The article should do exactly what it says on the tin. It is not a "list of ways to call a country", because that would violate WP:NOTGUIDE. The International Telecommunications Union is the only body that holds the master registry of country calling codes. There can't be any "good quality secondary sources" because to be good quality, they can only replicate the ITU registry. If a county/number combination is not on that list, it is not an international country calling code but just some locally convenient back-channel which may not work outside the administrative domain that has assigned to it one of its area codes. So no, we should not show cases "where Russia supplies local codes outside of its borders" because these are area codes: they are not country calling codes.
What the article should not do is get sidetracked into political disputes about what constitutes a country and what to call it. If we stick to the technical specification and leave it to others to deal with the politics, we will avoid the OR trap. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
That is an understandable position, some of the impacts and questions of which I have mentioned. The case for it should be made on the article talkpage. Subsequent effects on the Russia entry would be relatively uninteresting effects of such a major page shift. CMD (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The key outcome we need from this discussion on this page is a determination of what passes or fails the "no original research" test. That guideline established, the article talk page can sort out the details; without it, the discussion will flounder in a policy vacuum.
We have already agreed, I believe, that it is OR to make an assertion that is not supported by a reliable source. That is WP:Verifiability 101. Consequently,
The only reliable source for Country Calling Codes is the ITU registry.
If a country (however defined, it doesn't matter) does not have an entry in the ITU registry, it does not have a Country Calling Code, period. It is OR to pretend it does, because it is certain to fail WP:V.
An area code assigned by a neighbouring country (for whatever reason) is still an area code, it is not a CCC.
So may we take it that you accept all that? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:V is about whether something can be verified. I'm reasonably confident most of the information in the list could be verified. My reading of the issue is whether all of the information is due, and to an extent whether it fits the topic, arguably bringing SYNTH concerns. Answers to those questions depends on what the page topic is. So, for point 1, yes if the concept is ITU codes then their registry is the primary source, and we have no secondary sources on the matter as it stands. On 2, the question of shifting to a plain reflection of the ITU list is not a WP:V question, but a country (or other entity, the list has quite a few odds and ends) without an ITU calling code does not have a country calling code. To 3, same as to 2. CMD (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
My original comment was based on the fact the that the article has the following in the header 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)
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)
admittedly without checking any policies here. When an award is granted to an organisation the employees are not co-recipients unless that has been explicitly stated at the time of the award. In general a high ranking individual within the organisation accepts the award on behalf of the organisation, literally because you need a person for this, but it is not their award. So my view is no they are not recipients of Nobel Prizes just because they worked for the organisation that received it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Ayrton Senna
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.
If someone challenges it, then it needs to be cited. Since his career was very well documented, I don't imagine it will be difficult for someone to add the necessary citations. pburka (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Picts
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, ISBN978-0-7486-1232-1
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
^Carr, Gillian (2005-08-01). "Woad, Tattooing and Identity in Later Iron Age and Early Roman Britain". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 24 (3): 277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.2005.00236.x. ISSN1468-0092.
I have tried to be gentle with LightProof1995 in the spirit of WP:BITE as they are a novice editor, but it looks increasingly like I am going to have to file a report at WP:ANI as this is beyond disruptive. We all start editing as novices and I admit some of my early edits were also at odds with WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, notably in articles related Picts back when I got interested in the subject (yikes) fourteen years ago, but with advice from some experienced editors I was able to learn WP policy. I've tried this approach with LightProof1995, but it appears impossible to get through to them. A brief scroll through their edit history would suggest that their problematic editing has not been limited to this subject area.
LightProof1995 has already attempted to edit war this WP:UNDUE material into the article (receiving a block), has attempted to bludgeon consensus on the article talk page and, when they failed to gain consensus for their edits, took it to WP:DRN, which also failed. They have also been warned by an admin from whom they attempted to get support, that this approach is likely to end in their being sanctioned.
We have a major issue in the way LightProof1995 is trying to synthesise a narrative from sources that are not about the article subject, that talk about unrelated people and people from different ages, or that rely on inaccurate translations. They are unable to recognise reliable sources (case in point, "Rethinking the Picts" by David Keys, is a book review in a magazine written by a non-specialist and intended for a non-specialist audience). They also appear to be unable to use reliable sources. Fraser's textbook does indeed mention Julius Caesar, but he is talking about Septimus Severus' negotiations with Argentocoxos, nearly 500 years before the advent of the Pictish Kingdom in the 7th century, comparing this with Caesar's negotiations with tribal leaders in Germania, 250 years before that.CatfishJim and the soapdish 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I just don't have $101 to buy that book in full, nor do I have a car to go to my local library, unfortunately. Thank you for clarifying exactly what he says about Caesar.
Everything else you say here has noting to do with content, and everything to do with seemingly personal beef against me. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Note for other editors, this is now at WP:ANICatfishJim and the soapdish 07:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I believe the ANI discussion has covered this subject in sufficient depth. Filing editor has been indefinitely blocked and this can now be closed. CatfishJim and the soapdish 13:40, 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)
Kudos to OP for turning himself in to the authorities on this one.😎
The Original Research is succinctly stated by Anythingyouwant on the article talk page here. The cited source merely says that the staffer made some sort of ambiguous statement in their own voice, which OP quoted in this diff. Trump, meanwhile was doubling down on his attack even after widespread condemnation of what RS call a racist slur. SPECIFICOtalk 23:43, 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)
All you've shown is Trump PR staffer and election denier Cheeung trying to do damage control while Trump keeps up repeating the same smear all over social media, etc. Surely you don't think Trunp was concerned about "financial conflicts". If he were, he would have said so. SPECIFICOtalk 00:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Or see a dictionary: “spokesperson: a person who speaks for another or for a group.” All the reliable sources say Cheung was speaking for Trump, and Politico also says people in Trump’s inner circle dispute that he was being racist toward Chao (Trump himself is obviously within his own inner circle). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of any existent or non-existent OR issues, the word WP:RACIST should be avoided in WP:Wikivoice. If you have a source describing something as racist, then attribute it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Interesting point, I hadn’t realized that we have to “use in-text attribution” for charges of racism. In this instance, the in-text attribution would be to every mainstream media outlet that has addressed this matter. So the sentence in question would be modified to this: “Via spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump denied that his attack on Chao was racist, though it has been widely characterized as racist by media reports.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not an expert or an admin, but I would propose simplifying:"President Trump referred to Chao using a nickname described by many media outlets as 'racist'" rather than deciding whether Trump is actually racist. There are numerous RS that described the name "Coco Chow" as "racist." [1][2][3][4][5]We can focus on the very widespread description of that term as "racist" (it's the rare example where the NYPost and Mother Jones agree on something; both called that name "racist" as well as the WSJ, Politico, and many others). With that in mind, we don't need to resolve whether Trump is racist, nor provide false balance by giving a Trump spokesperson a chance to explain why it's not racist. The fact being reported is that the media called it "racist", which is true and doesn't require false balance.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco, if we say Trump’s words about Chao were “described by many media outlets as 'racist'” then we’d be saying there is an allegation against Trump. Whenever we describe allegations against someone, we have to mention any denial, per WP:BLP which says “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.” So that’s why mentioning the Trump-Cheung denial is important. Anyway, the issue here is verification, not BLP. In other words, is it original research to say, “Via spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump denied that his attack on Chao was racist, though it has been widely characterized as racist by media reports.“ I don’t think it’s original research, because the cited sources back it up. But there is a very slight chance I could be wrong about that.😝 What do you think? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a very strange point to be arguing. There is no false balance required here. If you believe we absolutely need to include Trump denying that the sun rises in the east, then use as few words as possible: "Trump denied it was racist.[cite]" That's 5 words; I think it could be done in 4. There's no need to add all the extra words about "Through a spokesperson... though it has been widely characterized as racist." Any concern about OR is solved by simplifying the denial. Let's do that rather than open the OR pandora's box about how much we can say about his spokesperson. Let the facts speak for themselves. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Where’s the false balance? If we say there was an allegation then we have to attribute it (in article text) to whoever made the allegation, per WP:RACIST. Then we would have to say Trump denied it, per WP:BLP. I thought it would more closely track the sources to mention the spokesperson, but we don’t have to. I’m just trying to improve the article, because right now there’s an allegation without in-text attribution (“Trump used the racist nickname again“) and also without the denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@49ersBelongInSanFrancisco: The problem is there's no source that states Trump denied it. What occurred was that Trump did not deny it, but rather he kept repeating it in the face of very widespread criticism. That was quite unusual for him, since he regularly "walked back" such comments in other contexts during his presidency. SPECIFICOtalk 16:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO I haven't seen an RS that has a credible denial of the racism charge either, as I don't know how someone could credibly say that calling an East Asian American "Coco Chow" was somehow a statement about "conflicts of interest." The best end state is no denial sentence at all, but I'm not offended by a a very short addition of "Trump later defended his statement" and a link to the Cheung comments. If @Anythingyouwant is adamant about WP:BLP then those 5 words ("Trump later defended his statement") achieve the balance required by WP:BLP without giving more airtime to a completely non-credible statement that doesn't actually address why people thought the original statement was racist ("Coco Chow" and "China-loving"). The original sentence proposed by @Anythingyouwant runs almost 20 words long and tries to shift attention from the language widely described as racist to something completely irrelevant (who cares what Trump says he was really thinking, as he doesn't explain how that language isn't racist). Anything along the lines of "Cheung said it was really about shipping" is off-topic as the outcry over the language was about alleged racism, not shipping.
Proposed compromise: "Trump used the racist nickname again in a November 13, 2022 post criticizing McConnell, saying "everyone despises [McConnell] and his otherwise lovely wife, Coco Chow!" Trump later defended his statement.[6]49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Incidentally, I only suggested quoting Cheung in a footnote. My initial suggestion here for the main text was much less than 20 words (“Via spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump denied that his racist attack on Chao was racist.”). I don’t think that shifted attention or created false balance or anything like that, but I’m glad to consider alternatives & improvements, user:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Your suggestion is: "Trump used the racist nickname again in a November 13, 2022 post criticizing McConnell, saying ‘everyone despises [McConnell] and his otherwise lovely wife, Coco Chow!’ Trump later defended his statement.” Another editor already objected that we should not say in wikivoice that it was racist per WP:RACIST. Also, do you object to providing a footnote that quotes Cheung, which seems informative to me, whether it’s BS or not (readers can judge)? The policy WP:BLP does not distinguish between credible denials and stupid, dishonest, ridiculous denials. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
49ers, he did not deny it. There is no source that says he did. It's the purest OR, stated explicitly by OP based on his personal beliefs about staffer ventrilquism or something. We also know that particular staffer is a fabulist. Anyway, without some RS about a "denial" this thread has served its purpose. SPECIFICOtalk 17:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The denial by the subject still has to comply with WP:DUE. So if a BLP makes overtly racist remarks, we don't have to give the same weight to the denial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Besides the unreliable Raw Story piece, none of the listed sources seem to be characterizing Cheung's comments as a denial that Trump's comment was racist. There's a well-respected "it's not OR if the analysis has been published anywhere at all, even in unreliable sources" crowd, and I'd rather not get into it. Whether strictly OR or not, we shouldn't be giving weight to that view if it's not common in the body of reliable sources. I think a description aligned with the best sources would be fine, something like "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)
Sounds okay to me, user:Firefangledfeathers. Also, I’d make sure the Chao BLP doesn’t say in wikivoice that Trump’s comments were racist, another editor pointed out above that WP:RACIST says we should provide in-text attribution for that. Also please note that MSN (quoted above) says, "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." The words “not race” are a denial that it was about racism, seems to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Cheung is not significant to Chao's bio. He's a paid PR guy for a politician with a history of racist statements and RS clearly convey that the statement was widely condemned as racist. This has no place in her bio. SPECIFICOtalk 17:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Scanning what started this, it looks like it's about whether what Cheung said can be attributed directly to Trump? "A spokesperson said" seems like the clearly preferable choice in those situations (vs. "said via a spokesperson"). The exception would be if there's language in the sources like "Cheung relayed a statement from Trump" or "Cheung said that Trump wanted to say xyz". But just doing the standard PR/apologist/talking points/spin games doesn't mean what they said are the words of the person they were hired to represent. I haven't traced exactly what the implications for that conclusion are for the article. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This is simply an attempt to mitigate this little ugly wart on the carcass of Trump's racist and misogynistic legacy. Cheung's statemnent has nothing to do with Chao. SPECIFICOtalk 17:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
If the spokesperson’s statement did not amount to a denial by Trump, then BLP policy does not require inclusion of the non-denial but does not forbid inclusion either; nevertheless, it would not be even slightly mentioned at the Chao BLP because User:SPECIFICO staunchly opposes inclusion. Heck, even if WP:RACIST clearly requires in-text attribution, it will likely be impossible to put that in the Chao BLP either. This is because all efforts are taken to make sure that every “little ugly wart on the carcass of Trump's racist and misogynistic legacy” is presented as much as possible in that manner, neutrality notwithstanding. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The statement, not Trump, was identified as racist in the RS. SPECIFICOtalk 18:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Non-racists don’t make racist statements, AFAIK. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Maintenance tags: inline "Citation needed" or "More citations needed" on top?
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)
I really hate the idea that this would be done by an unthinking bot… it is quite possible for an article to contain several paragraphs (or even an entire section) all verifiable by one single citation to a strong reliable source. In such a situation, there is no need to repeat the citation at the end of each paragraph… the citation at the end covers all the information.
I do realize that this isn’t always the case… but that simply means that we have to do things the “old fashioned” way - check which parts are covered by the single citation and which are not - and then manually tag as is needed. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree. There's no need to automate this. Time is far better spent researching and improving the citations in articles, and manually tagging things with {{cn}} where a citation can't be easily found. pburka (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Blueboar and Pburka. Thanks for your feedback. I think there is a misunderstanding: I'm working on a script to assist editors, not on an automatic bot. Please let me know if something in the description of the script is unclear so I can fix it.
Wikipedia has certain guidelines for inline citations. For example, according to WP:V, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Certain information is excluded from this requirement, as stated in the policy Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_not_original_research. Inline means that the reference should be given in the same paragraph. It would be difficult to check for original research and ensure source-text integrity if any source was assumed to cover all the preceding text in the article.
The responses so far did not answer the original question. Let's assume there is an article where over 10 paragraphs really merit the "Citation needed" tag. For such articles, should each of those paragraphs get a "Citation needed" tag? Or is it better just to 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) 20:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I understand the proposal. There's no need to script this. And even if there were, style questions aren't within the scope of this notice board. pburka (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your position. The replies are not what I expected but they are helpful nonetheless. Regarding how to deal with potential cases of original research: what do you think an editor reviewing an article should do in the following case? They encounter unreferenced paragraphs (with or without the assistance of a script) and it's not obvious that all claims made in them are verifiable. Ideally, the editor would go through all the other sources found in the article, read through them one by one, and do a detailed source search on their own to verify or falsify the claims made in those paragraphs. This could be an extremely time-intensive process. Based on the editor's available time, expertise, and access to sources, this may not be feasible. In such a situation, is it acceptable (and useful) to add "Citation needed" tags to the paragraphs to make other editors aware of potential cases of original research? Or, in comparison to that, would it be preferable to do nothing? I hope this board is the right place to ask this type of question but, if not, I would also be happy to ask it elsewhere. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Ideally the editor would so some research and either add sources or remove the questionable content. If the content can't be easily sourced, they can easily tag it with {{cn}} or one of the more specific tags via the editor. What we don't want to encourage is drive-by, script-assisted splattering of warning tags with no effort to even try to fix or investigate. I also think you're confusing verifiability with original research. The vast majority of uncited material on Wikipedia is not original research; it's just poorly cited. If you think a paragraph is OR, you should be tagging it with {{Original research inline}}. pburka (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware of the difference but thanks for the explanation anyways and for your answer. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
RFC on changing WP:OR regarding the use of maps and charts in Wikipedia articles
New proposals are marked in bold. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Ancestry.com
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)
OK, thanks I imagine it would be different for even recently deceased persons? I'm thinking of Tim Rutten. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
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.
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.
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. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Bluger has self-published a book through Xlibris (The De-Judaization of the Image of Jesus of Nazareth... (Xlibris, 2021; ISBN9781664149410)) 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. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Need input if choice in coverage is OR
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)
I have removed the worst parts and done some rewriting and referencing. But it is still a very poor article. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:47, 9 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)
Soviet Rbl
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)
As I have written to NotReallySoroka at their talk page, I don't see why this question needed to be escalated to this noticeboard as it seems uncontroversial. The two "citations" for Rbl are not valid: they are (isolated) examples of use that may merely be the authors' convenient shorthand. The place that actually gives a firm assertion of an abbreviation is the CIA World Factbook, which says "R". As that is the only RS, that is the only one that should be shown. I'm not convinced that it is OR as such, just failure to comply with WP:BURDEN: (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 think the issue isn't OR but WP:DUE. If there are only two cherry picked sources for Rbl, and the rest don't support it, then it's undue to include it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there is an official Soviet traveller's cheque pictured on the article that uses the abbreviation. [4]
This was an official financial instrument of the Soviet government, so definitely would not have used something that didn't have official approval. 92.21.251.66 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Doing some surface level research it certainly appears "Rbl" is (or at least historically was) an acceptable and widely used abbreviation and definitely is not OR.
It's a little disappointing to see lack of interest in finding new sources rather than just weighing up the merits of those already listed in isolation.
Both of those are lists of abbreviations that show that RBL can be used for Ruble, neither show that RBL was used for the Soviet Ruble (which isn't the only Ruble). For instance RBL is used for Ruble on page 17 (of World Monetary Units) for Azerbaijan SSR (which suggests wider usage within the USSR), but I don't have full access to the book to check the USSR/Russia entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I did also do an online check for "Soviet Ruble" and RBL before originally commenting, but found no useful sources. If you have access to written works that would be very helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
NB that it was an abbreviation. Not a currency sign. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 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 have added specific sources, specifically the negative reviews in question Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Flowerkiller1692, that changes nothing; it's still synthesis. Please carefully read again what I wrote on your talk page and what I wrote here. Please also carefully read WP:SYNTH. You cannot take two individual reviews, which may or may not be negative, and conclude that "the show received negative reviews". What you need is a source that says precisely that: that the show received generally negative reviews. For you to include summary statements about the critical reception in the lead, you need a source that itself summarizes the overall critical reception of a TV show. I really don't know how to explain it any more clearly. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 22:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The sentence is so confusing that it's hard to tell if it's synthesis or not. The show seems to have received very few reviews at all, so mentioning them in the lead seems a bit WP:UNDUE. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't list any professional reviews, and the two included in the article are from related, niche sources: Comic Book Resources and Screen Rant are owned by the same company. pburka (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Pburka, that might all be true, but we need to be unequivocal here. It's one of the most obvious cases of synthesis there are, and the editor needs to understand that. I've seen them add synthesis like this to lots of other articles, and they've somehow managed to sneak those through GA and FA reviews. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 23:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible serial synthesizer?
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 undone many of your recent contributions for three main reasons: 1) State nicknames do not conform to WP:TERSE. 2) Statements about whether an event was the last/first one as of a date appear to be your original research, and not something cited in a source. 3) They are also problematic in that they would have to be tracked and updated when the status quo changes. I'm pausing in my reversions to give you the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
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?]...
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)
I would say it's not WP:OR because there are almost certainly sources that support this. But it definitely wouldn't hurt to find those sources and add them to the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
RfC on how much article content can be sourced exclusively government agencies
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)
Reworded the heading, which was misleading. It's sourcing to government agencies, which includes data but isn't just data. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 11:39, 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)
The first citation used in the article doesn't mention the term at all, the quotes from the second, third, and fourth citations are irrelevant, and the fifth citation is not specific enough. I'm unable to verify the sixth and seventh citation. In conclusion, I don't see how the sources cited verify anything pertaining to Samrup Rachna. I would support replacing the sentence with your proposal and replacing the citations currently used with the ones you provided. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I'll update it accordingly. And yes, I also didn't see how any of those citations are relevant in describing what the subject of the article is, and therefore wanted to ensure (above) before I proceeded with making the changes. Unfortunately the article needs a lot clean up. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 18:53, 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.
We can't put something in an article relating to our readers the results of such researches (that would be OR), but we use our common sense, good judgment, and outside investigation to judge the reliability of sources, for a given purpose, all the time. EEng 03:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
To the contrary. EEng has spent time in a famous world class library, going through every Grant biography he can find, and many other sources, looking for academic quality evidence of this incident, and found nothing. There is no known contemporaneous reporting. That's not original research; that's good research. Nobody has found anything except stuff based on reminiscences decades later by a policeman with a very checkered career. Skepticism is very much in order here, and good editorial judgment calls for caution. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cullen328 I agree that skepticism may be warranted with my academic hat on (although I am not convinced that all of the pertinent documents are accessible to us; the Grant Presidential Library may have documents we do not have access to and John F. Marszalek may have reasons for his opinions based in strong evidence), but we aren't at a university discussing this in a graduate history course, consulting on a PhD dissertation, providing a peer review, or doing the work of an IRB or professional editor. At some point we have to recognize the limits of what we can and can not do here at wikipedia. The criticisms being raised here are not in published texts, involve original dialectical arguments based mainly in lack of evidence (which can not be refuted or supported by a subject matter expert as they have not been published), provide speculative original analysis of primary materials, and make arguments against the journalists and subject matter experts which they have had no chance to respond to. In short, while I personally believe there are merits to the original academic research being argued by EEng, it really doesn't matter because we have no RS making these claims. What we do have is more than a century of published coverage of this topic from multiple sources, including some by a current leading Grant scholar. In this case we have a topic that clearly passes WP:SIGCOV, and from materials which would easily pass a review at the reliable sources noticeboard. All we can do is use the available RS to write an article that accurately represents that RS. That's policy.4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen328 that this isn't a matter of original research. It seems to me, instead, to be an editorial decision about whether to present the events as historical facts, in Wikipedia's voice, or as a notable story that can be attributed to sources. That dispute has been made somewhat more urgent by the fact that there is a pending DYK nomination. I hope we don't put anything on the Main Page while the issue has not been agreed upon. Editors staking out sides is where we're at now, but there doesn't look to be a WP:CONSENSUS. I suggest that editors hold an RfC over whether or not this is something to be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Tryptofish The issue here is we have no secondary coverage (as in zero sources) questioning the fact of the event. If we did, this whole thing would be easy to solve. As it is, we can't make a judgement value questioning whether the event happened or not in the text without a source that does that for us. We have to accurately represent the published RS, otherwise it is OR/SYNTH.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there sourcing that says clearly that the events did take place? My impression, based on editor comments that I've read, is that there are multiple reliable sources that treat this as something that is what we would call "notable", but which tend to have cautionary statements that the events may not have really happened. Stuff to the effect of, this is widely believed but admittedly there aren't contemporary accounts of it. If all we have are editors complaining that there aren't contemporary accounts, then that might actually be OR, and I'll stand corrected. But if the sources are pointing that out, pointing out the lack of contemporary accounts, then we have to follow those sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Tryptofish Yes there are sources that state outright they believe the event to be true as reported by West. Those are already cited in the "Assessment and legacy" section. If we had cautionary statements or opposing views, we could easily quote them in the article. There aren't any cautionary statements to quote, and the one opposing view is cited to Twitter whereas we have affirming views in NPR, The Washington Post, and The New York Times with the support of an expert on Grant. In my opinion the article accurately reflects the sources, and if you look at the talk page the primary author has bent over backwards trying to work with EEng as much as possible. At some point we just have to recognize that going any further than has already been done starts to be SYNTH by misrepresenting the materials cited. 4meter4 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are saying that with very strong assurance, and you have more familiarity with the sources than I do. Before replying, I went back and looked some more at what other editors are saying. I see at the DYK nom, the editor who wrote the nom summarizes four sources as being important, and they all look reliable to me. But they describe some things that sound like what I was asking about, and which seem to contradict what you just said: "The Washington Post acknowledges issues with West's narrative but finds the MPD's statements about an arrest to be dispositive." "The New York Times acknowledge the lack of contemporaneous sources but also find the MPD's statements dispositive." "one of the preëminent Grant scholars, as interviewed in NPR accepts a version of West's narrative as fact." Editors can reasonably discuss those first two points in terms of whether the sources really do consider an account to be "dispositive" – and both of those sources apparently do say explicitly that there are some doubts about the historicity. For the Grant scholar, that's important, but it would appear that the source is saying that "a version" of the narrative is all that the scholar accepts as correct, as contrasted to all versions. Unless the sources actually say things like there are issues with West's narrative and a lack of contemporaneous sources, but nonetheless it has been established as fact that this happened, then we are in territory where editors can discuss how much is historical fact and how much is a story – without veering into OR. Maybe at the end of the day, there will be a WP:CONSENSUS that the sources come down on the side of it being historical fact. But I'm not seeing a sufficient effort to reach that consensus, and I'm not seeing clear evidence of OR (although there might actually be OR in ignoring those things I pointed out). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Tryptofish I agree that there is room here for some tweaks to the article's text along your line of reasoning. This might be where you could be of some help to this discussion by pointing out specific changes based in evidence. I am 100% in agreement with quoting anything or including anything in the cited materials. The primary author (I have not even edited this article, I came across this originally with the intent of doing a DYK review) has asked multiple times for suggestions on modifications based on the sources, but the responses have not been forthcoming. This is because the opposing editors aren't really interested in changing the content based on the sources themselves but in introducing original critique; such as using reports of a prior arrest to impeach historicity of the 1872 arrest; something none of the sources do, or using the lack of coverage of the incident in biographies on Grant as a means to argue the arrest never happened. That is all original research and analysis.4meter4 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm actually not that interested in the page. It looks to me like you are not going to get an answer here of EEng and the IP being clearly in OR territory. I know EEng well, and he can be stubborn, but he's also reasonable and very smart, and I think you can try some more to see if you can get consensus. The article talk page looks to me like it's still possible. (And I, personally, have no doubt that it passes notability.) The question is how to present it: as historical fact, or as a notable story. If you can't get local consensus, then my advice continues to be to have an RfC to settle that question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Thing is… Our policies and guidelines set limits on what we include… but none of our policies set limits on what we omit. For omission, consensus rules. If there is consensus to omit something, we can omit it. This is reinforced at WP:V, which notes that “Verifiability is not a guarantee of inclusion”. So the fact that sources say X occurred does NOT mean WP must also say X occurred.
As for NOR… that policy tells us we can’t state “X didn’t occur” without sources, but NOR does not say anything about requiring us to mention X in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:DUE works for both inclusion and exclusion of material. If there is a lot of material that effectively only comes from one source, and other sources, while in depth on the topic, never corroborate that material to any degree, one could argue that the material fails DUE coverage for proper inclusion. Perhaps a paragraph, at most, about this arrest could be made on the bio page, but as a whole separate topic? This seems like very much overkill. Masem (t) 22:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if true, the incident is too trivial to include in Grant's bio -- there was no trouble or controversy about it (assuming, again, it even happened), and indeed the way it's spun is that Grant was a gentleman about it (sort of "You must do your duty, officer"), he paid his fine without protest, this shows he was a respecter of the common soldier and police officer, etc etc -- very much in the vein George Washington and the cherry tree. Where I believe it belongs is in Presidential criminal immunity in the United States, where I've fashioned a short precis of where the story came from and why it became popular suddenly recently [7], while remaining ambiguous as to whether the story should be taken at face value. It could use a bit more detail I'm sure. EEng 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Masem I think you would have a hard time making that argument. We have multiple sources by multiple authors where the Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant is the primary topic with original analysis for its cultural, political, and historical relevance as an event. This coverage extends across more than a hundred years. WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NEVENT, and WP:GNG would seem to all support this as a stand alone article.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Unless Cullen (and EEng) is lying when they say Nobody has found anything except stuff based on reminiscences decades later by a policeman with a very checkered career., then that article is still the claims based on one person, even if multiple sources repeat those claims. It would be far better if there was a historian that established the arrest happened that didn't pass through that singular source, but my read of how analysis of the sources has been done show no such work. Masem (t) 22:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Masem The problem I have with EEng's analysis is that we don't know what sort of evidence was looked at by the authors in questions, and in effect we have no way of knowing what specific evidence informed the conclusions of the articles. Eeng has arrived at his conclusions by digging for evidence on his own, but he may not have access to primary sources viewed by the journalists or scholars interviewed for these various media sources (particularly since Marszalek has access to a treasure trove of primary sources on Grant not available anywhere else). Newspapers do not print a list of sources for their articles, but they do go through a fact checking process with independent editorial oversight. Generally we consider content in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR reliable for this reason. Further, the article cites two different interviews with Grant scholar John F. Marszalek, the Executive Director and Managing Editor of the Ulysses S. Grant Association (which runs the Grant Presidential Library and research center on Grant) and The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant project. To my mind this is enough. We have the support of the top American newspapers and one of the leading scholars on Grant. The main issue I have with what Eeng has done, is he is using original research to provide original critique which is largely based on material not in evidence (ie I didn't find this, so this must not be true). The problem with evidence in the negative, is that it doesn't really disprove anything, and may only mean that one hasn't looked in the right place, and/or that he didn't view the same evidence seen by the journalists and scholars who authored or informed the articles. Further, such commentary could potentially be refuted by the journalists and Grant scholars if it were raised in a publication; either in media or in academic press. However, these questions and this type of critical analysis hasn't been raised in either forum. It would certainly be preferable to have an academic journal article on the topic or at least a discussion in a biography on Grant, but in no way are we limited to topics on wikipedia that lack coverage in journals or from academic presses. Unless you want to essentially rewrite policy on WP:Verifiability and WP:GNG, I don't think there is a strong argument to be made here that the sources are 1)unreliable or 2) lack independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
It is wrong to identify what EEng has done as "original research" that would be addressed by the NOR policy. At some point, we have to go out, pull and be selective about sources, and figure out how to summarize those works. That is quote-unquote 'original research' but of the type necessary to write summary encyclopedia article. Now, you could argue that the claim "all facts on this filter only through one person and no other corroborating sources" is not correct or needs further investigation, but I woudl not say that's improper original research, it is a question of how well EEng has done the background research to come to that conclusion. Masem (t) 00:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
What Masem said. And sorry, 4meter4, but you're wrong over and over:
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?
Can't find the link now, but the Twitter feed debunking this story was extremely persuasive. This is an example of why we should only use WP:TIER1 sources for history; when we use TIER2 or below for history, we get rumor, not history. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
You mean this [11]? Extremely persuasive indeed. I've added it to the presidential immunity article [12]. EEng 19:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the part based upon that source, for WP:DUE reasons: [13]. But, if memory serves, we are talking about OR here, aren't we? Funny, I didn't know that sourcing content to a Tweet is considered to be TIER1 sourcing. (rolls eyes) Yes, I know this was sourcing an analysis of history, rather than the history itself, but, sheesh. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, I was admittedly on thin ice there, but it was the only source we had actually addressing the question of the reliability of the story, and Benton is notable for his work in that area. Just thought I'd get my toe in the water by running it up the flagpole to see who saluted. Assuming you went through the tweet, though, I take it you see what fools we'd be making of ourselves should we present this incident as fact, or even potential fact. EEng 01:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
A tweet is WP:TIER4, unless the tweeter is a subject matter expert, in which case it's WP:TIER3. NYTimes, WaPo, etc., are WP:TIER2, but for "first US presidential arrest" or other important historical topics, we should stick to WP:TIER1. Levivich (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and what tier are you, Mr. Retired Buttinsky? EEng 05:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm all tears. Levivich (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Just put up "semi-retired", Levivich (see my user page), and contribute when/where you want at whatever rate you want. It's not defined as anything. I personally contribute about once a week if I have time/feel like it...and then I move along my merry way...
BTW, good to have you back! Buffs (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the evidence for this arrest is the statement of a police officer in 1908 and one or more statements from the current DC police force confirming the claim. Various apparently reliable sources have accepted the contemporary police statement as fact, although I don't believe they've explained how they confirmed it. I think at some point we need to consider the broader issue of what constitutes reliable sourcing for articles about crime and criminals. We often rely heavily on newspapers for these, but newspaper crime reporting tends to be sensationalistic ("if it bleeds, it leads") and relies far too heavily on police statements, which are notoriously unreliable. Of course, if we were to disqualify newspapers and police statements, I suspect many of our articles about crimes would be left with no sources whatsoever. pburka (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Right, but only to the extent we might be talking about current and recent crime -- and this isn't that. This is history, and for history we have historians -- no police chiefs needed. A police chief asked in an interview to tell some funny stories, and responding with three sentences of remembered miscellany (which, BTW, conflicts in detail with several of West's varying and inconsistent versions -- was Grant arrested on M Street? Or was it Vermont Ave.?), isn't a reliable source for an (alleged) historical incident from 150 years ago. EEng 21:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I fully recognize that original research is often necessary to make exclusion decisions. We don't, for example, require a third-party source describing a view as "fringe" before WP:FRINGE applies. But I'm very wary of saying that OR as to source accuracy is a legitimate basis for exclusion. (Bearing in mind that, in most cases, there'll be other reasons to exclude inaccurate material in a reliable source.) Consider technical issues—if, for example, two rocket-scientist editors disagree as to whether a source is accurate, how do we handle that? An RFC? Will the voters participating in the discussion have to show their work?
Now, here, I think there are different concerns. I'm not sure I agree with the editors suggesting that there shouldn't be a separate article. The account has been covered by plenty of reliable sources, several high-profile Grant experts have wrestled with the account's accuracy and the account was invoked in a Supreme Court decision. I think that information is worthy of a Wikipedia article, but it would be undue weight if it were all included on the Grant page. (I would, however, say that the arrest should probably be included—with attribution—in the Grant article, and with the caveat that there were no contemporaneous accounts of the arrest—which the NYT piece says.) But many of the sources that have covered the event have, at least partially, hedged, and I think they reveal that the DYK item should be framed carefully. The NYT piece and Benton's analysis (currently cited in the article) both note the lack of contemporary accounts. (There's some debate over whether the police chief "confirmed" the account, and I think @EEng: is right that recounting the account when asked for funny stories off the cuff doesn't qualify as "confirmation"—but that just goes to the definition and implications of "confirmation".) From my perspective, we could capture that—as well as the fact that experts have wrestled with the accuracy of the story—in the DYK item.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
I reverted the edit because it presents a theory as a fact: we do not know that those words are of substrate origin because we do not know the substrate language. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
So the article in discussion is not OR? Aristeus01 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Could you refer to my words stating that any of the two articles in question represent original research? Borsoka (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, your edit presented OR: you deleted a reference and added your own wording. The basic problem with the article "Substrate in Romanian" has been that it present scholarly PoVs as facts. Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Then present your edits as POV, not OR. We are wasting editing time having these discussions just because we are inaccurate with words. As for the reference, you know very well we can add the reference supporting the other edit. Please be more precise with your criticism. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Sable (heraldry)
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)
Hi all. I was restoring existing wording and references. The Chambers Cyclopædia did verify the points for which it was cited (which Giltsbeach had left in the infobox, without previously raising issues with the cited source), but I had to search at the UW-Madison Libraries reference site linked. I have therefore replaced Chambers for two of the claims, and for the third, supplied a new search URL after the reference. (The article was previously using a "copied from an out-of-copyright source" template rather than a citation template. I supplied the place of publication but the work appears to have been privately printed.) I hope that and a tweak to the wording introducing the three items satisfy the concern about verifiability. They're certainly better than leaving the two points unreferenced. As to the remainder of Giltsbeach's remarks, they appear to go beyond the purpose of this noticeboard, but I note that Giltsbeach has edited the infobox that appears on heraldic tincture articles to include many more of these associations. They are welcome to do the work they imply needs doing. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The source you are using in the sable article says sable was "sometimes" described with these alternative names. You have changed "sometimes" to "often". These words are not synonyms. Please read the sources more carefully. I can probably find some online tutorials that can help you if you need assistance.
You continue to present these different "poetic designations" systems as one method. This is an inaccurate portrayal of these systems. You have been working on this for several weeks now, so you know that the creators of these systems were not all in agreement and often contradict one another. It's important that these systems be labeled correctly and presented separately so as to not give the false impression there was only one method. I tried to be proactive and help out, and found taht Honoré Bonet, Jean Courtois, Conrad von Würzburg, Henry Spelman each had their own systems. You seem to be good at finding these sources online, so I hope this points you in the right direction.
You have been arguing now for the better part of a month that the articles need to be expanded and include a "poetic designations" subsection. Rather than continue to argue against it, and be dragged around from noticeboard to noticeboard, I am withdrawing my objections. You can add these poetic designations sections and expand them to your heart's content. I have expanded the infobox to accommodate your work. I have no problem filling out the infoboxes for you. I'm happy to help. Giltsbeach (talk) 09:29, 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)
How exactly do you propose they be sourced then? As most "List of characters" type articles just simply source the movie/show/comic etc they first appeared in. None of this is original research as it is immediately obvious from the title of the page that these are characters from the Shrek franchise, a franchise consisting entirely of 6 movies and a few spin-offs. It would be both excessive and pointless to source every claim by essentially just saying "Watch the movie". Also unrelated but there's no need to be condisending, ok? You're not some editing genius just cause you've been here longer. FishandChipper🐟🍟 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
See WP:NOTPLOT. Wikipedia should not primarily focus on in-universe info. A list of characters should focus on their scholarly analysis and cultural impact rather than a simple retelling of what they did in the films. P.S.: I never claimed to be an "editing genius", I'm certainly not. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 11:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, then I suppose you'd also argue for the deletion of every article listed here too? Or here? Or here? FishandChipper🐟🍟 11:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Looks to me like it's rife with OR. Stating that "[the Furniture] return in Shrek the Third, but are no longer alive (presumably due to Fairy Godmother's death)" is unambiguous OR and can't be used in Wikipedia without a citation. We can't know for sure they're not alive, and we certainly can't speculate on the cause of death. pburka (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
There's a few small handfuls of your removals that I would have kept (eg we should still mention Shrek is an orge on the list page), but overall your removals are 100% in policy and pages like that are epidemic of list of characters in a franchise or work, excessive repeating of plot and assumptions being made. Masem (t) 15:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Masem, I did keep that sentence as you can see in this revision, and I agree that basic descriptions of notable characters should be kept. Throast{{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 15:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe the relevant policy here is WP:PRESERVE. Wholesale removal is generally reserved for 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)
Maintenance tags had been in place for ten years, so there was plenty of time to consider alternatives 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.
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)
Resolved
– This appears to have resolved itself. In any event, this appears to be a dispute about how to interpret a source, not an NOR issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Views on military action against Iran. Articles on viewpoints OR?
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)
Seems like a pretty straightforward WP:SYNTH. If it were about a specific military action, that would be different. Some of the content could probably be moved to other articles if it's WP:DUE, such as foreign relations of Iran or various Iran-country relations articles, but this article itself is not about a singular notable topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article is laughably incorrect unless I'm very mistaken. Since when has Israel's main objection to Iran being Al-Qaeda supposedly being there? (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not WP:OR as it's not original research done by a Wikipedia editor not published in a source. You might be looking for WP:RSN if you're concerned it's not reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Steve Jobs
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)
This is best served in a discussion on the talk page. Buffs (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't work when WP:BURDEN is violated, since people can just force their preferred version in, say "take it to talk", and then ignore the talk page so their preferred version gets to stay in, as happened here. I posted here so someone else could revert it and bring them to the discussion; or at least so we could reach a consensus that the terms are unsupported and IMO promotional (POV). Maybe I should have gone to dispute resolution instead. DFlhb (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
"Investor", much like "philanthropist", seems to often be a code-word for "rich" when it is used in the lead sentence of a Wikipedia article. The fact that Walter Isaacson doesn't use the exact word "magnate" doesn't mean that we can't use the word magnate (which means a wealthy and influential person, especially in business according to Google) to describe a person who, quite clearly, was a wealthy and influential businessman. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's WP:OR and puffery. We don't use code-words in leads, nor can we assign labels based on criteria as subjective as wealthy and influential. Of course we must use the same labels as sources, not choose our own. business magnate was 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)
are "common sense" links allowed?
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:
a homeless person has frequently been arrested for trespassing and loitering.
he lived in a place where trespassing and loitering is illegal.
Read wp:blp, and specifically wp:crime, we can't accuse someone of having committed a crime, we have to have wp:rs making the accusation. Also if it does not name them by name, how do we know it is them who have been arrested, and not some other homeless person? Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
If I understand the example correctly, we do know that the person was arrested for trespassing and loitering. The question is whether it's ok to wikilink "trespassing and loitering" to criminalization of homelessness. pburka (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The OP is explicitly asking if it is OK to link to it in the arrestee's article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
For the sake of the example, there are RS that clarify the arrest record and there is significant consensus to keep arrest record in the article, despite whatever policies it might violate.
We know for a fact the subject has been arrested for the crimes, what doesn't mention them by name is the source which asserts that the crimes they were arrested for are part of the criminalisation of homelessness.
so rather than "loitering and trespass" it would be "loitering and trespass", as having individual links obscures what is actually going on and is not otherwise neutral.
the main question is if this linking constitutes original research because there is no RS cited that connects the general truth to the specific truth, aka, this specific homeless person. Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't check all the links, but I feel confident in saying the context here is the Killing of Jordan Neely (I didn't see that anywhere in this section). And I think Bart Terpstra asks a valid question in good faith. The idea is to contextualize the crimes of the deceased, rather than imply other crimes. As such, while it is certainly a WP:BLP issue, for me, it gets past that bar. It's true, relevant to the person, and does not cast them in a bad light that doesn't already exist. Where I have my qualms is to whether or not this is WP:DUE here. If the link is not made in secondary sources, it's likely not that important for us. While homelessness is certainly an issue in the context of the article, the reliable sources to my eyes sort of give the deceased's criminal record as background, and really neither use it nor investigate all that substantively. Because of all that, I think this sort of connection would be allowable under BLP, but is probably best left out. Then again, I tend to err on the "less is more" side of articles, so take that into account. As ever, should consensus go a different way, I will happily abide. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I would understand a rejection on those grounds and work with that, but i made this post because I wanted to know if this edit violates wp:synth, as it is representative of a way of reasoning about facts i think is valid, but has been flagged as synth by some, but not all editors.
I could construct a more fictional example if required. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
My reason for saying it does is that he had a long criminal past, and those arrests may well have been things nonhomeless people would have been arrested for as well. As such (I think) it is OR designed to try and claim he was a victim of persecution for being homeless. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
just because others are convicted for crimes with the same name in different contexts does not undermine the overwhelming likelihood that a homeless person is arrested on these charges for being homeless.
That argument would sink the strong version of the claim, but not the weak version. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Genetic Studies On Jews Edit Warring
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)
You asked "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." Answer: The criteria for verification of the eligibility of people for the study The Maternal Genetic Lineages of Ashkenazic Jews is stated on page 14: 'The phrase “full Ashkenazi” refers to individuals with genetic and genealogical indications of having sixteen Ashkenazic great-great-grandparents, who most often score 99–100 percent Ashkenazi Jewish at Family Tree DNA, 23andMe, and AncestryDNA.' A combination of family trees and documentation in support of them with genetic admixture signals, and more rigorous than the typical study that sought people who say they have four grandparents, a less rigorous method which had occasionally led to several samples being discovered to be outliers because of an unexpected non-Jewish ancestor a generation or two before that. As the geneticist Harry Ostrer has said, Ashkenazi Jews are a legitimate ethnic group, not merely a religion that you called Ashkenazi Judaism.172.56.217.228 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
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:
Country A demands Country B to be Muslim, or it will continue sanctions.
Country A does business and allies with non-Muslim countries that are otherwise the same as country B.
there is a prevailing opinion this policy is hypocritical.
there is a reliable source that states "Country A's demand on other countries to be Muslim is hypocritical because [see previous]"
is it wp:synth or wp:undue to add this to a page that mentions Country A's reasoning for the sanctions?
does it matter that the source did not explicitly mention country B?
This basically echoes my arguments from above, but I can't really hide my amusement that we are essentially debating the classic syllogism and perhaps its most famous example: 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.
TLDR: I would not call it synth, but presumptively WP:UNDUE. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem with the premise is the relation where "A applies to B in all cases". Those statements may be fine in formal science, may be used with case in natural science, and are almost always misleading in social science. In social sciences, A may "always" apply to B but not in a boolean manner, and rather with shades of grey. Even more, "cause -> consequence" may not always work as intended, not the way it works other fields (such as in "liquid water reaches 100º" -> "liquid water becames vapor water"). We may have a given situation where a predicted consequence should be a clear and almost logical thing to happen, but for whatever reason that thing did not happen. Such as in your example: someone may do something that should clearly tarnish his reputation, but somehow his reputation can be still intact. Cambalachero (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I have a source that says all cats have 4 legs and a tail and are furry. I have a source that says dogs have 4 legs a tail and a furry. Does the second source say dogs are cats? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
this is blatantly a different example. this is "A is B AND C is B therefore A is B", which a completely different proposition than the question. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
this is the strong version of the argument, so the facts are absolute.
in social sciences, if someone says "A is always B", then at the very least it is true that "according to X all members of A are always B".
the question is if it's wp:synth to say "according to X, C is B" (because C is part of the set A). Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Ryan Trevitt
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.
Map showing a traditional estimation of World regions in Global North–South grouping. Red countries in this map are grouped as "Global South", blue countries as "Global North".
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)
By the way, I apologize in advance if I am using this noticeboard incorrectly. jp×g 23:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This definitely seems like OR to me. Original research in maps and charts can be harder to spot, but it's definitely a problem. Maps like this need to be verifiable, just like anything else. I don't think that it's possible for a map to exist on this article without significant problems; "Global North and Global South" is too nebulous, especially when compared to more widely accepted terms like developed/developing or first/third world. The article even devotes a lot of space to that exact issue, which makes the inclusion of a map seem like the article contradicts itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Good to know that the South Sandwich Islands, a British Overseas Territory with zero population, is in the global south. Also check on the status of Cyprus, if you want a good headscratcher. At best the map on is nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Mike Egorov
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, ".
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)
I’m only an amateur in matters of political categorization but at the very least this is not a thing in the English literature. There are many movements and ideologies that profess “revolutionary nationalism” so this article seems almost entirely OR used to claim that one of those ideologies (the one associated with the National Radical Camp, it seems) is the only real one. Indeed, if you look up “national revolutionary movement” on JSTOR, the first results span Rwanda, Bolivia, China, and Spain. So a topic with some specific coverage that should only be present in the existing articles on Third Positionism, syncretic politics, or specific organizations like Falanga (as a side note, that article, and many others in this political topic area, could use some fixing up). Cheers and happy editing, postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 14:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. Prezbo (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Include large RCT as primary research in text (RFC)
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.
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)
Explanation of this wording choice by its author[15]
Discussion of content provided that does not exist in cited sources
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.
Written Arguments Section in Supriyo v. Union of India
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.
Russia (formerly assigned to the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991)
Abkhazia (interchangeably with 995 44)
South Ossetia (interchangeably with 995 34)
Donetsk (interchangeably with 380 71)[1][2][3]
Lugansk (interchangeably with 380 72)[1][2][3]
Kazakhstan (until 2025.)
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)
.png)
Resolved
