Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.
Click here to purge this page
(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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY[edit]

There was recently a discussion at Talk:New Game! about use of links to a publisher's website to verify release dates (in this case, Houbunsha and Seven Seas Entertainment, who publish the Japanese and English-language versions of this manga).

  • User:Drmies removed the links, calling them "spam links", and quoted the part of this policy that says "it is easy to misuse them". He pointed out that they have links to sellers on the pages. Drmies also says "in my opinion, PRIMARY doesn't apply if half the references in an article are spam links".
  • I quoted other parts, which say a primary source is fine to use so long as it "makes straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", an editor does not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material", and that the article is not "base[d] [entirely] on primary sources".
  • User:Izno cites WP:EL, saying "[it] is clear on the matter: if it's being used for a citation, the rules regarding its removal or use fall under WP:V and WP:RS." Quote from that page: Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.

Drmies also argued that "if information cannot be properly sourced with secondary sources, then maybe it shouldn't be in an article". I produced some reliable secondary sources on the talk page that also reported on the individual volume releases, but this line of argumentation gets away from the point about the publisher's websites also being admissible. I would like to solicit opinions on this concept of publisher's websites being inadmissible. — Goszei (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Goszei, that's a pretty accurate representation. I never took issue with the "straightforward etc." matter--and what that means, IMO, is that this talk page is not the best venue for this. It's not about OR; it's about when primary sources are better characterized as spam links. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Could you elaborate further on what separates an admissible primary source from a "spam link"? WP:REFSPAM says "Often [spam refs] are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation." It also says, "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I think we all agree that these links do verify a specific and narrow piece of information in the article, and that they help build the encyclopedia, so I would like to hear more about your specific definition of "spam link" in this context. — Goszei (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Also: consider if all of the release dates were contained on a single page on the publisher's website, which was then used as a primary source under this guideline. Would that also be a "spam link"? If not, it does not seem logical to draw a distinction here based on how many pages the usable and WP:PRIMARY–admissible information is spread out on. — Goszei (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Another point that was not raised on that talk page is this passage in WP:PRIMARY: an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label. I would also like to solicit opinions on this point: would a track listing on a record's label website become inadmissible, if there were seller links on the same page? What about a banner linking to a seller page on the side? What about a link to subscribe to a publication, like the New York Times? When does an otherwise admissible and usable source become spam? — Goszei (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I will also highlight a quotation from WP:AFFILIATE: Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page [...] in order to verify such things as titles and running times.Goszei (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment from the editor who started the discussion at Talk:New Game!: I think the use of primary sources in the manner the article is using them falls well within the bounds of WP:PRIMARY and related standards for the reasons outlined on that talk page. If it's ok to use a track listing from a record label, I don't see how release dates from a publisher is any worse. Link20XX (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Primary affiliated sources are normally given a pass, but if they are challenged then a secondary source must be provided. Otherwise it's WP:UNDUE and potentially promotional. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally I would agree above with Guy, the only real dissent is that things like release/publication dates are a piece of information regarding any creative media you would expect to both see in an encyclopedia, and have sourced appropriately. I have zero issue with a primary source being used to reference a release date unless there is actually some reasonable suspicion to doubt it. That the page used as a reference also contains links to where you can get it is process wonkery for the sake of it. Unless its blatantly illegal/copyright etc, we dont refuse to use something as an online reference because its got other stuff we wouldnt put in the article on the same page. If its that much of an issue, convert it to an archive link and then going forward it will be historical. Its not like we are putting up to date pricing information like certain members of the medical article cabal wanted to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder what a true secondary source (remember, Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent) about a release date would look like. How does one combine multiple, previously published primary sources into a novel analysis of a release date? In other words: yes, it's perfectly fine to use non-independent primary sources for bare statements of uncontested routine facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Report about detected original research case[edit]

I believe USER: Fact789 is trying to lobby for the original research in the SoftSwiss article. This does not look like a promotional issue, but like black PR, the purpose of which is to defame the object of the article. When I checked the unrelible and unverified citations tags (bad source tags) in the article, I found that the quoted text and the information on the external site did not match. Then I deleted the unconfirmed theses, and the user USER: Fact789 rolled them back and continues to do this for several days now.

Theses deleted from the article:

  • "In 2021, multiple gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were banned in Australia as well as several European countries, following formal investigations into illegal activity by the respective Gambling Authorities[1][2][3][4]". - There are no mentions on referenced media that SoftSwiss is operates any of blocked casinos. Softswiss as article says is a software developer, not a casino operator. There're even no mentions about SoftSwiss in the link which support the theses, look through them
  • "In February 2021, multiple illegal offshore gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were blocked due to illegal activity, following an order given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to Australian internet service providers (ISPs). The ACMA also urged Australian users of these sites to withdraw their money'[5][6]" - references do not contain information supporting this thesis, look through them
  • "In March 2021, Spillemyndigheden, the Danish Gambling Authority (DGA), announced the blocking of several online casinos operated by SoftSwiss subsidiary, Direx N.V. According to the DGA, these gambling websites operated without a license and offered Danish users unfair and illegal gambling products. The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA), Spelinspektionen, also recently banned some of SoftSwiss' online casinos, but later revoked the decision[7][8][9]" - References do not contain information supporting this thesis, look through them

Deleted theses violate the principals described in Wikipedia:No original research, and also demonstrate disrespect to the requirements for verifiability and reliability of references described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I am sure that further investigation will show these account also have conflict of interests with the competitors company Vlavluck (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vlavluck:, Please don't forum shop. You posted this exact same text in three places and that is highly excessive even if you think there's a need to get many eyes on the dispute or that the dispute violates multiple strictures. You have started this discussion on the article talk page, which is the first place that you should try to resolve any content dispute. If you fail to find a satisfactory resolution, then you may consider escalating the issue. Se the Dispute Resolution procedure for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Press, Release (February 18, 2021). "ACMA moves to block more illegal gambling websites". Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  2. ^ "The Danish Gambling Authority blocks 55 illegal websites | Spillemyndigheden". Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  3. ^ "Bolag som bedriver olaglig spelverksamhet". (in Swedish). Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  4. ^ "Swedish Gambling Regulators Clamp Down on Illegal Operators". Tunf News. 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  5. ^ Press Release (February 18, 2021). "ACMA moves to block more illegal gambling websites". The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Retrieved March 21, 2021.
  6. ^ "Softswiss-powered casinos time and again win AskGamblers Awards!". SoftSwiss. 2020-01-20. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  7. ^ "Bolag som bedriver olaglig spelverksamhet". (in Swedish). Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  8. ^ "Swedish Gambling Regulators Clamp Down on Illegal Operators". Tunf News. 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  9. ^ "Swedish regulator cracks down on unlicensed operators". iGaming Business. 2020-07-02. Retrieved 2021-05-03.

Public Documentation[edit]

I may be way out of line here... but I think the Wikipedia:No original research#Primary should be amended to allow for verifiable government press releases and FOIA documentation as productive sources. By this definition currently under policy this would not allow for using historical materials from previous administrations held by the National Archives. This would include documents sent from Congress to the Library of Congress... as they would be original sources. My interests are academic sources and historical documents. I think that these should be able to be used. Please don't jump down my throat as I a relatively new but I would love to here thoughts and reasoning on this.

I think this also applies to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: WikiLeaks

cc: @Szmenderowiecki: - What I will say about the Wikileaks situation is... can we verify the document through a second source or is it something where we could request it under FOIA or public information laws to verify. DoctorTexan (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:Primary allows historical materials to be used as primary sources. For what purpose do you want to use a historical document that WP:Primary would prohibit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
We are allowed to use FOIA responses, Congressional testimony, executive orders, internal memos etc. per WP:Primary; we should only be careful to state exactly what the document says and not make WP:OR on it. Ideally, if there are secondary resources, these have priority over primary ones.
As for verification of WikiLeaks cables - I doubt they will answer that FOIA request if you send it to, say, Dept. of State because of "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) policy that is in place in most major Western countries when it comes to leaked documents. It isn't bound to change anytime soon, so we're out of luck here. The chance some researcher has verified the documents and published the results is also not too big, but if you find one who could confirm the authenticity of the cable, it will be wonderful. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
A FOIA response is fine if it's stored in a reliable repository, held in a library, etc. But if the only copy is in a Wikipedia editor's drawer, that's not acceptable because it isn't published
@Jc3s5h: - So then I would ask you if it was stored at Commons would that qualify? DoctorTexan (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Commons is a wiki where anyone can put anything, and there is seldom any checking to verify that an item is what it purports to be. So a publication that is only available to the public from Commons would not be acceptable. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I think something that should be stated or addressed here is when such material is DUE. DUE is often the problem with primary source material. For example, what someone said in court is going to be a public record. The question is if that content is DUE in an article. This is where a secondary source is needed. Where this is gray to me is where we as editors can fill in gaps. As an example: Mr Smith is making a public statement which is recorded in a primary source ("This development should go through because it will bring jobs to the area and will reduce crime"). A local paper (RS) says, without a quote, that Mr Smith said he would bring jobs to the area. To what extent can we use the primary source in the article (assume this is not an ABOUTSELF case)? I think most would agree we can cite the news paper and link to the primary source. Can we use the specific quote from the primary source if the secondary source doesn't use it? That part I'm not sure about. On one hand it can often provide better detail but is that detail UNDUE because the secondary source didn't mention it? This part I'm not sure about. Springee (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
+1 to @Springee. Even if you managed to use a source in a way that doesn't violate NOR, there's often a problem with WP:DUE. If no proper source talked about this, then why should it be in the Wikipedia article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I remember when a Canadian MP was reported in Hansard that he was a proponent of racial discrimination. The words were reported and the MP claimed that he had said "opponent" and it was incorrectly recorded. Note that if it had not been reported in the media, we would not have had the full story. Possibly the MP would then complain to Wikipedia and we would ask him to publish a response so that we could report it. We would then have to determine how credible his response was. Even if we merely reported Hansard and his response, we would be giving equal validity to the two versions. Also, journalistic ethics would require us to contact the MP before publication. That would turn Wikipedia into a news reporting service, which would conflict with its status as an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ayurveda has an RFC[edit]

Talk:Ayurveda has an RFC for possible consensus. 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.

Topic: What is the position of the Indian Medical Association on Ayurveda?

-Wikihc (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"a small number of scientists"[edit]

In Wuhan Institute of Virology, is this sentence, In response to the WHO report, some politicians and a small number of scientists have called for further investigations into the matter. is the "small number" OR editorializing of WP:PRIMARY sources? It's sourced to [1], [2], [3] Geogene (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

None of these are primary sources except the Science letter, and this is forum-shopping. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
See also this long post for an in-depth explanation of the FRINGE nature of the topic among scientists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
All sources may be primary or secondary based on the context in which they're used. Geogene (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
You dismissed secondary analysis in newspapers, claiming that all of these are PRIMARY sources (opinion pieces or the like). That's clearly not the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get outside opinions from uninvolved editors, not to endlessly rehash talk page discussions with the same people. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Outside opinion from an uninvolved editor: RandomCanadian is correct. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion moot - I've found a reputable source which says this almost identically, see [4] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Tennis strategy[edit]

Nearly no sources given for this article which would otherwise look quite complete. I suspect there's a significant amount of OR that needs trimming down. Britannica has something about this (but note that the coverage there is about mostly shot selection), so it's likely we should be able to have something too, ideally not based on some person's interpretations and personal opinions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Miles Davis[edit]

Hello, there is currently a discussion at Talk:Miles Davis#I question the Knighthood source. that may interest watchers of this board. Elizium23 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Jojar S Dhinsa[edit]

In this edit, VirginOnMadness changed the lede of Jojar S Dhinsa to claim that Dhinsa is not, in fact, a successful entrepreneur since the companies registered to him in the UK companies registry are all listed as "Dissolved". This edit ignores the existence of the Athlone Group's [ own website] (a primary source, to be sure, but one we could reasonably count on to verify who their own CEO is), and this profile in Bdaily News. BobBobster1 has been arguing on my user talk page (see the June 2021 section) that my edits to restore the original information, despite the presence of citations to back up the original, constitute vandalism. I counter with the argument that BobBobster1's arguments amount to original research: since he is unable to find evidence in his own limited searches that Dhinsa is the entrepreneur the article claims him to be, that the information must be false. BobBobster1 has argued on my talk page that only company registries are valid sources and that the existence of published articles is insufficient. (His claim is that I would need to contact the publisher and verify their sources for myself.)

I am seeking administrator intervention against BobBobster1, who appears to have a axe to grind against Dhinsa. Looking at the history of the Dhinsa biography, one can find that it is replete with additions by BobBobster1 that "no evidence can be found" for the various claims of the article. (I specifically point to this edit, but there are others.) I argue that this is not only a NOR violation, it is also a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violation.

Finally, I note that VirginOnMadness has made only a single contribution to Wikipedia, which is to restore text earlier added by BobBobster1. I suspect WP:SOCK may also be involved here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  • The claim that "He is regarded as one of the UK’s most successful entrepreneurs" appears to be unsourced, and such a bold claim would require very strong sourcing to remain. VirginOnMadness was correct to remove it. pburka (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Pburka: Agreed as far as the "most successful entrepreneurs" goes, and in the version I edited, that statement was eliminated. But VirginOnMadness fully restored BobBobert1's lede paragraph which questions the very existence of any companies that Dhinsa leads, with no reliable source to question the claim. (Remember, absence of proof is not proof of absence.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @WikiDan61: A company isn't a scientific experimemt, it's a legal entity. And as such, a registration number would not be hard to find. BobBobster1 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

1. A website only proves there is a website. BobBobster1 (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

2. Bdaily News is a "paid for" news publisher. BobBobster1 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

3. ″Finally, I note that VirginOnMadness has made only a single contribution to Wikipedia, which is to restore text earlier added by BobBobster1. I suspect WP:SOCK may also be involved here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)″

I have been restoring my own edits after vandalism and uncited edits, and show a history of this. Why would I create another account to do this only once? BobBobster1 (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@BobBobster1: I would claim that your edits are the vandalism; casting aspersion on a living person without sufficient evidence. (See WP:BLP.) You are concluding from your own research into the UK companies registration that Dhinsa is not who he claims to be. We need a reliable source to back up a claim asserting that either a) Athlone Group does not actually exist or b) Dhinsa is not its Chairman and CEO. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @WikiDan61: I'm not claiming anything or casting asperions, I just added sources for the companies he has been involved with (companies that have proof of existing with registration numbers, the fact they are all dissolved is neither here nor there) if someone wishes to add Athlone Group to the list they would need to provide a registration number (which is proof a company exists as a legal entity). BobBobster1 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems like everyone involved in this dispute is relying heavily on primary or unreliable sources. When there aren't strong secondary sources it's easy to veer into original research. I question whether the subject of this article is notable, given the quality of sources currently present. pburka (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
One may argue Dhinsa's notability (although some of these source claim him to be one of the wealthiest men in the UK, so I'd find that a hard argument to make); but there are reliable source aplenty to verify that he is the CEO of Athlone Group, an actual company, a claim that BobBobster1 disputes merely because he can't find a registration number for it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@WikiDan61: It's a lot more than the lack of registration number, most reasons I can't post because of Wikipedia's legal policy. Remember this is supposedly a $23 billion per year turnover group with 47 companies in the group (ever heard of one being mentioned in any articles?), and nothing more than fluff articles and no evidence to back up the claims in these articles. And why is Dhinsa not mentioned in The Times Rich List?, I advise you to look a bit deeper ;) BobBobster1 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it's problematic to rely excessively on primary sources like Company House, but Bob's right that there's something fishy here. If this businessperson and his Athlone Group are really notable, I'd expect to see a lot more coverage than a handful of human interest stories in local newspapers. Where are the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal articles? Rather than try to correct the article with info from primary sources, my inclination would be to delete it entirely. pburka (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
When in doubt Delete. It can always be recreated if better evidence is found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC).

I'm a big enough man to admit when I am wrong, and in this case, I appear to have been quite wrong. While BobBobert1's methods were not the best, and while it is verifiable that Dhinsa is the CEO and Chair of Athlone Group, it does not appear that Athlone Group is a notable organization. Upon close inspection, much of the information in Dhinsa's biography fails verification. Many of the sources list him as a British billionaire, yet he does not appear on any major publication's lists of British billionaires. Several of the remaining sourcs are somewhat sketchy as well (a link to the Elephant Family fundraiser flyer that does not verify Dhinsa as being involved with that charity; a link to a YouTube video purporting to be a Discovery Channel program about European billionaire entrepreneurs, but which includes no credits to verify its sourcing and was posted by an account having nothing to do with the Discovery Channel). BobBobert1, I apologize for having brought the matter here to the noticeboard; I agree with the others that this article should probably be deleted, and I will likely be the one to start the AFD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I appreciate you taking the time to look into him and the sources. I'm still new to Wikipedia, so apologies about the method I used; but i'm glad you brough it here so we could discuss. no apology needed!.BobBobster1 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


Dominic Mayers and Norfolkbigfish provided a definition for the "crusading movement". According to their definition, the movement was "the progressive creation of institutions and of an ideology associated with crusades". I remarked that this summary could be a good approach to present the movement, but we should not use it as a definition, because definitions in connection with crusades and crusading are controversial. I asked them to verify this definition, but they say common sense confirms it. Is common sense enough to define a term in WP, or all definitions are to be verified by a reference to a scholarly work? Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

We are not really offering a definition. There is no interest in offering a definition of "crusading movement", because it has a natural meaning. As we pointed out to Borsoka, none of the many authors who used that expression bothered to define it. In fact, Borsoka himself complained that this sentence does not mean much, because it refers to Crusades. If it does not mean much, it's not really a definition. It is just a very natural and general affirmation regarding "crusading movement" that we use to be more explicit about the scope of the article, which is something that must be done as soon as possible in the article. There is nothing contentious in this affirmation. We asked several times Borsoka to explain what is contentious in this statement. His reply above is that it is problematic, because the definition of crusades is problematic, but we avoid this issue, because we refer to the article Crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The text in question is based on Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1995). "The Crusading Movement and Historians". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan (ed.). The Oxford Illustrated History of The Crusades. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–12. ISBN 978-0-19285428-5.. Riley-Smith was one of the foremost academic, educator and influencer working in the field. Dominic Mayers is correct in writing that the lead does not offer a definition because as Riley-Smith wrote It must be admitted that crusading is not easy to define. The movement lasted a very long time and opinions and policies changed; for instance, the development of crusade leagues was an adaptation of crusading to suit the rise of the nation state. Crusading involved men and women from every region of western Europe and from all classes; attitudes can never have been homogeneous. And it appealed at the same time to intellectuals and to the general public, so that we are faced by a range of ideas from the most cerebral to the most primitive, from the peaks of moral theology to the troughs of anti-semitic blood-feuds. Ideas from different ends of the spectrum, moreover, interreacted. Because crusading was a voluntary activity, popes and preachers had to transmit the theology in a popular form, and it was not uncommon for popular conceptions to attach themselves to official Church reaching. For instance, crusades had technically to be defensive—Christians could not fight wars of conversion—but at grassroots' level people perceived Christianity to be a muscular religion, and missionary elements again and again pervaded crusading thought and propaganda. In particular reference to the sentences in question he wrote The crusading movement had involved every country in Europe, touching almost every area of life—the Church and religious thought, politics, the economy, and society—as well as generating its own literature. It had an enduring influence on the history of the western Islamic world and the Baltic region and The astonishing achievement of the expedition partly inspired the departure of 'the third wave', the so-called crusade of noi, but no one in these years could have predicted that what Urban had conjured up would prove to be only the First Crusade, nor that the crusade would come to be deployed elsewhere than in the Holy Land and against opponents other than Muslims—in short, that the crusading movement would emerge to become one of the most important components, and defining characteristics, of late medieval western culture. Those last two quotes are sourced in the body and provide a pretty good description of what this article is about e.g. the Crusade Movement and why. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Norfolkbigfish: thank you for copying this lengthy quote. Which part of it verifies the statement that the crusading movement was "the progressive creation of institutions and of an ideology associated with crusades", especially because Riley-Smith does not speak of institutions or of a single ideology. @Dominic Mayers: thank you for your remark. If my understanding is correct you suggest that Riley-Smith is wrong when writing that "crusading is not easy to define" because "crusading movement" has a natural meaning. Could you explain the natural meaning of the term? Or, alternatively, could we conclude that references to common sense and natural meaning are useless in connection with the crusades and crusading? Borsoka (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Difficult to debate when the lead changes mid-discussion. I have restored to the last good version, so the search for consensus can continue. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we all have changed the lead mid-discussion. Thank you for not restoring your original research. This is an important step to reach a consensual lead. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Borsoka by "usual meaning", I referred to the usual meanings of "movement" and "crusades" whatever these are. These meanings vary in different contexts, but they have enough in common to claim that there is a "usual meaning". For example, the term "movement" has a different meaning in Religious movement, Political movement, Social movement, etc., but it is always the "usual meaning" of movement, the same one as in "Crusading movement". My point is that despite these important variations, no experts bothered to formally define "crusading movement". Instead, they relied on the usual meaning and its use in the context. The statement only clarifies a bit this meaning in the context of Crusades and we need to do that, because it makes the scope of the article more explicit. There might be room for improvement. In particular, after reading Norfolkbigfish's quotes, I realize that we are not only interested in institutions that are created to support the movement and are part of this movement, but also in the influences the movement had on existing institutions. However, this is not the issue that you raise. You seem concerned about the proper use of the terms "institutions" and "ideology", and require that we can verify these uses. Perhaps Norfolkbigfish can provide examples of the use of "institutions" and "ideology" in the context of crusading so that, if these uses exist, we can see that our use of these terms is compatible. If there are none, it's not a problem, because it only means that we use the common meaning of these terms, which is fine, as long as the content (not the exact terminology) is verifiable. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that we consider this discussion closed, because we seem to be moving ahead with improvements on the article. It makes no sense to significantly edit the article while we discuss here, because the subject and the issue are already hard to follow even when the problematic status of the article is available. In my view, the version obtained after these edits does not address the issue of specifying the scope of the article in terms of "institutions" and "ideology" (or "ideologies") or an equivalent terminology. However, there are other issues to consider and perhaps it will be wise to first work on these issues in the body of the article and only after go back to the lead to find a way to better explain the scope of the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am glad that you understand the usual (or natural?) meaning of the term "crusading movement", but please also understand that scholars are less optimistic. I agree that the lead and the article need significant improvement, especially because the article's scope and its existence are still debated, but perhaps we all should follow usual (or natural?) WP policies, including WP:NOR when editing to reach a consensus. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the scope of the article, if you disagree that there should be an article that focuses on the ideology behind crusading and its relation with institutions, then explain why, but not here, because the scope is something that we decide and it does not need to be verifiable. Of course, there must exist articles that discuss ideology and institutions in relation with crusades, but there are many and there is no OR issue. What we decide to cover and how we explain it do not need to be verified. The discussion here should be closed. It is easy to create a problem by seeing the necessary specification of the scope as if it was a definition of "crusading movement" and insists that it must be verifiable, etc. But using this to refuse to clarify the scope of the article is not practical at all. It will bring us nowhere. We just need to explain what is the scope (as above) without presenting it as a contentious definition of "crusading movement". Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
From the beginning, I emphasized that institutions and ideologies could be an acceptable scope for the article about crusading movement. I maintain that the article may contain only statements that can be verified. As Norfolkbigfish deleted your joint original research, I agree there is no need to discuss this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
So, I consider this discussion closed, but there is no consensus that there was OR. There were issues in the sentence, but only because it did not describe well the scope, not because it was OR. Certainly, it makes no sense that we can describe the scope above the lead as you did in your last edit, but yet cannot do it in the lead because it would be OR. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
OK. I accept your argumentation. If we cannot describe the scope above the lead without verifying it, we should merge the article into crusades as it is suggested by many editors. I suggest we should continue this discussion on the article's Talk page. 06:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is closed or that it is accepted that there is no OR here. It really needs one or more neutral editors to give an opinion before it is closed and we all move on. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


This editor (Editingwiki777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is inserting synthesized original research into three articles, Eliphas Levi, The Book of Abramelin, and Chaos Magic. They have received multiple OR and edit-warring warnings is April, May, and this month, culminating in a level 4 warning. They have not responded to these notices or to queries on the article talk pages, they just keep reverting to restore "their" "criticism" section. Skyerise (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That editor has only one edit, made back in 2010 and nothing but a welcome template on their talk page. Methinks you might want to double check that name, because Editingwiki777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a different user entirely. I'm digging through their contribs now, and reverting as needed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the fact that they've never responded to warnings over the three months they've been hee, I've blocked them indefinitely. If they can show that they understand our policies and guidelines and demonstrate what they will do to follow them, they can be unblocked. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Miles Davis § Request for Comment - Religion[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Miles Davis § Request for Comment - Religion. Elizium23 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Original research at SoftSwiss[edit]

Hi! I’ve noticed traces of the original research in the SoftSwiss article made by User talk:Novobat, User talk:Fact789 and few more contributors. In places where I found irregularities or inaccuracies I placed tags [verification failed], [better source needed], [unreliable sources], [citation needed]. In several places the source material was rephrased with a change in its meaning. In others, the author combines material from several sources to come to a conclusion that is not directly stated in any of the sources and does not imply it. The article also contains links to dubious zines about cryptocurrency and links to unverifiable information from the Webarchive.

I. Conclusion that is not directly stated

(а) "In 2021, multiple gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were banned in Australia as well as several European countries, following formal investigations into illegal activity by the respective Gambling Authorities"

(b) "In February 2021, multiple illegal offshore gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were blocked due to illegal activity, following an order given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to Australian internet service providers (ISPs). The ACMA also urged Australian users of these sites to withdraw their money.[31][better source needed][32][better source needed]"

(c) "In March 2021, the Danish Gambling Authority (DGA), announced the blocking of several online casinos operated by SoftSwiss subsidiary, Direx N.V. According to the DGA, these gambling websites operated without a license and offered Danish users unfair and illegal gambling products.[33][better source needed][34][better source needed] The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA), also recently banned some of SoftSwiss' online casinos, but later revoked the decision.[35][better source needed][36][better source needed][37][better source needed]"

The main point: Softswiss as article declaire is a software developer for an online casino platform but not a casino operator. As a result there are no supply for these three statements on the source materials.

II. Rephrased with a change in its meaning

(d)"The trading company for SoftSwiss is the Cypriot company Direx Limited.[citation needed] The Curaçao-based company Direx N.V is the hundred percent shareholder in Direx Limited, and the most prominent entity of the SoftSwiss group.[20][better source needed][21][unreliable source?] N1 Interactive is another trading corporation within SoftSwiss’ group of companies, through which SoftSwisss reportedly holds its Maltese gambling license.[22][citation needed][23][better source needed][24][better source needed]"

The main point: The author leaves many statements without citation, and in the proposed sources it is impossible to establish what the author is referring to.

III. Links to zines and

(g)"SoftSwiss has come under fire due to allegations of plagiarism by the Belarusian gambling company, VIADEN. [citation needed] This was reportedly likely the result of multiple employees leaving VIADEN to join SoftSwiss in the early 2010s, including its lead designer.[4][better source needed]"

The main point: The author makes a conclusion based on the interview, which is an insider's view of an event and may not be independent sources.

(h) The author makes references to arhived data here[1] ana here[2].

The main point: The author makes a conclusion on archived data, which was removed for unknown reasons and which cannot be verified. My majesty's balls (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)