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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

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.

Lavender Oil Capsule Research

Lavender_oil#Uses current wording:

• A 2021 meta-analysis included five studies of people with anxiety disorders. All five studies were funded by the manufacturers of the lavender oil capsule used, four of them were conducted by one author of the meta-analysis,[13] and blinding was not clear.[14] In this analysis, an oral 80 mg dose of lavender oil per day was associated with reduced anxiety scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.[13] Due to the limitations of these studies, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.[11]

Where [13] is reference to (von Känel, 2021), [14] is (Generoso, 2017), and [11] is (NCCIH info page, 2020)

• Explanation of this wording choice by its author[1]

• Arguments that this is not WP:OR[2][3][4]

• Arguments that this is WP:OR[5][6][7]

• Current talk-page section: Talk:Lavender_oil#Anti-anxiety_content_and_sources_-_revision

• Background talk-page discussion: Talk:Lavender_oil#RfC_on_adding_more_sources_for_anxiety_treatment_section_and_summarizing_their_findings

Thank you for helping out.

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.

White supremacy revisionism at Western world

At Western world on 19 November an established editor supported by administrators, rephrased the introductory paragraphs boldly. A few hours ago, after a few days I have been looking to reason with them at its talk page, an established administrator removed my entire discussion and blocking access to the talk page too. 113.172.88.157 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The revision you object to corresponds to reliable sources. You've posted several long rants on the talk page without providing any sources, much of which involved personal attacks on an editor and what appears to be a belabored tangent about John Wayne that makes me think you're confusing western world with western (genre). Rants like this are considered disruptive, and the admin was correct to remove them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Unsure how to comment your reply. I would stick to excuses for my personal attack but I noticed you are wrong in every way: the revision published by Rim sim lacks reliable sources, it is original synthesis. I attacked personally since editor coming from the porn topic managed to convert my fine revision into a racial matter touching on genetical factor of skin pigmentation: a thesis which is not the mainstream view.. outside the porn world (!) And all such I found outrageous.

The Occident came into existence while populations of white Europeans enslaved and massacred populations of other racial backgrounds, so doesn't mean it was envisioned in ethnical warfare (racism): it was indeed in economic warfare (colonialism) instead, as I explained in my "long rants on the talk page". Update: very dangerous left as it is since other editors are also building on it in the last week.113.172.88.157 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Given latest inputs at both the page and the talk page I'm sure a more reliably sourced and compatible version of the introduction "graphical (map) paragraph", would be more or less as follows:

The Western world as derived on the basis of Samuel P. Huntington's 1996 Clash of Civilizations: in cyan are Latin American and Eastern European worlds which are either a part of the West or distinct civilizations intimately related to the West. From a Military perspective, a concept of Global North's firepower joined that of Western world following the first Cold War: considered Western countries lay across all land above Northern tropic, also NATO's geographical line of intervention as based on 1949's military treaty.

The concept of the Western part of the earth has its roots in the theological, methodological and emphatical division between the Western Catholicity of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy of the Orthodox Church, until the Warsaw pact dissolved in 1991, the roots of which can be traced back to the Frankish Empire. Ideologies of the modern West are rooted in nineteenth century's Age of Revolutions and revolutional fervour, in early twentieth century's radical populism, dictatorships throughout the progressive formation of freely-marketed, liberal national economies. The West is also known for the adoption of gendered identities and antireligious sentiment with the French Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment that culminated in the abolishment of the Holy Inquisition leading to separation of church and state, and the establishment of secular states, as first emerged during the Roman empire". Ideal western men become breadwinners while western women become objectified, and different gender roles that emerge following war as a product of varying capabilities in fronting conflict reinforce this ideology with the unique perception of ex combatants. European freemasonry of the Enlightenment then undermined civil and ecclesiastical authority throughout the Western world to replace these "with uncontrolled gratification".

The transition from 1800s Industrialization to 1900s mass production, consumerism and computing revolution is trailed with a fundamental shift from physical to intellectual labor, permitting the 1960s-80s development of revolution in social roles and providing an irreligious but more woman-centered Western world after former male-dominancy. From an Economics perspective, the Western world (North America and Western Europe, countries of the North Atlantic) is at the forefront of Freedom, international economic competition and dynamism, and evolving into a multipolar world through the so-called revolutionary global "New economy" integrative of the Digital, of innovative Emerging and Space technologies regarded by many as comparable to an Industrial revolution of humankind, driving institutions as World Bank founded on the closing of the Age of Discovery of colonial imperialism. Nineteenth century's Anglo-Americans envisioned the Western United States, home to an array of diverse people in present-day, a new independent homeland for a white population fullfilling colonization of the western-most region of the Western world and North America.

Notice of discussion sent to four users involved. 113.172.88.157 (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't have consensus for your edits. You were blocked for being tiresome and making creepy comments about other editors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Creepy commenting came following the lock. 113.172.88.157 (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Now locked out from page for 1 month, and following hyperbolic definitions such as "white ethnocracy state" implying Western world was envisioned in ethnical warfare (rather than in colonialism), while author's earliest own source is in reference to 'American West'; and as well noting XX century's nationalist laws. It's like if the Western world was not made by colonial empires but by national laws. Out for one month, it's good. The basis of (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The point I want to make is in latest edit summaries, and mostly the latest elaborate: "The discriminatory immigration policies that once existed in the western countries were due to Ethnic nationalism, aimed to create ethnocracy states; this is the point clearly mentioned in the text with as many as 6 References. Denying this historical fact; and constantly reverting the article to absurd illogical text is special kind of vandalism.": do laws "aim at creating states", at all? I thought laws regulate existing processes, ratherly, and constitutional laws do instead. So I think it's in violation of wp:OR more than ever.

Concluding also, am I to think that before referenced US 1790 law (during the 1600s, and 1500s), black and indigenous people were granted any citizenship or right to immigration of sort? Contributions made by author Rim sim since 19 November converting my previous revision are not only against wp:OR then ('American West' is not Western world, and those references on ethnocentric national laws probably, never even mention an envisioned West or nearly such), but also Undue as section on Western world's emergence is replaced with unfeasible notions on classical world's western cultural roots and national laws of the Age of Enlightenment. The basis of (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

References

advice

Some advice for the OP: I think you may be attempting to deal with too much all at once. Break your objections down into small, bite sized bits. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, then:

• content reliability, I consider a prime rule
• support from the administration, for content unreliability

These two bits I challenged. 113.172.88.157 (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Environmental colonialism

Wikipedia is not a forum for your original thoughts for discussing matters unrelated to improving the encyclopedia, and this has nothing to do with the above discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 12:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I stopped thinking about Western world and instead look into why it is regarded so controversial in the face of public opinion, and I stumbled just a few hours ago on "Environmental colonialism": the way in which colonial practices are linked as they impact the environment. I had realized the page is written from a North-South perspective, and think the information as written by Rim sim could better fill the North-South divide, now reading about this new subject I believe it is a broader misunderstanding coming from the concept of global warming maybe entrenched with that of nuclear annihilation but with certainty at least confused with Western world. This is one of the few digestible references, please have a look [8]. The basis of (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC) So to speak Environmental colonialism is really what we are left with of the gone XX century, given that "environment" is in a relationship with conquest of air and space helping the concept of the world working like a house, unlike XIX century and beyond, where it worked like a home, I suppose. The basis of (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue with warfare (I am still in disbelief)

The primary issue is with the gross descriptivism of warfare, that indeed vastly contributed to the formation of Western domination (as of any other historic domination in the world). Version by Rim sim tells about a long history of ethnical warfare, when in fact the Western world is by all means and reliable sources formed in the economics of colonial warfare, the one against unprepared populations (they had no fire weapons); even following the ethnical warfare of the Christian political division by 1054 East-West schism (which still was by all means about the same above policy of christian colonial warfare), of which mention was unfeasibly removed instead. Note indeed how the earliest reference provided on 19 November by Rim sim is on history of Western warfare.

The Western world did not simply form in warfare as much as it did in christian political imperialism, and such is consolidated academic knowledge on the Western world, not a doubt. Thus please review. The basis of (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

(Part 1/2) The issue with the standpoint: scientific rather than encyclopedic

With last additions by Rim sim today 26 December, I think the scientific standpoint of rooting the causes that contributed to birth of the West is preferred over a more appropriate encyclopedic describing the birth itself. Part of the idea of a supremacy of the scientific white man. The basis of (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop creating a new header every time you make a post. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't read just the titling headers of the sections: you seem to be unresponsive to my considerations and now know why. The basis of (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that you don't seem to grasp, Christian Imperialism born in 1054 East-West Schism is the beginning of the Western world, while 500 years later it emerged by the Discovery of America. Instead you suggest it emerged some 500-1000 years earlier (when the Roman empire subjugated the Hellenic? Or when antiquity collapsed? I can't understand) seemingly as in a "reformed" ancient Republic: then I think you confused "popular rule" (dictatorship, contenting present majorities) with "population's rule" (democracy), because ancient republicanism was not about rules instead was about ruling vast areas and unprecedentedly large numbers of people. Both Rome and Athens were centers of vast dominions during antiquity, and that's reason why they made the "republic", "from res-publica, public matters", but neither developed from Monotheism.

(Part 2/2) The issue with the proportions of humanity and civilizations: mantle as clothing

To better understand, I think of Western civilization (that for some reason redirects to Western culture): had Classical teachings not been exported during colonialism, would we understand that Western "european classicist" civilization (mimicking ancient ones) began by 1054's Christian Imperialism or by antiquity? The basis of (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, I think of the very large historical proportions of humanity as in nowadays "mantle" (or "coat") is equivalent with "clothing" but it doesn't apply the same way that "clothing" is equivalent with "mantle": one defines a general protection from the elements, the other one from cold environment. The proportions of civilizations then are considered beyond simple grasp similarly as those of human history: given there's an understanding of modernity that once was antiquity, it doesn't apply in the same way to understand that antiquity would've been modernity centuries later, indeed definitions of Ancient and Modern history were created only after both had unveiled. The basis of (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't understand what you are blabbering about, but you need to focus only on the issues with the article Western world and Rim sim's behavior. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Next time I will report you to WP:ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, there does seem to be a problem with Rim sim over-quoting the references, but that is not an original research concern. I think the December 26 addition seeks to explain why the Americas and Europe are grouped as the Western world. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

For understanding: when thinking of putting clothes on, you never think of the outer layer first. The basis of (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that modern times were once ancient times, but ancient times did not become modern times? That is a contradiction within the framework of philosophical presentism, which explains why I am having trouble comprehending your argument. You have been reported to ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You know sun and moon, together in the sky, right? Well I suggest this argument is like the Sun (ancient times) not expecting the Moon (middle-ages) to be Earth's (all post-ancient times) moon. The solar system is all "rooted" in the Sun, but that's about it: encyclopedic content doesn't take the Earth and the Moon as in having any specific role in the solar system. The basis of (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

List of Huns

This article is a listing of names of individuals, just to list a few:

• Albert the Bear (c. 1100 – 1170), the first Margrave of Brandenburg, Duke of Saxony; a grandson of Sophia of Hungary of the House of Árpád, believed to be a direct descendant of Attila
• Blanche of Anjou (1280 – 1310), Queen of Aragon, daughter of Mary of Hungary, of the Árpád, a direct descendant of Attila according to Hungarian tradition
• Fernando de la Cerda, son of Violant, daughter of Violant of Hungary, of the House of Árpád,[5] according to tradition, direct descendants of Attila
• Helena of Hungary (died 1091), Queen of Croatia, of the House of Árpád, believed to be a direct descendant of Attila[5][6]
• Henry II of Castile (1334 – 1379), a descendant of Violant of Hungary, of the House of Árpád,[15] believed to directly descend from Attila and/or the Huns
• Henry the Lion (1129/1131 – 1195), Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, son of Henry the Proud, a grandson of Sophia of Hungary of the House of Árpád, believed to be a direct descendant of Attila
• Henry the Proud (c. 1108 – 1139), Margrave of Tuscany and Duke of Spoleto, grandson of Sophia of Hungary of the House of Árpád, believed to be a direct descendant of Attila

I asked on the talk page for quotes concerning certain individuals and was told, "You will never get quotes for them."

Said editor(user:Giray Altay) has chosen not to provide information proving listed individuals are "Huns". Attempting to make the issue personal, "why do you want to delete those entries so much? "

Clearly a number of the individuals listed are not Huns and can not be proven to be Huns. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Just delete them and any other suspect. If we list every ruler who had Hungarian ancestors somewhere o. Their family tree, we'd have to list nearly every noble in history.

or better yet, delete the whole page. 73.142.216.166 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Am mostly convinced Huns were of the region of Moscow and Finland. Given that Finland is often today considered of partly Danish (Germanic) partly Hun (Eastern) origin [9], editing attempts as shown end in tracing pre-Modern Era genealogy origins: unreferenced list rather shows a blurry collective heritage of the Huns, as for the ancient Germanic and Roman peoples, a collective genealogical belonging. It's very sick and stupid, as it does confuse ancient warrior nomadic peoples with today immigration western issues. I agree something's wrong about the whole page then. I remember from my student times, Huns wore fur coats. The basis of (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Criticism of [CORP]" articles

A week ago, I boldly moved Criticism of Apple Inc. to Practices of Apple Inc., and listed my justifications here. Here were my main reasons:

• guidelines (specifically the last paragraph of WP:POVFORK)
• perceived common sense (it's hard to talk about criticisms of Apple's environmental impact, without talking about Apple's environmental practices more generally, for example)

My undiscussed move was motivated by my general opposition to "Criticism of [CORP]"-style articles. That opposition wasn't grounded in POV concerns, but in my belief that most such articles become unreadable dump-alls which few editors are interested in maintaining, which tend to have pervasive dueness and tone issues, and which have a fuzzy scope for inclusion.

User:Flibbertigibbets has argued that the scope of the new "Practices" article is still pretty fuzzy and subjective, since it's hard to know which topics are relevant, therefore posing a fundamental WP:OR issue. That makes sense to me.

Posting it here to hear others' thoughts. DFlhb (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Again DFlhb (talk) did some great work on the article compared to where it started as a laundry list lambasting on any conceivable point. "Corporate Practices" are a fuzzy type of subject; an approach (which might or might not be correct) would either be to expand the main apple article, or break the topics into stand alone parts. (something easier to say on my part and harder to do - that is why I respect DFlhb for taking a bite on this particular apple!) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Public perception of Apple Inc.? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Problem is, that would be about a substantially different topic (customer loyalty, the "fanboy" phenomenon, reality distortion field, negative media opinion about lack of innovation early in Cook's tenure, etc.) Don't think it could reasonably include antitrust, or environment, for the same reason we don't include evaluations of policy or behavior in "Public image of" articles for Presidents.

My alternate proposal is to cover topics in separate articles (e.g. Environmental practices of, Alleged anticompetitive practices of, etc) use summary-style in Apple Inc., and remove the Practices article. It has a few benefits:

• it allows us to avoid having a catch-all article, which is a magnet for guideline violations and undue content
• the proposed articles have a much more properly delineated scope.
• importantly, each article would need to independently meet our more stringent WP:GNG, as opposed to needing to rely on the more ambiguous WP:DUE to know whether specific critisms or practices merit inclusion

If this alternate proposal receives positive feedback, I'll propose an addition to WP:CFORK recommending it for all corporations. DFlhb (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that this is a step in the right direction. I had missed the village pump discussion, but I would gladly support further changes of this nature. My initial concern was that it would be a problem if it was just a move without a corresponding cleanup, but it seems like this is being addressed. I do think there should be discussion about the title, though I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I think WP:SUMMARY is relevant here as well. If you look at the main article for Apple Inc., there's a section for "Corporate affairs" and a section for "Corporate practices". This article only claims to expand upon the latter, but it's hard to tell where the dividing line is between the respective scopes of the two sections. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

IMO, "affairs" is better named "corporate governance" (internal), though culture, finances and taxes would then be out-of-bounds too. DFlhb (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think corporate culture falls neatly within the scope of corporate governance. Finance should probably be its own section anyway in my opinion. But it doesn't really solve the issue of where "governance" ends and "practices" begins. I'm inclined to think that your suggestion of splitting into different topics may be appropriate and that corresponding sections should be made in the main article, but I'm not going to rule out keeping it all intact either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"Practices of Apple Inc." is an awkward choice IMO: incredibly broad/vague and, given what's actually covered (e.g. it's not an overview of employee benefits, policies about stock purchases, what kind of paper it uses in its offices, where it holds corporate meetings, what software it uses for time tracking, etc., but, well, criticism of "practices of Apple Inc."). If it were to actually cover "practices" it would be an even bigger "unreadable dump-all which few editors are interested in maintaining" with even bigger "pervasive dueness and tone issues" considering how much the text and title now differ. If this move had gone through a standard move discussion, I would've opposed. Only reason I'm not reverting the bold move now is because of the time that has passed (anyone could still undo, of course -- the time just gives me pause that regular editors of the article haven't done so). Also, unclear why this is at NORN. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Compound Media

Compound Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a controversial podcast network has large new sections of WP:ABOUTSELF and unsourced content. More eyes appreciated. Llll5032 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Could probably just be pruned. For anything but the most basic facts about a company, we need to rely on independent sources for WP:WEIGHT. Anything about specific shows, schedules, announcements, etc. that isn't supported by independent reliable sources should just be cut. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There IS a need for some secondary and/or independent sources on the page, but the section that Llll5032 is referring to DOES have sources (see SHOW TTILE column within table under SHOWS), those being from the network itself. The table is only a lineup of Compound Media's shows, which I feel is as basic as it gets. However, I do question the emphasis on labeling this network as "controversial", as that's a subjective label, and has nothing to do with this topic at hand. From what I understand from within Wikipedia:Criticism, pages must remain neutral, which this article does adhere to. There are millions of pages that cover taboo and risqué topics and, that said, are one's individual viewpoints on a topic not a moot point when discussing citations? What is your take, Rhododendrites? UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: I went ahead and sourced most of the issue at hand. I found a lot more than I listed, but didn't want to Wikipedia:Citation overkill unless suggested by others. UnorthodoxyAC (talk)

We typically want to see sources that do two things: verify the claims being made, and justify inclusion of the material in the article. Sources tied to the shows/network themselves can do the former, but not the latter. It looks like most (not quite all) of the sources in that big table are in the former category. We need independent reliable sources, in other words. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and much appreciated! UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhododendrites. Are you suggesting that we now remove the sections of content that lack independent reliable sourcing? Or do you suggest a different approach? In my opinion the pruned content could be re-included later if encyclopedic summaries can be made using independent reliable sources, reflecting those independent sources' descriptions and emphases. Llll5032 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Much of this was address with my most recent edit. As aforementioned, I've already added several outside/3rd party resources. You've already label it as: {{Only primary sources}}

which was valid, and may still be. Several new refs and external links have been added, although I feel it's getting very close to Wikipedia:Citation overkill. The new links all provide accurate insight into the information at hand so, personally, I don't see any removal as constructive, especially when considering what Wikipedia is intended to be. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

UnorthodoxyAC, you may be misunderstanding how Wikipedia defines reliable sources. Many of the sources you added are self-published sources, which are largely not acceptable as sources, and we can Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite the contrary (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Sources are not deemed unreliable until discussed in its given talk page. Nothing newly cited is from blogs, and as Rhododendrites stated, "We typically want to see sources that do two things: verify the claims being made, and justify inclusion of the material in the article". Sources such as The New Yorker, DBPedia, Macmillan Publishers, which I've added, apply to the latter "justification". These are secondary/tertiary sources that reflect the given primary sourcing. Are your suggestions in good faith? UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The New Yorker is independent and reliable (per WP:RSP) and what it says can be faithfully represented, but a Macmillan author description is WP:ABOUTSELF (not independent, so it can be used to verify but not for weight), and DBPedia is not a reliable source. For other editors here: Does that assessment sound correct? Llll5032 (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We also have politician Girish Mahajan via Alchetron, and the MacMillan article IS for verification to the "weight". The DBPedia reference you provided refers to Pantheon, not DBPedia, and as it's not listed under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, it's reliable until deemed otherwise via the aforementioned given talk page. I feel that Rhododendrites's explanation is clear, and reflects the recent weight/verify fixes that address this issue. I do question good faith here after reading through Llll5032's talk page, as this conflict looks to be habitual and persistent, and I ask other editors to take that into consideration. I don't like circumlocution, as I've made my case and it's not constructive, so I ask, as Llll5032 has, for more "eyes". UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites' constructive replies. Regarding the aspersions by UnorthodoxyAC above, I have no problem with editors reading through my talk page; notably, a recently indeffed editor who also made large edits to Compound Media-related articles made similar unjustified aspersions about me there, and in related disputes made unjustified statements about Magnolia677, Hirolovesswords, and Bishonen. So this subject area is contentious and may need more watching. Llll5032 (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I saw those, and I assure you that I'm not taking that route. They made a few good points, but unfairly targeted you individually, as opposed to addressing a much larger issue to the entire community. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The references are not independent of the shows themselves and/or are not reliable as Wikipedia defines it. There are a couple I'm not sure about (The Comic's Comic, The Interrobang) but nearly all of them are database entries, official sites, sites run by people associated with the show, or otherwise not what we're looking for. The New Yorker is a good one, of course, but doesn't actually say anything about the show except that Shane Gillis hosted it. Maybe good enough, but it's the best case of the bunch. I haven't searched for sources on these shows, but certainly some of them, like The Anthony Cumia Show, has received press coverage such that we shouldn't need to rely on Roku Guide and the official site. Alechetron and DBPedia are based in part on Wikipedia, which makes them unreliable from the start. TV listings and databases will never satisfy the WP:WEIGHT element of sourcing, and only sometimes WP:V (depending on the database). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that's clear and reasonable, but is the current secondary/tertiary label not appropriate after ridding these sources, as opposed to a non-sourced article that would be subject to removal? UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

...also, I'm working on removing/replacing these issues, so I ask for a bit of time to do so. Are the current labels warranted in the meantime? UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we need a citation to an independent reliable source in each of the filled cells of the "Shows" chart, rather than using a separate column for references (per WP:NOTDATABASE), and the summaries should be how the independent sources describe the shows (per WP:INDY). Does anyone have a different view? Llll5032 (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, as this is page is not being handled in the same manner as other streaming media platforms (see Seeso, Shift, Kangaroo, HBO Now and CNN+ (both exclusively single refs with no 3rd party), DC Universe (similar table with single sourced refs), Hitchhike TV, Acorn DVD, Hoopla (single/unreliable sourced), Vice News (almost exclusively primary sourced), Virgin TV, etc... the list goes on and on). As Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral online encyclopedia, I don't feel that targeting individual outlets, while leaving others alone, provides that service, but rather what clearly seems to be an individual's dislike for the "controversial podcast network". Other examples of this can be seen in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/members. We have a situation with the Compound Media page where every other sentence is now past the point Wikipedia:Citation overkill, seeing a single user continuing to deem reliable sources such as Medium and Reason, unfit. Other pages of this genre are not overcited (see examples above), and I feel that this should be treated the same.

I ask that this case be closed, at least until other pages of this genre are addressed in the same manner. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Noting in case it is not clear: UnorthodoxyAC is the editor who has added the disputed content. Llll5032 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

...and you are the one who reported it. I feel that it is very clear, and all pages should be treated equally and without "point-of-view" interference (see Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias). If the issues you are stating are an issue, then either every page with these issues should be addressed in this compulsory manner, or it should be left alone like the rest. Why is this individual page, along with others of similar viewpoints, important to you whilst ignoring others? Does that represent Wikipedia's intent and purpose? This is why I'm bringing up what seems to be an unbalanced editing pattern.

I ask that others comment on this, as this is circumlocutive in absence of other's input. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: mass rape and rape as a weapon of war

I'd welcome further contributions to the ongoing discussions on Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. While one deals with NPOV and DUE, the other concerns OR, and the issue is: do we have enough independent and reliable sources to state with wikivoice in the lead that Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Armed Forces of Russia, including the use of mass rape as a weapon of war? Sources on mass rape are detailed in the Overall scale section, and sources on rape as a weapon of war are in the Claims of intent section; more RS on the talk page. This thread war originally and mistakenly posted on WP:RSN here Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

And now you’re just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Multiple users disagree with you on article talk page. users disagree with you at WP:RSN. Multiple users disagreed with you at WP:NPOV. So in continuing your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you’ve now brought it over here. Volunteer Marek 17:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Multiple users" are you and My very best wishes. Let's hear other voices please. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

And User:Adoring nanny and User:GizzyCatBella. Did you just “happen” to forget them? Like I said. FORUMSHOPPING. IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Followed by more FORUMSHOPPING and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. This is why you’ve been banned from two other wikis and why everytime this stuff has wound up at ANI you end up almost getting a topic ban [10]. That “almost” is unlikely to keep repeating endlessly. Volunteer Marek 03:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: As you well know, this isn't a forum for raising behavioral problems, so focus on the content.

@Gitz6666: Generally speaking, it's inadvisable to cross-post once a discussion has commenced on another board. In some cases you may post a notice leading editors to another discussion, but it should be clear that you're not looking to split the discussion. François Robere (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, actually GizzyCatBella didn't say anything about the issue being discussed here. I don't doubt she agrees with you, but how do you know, do you take it for granted? The only comments she made were about having a section on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces (now under discussion at NPOVN). Re forum shopping, as far as I understand it, I did not raise the same issue on several noticeboards: I closed the discussion at RSN and moved it here because, as MVBW pointed out, the issue is not whether the sources are reliable, but rather whether the sources support certain claims. The discussion at NPOVN is on a different subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, not true [11] Volunteer Marek 02:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Since this all appears to be from a UN a report, wouldn't it be better to have an article about the report? TFD (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Yeah, not a bad idea. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Do you want to create a new article about the report? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

..or expand this --> Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

No. We don't have any sources about the 27 September 2022 report and I doubt it's notable. The report is not notable, but is reliable, and is probably one of the best source we have about what's happening in Ukraine. With regard to the scale of sexual violence, it says: OHCHR cannot yet draw conclusions regarding the scale of CRSV perpetrated since February (para. 54). We also have an update released on 02 December 2022. With regard to sexual violence, it says

Since 24 February 2022, HRMMU has documented 86 cases of CRSV against women, men, and girls, including rape, gang rape, forced nudity and forced public stripping, sexual torture and sexual abuse. The cases occurred in different regions of Ukraine and in a penitentiary facility in the Russian Federation. The majority of these violations were perpetrated by members of Russian armed forces or law enforcement authorities. In 53 cases, sexual violence was used as part of torture and ill-treatment in the context of detention. Ukrainian law enforcement authorities are reportedly investigating 43 cases of sexual violence.

This is what we know about the extent of sexual violence in Ukraine. Is it "mass rape"? Is rape being used as a weapon of war? To answer the question, take a look at the citation clutter Volunteer Marek has added to the article - 10 news articles, most of them dating back to March-April, most of them reporting allegations, claims by named individuals, sometimes politicians, sometimes human rights activists, about "fears" or "threats" of systematic/weaponized rape - and tell me if we have enough independent reliable sources to support the statement about the use of mass rape as a weapon of war in the lead section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This is one source. There are a dozen OTHER sources which discuss mass rape. Your argument appears to be “this one particular source that I myself picked unilaterally must have the precise wording you wish to add or it can’t go in even if a whole bunch of other reliable sources talk about it”. Not how it works. Volunteer Marek 02:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion risks being unproductive. Given the time it takes, it may not be worth it. Let's change the approach and try to make this discussion productive for the encyclopaedia. I have just published a section with all the information we have on the extent and nature of sexual violence in Ukraine [12]. I might have forgotten something: if so, please add it. When the section is stabilised, we can decide how to summarise its content for the lead. This is the right way to proceed according to MOS:LEAD: from the body to the lead, not vice versa. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes that was a constructive edit and thank you for that. Volunteer Marek 02:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

At least now one can read the whole set of sources and express an informed view on the open question of this thread: should we say with wikivoice that the use of mass rape as a weapon of war is taking place in Ukraine? Or should we rather say that Ukrainian officials and human rights organisations have warned that rape is occuring on a large scale and may be used by the Russian army as a weapon of war? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

My attempt to modify the lead section to make it compatible with MOS:LEAD was reverted [13], which is fair enough (here is the text I proposed for the lead). However, the problem remains: the statement with wikivoice (now in the lead) Armed Forces of Russia [have resorted to] the use of mass rape as a weapon of war is the product of a synthesis of various articles reporting the views of specific individuals (often Western politicians and Ukrainian officials), as is made clear by the ugly citation clutter added by Volunteer Marek. As such, this statement is an original research that should be removed despite the lack of consensus on a new lead section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nature and Extent section is a WP:PROSELINE, it needs to be replaced with a proper section detailing the nature and extent or simply erased. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've rephrased/edited the section to avoid WP:PROSELINE [14]. Honestly, however, WP:PROSELINE - which is an essay - is the last of our problems here. We have a piece of original research in the lead section and it contains a very serious accusation, made in wikivoice, about mass rape used as a weapon of war. Do you want to know what mass rape as a weapon of war looks like? Read this: [15] (para. 55-70). By trivializing the notion of weaponised rape, we make it even more invisible than it already is, we fail the mission of any encyclopaedia, which is to bring clarity and knowledge in place of prejudice and confusion, and we also breach non-negotiable policies (WP:V but also WP:NPOV) by combining together various sources on "allegations", "threats", "fears" of systematic and weaponised sexual violence in order to claim that sexual violence is already systematic and weaponised. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see that among the sources in the first sentence are indeed many that are not acceptable arbiters of whether war crimes are happening. And the first sentence has completely the wrong tone. Maybe strip it all down and use the UN (and ICC?) documents as a framework for rebuilding the article - first sentence leading with something like "The UN (insert agency here) and ICC have asserted that Russian troops have been using sexual violence as a weapon of war during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine"?

I think with your "By trivializing" sentence, you're suggesting there is a problem with agreeing what source is reliable? Well, whether we all like it or not, the UN and ICC are the ultimate authorities in the world on whether or not war crimes are happening, so those should be the uttermost sources for this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Which sources do you think are not reliable? And no, relying on the UN alone would only create another kind of bias and POV problem. The UN is most certainly not the "ultimate authority" on this issue, especially since its Human Rights Council includes and is dominated by countries like.... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, Russia [16] (as well as, oh let's see, Pakistan, China, Cuba, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia ... I mean half of it is a veritable who's who list of "worst human rights abusers in modern world"). Of course that doesn't mean we CAN'T use it but no way do we treat it as authoritative or "ultimate". Volunteer Marek 00:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding here. In the endless discussions on that talk page and the other talk pages in the Russo-Ukraine area, I am the "UN guy", so to speak; I systematically read OHCHR, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and propose these sources as the standard we should follow in reporting on war crimes. My interlocutors, however, find that The Daily Beat, Yahoo News and Kyiv Post are often a better choice to express what they feel we need to express in this area. Now, with regard to sexual violence in Ukraine, so far OHCHR, Amnesty and HRW have NEVER said or even suggested that systematic and weaponized rapes were occurring. The day they'll publish a report on rape as a weapon of war in Ukraine, I'll be the first one to report this content both in the body and in the lead. But my interlocutors can't wait to have mass rape as a weapon of war showcased in the lead section and have therefore combined various sources, a dozen or so quotes, to pull the rabbit out of the hat. Am I the only one who finds this way of doing things unacceptable? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that rape has been systemic and has been used as a weapon of war by Russia has been said and reported by top scholars in the field, including Dara Kay Cohen [17] (author of [18] Rape During Civil War) and Mia Bloom.

The Daily Beast, Yahoo News are not used ANYWHERE in the article, so you're simply lying about what your supposed "interlocutors" are supposedly up to. Volunteer Marek 00:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, provide a source. If it's reliable, we may add it to the article. And why don't you write an article on the two top scholars in the field you just mentioned since none of them appears on en.wiki? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Here [19]. Now how about you strike your false assertion and the personal attacks (about "posses") above? Volunteer Marek 00:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

probably Mia Bloom is this Professor of Communication at Georgia State University... well, OK, "top scholar in the field" I honestly don't know... anyway, I'd like to read the paper where they argue that rape is used as a war weapon in Ukraine and add it to the sources, thanks. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Her studies specialize in ethnic conflict, rape in war, child soldiers, female terrorists, and terrorist communications.[3][4][5] Bloom was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations in 2003–2008.". Nice try though. Volunteer Marek 00:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

". Bloom is the editor for Stanford University Press’ new series on terrorism and political violence. She is regularly featured as an expert contributor on CNN, CNN International, MSNBC and Fox News for terrorism and national security issues. Bloom is a member of the UN terrorism research network (UNCTED) and a member of the radicalization expert advisory board for the Anti- Defamation League (ADL). Bloom holds a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University, an M.A. in Arab Studies from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a B.A. from McGill University in Russian, Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies." Volunteer Marek 00:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Two sources of April 2022, great. The two authors have no detailed information about what is going on the ground and make hypotheses on the basis of the news reports that followed the re-taking of the Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Kyiv regions. The first piece is an op-ed based on the premise "I believe that the Ukraine conflict is an ethnic war", the second is an interview were the interviewed doesn't claim that rape is used as a weapon of war but says that this is likely to happen during genocides. Well, if the two authors are notable enough we may include their views in the article. Expressing their hypotheses in wikivoice as if they were established facts? No. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Norodom Ekcharin

This article would benefit from some more eyes - there seems to be disagreement about whether this person is a prince or the latest Anna Anderson. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this edit to Jechonia OR?

[Special:Contributions/72.49.181.242] Doug Weller talk 16:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine; that encyclopedia was written by scholars, and had an editorian board. DFlhb (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb I see my problem. I thought large chunks were unsourced, but in fact it's all copied from the source so is copyvio. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Do note its publication date; it's in the public domain, and is being attributed as required. Unless we're looking at different edits? DFlhb (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb tagged by User: Diannaa as pd, but I was relying on the copyright date.[20] sp I’m confused. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming the copyright date doesn't include the encyclopedic entries, and just refers to the website itself (logos, links). It says on its front page that all entries are pd.[21]

I've verified that for this page[22], the text matches the scanned picture, and that the scan matches the Archive.org[23] scan of the early 20th century (pd) edition. One academic database[24] confirms its date of publication is pre-1927.

The website is WP:UBO,[25], but it's probably best to directly cite the expired book, even if the website is where the text was copied from. DFlhb (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb I see, thanks for the clarification. I’ll admit I don’t like it when large swathes are copied, especially with no date for when they are written or the authors. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb I can't find a date for this - it's either late 19th c. or early 20th. And some of the wording seems unencyclopedic, eg "s sad experience". And how does "(Benjamin of Tudela, "Itinerary," ed. Asher, i. 66)" help the reader? Or the references to "Buder"? Doug Weller talk 10:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Rbl for ruble

Affects articles such as:

• Russian ruble
• Belarusian ruble
• And other articles which reference these currencies

Some time ago, TheCurrencyGuy added currency symbols to different pages, such as "Rbl" for the Russian ruble and the Belarusian ruble, as well as some non-currency-themed articles, such as Special:Diff/1110767772 for the Marshrutka. While the pages have been edited since TCG's introduction of currency symbols, the three linked pages still use TCG's choice of symbols, and there is potentially a lot more pages where TCG aligned the symbols with their preferences.

While TCG did supply a source for the BYN, they failed to give a source for "Rbl" with respect to the Russian ruble, and in any case, the source for the Belarusian ruble is a World Bank style guide, when a source from the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus would have been more definitive. Therefore, I would like input on whether the usage of "Rbl" for the two rubles should be deemed original research. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

First, you need to distinguish between currency signs (like ₽) and currency abbreviations. Afaics, "Rbl" is being used as an a abbreviation. When and where to use it is outside the remit of this notice board.

Second, if the World Bank Style Guide gives this (and many other) currency abbreviations, then it is not OR. Indeed it is a very high quality RS. It is the one explicitly preferred by {{infobox currency}}.

No case to answer, IMO. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I apologize for mixing up signs and symbols. But then TCG seems to have failed to source their choice of abbreviation of "Rbl" for the Russian ruble, which could potentially be OS on their part.

I re-reviewed the World Bank style guide. While it does use "rubel" and "Rbl" for the Belarusian currency, the Guide uses "ruble" (not TCG's "rouble"), "kopek" (no "c"), and "rub". Therefore, I fail to understand why TCG chose Rbl for the Russian currency when the style guide they once used would argue for Rub. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologise, it is a common misunderstanding. Often the usages are indistinguishable in practice. Most currencies don't have a unique symbol.

As you know, the consensus resolution to the ruble/rouble dispute is that it is an WP:ENVAR issue and the rules for handling such issues are already clear. The form "rubel" is not used in any of the major dialects of English (UK, US, IN, AU), so is not appropriate for en.wiki.

TCG was using the abbreviations to try to sidestep that consensus because they couldn't bring themselves to write "ruble". Their choice of Rbl for the Russian rouble does appear to be OR (or just an error – but why not just use ₽?). What TCG did is never going to be a sensible starting assumption for any logical discussion. They did contribute a lot that was valuable but simply couldn't cope with real world ambiguity.

IMO, we should take the WBSG as authoritative for abbreviations since there can be no doubt but that they would have consulted widely to draw it up. As for transliterated names, we should rely on common practice in English language sources: that is a test that "rubel" fails.

Does that help to clarify the issue? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I read your comment and will reply at detail at a later time. Thanks a lot. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yoshiko Kawashima

At Talk:Yoshiko Kawashima#Gendering, there is a discussion about pronoun use in the article that may raise original research issues based on available sources. Assistance with finding and reviewing sources would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Amhara genocide

The article Amhara genocide is in severe need of an overall cleanup for WP:SYNTHESIS. It's clear that there have been massacres of Amharas on long time scales and in the recent past, so under a name such as Persecution of Amharas or Massacres of Amharas, the article would definitely survive an AfD. However, overall the article presents a thesis, has a lot of editorialising, and the main thesis - a genocide as per the Rome statute or other well-accepted definitions - is extremely difficult to try to justify as a genocide from the sources, partly due to WP:OVERCITE, due to the abundant use of source that are advocacy sites for the human rights of Amharas (these shouldn't be excluded, but they should be attributed and used in appropriate balance with independent sources), due to the difficulty in making a judgment while respecting the extensive editing work that has gone into building the article, and also due to the multiple historical time periods (e.g. are these multiple genocides?).

There at least two highly active editors with very different editing profiles (one as the main author; one as an independent editor), and there have been improvements responding to some of my specific concerns.

I think that people who know nothing about the subject matter (prior to reading the article) but with significant Wikipedia experience could make significant contributions in improving the article, provided that they are willing to put in a sustained effort and help sort out which references are the most useful, and help explain WP:SYNTHESIS and related issues. I'm not convinced that a flyby tag of WP:OR would lead to significant improvement, since it might just sit there for years. A WP:RM might help, though the number of editors is small and the number of people likely to participate and !vote is small.

In any case, some attention to the article would be worth it. @Buidhe: might wish to comment on what's most likely to help the article. Boud (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Scope of the "Anti-N sentiment" articles

There is a recent discussion in Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Does_anti-war_demonstration_count_as_"anti-Russian_sentiment"? that affects other articles. Me and other participants expressed a wish to solicit a wider input as there's a desire to form a consensus on two topics that caused perennial debates in the past and would equally apply to other "anti-N sentiment" articles.

The questions about "Anti-N sentiment" articles that are being discussed boil down to:

1. whether combining prejudice with (possibly justifiable) sentiment in same article leads to synth. More specifically, there is a concern that equating anti-Russian sentiment and Russophobia, as well as equating anti-Jewish sentiment and anti-Semitism is WP:SYNTH.
2. whether inclusion of instances of vandalism, hate crimes, discrimination, notable expressions of sentiment etc reported in news sources, as well as quoting Hitler's views of Russia expressed in Mein Kampf, is an inappropriate use of WP:PRIMARY sources.

To put it into context, linking a few edits arising from the discussion:

• in Anti-Russian sentiment: [26], [27], [28]
• in Antisemitism in Canada: [29]

--PaulT2022 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a good question and definitely something that should be addressed broadly. Personally, I don't see a significant distinction between prejudice and negative sentiment, and it seems like the word "sentiment" was chosen simply to have a clearer title. I would say that trying to make distinctions between types of anti-Russian sentiment, for example, is a bigger OR concern than combining them. These articles also shouldn't just be a list of instances; Antisemitism in Canada suffers from severe WP:PROSELINE issues. They should be about the sentiment itself in a given context, and then major developments or changes can be listed in a history section or wherever appropriate. Events should be talked about broadly. Individual acts of hate don't need to be described, but the article should talk about how the invasion of Ukraine affected anti-Russian sentiment in a general sense. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain and motivate this statement a bit as I think the core issue is that myself and several readers did not find this intuitive: "Personally, I don't see a significant distinction between prejudice and negative sentiment". E.g. many do think that there are valid negative sentiments such as over the war. Are you saying that all negative sentiments are prejudice? I think the article scope would make a lot more sense if it was renamed to "Russophobia" but presently it is named "Anti-Russian sentiment". --C. lorenz (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't get to decide whether negative sentiments are valid or justified. We just describe them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following how that motivates equating prejudice with negative sentiment. This seems to be a similar judgement call as is behind the current version of the article. If we do not add such a judgement, it seems the article should treat mentions of the two as distinct both in article scope and content? C. lorenz (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Russophobia" is a propaganda term, "anti-Russian sentiment" is an objective sociological phenomenon. This is recognized, it's pretty simple to find outside sources about this, and as eds our job is to find consensus on that, recognizing WP:FRINGE and not falling prey to bothsides-ism. (Where the hell is our policy on propaganda?) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating the request, PaulT2022. Let me add or reformulate the first point a bit since I was pushing it the most. I hope one of the other participants can elaborate on the second a bit as I think there were a few versions of it.

My request for questions to answer are more specifically:

1a. Should one in anti-N articles assume that e.g. "Anti-Russian sentiments" and "Russophobia" are identical terms or does this constitute WP:SYNTH? For the purpose of article scope, term definition, sources, and statements. From what I have seen, "Russophobia" has a fairly consistent dictionary definition involving irrational motivations; while "anti-Russian sentiments" lacks a specific definition and some readers express interpreting it differently and have other expectations of the article.

1b. If the answer to the above point is a No, what is the definition and scope of an anti-X article?

1c. If the answer to the above point is a No, to what extent should an article cover a topic more broadly vs Russophobia specifically, provided sources exist?

1d. How should anti-X articles generally deal with slight changes in senses, as this may create some disconnect between content and heading titles, sources, or elaborating/examplifying sentences? Differences such as between negative sentiments more generally and instances of Russohobia; or between sentiments against a nation and sentiments against an ethnicity?

(I do not think anyone expressly wanted a resolution regarding anti-Jewish sentiment but it would be nice to set general guidelines as similar issues may be common. I also do not think there was an expressed concern about an article containing both 'prejudice' and 'justified' content but rather the lack thereof, balance, or nuance).

We can discuss each of these questions separately, so please feel free to share your thoughts on any or all of them. Thank you, --C. lorenz (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I instigated the discussion, so I'll join here. There is a recognized problem with the anti-Russian sentiment article due to the conflation with "Russophobia" as Putin's propaganda device, and it seems to be agreed that this article needs more monitoring from the community. But the particular concern I have with this type of topic in general is that it attracts eds adding every anti-N incident they come across in the paper, often using WP:SYNTH to justify the addition. This goes against WP:NOT, and is against WP:DUE. The article anti-Japanese sentiment is a good example of what these articles should strive for, I think, as it explains the who, where why and how and doesn't simply list events. So my request is that an explicit clarification come from WP that anti-N sentiment articles are to be about sentiment, ideally sourced from third-party intelligent analyses of the topic, and that lazily adding events from newspaper articles should be discouraged. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean by using WP:SYNTH to justify the addition? Usually SYNTH refers to using multiple sources to 'invent' meaning not supported by either alone. Do you mean that using sources that describe individual incidents to support a statement that the incidents took place is a SYNTH?

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think the core dispute is really about how much detail something like this edit has. I think most editors would agree that encyclopedic coverage requires summarising it without excessive details as much as possible while staying true to the sources. But rather that the statements of sentiment/hate expressions that have a cause (and are conceivably "valid", "justifiable" etc) are a SYNTH and should be removed from articles entirely - Does anti-war demonstration count as "anti-Russian sentiment"?, as you put it yourself.

I do agree with WP:NOT and, especially, WP:PROSELINE, I'm talking solely about sourcing here - are news reports about incidents reliable sources to say that the incidents took place or not. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, a newspaper story saying an incident took place is probably an RS that it took place. I'm saying single disjoint sentences reporting news reports about incidents (1) have no place in an article about sentiment (as I've said before, it's not list of anti-Russian incidents, and collections of incidents without proper third-party analysis should not be in the scope of an article on a sociological phenomenon), (2) a news report simply stating there was an incident is often WP:SYNTH because effectively the ed himself is making the assertion that it is relevant to the sociological phenomenon of anti-X sentiment, (3) this fails WP:NOT and WP:DUE, (4) it's lazy and disengaged editing, (5) if allowed to happen it can eventually bury all the article's serious analysis under a mountain of what's effectively trivia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources describe the events as hate-motivated vandalism or hate crimes. Do you maintain that they are not reliable to state so in the article? Or that articles should not mention presence of such events in principle because the sources don't call them "incidents of anti-N sentiment" explicitly? (I don't disagree that writing with disjointed sentences is not ideal, that's not the point of the discussion.) PaulT2022 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A journalist, editor, quoted onlooker or police detective is not qualified, no. (We've resolved this a long time ago in Moral panic: nothing gets added to the article just because some journalist or article writer uses the phrase, it has to meet the criteria laid out by sociologists like Stanley Cohen.) But more importantly, reporting incidents is completely tangential to the topic.

Consider this: what value is added to the article by adding incidents reported in newspapers? How does "a thing happened" help us learn about its origin, its social construction, and its narratives? "A thing happened" is not worthy of inclusion in an anti-Russian sentiment article, it should go in a list of anti-Russian incidents article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, let me try to clarify my synth concern as best I can. An editor adding a simple news report about an incident is trying to make the case that there is anti-N sentiment. That is WP:SYNTH. The article should report research and commentary on anti-N sentiment that makes the case for the editor, of which there should be a lot available. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Popper's three worlds

I'm tempted to gut Popper's three worlds to a lede/summary; I'm not sure how much of this is salvageable, with zero inline references to support what appears to be long blocks of original research/commentary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Article has zero inline references, yes. I'm ignorant of Popper, but this article as written doesn't even establish notability of the topic with its sources: though maybe we can assume Niiniluoto's article asserts notability? Failure to explicitly assert the notability of the topic makes this article fall under WP:CSD#A7. But still, suggest pinging Dominic Mayers, Maurice Carbonaro, Omnipaedista and Brianwhalley and asking them to clean up; alternately, call in WP:WPP, the Wikiproject Philosophy, to see if anyone there wants to give the article their attention; alternately, AfD the article and see if anyone there bothers to actually fix the article.

I wouldn't gut it on my own, though; some guy (Mayers?) may have spent 15 years working on this. And it may be a significant concept in Popper. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

In which case, 'some guy' should find somewhere else to host their essay. The lack of citations makes it utterly impossible to determine how much of it even relates to what Popper had to say on the subject, never mind secondary sources we'd need to establish notability. Stubbify it, and restrict any further bloat by insisting on clear citations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The acceptable aggressive-deletionist approach is simply to CSD A7 it: a stub will fail to assert notability even more than this full article fails to, and so the next ed will speedy-A7 that stub anyway. If the CSD A7 is halted, you simply move to a full AfD.

The CYA "editors have more responsibility to content than that" approach is to flag the article to WikiProject Philosophy/RFC to see if a philosophy buff editor considers this a gem in the rough and worthy of rescue. Fantastic articles get rescued this way. And parenthetically, fantastic articles do exist today on WP that are written with little or no inlines (history articles on obscure topics, for example - by the hundreds). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've flagged it to WPP, we'll see if someone comes and checks it out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

John C. Box

I am looking at wikipedia articles for various members of the House of Representatives, and I found a very troubling section in the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Box . "To refute an allegation in a thesis published online, from my in person interviews with both my grandfather, Ivin N. Box, nephew of John C. Box, and John C. Box, Jr., my cousin, John C. Box was never a member of the KKK or any organization espousing like philosophies (Paul W. Box, great-grand nephew)."

I don't think there's any doubt as it being original research, but I'm not involved enough in wikipedia to handle being drawn into a possible edit war with the user in question, so I'm looking for help on that regard. Zhinz (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)