Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Original research at Novogrudok

• User:Sabbatino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Johnny Moor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Лобачев Владимир (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article Novogrudok includes dubious statements: Novogrudok never was capital of Lithuania and no reliable sources support statements that Mindaugas was crowned in Novogrudok.

Sentence (this: "Some researchers identified Novogrudok as the first capital of Lithuania...") in this article includes references to non-online English books, thus it is not possible to verify if they really support such dubious statements which are not supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Because of that, it is certain that these non-online sources were added on purpose to defend WP:OR. The claim that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania is supported mostly by Belarusian tourism websites (definitely fails as WP:V, WP:RS in an encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia) and by some questionable late sources (which obviously can be false and does not automatically qualify as truth, especially Belarusian sources which often includes original research and the opposite theories about the Lithuanian history, thus are not recognized internationally and this is one of these extreme cases). We even do not know the exact location of the Lithuanian King Mindaugas capital city (Voruta is the only mention and it has many, many possible locations; some theories even suggests that he had no capital at all), so attempts to prove that somebody exactly knew where Mindaugas was crowned while writing the late sources is even more ridiculous and is an obvious case of WP:OR (late authors were simply guessing and that is not an encyclopedia-level material), so pushing of a 19th century illustration Mindoŭh. Міндоўг (1824).jpg into this article, which depicts the crowning of Mindaugas, is a yet another obvious case of WP:OR (recently persistently performed by users such as Russian-Belarusian Лобачев Владимир and Belarusian named Johnny Moor). Consequently, I request to completely and permanently remove all the dubious, non-verifiable claims from this article because articles of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) are not an internet forum where we could discuss pseudoscience theories. User Sabbatino was also involved in combating this WP:OR, but the Belarusian-side kept on pushing their opinion, so a third-party intervention is a must.

These articles of Encyclopedia Britannica (the most reliable encyclopedia) do not mention such pseudo theories and I can't see why Wikipedia should include them as it also seeks equally high-level reliability standards: https://www.britannica.com/place/Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/place/grand-duchy-of-Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mindaugas. But the first Britannica's article does mention other recognized capitals of Lithuania: Kernavė, Trakai, Vilnius. The Lithuanians treats the case of Novogrudok as a pure myth (English language article, published by Vilnius University): https://ldkistorija.lt/stories/myths/the-myth-of-navahrudak/. -- Pofka (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• The fact that Novogrudok was the first capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is one of the many theories that are refuted exclusively by Lithuanian scientists. Since this is contrary to the national policy of Lithuania. In addition to Belarusian scientists, Russian sources, Ukrainian sources and Polish sources agree with this. Nevertheless, according to the participant of the Pofka, this version can not be considered at all, while this participant himself writes that the question is very dicussional and many authoritative English sources are silent about it, as Pofka writes. However, at the same time, in parallel with the fact that Pofka himself writes that the issue is debatable, this does not prevent him from pushing the Lithuanian version, which completely denies the theory about Novogrudok, only for the reasons that the city is not located in Lithuania. At the same time, Pofka removes all sources that somehow indicate this and removes not only Belarusian sources. The article mentioned both Voruta and Kernava. I doubt that there is a lot of information about Novogrudok in the articles about Voruta and Kernava. But in these articles, the theory is actively developing, defending that the city that is described was the capital. The Pofka participant was angry about the same technique in the article about Novogrudok. It can be seen that the Pofka member promotes exclusively Lithuanian national policy, masking it under the protection of Wikipedia's neutrality, removing everything that may contradict his views and focusing on the nationality of other participants. It is strange in general how Vilnius can be the first capital when the city was first founded by Gediminas in 1323. Johnny Moor (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnny Moor: My reply to his baseless accusations: 1) I did not removed any verifiable online sources and even kept non-verifiable references to English language sources, but, as already presented by Sabbatino, these non-verifiable English sources simply are one of the Wikipedia:HOAXes, thus should be removed; 2) I based this report not on the Lithuanian sources, but on Encyclopedia Britannica, therefore your ridiculous accusations that only the Lithuanian nationalists wants to exclude Novogrudok as capital of Lithuania are simply baseless; 3) It is an absurd when you attack the Lithuanian sources (who comply with Britannica), but defend Belarusian sources as "reliable", despite the fact that they contradict Britannica; 4) Language of sources doesn't matter if it contradicts such reliable sources as Britannica; 5) Nothing about this baseless theory of Novogrudok as capital is developing as it is just a Belarusian myth, not recognized by reliable international sources and it will not be recognized internationally anytime in the future; 6) History is not a science of: "Please, we, Belarusians, want to have at least one capital of Lithuania", but its about facts and facts show that no contemporaneous sources mentions Novogrudok as Lithuania's capital. Deal with it. You will not change history just by pushing pseudoscience theories; 7) As already mentioned in my initial message, false theories presented by scientists of late times doesn't mean that they are at least slightly true; 8) Encyclopedias, unlike internet forums, do not discuss false theories and exclusively presents facts, but, as already mentioned before, facts simply crushes this pseudo theory, so there simply is no place for such WP:OR in Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

We do not try to change the story, unlike you Pofka, you refer to sources where there is no information about it at all. You are talking absolute nonsense, how can you contradict the Britannica you have cited, when there is nothing there at all? How can you refer to something that doesn't say anything about it? But you do it perfectly. All that you have given in the previous paragraph only proves that I wrote in my previous paragraph, you do not respect Belarusians as such in general, moreover, you despise them and their point of view and try to promote the Lithuanian national propaganda masking it under the preservation of the authority of Wikipedia. You purposefully ignore Russian, Ukrainian, Russian and Polish scientists. Those sources that you even deigned to leave anyway, you marked as non-authoritative, since it was not written there that Kernava was the capital. You accuse of the falsity of the theory, while brazenly forgetting that Wikipedia is not a place of original research and your statement about the "stupidity of the theory" has nothing to do with it, because there are sources, sources of scientists, articles and articles are written on them. You teach other participants, try to prove only your own truth, and make loud statements, but at the same time you do not actually comply with them. And as a colleague wrote below, you can live on in your wet fantasies. Johnny Moor (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice statement: "...how can you contradict the Britannica you have cited, when there is nothing there at all?", seriously? The answer is simple: it is not true that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania at any time, so there is no need to include it in any way. What do you expect to find in Britannica? Something like: "Novogrudok never was capital of Lithuania, step back?". Encyclopedias do not discuss pseudo theories as they simply exclude them. Britannica mentions all three well known capitals of Lithuania: Kernavė, Trakai, Vilnius. That's it. The rest are dubious pseudo theories, which should not be included into high-quality encyclopedias, like Britannica and Wikipedia. Even Voruta is dubious and is not included into Britannica. Once again: it does not matter who made false statements. If they are false or are WP:OR, then the language and nationality of authors does not matter. Just because some Americans would publish books with pseudo theories that Paris or Mexico City is the capital of the United States, nobody would include such WP:OP. -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You can't impose anything on this theory. If we follow your logic, then in all the sources listed by you, there is no direct indication of any Lithuanian city listed by you, where Lithuanian scientists attribute the coronation of Mindovg. At the same time, you only call the theory about Novogrudok a false doctrine. A dubious pseudo-theory is to call Vilnius the capital when the city did not exist, the same with Voruta, a place that none of the scientists can still say exactly where this city is located and if I am not mistaken, the first theories that Voruta was the capital appeared only in the 20th century. As for the other cities, Lithuanian scientists are ready to consider any city without any problems, even if it did not appear anywhere at all. All that you have written is nothing more than the promotion of Lithuanian nationalist politics, which is covered by the rules of our electronic community. Such pseudo-science has no place here, and the only obvious violator here is you.To be honest, I did not see anything new in such a discussion. The usual clash of national mythologies looks something like this. Johnny Moor (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, Mindaugas, not Mindovg (Mindaugas | ruler of Lithuania | Britannica). Consider learning some Lithuanian language words if you are analyzing the history of Lithuania. Secondly, the Lithuanian scientists do not claim any location where Mindaugas was coronated. However, Vilnius is possible because the first Catholic Church in Lithuania was built in the Vilnius Castle Complex during the reign of Mindaugas and he was crowned as a Catholic King, not Orthodox King (Novogrudok was an Orthodox city, conquered by Mindaugas). Though, from the contemporaneous sources we do not know 100% where he was coronated, so it is simply unknown and we do not perform WP:OR like the Belarusians. Thirdly, about your statement that: "A dubious pseudo-theory is to call Vilnius the capital when the city did not exist, the same with Voruta, a place that none of the scientists can still say exactly where this city is located and if I am not mistaken, the first theories that Voruta was the capital appeared only in the 20th century", really? Vilnius never was capital of Lithuania? So maybe it was Minsk? Vilnius existed before the reign of Gediminas and it is just a beautiful legend that he created Vilnius following the Gediminas' Dream about an iron wolf. As already mentioned, a Catholic Church already stood in Vilnius, built by Mindaugas, so it was a significant city before Gediminas already. And you call yourself as a historian? I will repeat to you once again: Voruta was mentioned in contemporaneous sources when Mindaugas was still alive (it was written that Mindaugas defended himself in Voruta from the Teutonic Order or Livonian Order attack). Novogrudok was never mentioned in contemporaneous sources and associated with the Lithuanian King when Mindaugas was alive. I will not continue discussing with a pseudo historian because you repeat pseudo theories again and again. As already noted by Sabbatino, discussing with the Belarusian nationalists is pointless because they do not listen to facts and continues to push their fairy tales. Third party must solve this and implement sanctions for those who push WP:OR. -- Pofka (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

First, Mindovg, and secondly, you have brazenly attributed to yourself the history of the common history of Belarus and Lithuania, plus you have touched on the history of Ukraine and a little bit of Russia. Third, for your information, Novogrudok is not a purely Orthodox city, there is still a fairly developed Catholic community there, and if I am not mistaken, the Lithuanians remained pagans even after Mindovg Mindovgas, until they began to actively baptize them in the time of Jagiello. Most scholars agree that Mindovg was baptized only because of political ambitions, and even after that he continued to be a pagan. With Mindovg will be Mindovg not only in Belarusian, but also in Russian and Ukrainian Миндовг and Мiндовг, in Polish it generally sounds Mendog. Maybe then you can also show them your claims in other language sections? Fourth, it is interesting to say that Belarusians do not believe that Vilnius was the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at all. Seriously, how do you draw such conclusions? Did Vilnius exist before Gediminas? Well, of course, if you count the small settlements that were there during the Mesolithic, then, of course, Vilnius can generally be considered older than Rome itself. As a result, I will say that it is ridiculous to hear accusations that Belarusians are "pseudo-scientists and repulsed nationalists" from someone who does not look at himself in the mirror at all. You can promote the policy of the Republic of Lithuania in any other place, because your "historical knowledge" can be attributed to a well-known Russian program "Territory of Delusions", which tells about aliens and the like this. Of course, you don't need anything but your opinion, because you live in your own fairy-tale world, a world where only you rule. You yourself spoke about the meaninglessness of the discussion, while you yourself brought it all up for discussion, insulted and threatened other participants, plus told everyone about your greatness. Well, in principle, I did not expect anything else from the statement of a radical Lithuanian nationalist. Johnny Moor (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Pofka: Good luck dealing with Litvinist editors. One of the reasons why I almost entirely stopped editing the content related to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was due to Litvinist editors' brainless approach towards the issues since they tend to ignore anything that comes from Lithuanian editors and just keep repeating themselves by adding the same sources (which are almost always WP:SYNTH and are questionable most of the time) or they just combine multiple sources and create WP:HOAXes. Therefore, I decided that it is not worth trying to reason with them and thought that they should continue living in their fairy tale world. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: That's why such WP:OR should be removed from the article of Novogrudok and those who keep on reinserting pseudoscience theories be immediately presented with sanctions: firstly, a temporary block, then permanent block if the pushing of WP:OR continues. Constant trampling of Wikipedia:Five pillars and other rules of Wikipedia should not be tolerated, no matter how aggressive some nationalists are. Blocking of users stops even the most aggressive individuals. -- Pofka (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Your threats to other participants are pathetic and ridiculous. In the pursuit of defending the Lithuanian national policy and in the absence of arguments, you turn to direct threats of reprisal against other participants. Johnny Moor (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Rules are made to be followed, not to be constantly trampled. Do not insert WP:OR and nobody will impose any sanctions. But if you seek to rewrite history with WP:OR, then sorry, but we have nothing in common. -- Pofka (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Of all of us, only you hide behind the rules while you yourself refuse to join them, accusing other participants of what you yourself are most guilty of WP:OR. At the same time, you still dare to make threats to other participants. Johnny Moor (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It is you and your fellow Belarusian nationalists who push WP:OR, not me. I respect rules and do not create fairy tales in an encyclopedia. -- Pofka (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Declares, the one who does not want to hear anything while blaming the others for the fact that he is actively engaged. Johnny Moor (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: As expected, this discussion will be fruitless with the Belarusian nationalists who stubbornly push baseless WP:OR. I request third-party administrators to take actions against spreading of WP:OR at the article Novogrudok about it being the capital of Lithuania at any period and apply sanctions to users if they continue it. I will not continue replying to Johnny Moor because it is truly pointless, as noted by Sabbatino. Neutral users: ping me if necessary. -- Pofka (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: As it should be proved, this Lithuanian participant is an ardent Lithuanian nationalist who defends and promotes nationalist Lithuanian politics, calling versions different from Lithuanian scientists absurd, hiding behind the rules on orginal research, WP:OR, only on the grounds that he refuses to take into account alterative opinions and points of view. The participant disrespectfully treats other participants of Wikipedia, at the same time he started this conversation, he was hinted at several times in the process, including Sabbatino, that it is useless to argue with him because he refuses to take into account any other position at all. He, on the other hand, does not seem to see it at all and again blames everything on others as if he did not notice it on purpose. Plus, he exposes incomprehensible theories and tries to prove his point of view, which just falls under the original research, WP:OR, which he himself is happy to accuse other participants of. I, in turn, ask the administrators of Wikipedia to stop this absurdity, because Wikipedia, thanks to Lithuanian nationalists, becomes a platform for promoting only their national interests, WP:NOTADVOCACY. Johnny Moor (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Curiously, it was in Novogrudok that was originally the center of the Lithuanian Orthodox Metropolis. See source. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Lithuania was established in the 14th century and Mindaugas lived in the early to mid 13th century, so it is an irrelevance to whether Novogrudok was the place where Mindaugas was crowned and it also being the supposed capital of Lithuania, as the rulers of Lithuania (including the Catholic King of Lithuania Mindaugas) were not Orthodox during the whole existence of the Metropolitanate. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

He then proceeded to conquer his homeland in the 1240s, rather than the other way around: that is, Mindaugas attacked Lithuania from Navahrudak, rather than attacking Navahrudak from Lithuania (Andrew Wilson. Belarus. 2 Litva)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This sentence is spurious because it is illogical, a problem only worsened by the fact your claim has a source with a paywall. How can the author even make such doubtful claims about Mindaugas' homeland when so much is simply unknown? Lack of sources does not mean that it is allowed to invent nonsense. Even worse for your sentence is that what is known about Mindaugas directly refutes such claims, as Mindaugas was one of the Lithuanian dukes (List of early Lithuanian dukes) and, in the 1240s, Lithuania conquered Novogrudok, not the other way around, so that sentence is straight-up lies. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

support from the people of Navahrudak, Mindaugas conquered Lithuania – the enclave of the Baltic population on the Belarusian lands – and subjugated it to himself, ie to the land of Navahrudak. (The Discourse on Identity in a Global Consumption–Based Society: Between Myth and Reality)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Total nonsense. It is clearly written and sourced in the Novogrudok article, that: "In 1241, Grand Duke Mindaugas conquered Novogrudok." The falsehood of "Baltic enclaves on Belarusian lands" is demonstrable by the fact that there were no Belarusians as such during those times, ergo no Belarusian lands (just as there would be no Belgians or Americans in the Middle Ages). However, Balts are known, due to Marija Gimbutienė's and other's research, to have lived from the Vistula to Moscow (if not an even larger area) since millennia before Christ. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The need to resist the pressure of Tatars and German crusaders forced the people of Belarus to consolidate around the rapidly expanding principality with the capital of Navahrudak (Novogrudok) ruled by a Lithuanian prince Mindaugas. By the middle of the 14th century, all the territory of modern Belarus was attached to The Great Principality of Lithuania, Russia and Zhamoytiya (GPL). By the 15th century, the territory of the GPL expanded from Brest to Smolensk and from Baltic to the Black Sea. The origin of the Belarusian language, the Belarusian culture and the Belarusian nation itself should be looked for in the GPL where 90% of the population were Slavonic and the state language was old Belarusian. The current borders of Belarus in the East, the South and the West almost coincide with that of the GPL in 16th century. (THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH, 1994)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Lithuania was formed on the basis of the ethnically Lithuanian Lithuania proper. The theory of the capital at Novogrudok was mentioned for the first time after centuries had passed since Mindaugas and the relevant time frame. The claim about the capital has no validity, as for now, the only contemporary mention of a 13th-century capital is Voruta, whose location is a matter of debate, but it was certainly not in newly taken over lands.

Any attempt to masquerade that GDL was a Belarusian or Slavic state is a complete misportrayal, as the Kingdom, later Grand Duchy, of LITHUANIA was founded by Lithuanians according to Encyclopedia Brittanica, this research project, this research article and multitudes of other sources. All of these sources are objective and following WP:NPOV, contrary to whatever Лобачев Владимир is quoting. A state can be of a certain ethnicity even if the state is multi-ethnic. e.g. Apartheid South Africa (ASA). The white minority was ruling over the black majority (Zulu people, Xhosa people, etc.). Does having a majority black population make ASA a black state? No - the state belonged to the whites, not to the blacks. So, ASA was founded and maintained by the white Afrikaners - it was a white state. What about GDL? Where there Slavs in it? Yes. Even if they were a majority in some parts of it, which is uncertain due to lack of statistical data and Polonization/Slavicization affecting many Lithuanians, that in no way makes GDL a Slavic State. GDL was founded by Lithuanians, maintained by a Lithuanian elite and is thus a LITHUANIAN STATE. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

---

I've checked 3 English-language sources (which are presumably freer from local biases) from the article and one of them explicitly names Novogrudok "the capital of the Grand Lithuanian Duchy" rebuilt by Mindaugas. Geddie says that Gediminas, a century after Mindaugas, had a residence in Novogrudok but says that Vilna was the capital. Philips does not mention either Novogrudok or Vilna on p. 78. So the sources in the article don't fully support the statement.

I see that additional sources have been provided here, so I would suggest to incorporate them into the article and remove the ones which don't discuss the topic. Also, I think that the concept of capital might be anachronistic for the lands rules by Mindaugas, so maybe it's worth avoiding it in favour of more concrete facts: where he was crowned, where he had his residences, etc. Alaexis_¿question? 06:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Russian sources obviously fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources in a Lithuania-related topic due to the Propaganda in the Russian Federation. Provide non-Belarusian, non-Russian reliable source. Encyclopedia Britannica do not support this WP:OR. This English source certainly is not a reliable source and is absolutely not comparable with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Novogrudok never was capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is a WP:OR of some Russians and Belarusians, not supported by other reliable sources. The only mentioning of Mindaugas's castle (unknown if it was capital or not) is Voruta. Not surprisingly, location of his crowning is also unknown, thus various modern WP:OR should not be presented. Following the conquest of Novogrudok by Mindaugas, the city was ruled by his son Vaišvilkas(Lithuanian reference about this). -- Pofka (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Миндовг (Mindaugas) // Great Russian Encyclopedia:

Ru: Государство Миндовга не имело постоянной столицы, правитель со своей дружиной перемещался по дворам и замкам, утверждал свою власть и собирал дань. Историки гипотетически реконструировали домен Миндовга, который располагался в Восточной Литве. Миндовг рано утвердился на землях Чёрной Руси (центр – г. Новогрудок); в Полоцке правил племянник Миндовга князь Товтивил, признававший его власть, что положило начало литовской экспансии на русские земли.

Translation: The state of Mindaugas did not have a permanent capital, the ruler with his retinue moved around the courtyards and castles, asserted his power and collected tribute. Historians hypothetically reconstructed the Mindaugas domain, which was located in Eastern Lithuania. Mindaugas early established itself on the lands of Black Russia (center - Novogrudok); in Polotsk the nephew of Mindaugas ruled, Prince Tovtivil, who recognized his power, which marked the beginning of the Lithuanian expansion to the Russian lands.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Show such statements in Encyclopedia Britannica. :) The fact that you keep reinserting Russian/Belarusian sources only strengthens the obvious fact that you and your friends push WP:OR into Wikipedia and systematically violate its rules on a daily basis. Russian/Belarusian sources can be simply ignored and proves absolutely nothing in a Lithuania-related topic because it is inappropriate to write other countries history from a foreign POV, especially when foreign sources contradict the national historiography, which is supported by democratic countries abroad. This discussion is long enough already, but users Johnny Moor and Лобачев Владимир fail to provide at least one non-Belarusian, non-Russian Wikipedia:Reliable source supporting their statements. Funny, but it was obvious from the start that they will be unable to defend their propaganda with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just a policy clarification - if there are Belarusian sources that say Novogrudok was the capital, then saying so on WP can not be called Original Research (as the idea did not originate here on WP). I have no opinion on whether those sources are reliable or not… but their existence means the idea is not WP:OR. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: It would not be a problem if it said that Novogrudok was capital of Belarus, but they are ridiculously attempting to prove false statements about a foreign country - Lithuania and the Lithuanian, non-Belarusian, non-Russian sources do not support such pseudo theories, propaganda. I cannot see any reasons why attempts to distort facts about foreign countries should be tolerated in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia), which is based on facts. Would we, for example, accept statements from various Iraqi sources, which would claim that the United States is a terrorist state or just imagine if we would rewrite article United States based on sources from Iran? Toleration of false information about foreign countries would quickly open the Pandora's box in Wikipedia. This discussion has clearly shown that when I asked to provide at least one reliable non-Belarusian, non-Russian source these editors were not able to do that. That's a perfect illustration how fake these statements are and this is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but it is not surprising as these sources were published in an authoritarian states. According to Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", so it is clear that no reliable sources were provided as of now, therefore it is a baseless WP:OR. -- Pofka (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Blueboar:, as you can see, this issue is very much politicized by modern Lithuanians. Who refuse to take into account any source that mentions it in any way, saying that it is either evil Russians or Belarusians. In the article about Novogrudok itself, if you noticed, there were not only Belarusian and Russian sources (and after all, the sources may be simply Russian-speaking without reference to Russia itself), nevertheless, the Lithuanian participants refuse to take them into account at all, since this contradicts their doctrine, which they are ready to sift out in any way. It is useless to prove to the Lithuanian participants that either is useless, you have seen for yourself their loud statements and the pressure with which they push their point of view. Johnny Moor (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

So will you finally provide a reliable online non-Belarusian, non-Russian source supporting statements that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania? Save your and others time. I provided articles from Britannica which are fully neutral and completely reliable. Here is one more which says that the Belarusians had no state until 1918 (Belarus | Britannica). We don't need your walls of texts in which you baselessly blame the Lithuanians for denying your fairy tales. Afterall, Belarus and Russia are currently considered as an authoritarian states, so rejecting unreliable sources about other countries is understandable. -- Pofka (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your judgments that Belarus and Russia are "authoritarian states" and therefore their opinions cannot be taken into account are worth a lot. You didn't care that many of these sources were written a long time ago, some are even chronicles. That is, if some source was written in tsarist Russia, Kaiser's Germany or Austria-Hungary, then it is forbidden to take them into account, so there were authoritarian regimes there? Do not accuse us of promoting "fairy tales", while you are doing the same thing that you accuse others of. And your link to the Briatnik does not show anything at all, because it is generally empty from your own words. Is it normal to insert a source where there is no information at all about the described event? And you still refer to the original research everywhere here, despite the fact that you have not provided any reliable source refuting this theory to any of your statements. And most importantly, where did you see in the article about Novogrudok that "The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is an exclusively Belarusian state", where did you get such interesting statements? You are sitting here all day promoting the Lithuanian national agenda, while "we are still wasting time". You would have done something useful, not rewriting history. Your recent statements are pure Xenophobia, I note that none of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian editors have ever refused or scolded Lithuanian resources, which is what you are actively doing. Your behavior is disgusting and not worthy of Wikipedia. Johnny Moor (talk) 11:09, 09 August 2021 (UTC)

Scrappy Doo Biography

A month ago, my edits of Scrappy were abruptly removed, citing original research. However, I feel this isn't the case.

to avoid original research, the main original research page says:

"The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication."

I fulfilled this to the best of my ability. I used the cartoons Scrappy appeared in since the purpose of fictional character Scrappy's biography is to show his role in the cartoons he appeared in.

First of all, while my main sources were the cartoons he appeared in, that is the best place to go. The 'biography' section, unless I'm mistaken, is to show what Scrappy did in the cartoons he appeared in. What better place than the cartoons themselves? I think that part of the issue was that I slacked in citing them thoroughly, but then the only issue was that not thorough in citing them, then I reasonably should be allowed to restore my edits with citations, should I not? The appropriate clips can be marked with timestamps.Smcupcake19 (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Scrappy-Doo (courtesy article link) Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

For quick reference: Smcupcake19's version of the article, the revised version. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Editor is excluding a fair amount of reasoning posted to the talk page, including: COPYVIO of official episode summaries (3+ found), numerous unattributed copies from Wikia/Fandom (Predating the editor's insertion on Wikipedia by 2-3+ years), arguments of undue weight and NOT, that is, excessive content/fandom/fancruft, etc. The character article is not the suitable place to document in detail the plot of every episode the character appeared in. This would belong at best on a list of episodes for each TV series (Presuming the series are considered notable, though I'm fairly sure they likely are), and almost never to the degree as was done here. With uncertain degrees of copyvio mixed in, restoration should not occur, and any effort to build a new list of episodes requires re-summarization (For much reduced word count) and checking for copyvio/unattributed copying. -- ferret (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I only intended to bring the OR contention to the OR noticeboard. I did this on the advice of wikipedia's help chat. To make a long story very short, Ferret has leveled some vague accusations about me violating copyright. There was an issue months ago before I knew that using other's summaries wasn't allowed, but I have since rewritten them (the rewriting was also completed months ago) and am more then happy to do the same with any others that have been missed. Since there are 75 full-length ep's worth of content and over ahundred stories to be summarized, going with (3+ found) information which was obtained by I myself looked for when Ferret refused to elaborate on their own accusations (specifically what content was "lifted") As for the other commplaints, I repeat: A) I only wish to determine whether this violates Original Research Policy B) every other point I have responded to on Scrappy's talk page, here. Smcupcake19 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

While primary sources can be used with great caution, they should be avoided whenever possible. I see that a Google Scholar search for "Scrappy Doo" turns up dozens of hits, suggesting that there's no shortage of reliable secondary sources you could use instead. I'd advise against trying to extract a biography for a fictional character from the cartoons themselves. While it might be possible to do this without engaging in OR, it would be very difficult to write more than a few sentences. pburka (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. But none of it (that I can see) is about Scrappy's cartoon history. I shall make a public draft of my summaries and polish them as fit. I hope someone will have the time to inspect them.Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If there are no secondary sources, it might be a hint that the information you want to include isn't sufficiently important to be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of all the world's knowledge. pburka (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Pburka, my edits stood by for more than six months and as you can see by the edits, and no significant issues were taken by anybody. The trouble only started when a user abruptly yanked it all down for reasons that they should have at the very least attempted to flag for fixing.

"Of course, as Wikipedia is a wiki, its materials can be said to reflect readers' priorities, since anyone may add more information about their preferred subjects and become an editor." -Wikipedia:Fancruft

Scrappy was my priority-and as it said the implicit consensus appeared to be one of acceptance. Also, he is a relatively notable character.

Were they important enough? Well, I'm happy to say, I do believe they were-I was surprised and happy with this attention, and it only proves what I always believed-that my edits were neutral, noteworthy, and worthy of staying or at least refining.(I did tell the interviewer that they were ironclad, because, at that point, I believed they were-and I still believe it, which is why I'm continuing to argue in their favor)

I made a draft containing my old edits too, we should discuss that if anything. I'm adding references (I'm sure I can find secondary sources, but most of the ones on google scholar were not about Scrappy's cartoon biography). If we are going to discuss the edits in question, that is what you should look at.Smcupcake19 (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

None of that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Extensive character biographies are not appropriate, as several editors have told you now. It's beginning to become disruptive. All of the information you have, which you are very clearly deeply interested in sharing, does have a home on the internet, but it isn't on Wikipedia. It’s on the Scooby Doo Fandom]. Extensive information about everything a character has ever done doesn't belong here. His article should be primarily about the character's development, appearances, and reception. Not everything that has ever happened to him—a professional approach to his history, not a fan-driven one. Please read the Manual of Style on writing about fiction. For example: "narration must employ out-of-universe style and include real-world descriptors. Characters should not be presented as if they are real persons, fictional settings should not be treated as a real place, and so forth." Your writing is in-universe and overly familiar. I'm really sorry because I see that you're deeply attached to this property, but Wikipedia isn't the place to share it. Fandom is. It will have readers there who appreciate it far more; that's what that service is intended for. Regarding what you said about it being there for so long, yes, it was, and it needed to be fixed. Consensus is established, in a soft way, by an article's state existing over a long period of time. That consensus was shattered when I removed large swathes of inappropriate information. The new consensus was established by multiple editors telling you the article's state was unacceptable. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, given this is the original research page, may I please get a more in-depth answer about why you believe that? (And IIRC someone actually reverted your deletion, which you completely ignored before I returned to the picture...so much for consensus.) Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: Am adding some secondary sources in the draft with the contested material.Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been lingering for a while and I apologize for all delays. As I have, by and by, learned more of wikipedia's policies I feel that there are still some loose ends to tie up. At the heart of it, the issue was that it was uncited, fast-deleted for that, and then fast-deleted once more when I began citing primary sources. However, there is somewhat of a flaw in the arguments against it-we're talking about a work of fiction.

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used for."

For WP:PRIMARYCARE

So that is the matter which can be addressed here. A work in need of citations. There are other arguments, like length and due weight and all that which have emerged, but this is what can be properly addressed here.

An article about a novel: The novel itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot, the names of the characters, the number of chapters, or other contents in the book: Any educated person can read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and discover that the main character's name is Elizabeth or that there are 61 chapters. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the book's style, themes, foreshadowing, symbolic meaning, values, importance, or other matters of critical analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: No one will find a direct statement of this material in the book.

An article about a film: The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters. A Wikipedian cannot use the film as a source for claims about the film's themes, importance to the film genre, or other matters that require critical analysis or interpretation.

I admit that neither of these are precisely TV shows, but they are close enough. It's true that there are other non-OR issues about the length and the bredth, but, unless I am mistaken this is the place to determine OR and whatnot.

Have a blessed day. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine article

There is a dispute that I want to bring here, rather than an edit war. Here is the discussion at the Talk Page. It had appeared to reach a consensus via compromise, after input from two other editors, and was reworded satisfactorily to the editor that objected in the first place (me) until another user reverted that compromise edit.

From what I can see, the first sentence of the Efficacy section clearly violates WP:RS/AC by stating there is a "scientific consensus" about this controversial topic, when there is not, that I can see anywhere in the "sources" or anywhere on the internet. But the lack of source material indicates to me that this is an attempt to synthesize statements by individuals to justify the some "gut feeling" that there is a scientific consensus. According to WP:RS/ACA "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view ... Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."

Currently, the article says this: "There is a general scientific consensus that alternative therapies lack the requisite scientific validation, and their effectiveness is either unproved or disproved." and then lists citations, which do not even remotely support this, as far as I can tell.

I am bringing this here not because I'm waving the flag for any particular view. Personally, I deeply respect science and the scientific method, and I am strongly against "quacks" or any kind of BS peripheral to the medical field. But to state on Wikipedia, for the general reading public, that there is a "scientific consensus", when there is not, is not something I'm comfortable with as an editor. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The gist is that a medicine/therapy which enjoys mainstream scientific validation is no longer alternative. E.g. artemisinin is not alt-med. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but that is still original, synthesized research and still a violation. There is no accepted definition of alternative medicine that implies that all of it falls outside the scientific method, and no scientific consensus. You cannot claim scientific consensus without supporting that, as I pointed out, which is why it should be reworded. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative medicines are, by definition, medicines that do not enjoy the support of the scientific consensus. To say that the scientific consensus is that they lack validation is not, in any way, WP:OR, and the actual OR I'm seeing here is the presumption that this argument rests upon: that the scientific community believes there is evidence for the efficacy of treatments for which they've been unable to find evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two problems with your argument: One is that there is no accepted definition of alternative medicine that would imply that they all exist outside of science (please show m if there is). And second, if no scientific consenus is possible, then why have "scientific consensus" there at all? Why not just simply remove that statement? If a consensus about something is not possible, then there is no reason to mention a scientific consensus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But we do have a scientific consensus that artemisinin works. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate and put this statement in context of this discussion for me? Thanks. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, artemisinin was discovered through dabbling in alt-med. That's called the context of discovery. Having received the blessing of mainstream science, artemisinin is no longer alt-med. That's called the context of justification. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, but if meditation is currently used as an adjunctive therapy (which it is) than it should no longer be defined as alternative medicine, by your definition, right? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, the amount of scientific consensus decides that. Acupuncture is used as an adjunctive therapy, although the scientific consensus is against its effectiveness. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But that's just simply not true: "A consensus panel convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) today concluded there is clear evidence that needle acupuncture treatment is effective for postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting, nausea of pregnancy, and postoperative dental pain." Source. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. See Acupuncture. We use the best sources available, we do not use junk science sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The National Institutes of Health is a "junk science" source? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed yes, the bit that endorses junk science is normally unreliable for science related subjects. well known fact. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

One is that there is no accepted definition of alternative medicine that would imply that they all exist outside of science (please show m if there is). Depending on what you mean by "exist outside of science" then you are either drastically misinterpreting what I said, or categorically ignorant of what alternative medicine even is. In any case, there is a perfectly good definition right there in the article in the very first sentence.

And second, if no scientific consenus is possible, then why have "scientific consensus" there at all? This makes absolutely no sense. The suggestion that because some claim does not represent a scientific consensus that there can be no scientific consensus is irrational in the extreme. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You mean the definition that has no citation and no source? Where is that definition from again? Please share with me. The rest of the article explains why defining alternative medicine isn't possible. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's very simple. If there is a scientific consensus abut a topic, there should be evidence of that. If there is no accepted definition of "alternative medicine" in science, then there can be no consensus about it. If there is an accepted definition, then please show that to me. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Do not insert your comments inside another editor's comments. That definition is not unsourced, but very well sourced, which you would see if you read the article. And there is reams of evidence for the scientific consensus, you're just refusing to accept it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, alternative medicine is medicines/therapies which are not supported by scientific evidence. It's called alternative to distinguish it from mainstream medicine, which is based upon scientific evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You said "based upon scientific evidence." Would you consider this statement to imply scientific evidence of acupuncture? "A consensus panel convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) today concluded there is clear evidence that needle acupuncture treatment is effective for postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting, nausea of pregnancy, and postoperative dental pain." Source.

That junk science source no longer reflects the best available evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The National Institutes of Health is a "junk science" source? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Aaronlife, Here's what we know about acupuncture:

• It doesn't matter where you put the needles
• It doesn't matter whether you insert them or not
• It only "works" on self-reported subjective symptoms that have a strong psychosomatic component (e.g. nausea)
• It is a hugely lucrative industry
• It was largely invented by Mao Zedong
• It is primarily supported by studies from China, which never find a negative result for anything, however self-evidently bogus

In short, it's a bust, and the continued cottage industry of small-scale "studies" by True Believers saying the same old things are precisely analogous to the last gasps of homeopathy. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Is the National Institutes of Health a "junk science" source?

https://www.nccih.nih.gov/ is pro-quackery propaganda, institutionalized with taxpayers money. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ask about the NCCIH. I asked about the NIH: "A consensus panel convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) today concluded..." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been warned of discretionary sanctions, so please behave. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like you have no response to my question, then? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have replied enough. Further pointless WP:ADVOCACY is unwanted. We are not a website of apologetics. If you cannot serve Wikipedia, leave. This is not the place to WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Awfully convenient that right when when you lose the argument based on reason, that make these claims and ask me to leave. Wikipedia is not your personal blog, it is not a place for opinions. It is a place for science and facts, and I will always work to improve it. I welcome a response to the facts I last laid out. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for argument based on reason, we are not a debate championship. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What tgeorgescu said. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ADDENDUM : Anybody who think the NCCIH is a reliable source isn't long for this project. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The quote I pasted was from the NIH, NOT the NCCIH. The NIH is listed as a reliable medical source on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me tell you a secret about Wikipedia: we are all slaves on Jimbo's plantation. If you don't agree with the purposes of Wikipedia, made clear at WP:ARBPS, it is pointless to edit further. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. The flaw in your argument, and your failure to answer "Is the the NIH (not the NCCIH) a reliable source, and the statement about the consensus on accupuncture I provided from it, is all I need to know. I suggest you start a blog, rather than edit Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Here you are the troll. You are in no position to make demands. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making any demands. And I'm not a troll. You have devolved into ad hominem when you could not refute my argument. Let's go our separate ways. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is WP:ADVOCACY contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. It does not matter if it is true or false, it is still unwanted POV-pushing. WP:IDHT. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you conceded that my statement was true. But pushing POV goes both ways and whether you like it or not, you're pushing a POV, too. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I'm pushing the POV of WP:GOODBIAS.

As I have stated on my user page, My agenda is fairly straightforward: WP:CHOPSY and WP:NOBIGOTS. None of it means importing an outside agenda, as defined by WP:ACTIVISM or WP:ADVOCACY. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skeptic, History lesson time: The only reason that the statement wasn't released by the NCCIH is that body wasn't formed yet. That conference (and the statement it generated) was organized by the 'Office of Alternative Medicine' (OAM). Due to this conference and similar activities, the OAM got muzzled by the NIH higher ups. Senator Tom Harkin, noted booster of altmed, didn't like that much and had the OAM converted into an independent department which we now know as the NCCIH. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good info to have. Doesn't change anything for me, but is helpful. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, the "NIH Panel" we're talking about was in September 1997. That's pretty "old" and clearly subect to later changes for any topic that is either actively studied or statements going against mainstream belief. WP:MEDRS sets a 5-year window for being considered current medical information. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources used to justify the statements in the Alternative Medicine article go back further than than 5 years, but I'm not going to open that can of worms. As has been discussed above above, it doesn't matter what is true or not, apparently. And NPOV excludes "good" bias. I'm happy to leave it there. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, that's a misunderstanding: WP:NPOV does not reject pro-mainstream science bias. WP:NPOV has a pro-mainstream science bias and an anti-acupuncture bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Which is why the language should be changed from "Good and unbiased research" because it's confusing to the average reader who thinks "unbiased" means actually unbiased, and not conditionally unbiased. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:DUE and WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu, read it yourself more carefully, because that’s not what NPOV says. WP:NPOV does not literally state nor advocate a “pro-mainstream science bias”. See “We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.” Portraying things incorrectly is to be avoided. One shouldn’t call a non-science view science nor a minority view portrayed as equal, but the NPOV also says these should not be called wrong. It is improper to portray that as a “pro-science bias”. By the name alone “Alternative” or CAM is clearly enough not mainstream, and saying ‘not mainstream’ is all that NPOV requires and all that it allows. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonperson

I recently removed a good chunk of the Nonperson article as unreferenced and presumptive original research, including editorializing and presumptuous language. I had already removed another, highly dubious section in December 2018 about "ways to become". An "in popular culture" section was removed by someone else in July 2017.

I note that only one of the three references with a web link actually uses the term, and that the definition and "Legal status" sections are entirely unsourced; someone else will need to check the book. I haven't yet looked for other sources about the concept. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:LaundryPizza03 I’m not getting what you’re looking for here - what is the NOR question you have ? I do agree Nonperson has had the issues you mention, and “editorializing and presumptuous language”, and that sections were deleted. I’ll offer a couple thoughts. First, that a topic line at the top might mention with wikilink Personhood and that highlighting would raise the prominence of concept over editorial and also lead readers to that better article. Second thought is that “Legal status” might be a section where you could add factual content and so improve the proportion of facts over presumptuous language. There are fairly clear and citeable items defining categories ‘non-person’, ‘person’ and ‘citizen’ for example. (Such as a digital non-person entity.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Published interviews with editor who has COI, used to support OR?

At the Tree Shaping article one editor cites interviews with themself [1] to support text. This allowes the editor to continue to disparage my work (I who also have a COI). This editor uses interviews with the media to support what they want the page to say. Specifically Instant Tree Shaping and Gradual Tree Shaping [[2]]. These terms were added to the page [[3]] to define my work as "Instant Tree Shaping" and the editors own works as "Gradual Tree shaping". The page Tree Shaping, is in need of cleanup, citations need to be looked at. The page really needs more neutral editors, it's a wonderful interesting subject, please help. Slowart (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No ideas? let me put it in another way, would it be permissible add a section titled Instant Tree Shaping [[4]] to the article after speaking with a journalist and getting my new term published? Slowart (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

RFC on whether Olivia Rodrigo is a "singer-songwriter"

Olivia Rodrigo has an RFC over whether Rodrigo should be called a singer-songwriter in the article, instead of a singer and a songwriter. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

List of United States political families

This series of list articles needs some review. While looking for information on a particular historical figure named John Dunham (who emmigrated to Plymouth Colony in the 1600s), I found him briefly mentioned as being part of the Dunham political family. The problem is that he is NOT related to at least some of the others on that list. And while some of the other Dunhams MAY be related, there are no citations to verify the relationship. It may be that we simply have an extranious entry, or possibly a blending of two separate "Political families" with the same last name, or even a mix of the two. The point being, if this occurred with the Dunham "family", I suspect it has happined with other "families". A clean up, with an eye towards actually sourcing the "family" connection between individuals is needed. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association

Not an expert in the subject area, but a sizeable proportion of this article seems to be original research. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this article would be welcome. FDW777 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on OR policy

There was a question on a certain articles reliability due to its alleged source not having the indicated claim. If the original source is contacted and confirms that they did not make a claim published in a secondary source, is this a violation of the OR policy?155.246.151.38 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this about a Wikipedia article (which is covered by WP:FAILV) or an external secondary source? Where is this discussion? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)