Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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)[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Thank you for helping out.

Discussion of content provided that does not exist in cited sources[edit]

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.

Rbl for ruble[edit]

Affects articles such as:

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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
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)Reply[reply]
I read your comment and will reply at detail at a later time. Thanks a lot. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman: What I am getting as is that using Rbl for the Russian ruble could be original research, in part since WBSG uses "Rub" and "ruble" for the Russian currency. I am aware of how my RfC on r(o)uble went thanks to your reminder, and I respect its result and you analysis on how it relates to spelling the word "ruble" on-wiki. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NotReallySoroka: IMO calling it OR gives it a dignity it doesn't deserve, it was just part of TCG's one-man WP:RGW campaign. It is just wrong, as the citation affirms, and we don't need to make a big issue of it – just correct any instances of it that you find. I have already corrected Russian ruble. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman: Alright, thank you :) NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amhara genocide[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I posted an RM, which should hopefully either lead to enough serious sources being provided for the main thesis, or to a name change that would not remove all aspects of synthesis, but at least the topic as a whole would no longer be synthesis. Boud (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope of the "Anti-N sentiment" articles[edit]

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:

--PaulT2022 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
"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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • With regard to 1st question, no. anti-Russian sentiment and Russophobia are the same, as well as anti-Jewish sentiment and anti-Semitism are the same. With regard to 2nd question, it depends. If RS call specific incidents anti-national sentiment or if they are clearly anti-national sentiment (e.g. vandalizing graves of people that belong to certain ethnic groups, etc.), then of course such incidents can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With regard to specific diffs by OP, two first edits (by Turaids) look like improvements (this is proper refocusing of content), but 3rd one (by AllGloryToTheHypnotoad) is not (this is just a removal of relevant due content on the subject). My very best wishes (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popper's three worlds[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@AllGloryToTheHypnotoad: For the Template:Expert needed, tag, nobody will intervene if they don't have an on-page explanation and/or a link to this ORN discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of right now, Elijahandskip seems to want to keep the sentence that references this as the deadliest event of 2023. Besides this not being notable as we are only 4% into the year, no source is declaring this to be deadliest. His template of deadliest 2023 events is his excuse, but does that violate WP:OR? -- (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. This seems arguably too soon in the year, as well as being generally lower compared to.other events, to be added. If say by April it is still the highest, then it makes sense. Masem (t) 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Masem: Just a question. Per the discussion starter’s own words, “The template itself is fine since it compares events as covered by sources.” Why would the template not be ok for the sentence? Per many sources indirectly, the floods are the deadliest event in 2023. No source directly states it, however, would it not be viable for someone to say Hurricane Ian killed more than the 2022-2023 California floods? No source directly states that Ian killed more than the floods, however, we know Ian killed 150+ and the floods killed 19. This is one of the circumstances where multiple sources indirectly state it, so in my mind, it should be included until it drops to #2. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's more than 90% of the year left, so it is quite possible that 50+ deadly weather events may occur, and in that light, the deaths from the flood would no longer be considered close to deadliest. It would be different if this was July or later, with <50% of year left; while there still could be multiple storms that are more deadly, the statistics work against that. In reality, we really should be waiting until mid December (or even after the new year) to be classifying events as the deadliest so that there's no way that the fact could be changed. Note this is different from cataloging all death-toll-having weather events on a list for 2023 which can be sorted by deaths, as events will not disappear off that. Masem (t) 01:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Clarification comment: The template which mentions is Template:Deadliest meteorological events in 2023. Also for the record, I don’t “own” the template like seems to be claiming. In fact, other editors have contributed to it and templates like it. I’m not sure why this user came straight to a noticeboard instead of starting a talk page discussion about it or continuing the ongoing discussion about it. Slightly suspicious about a potential WP:SOCK involved here. Myself and a few other WP Weather members have been dealing with two sock masters in the last 6 months (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew5/Archive) who love to jump around from IP to IP. I have noticed now three unique IP editors [12][13][14] say almost duplicate things about that sentence. Anyway, I plan to open a SPI just incase since basically WP Weather is use to seeing multiple IP users saying the same thing = this specific sock master, who’s has been discovered to often jump to conclusions/escalate issues more than they should. United States Man, you should probably jump into this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't see any clear indication as to what the aforementioned template is citing for its fatality information, particularly due to the lack of links for most of its entries. I'm not immediately aware of sourcing requirements for navigation templates, but given how the template appears to be presenting novel information (dates, fatality counts) I would assume the sourcing requirements would be higher here, and it would be prudent to include that attribution. –TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are all mentioned in the Weather of 2023 timeline. It is probably a good idea to include references in the template itself, but trying to figure out where to add them I think is a question (for visual purposes and such, like where to place them). Elijahandskip (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: Discussion can be disregarded here and continue back on the article’s talk page as the noticeboard was filed pre-maturely by a now blocked sock master. There was a nice and productive conversation there prior to this noticeboard being filed. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prewrath Rapture[edit]

Editor User:Doug Weller deleted an entire section of the article entitled "Timeline" with the reason being: No original research (also mentioned no secondary sources added). The below exchange is from the talk page of User:SanJuanCat

Doug, it appears you deleted the entire "Timeline" section from the article ...with a mention of "no secondary sources." I would argue that the Bible is the primary source and that the timelines that were added to the article are secondary sources. Following is Wikipedia's explanation of primary and secondary sources - with my additions/clarifications italicized in brackets:
"A secondary source [diagram of the timing of the end-times] is one that gives information about a primary source [the Bible]. In this source [diagram], the original information [Bible] is selected, modified and arranged in a suitable format. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information."
Do you agree or disagree that 1) the Bible is a primary source and 2) a diagram showing the chronological arrangement of the Bible's end-time events is a secondary source? ...and if you disagree with either 1) or 2), what is your position on either or both of those statements?
Thanks, Craig SanJuanCat (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]Reply[reply]
No, the diagrams were not reliably published sources. Just original research. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]Reply[reply]
But you mentioned two points in your edit: 1) original research and 2) no secondary sources added. Regarding #2, isn't the Bible the primary source and the diagrams the secondary source? SanJuanCat (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]Reply[reply]
Secondary on Wikipedia is basically shorthand for reliably published secondary sources . Doug Weller talk 21:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]Reply[reply]
So is it your position that all the "Timeline" information (that you deleted) was not reliably published secondary sources? SanJuanCat (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]Reply[reply]
Yes. Most had no sources, did you see the tag? Doug Weller talk 21:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]Reply[reply]
The tag was wrong. The information in "Timeline" cited a multitude of Bible verses, which is the primary source for this article. Did you not see all the cited Bible verses? SanJuanCat (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]Reply[reply]
You still don't get it. Of course I saw the verses, I'd have to be blind to miss them. Virtually that whole section was someone's interpretation of the primary sources in a 2008 edit. We simply do not allow that. It violates Wikipedia:No original research. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]Reply[reply]
What do you believe is Wikipedia's definition of "No original research"? ...and what is your source?
From the link you provided: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."
Since the Bible is the primary, reliable, published source, and the analysis/synthesis material from the "Timeline" information (which you deleted) serves to reach a conclusion that is stated by the Bible, and the specific Bible verses were cited, why would that "Timeline" information be considered original research?
Further, from the link you provided: "Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." This describes the information that you deleted from "Timeline."
Why do you believe it violates "no original research"? SanJuanCat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and the analysis/synthesis material from the "Timeline" information ... serves to reach a conclusion That's the OR part. No analysis , no synthesis, and no conclusions that are not directly stated in reliable secondary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. It's not the analysis/synthesis that is inherently the problem, it's when the analysis/synthesis serves to reach a conclusion that is NOT stated by the sources. In this case, the analysis serves to reach a conclusion that IS stated by the sources. SanJuanCat (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." SanJuanCat (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bible has no 'timeline' for 'prewrath rapture'. Any such 'timeline' is interpretation/evaluation. And since no source is cited for such interpretation, it is original research. That is how Wikipedia policy works. It isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bible most definitely has verbiage regarding the timing of the end-time events and many books have been written about how the Bible supports a prewrath rapture. Secondary sources such as diagrams give information about the primary source - the Bible. And further, "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." In those secondary sources, the Bible was cited.
What is your basis for saying "The Bible has no 'timeline' for 'prewrath rapture'"?
And what are you referring to when you say: "no source is cited for such interpretation, it is original research."? SanJuanCat (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SanJuanCat… what you need to do is find a reliable secondary source that strings the verses together to form the timeline… and then you can attribute the timeline to that source. Is there such a source? Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, but just to clarify, the "Timeline" section in the article that was involved in the wholesale deletion was not my work and I didn't add it. However, in that article, editor(s) did string together verses in bullet point, narrative form to describe the schedule of the end times, citing book, chapter and verse for each verse. In addition, an editor(s) added two diagrams to the Timeline section to show the timeline in schematic form. Isn't that what Wikipedia defines as secondary sources?
Or are you saying secondary sources have to be published somewhere else before they can be added to Wikipedia. If that's the case, then there are many sources (books and associated websites and materials) that string together verses to form the timeline of events. Also, if that is the case, the diagrams that got deleted from the Timeline section were seemingly secondary sources published elsewhere ...shouldn't those be allowed in the article?
(As an aside, a book that I wrote and an associated website string verses together to form the timeline, but it sounds like I can't add my own work??)
Thank you SanJuanCat (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The diagrams were original research, neither had any sources. Doug Weller talk 22:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there are many sources (books and associated websites and materials). NB it's about secondary reliable sources, as described here: WP:reliable sources. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10-4 ...there are many reliable sources on this topic SanJuanCat (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Easily resolved ...I can add those and/or others back and cite sources SanJuanCat (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zigmas Zinkevičius[edit]

On the article Zigmas Zinkevičius, Marcelus repeatedly adds statements ([15], [16]) such as Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work, despite the source he used [17] not saying anything like that and not even mentioning the words 'nationalism', 'nationalist' or anything of the sort. In fact, the quote Marcelus references says (translated into English from Polish: However, it seems to me that the weakness of the work is the lack of objectivity, mixing ideology and scientific facts). This does not at all match what Marcelus portrays it as saying.

It's also relevant that Marcelus has dehumanized Zigmas Zinkevičius as a chauvinistic pig twice already: Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't - on 11 August 2022 - and he was chauvinistic pig on 15 Jan. 2023. So, Marcelus clearly has a grudge against him and it seems like Marcelus is intentionally smearing Zigmas Zinkevičius, who was a very respectable academician that passed away five years ago.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cukrakalnis I reworded the section, also added opinion of Theodore R. Weeks. I also maintain my negative opinion of him, which is justified by his actions. Marcelus (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no sources that call Zinkevičius anti-Polish or anti-Polonist, etc., so the section "Anti-Polonism" and the category "anti-Polish" has to go, because it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cukrakalnis how would you rename it then? I think that "Anti-Polonism" sums pretty well the content Marcelus (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like Turaids already said here:
How many of the other sources actually explicitly call Zinkevičius views and actions "anti-Polish" and how much of that is your own personal intepretation and WP:SYNTH? Since you don't seem to be able to tell the difference it would be a good idea for you to provide quotes from the other sources as well.
The section's false name "Anti-Polonism" as well as the related category should be entirely removed. Most of the section Anti-Polonism should be removed, because the criticism by Boroch and Jundo-Kaliszewska is already in the Reception and legacy section, where Weeks' comments could be added. Also, the reliability of Jundo-Kaliszewska's works is also called into question by her numerous doubtful statements that contradict many already established WP:RS (e.g. she calls Vytautas Landsbergis and Virgilijus Čepaitis, "fringe nationalists" (Skrajni nacjonaliści, tacy jak Čepaitis czy Landsbergis..., denies the existence of simple speech, forced polonization, etc.), so most of the section should just be removed. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no reason to remove the whole section. It's based on reliable sources and shows important part of Zinkevičius biography. Also there is nothing controversial in calling Landsbergis "radical nationalist", his views are similiar to Zinkevičius. Marcelus (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many reasons to remove that section (like I and Turaids already said), but this seems like a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, because you keep repeating your incorrect arguments ad nauseam.
Calling Vytautas Landsbergis (a recipient of numerous international awards, such as the Philippines' Gusi Peace Prize, among many others) a radical nationalist is a clear demonstration of a very distorted WP:POV. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if the sources are reliable (which in the case of Jundo-Kaliszewska still seems to be under discussion), your application of them clearly is not. As I've tried to explain, the section suffers from systemic problems starting with its name and the very first sentences. My proposal would be to move the overlapping content from the Reception and legacy section to a separate subsection Criticism (to address your concern of "uncomfortable information being buried"), include the recently added opinion of Theodore R. Weeks and improve upon that, but discard most of the content in the Anti-Polonism section as duplicate and unimprovable. And the moment calling Landsbergis a "radical nationalist" stops being controversial is the moment it becomes a consensus. –Turaids (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Turaids there is no reason to call Jundo-Kaliszewska as unreliable source, you didn't provide any (reviews of her work, opinions about her work etc.) all we got so far are @Cukrakalnis speculations. Unless you prove otherwise she should be considered as reliable source. Also there are three different reaserches that are on the same page as her: Theodore Weeks, Leonidas Donskis and Boroch. Please explaing to me how my "application of sources" is "unreliable".
As for Landsbergis I don't know how receiving several awards contradicts him being radical nationalists. Marcelus (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's still unclear, please re-read what I wrote in the Landsbergis discussion page about you synthesizing published material. As for Jundo-Kaliszewska, Cukrakalnis raised a number reasonable objections about her that you haven't really addressed, but I've already spent enough time repeating myself, so I won't be wasting any more time in this discussion. I will just repeat myself for the very last time of the first thing I said when I joined the discussion: "Your conviction appears to be heavily clouded by your personal opinion of the subject of this article." –Turaids (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion is based on the knowledge about the subject of the article. And we weren't discussing on Landsbergis page, you probably mean Zinkevičius. Marcelus (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs. –Turaids (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Turaids If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles.; I don't know what's your point here is really Marcelus (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are the one openly admitting of adding things to the article with the intention of "proving" that "he was chauvinistic pig" (your words, not mine). –Turaids (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Turaids And? What exactly is wrong about it? Sources clearly describes him as nationalist politican, member of nationalist anti-Polish organisations, and that's what is in the article. And yes my intentions is to describe him as such, because without his biography is incomplete. There is literally nothing wrong about it, despite all your efforts to prove otherwise. Marcelus (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You still not realizing that "nationalist" and "anti-Polonist" is not something that can just be thrown around interchangeably is what's wrong about it. –Turaids (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Turaids please elaborate, what you mean by that Marcelus (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dragon Ball Super: Broly[edit]

In the article Dragon Ball Super: Broly, a user is modifying the figure of $122.7 million (reported by The Numbers)[18] to $131.0 million (according to them, reported by Showtime Analytics). The problem is that, to support their claim, the user just cites this simple url ([19]), explaining as well that subscription is required to verify said figure. I'm not going to discuss whether this is true or not, I simply require some input to resolve this, because this is poorly sourced and is against WP:OR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Xexerss (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, the user made the same edits in Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection 'F', Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero and Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods. Xexerss (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paywalled sites are permissible but I believe a specific link or some kind of explicit citation is required. Someone has to be able to (theoretically) verify the information by direct citation. In the case of conflicting sources, an RFC or dispute resolution may be needed. BTW, both you and this other editor (Scabab) should be warned about WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. I'm aware about WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR, that's why I asked for some input and waited some time before editing the articles. I also reported this user's practices at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scabab and box office figures. Xexerss (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with DIYeditor, the idea is that if a paywall exists statistically more than one wikipedian will have access to it. Thats why a specific link is so important, it won't matter to most editors but it will to other editors who can jump that wall. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no specific link. Not for this movie not any other. It's all operated under some kind of tabs on the site. It's not like IMDb. Even there was, nobody could see it anywhere unless subscribed. Showtime Analytics aka Comscore is the the source for box office figures that secondary sites like The Numbers and Box Office Mojo take their information from though of course they're never fully correct and therefore are inaccurate. Scabab (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the page Stjepan Filipović I have added that the person in question's statue was demolished by the Croatian government (which as an independent state seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991). These edits were undone by and (which I presume are the same person), on the grounds that "they were not cited" (reverting it back to simply stating that his statue was demolished in 1991, and nothing else). However, I do not feel that it is necessary to cite that in particular, as it is simply a fact of history that Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991, and therefore it follows that it was the same independent Croatian government which had done the act of demolishing the monument. I would like some input on whether this detail is right to keep in the page. (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everything that is likely to be challenged should be referenced, anything that has been challenged shouldn't be restored without an inline reference. This is covered by WP:BURDEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here in the US, statues often get removed by authority of a local town or city government, and the national government is not involved. I assume this could be the case in Croatia as well. This is why we need a citation to say who authorized removal. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having looked into it further it appears to also be false, those who destroyed the monument have never been identified and there are no reliable sources stating it was ordered by the Croatian government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 00:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cartoon portraits[edit]

I've noticed recently a number of additions of cartoon portraits to articles - see for example Célestine Hitiura Vaite and Chela Sandoval. While I'm aware OR rules are a bit looser around images, I don't think these are accurate representations of the subjects. Anyone have thoughts on how to approach these? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say no, unless we know it is a portrait done with the acknowledgement of the person. Unlike realistic attempts at portraits that do not exaggerate details, cartoon portraits may unintentionally exaggerate parts that the person does not want. Masem (t) 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the captions are also not in English. All of the images were uploaded to Commons by Mina Kara (talk · contribs), but these images were added to the articles by Celinea33 (talk · contribs) along with their infoboxes. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ugh, those are ungodly amateurish, they should not be used as the primary image for a BLP article. NOTE - at least one of the images thus far has been added by user Turktimex3. Not by adding the image directly here, but rather by making a call to Wikidata, where the image was uploaded. This may get messy to untangle if there's more of this. Zaathras (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion reminds me of this RfC: Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article and the whole "Wiki Unseen" project: Some1 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I see I was mentioned here, I don't have much time now but these portraits are part of "les sans images", an initiative by "les sans pagEs". The topic was already discussed before, and it seems accepted, in the en:wiki, see here Celinea33 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are allready quite a few portraits of renowned people which are paintings Joan of Arc, Jesus and with no real clue if these are realistic depiction.
IMO having a drawn portrait is better than having none, and so far there were only two complaints of living persons and the pictures have been replaced and / or changed according to their wishes, or the personnalities have themselves given a free licensed photograph.
Most of the drawings were made by professionals, I would not call them "ungodly amateurish".
The same problem exist with photographs (who was the famous actor who complained about his picture in a press article?).Of course if the persons don't like these, we can change them, but if they don't I don't see the rationale for retrieving them. Hyruspex (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not if they're still alive. WP:Biographies of living persons rules set a very high standard for how living persons are portrayed on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to Hyruspex — these are professional, Free representations of the biography subjects. WP:BLP would obviously apply if these were derogatory, but I think it's a big stretch to suggest that professional illustrations cannot be used to illustrate a biography, especially when no other Free images are available to do so. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For deceased persons that were prior to the age of photography (and thus generally will be in the free image realm), I would expect that we use imagery that academic works have identified as that person, rather than original images. So while the Joan of Arc lede image is clearly not photorealistic, it is, for the time it was created, an accurate representation of her, based on historians. Masem (t) 13:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please take a look at Wiki Unseen, an initiative by the Wikimedia Fundation that I think is great.
Portrait drawings are very regularly used in the national press (Le Monde, The New Yorker...) and I think it is a very good solution to illustrate Wikipedia. Alacoolwiki (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its a terrible idea for living persons, and too amateurish for WP. It was a really bad idea for WMF to run that without thinking of the outcomes on the individual wikis. Masem (t) 04:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria, see for example Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article and Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_March_8. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see someone already mentioned Xavier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've had people uploading and using illustrations they've created for a long time. When there are no free images and it doesn't meet NFCC, it's often the only way we can get an illustration into an article. I don't think this is an area where NOR is an issue. I don't think BLP is a big issue in any case I've seen, either, since even a sub-par illustration is better than none (just like how Wikipedia uses thousands of really terrible photos of people because it's all we have). If the subject doesn't like it, the same advice applies as with the bad photo: give us a better one and we're typically happy to use it. Beyond people, a huge number of our dinosaur articles use user-created illustrations, and a lot of our scientific diagrams rely on user-created content, too. This is pretty common, and it's disappointing people think it's ok to insult these contributions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User-created diagrams are one thing. I've contributed some myself. Even some cartoons for example from the infamous JJ McCullough are good illustrations like villain. However the idea that it's OK to use illustrations of living people without in any way an RS or those people personally stating it ABOUTSELF is problematic because we have no way to know verifiably if it depicts them accurately (without I guess, doing original research, right?) Andre🚐 23:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is it different from any other image that relies on a Wikipedia user taking the photo or creating the image? None of those involve RS, either. You're taking the word of the photographer that it depicts the person/subject claimed. The people depicted in these illustrations will be more "verifiable" than many subjects we have because there are almost always going to be publicly visible photos of them that you can just search for (as is the case with the person at the top of this thread). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other images aren't necessarily a living person, and a caricature of unknown relationship to that person. A photograph tells 1000 words as they say. A cartoon tells the brush strokes and line strokes that may or may not be "on model" to use a term of art. Andre🚐 23:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, my concern is not all illustrations, but these particular cartoons; and the concern isn't quality but accuracy. A user-created illustration can accurately represent something, or it can ... not. IMO these fall under the latter. Compare the Xavier discussion cited above - I actually quite like the design/quality of the image in that case, but it too does not accurately represent the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't this belong on WP:BLPN, or perhaps even WP:VPI? DFlhb (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no problem with these portraits. More importantly this isn't the right forum to discuss it. An illustration is really no more likely to contain original research than a photo. pburka (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone doesn't see a problem with the likes of the images to the right, then I'd be a bit gobsmacked. These are chintzy. Zaathras (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree. Some of the previously mentioned images have some merit, but these don't really add anything to the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, they don't add much and I can see people finding them problematic or upsetting. Which isn't automatically a reason to remove them, but is there a good reason why we should have them? Particularly these like those shown on the right: not particularly accurate, simplified, caricature-like illustrations. Not very flattering or descriptive. Andre🚐 23:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images are fine, but most importantly they're not original research. Sketching a likeness of a person based on a reliable source is no different than writing prose in your own words expressing the same ideas as a reliable source. They may not be to everyone's taste, and if you think they can be improved you're welcome to do so. pburka (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kind of think it is different. It involves interpreting the material and recreating it in your own style. Andre🚐 01:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What we get is the artistic vision of the creator. It's not necessarily what we want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could pull up any of literally thousands of low quality photos for ridicule, too. Are they ideal? No, but they're what we have access to. If you don't want to use lower quality images, find something better. If we have an illustration of a subject, then absent of clear arguments as to why they don't adequately depict the subject, we should include them. That is, default to include but decide on a case-by-case basis, like we do for photos. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't want to use lower quality images, find something better. No, we should not be doing that. No image at all is leagues better than a terrible amateur drawing. Zaathras (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Which images are terrible/shouldn't be used may require case-by-case discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photographs don't artificially create new styles or the like (outside of choice of lighting and positioning used in some portrait photos). These images are user-added creativity (beyond simple mechanical changes) that go well beyond what a photograph does. Masem (t) 04:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My take: Our goal with an image is to accurately present what the subject looks like. A photograph is the most accurate, and thus preferred over drawn/painted portraits. A realistic drawing or painting is acceptable if no photo is available. A non-realistic drawing or painting (such as a cartoon) is acceptable ONLY if nothing more realistic is available.
And… upgrading from less realistic to more realistic is encouraged. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update. This issue is becoming a bit concerning, as another user Turktimex3 (talk · contribs) is going on a rapid spree of additions of inappropriate images. I'm not sure where this discussion should even continue, as the issues are multiple. Something blatantly unflattering and cartoonish, File:Ellinah_Wamukoya.jpg, is being used on Ellinah Wamukoya, thus a BLP concern. Johanne Nielsdatter is adorned with File:Johanne Nielsdatter.jpg, the description tag of which is literally "An illustrated idea of Johanne Nielsdatter, whose actual appearance is undocumented", thus blatant Original Research. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of those looks like it might be a traced derivative work therefore a copyvio too. Andre🚐 01:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. The one of Wamukoya should be removed. Not because Zaathras doesn't like it, but because it's obviously a derivative of this photo. The Nielsdatter image is the first one I think makes sense to talk about on this noticeboard. An illustration does need to be based on something. The illustrations at the top appear to be based on an impression from many other photos/illustrations. If there's enough written about her appearance (or, in this case, death) such that not too many details are pulled from the artist's imagination, it might be ok. That particular illustration looks like it might as well be a stock image of a woman being burned at the stake, though. In other words: if there really is too much OR involved, it should probably be removed; if there are no extant images, but there are very detailed descriptions (kind of like what WikiProject Dinosaurs bases their "dinosaur restorations" project on), then there may be cause to include them; if the images are created based on an impression from many extant images then they're almost always going to be better than nothing as long as they're not a clear derivative. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, tap the brakes a little here, this isn't strictly an Ugly Image Crusade. The quality of the images is just one aspect of the issue here, but the first few that I stumbled upon were really bad, I find the style of File:Célestine Hitiura Vaite.png particularly distasteful and unflattering. I'm not opposing paintings en masse, have come across some that are rather good, e.g. the one at Nancy Tuana is decent. But there is a lot of lax sloppiness out there that should be discussed. Zaathras (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find this subject interesting, so was talking to a non-wikipedian artist about these illustrations. Her take was that a lot of the illustrations work well (including all of the ones created through Wiki Unseen), but when it came down specifically to the three displayed above, she pointed out a lot of problems with the two on the left and I think I may be persuaded that they should be omitted from the articles. For Sandoval, in addition to arguably being a bit unflattering, the skin tone has been changed, and that's a potential BLP issue. For Vaite, it's not simply a low "resolution" illustration -- it just doesn't really depict the person it purports to show. The cheekbones, shape of the mouth, shape of the eyebrows, shape of the eyes, etc. are all off the mark. The main thing tying her to the photos is the flower, but it's a different flower worn on the other side (whether there's significance there I don't know). Fundamentally, would you be able to recognize the person based on the illustration? In that case, probably not, and that's probably the most important question. I have no problem with simple, user-created illustrations, but I guess I wasn't really scrutinizing the proportions/details. These should still be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on an actual analysis rather than simply "they're bad". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another complication is that some of this has been done at Wikidata, Turktimex3 is aware of this discussion, but has thus far declined to participate. Zaathras (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please let me know if the image to the right is better than no image at all. Some1 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say no image is better. Compare that to the actual person - . Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The portrait on Robina Asti is fine and not cartoon style like the others presented here. If there are further proper portraits like Asti's, then I oppose the removal of those ones. Also, I don't see a consensus here on this subject yet, so please don't go on a removal spree of your own accord, Nikkimaria. SilverserenC 02:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rather than a "spree", I'm assessing whether the images appear to be a accurate depiction of the person. I wouldn't agree that that one is, but if you feel otherwise we can discuss it specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is that drawing a derivative of this photo (from the New York Times article[20])? Some1 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It certainly resembles this. And it shows why we really shouldn't be drawing illustrations based on copyrighted work. Andre🚐 03:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is a shame if it is a copyright issue, as that image is actually quite nice. Zaathras (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose to sketches used for living people or subjects for whom it should be possible to eventually find a photograph. For historic subjects, there's obviously a precedent of using paintings or drawings, but in almost all cases those paintings or drawings were done by professional and often notable artists, not by hobbyists. The recent additions from User:Turktimex3 are for the most part ridiculous and embarassing for an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drawings and digital simulacrums
  • Strongest possible oppose - It's a question of original research or copyright washing. Either the artist making the cartoon is copying another work that can't be used due to copyright, or they're adding their own "interpretation" based on a blending of other people's work (cf. original research), or, in the worst-case scenario, they're simply inventing things out of zero. This is a very important discussion that have. Please see here for a discussion on this topic on Village Pump from a few years ago. I cringe every time I see File:Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi painted.jpg. I don't think it should have ever been allowed on Wikipedia. That's just my "strict-constructionist" interpretation of No OR. Why, for instance, should that cartoon be allowed (and featured on the Main Page) but others be deleted given that they're both based on copyrighted works? Is it because the artist of the former based it on multiple copyrighted works and, thus, diluted his derivativeness? Wouldn't it be, then, an OR issue? And remember that modern technology can create digital simulacrums of people based on multiple copyrighted pictures. Where does that fall into this? -- Veggies (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chrissy Chlapecka birth date[edit]

I am involved in a dispute on Chrissy Chlapecka with User:Toddst1 over whether my sourcing for the subject's birth date is an improper use of original research and SYNTH. To source the subject being born on April 11, 2000, I provided this, one of multiple verified social media posts where the subject affirms their birthday, as well as this , one of several RS profiles of the subject documenting their age on a specific date. Toddst1 has removed this info several times (including while the article was in draft stages) on grounds of it being original research and SYNTH. My feeling is that this is overzealous, that Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone and should be applied with editorial discretion and common sense, and that it is not original research or an improper synthesis to simply make a logical calculation that any rational person would. Can I get arbitration on this? Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verbatim from the first line of WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. And from WP:DOB Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree with Toddst1 here, although perhaps more for WP:BLP reasons than WP:OR reasons. Articles about living people are meant to be written conservatively and with regards to the persons privacy. If another source hasn't seen fit to include their full birthday then I think it's questionable that it should be included in full on wikipedia (where it's the top result on google and it usually lasts forever) Tristario (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just found this tweet where the subject directly says that she will be 21 on April 11, 2021. Would this be an adequate source/proof of it not being private information? Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:DOB says A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it. So the policy would indicate that is usable. I think now whether to include it depends on your judgement on two other factors; Does she appear to be fine with people knowing her birthday? (Here I think the answer is, she does seem fine with that) And is she borderline notable or not? If someone is borderline notable you want to err on the side of not including their full birthday. From a brief search it does look like she's pretty notable, but you can make a judgement on whether you think she is borderline notable or not Tristario (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First question, I found multiple social media posts where she proclaims her birthday and/or age, even one where she jokes about using Famous Birthdays to verify her age, so I'd assume she's fine with people knowing. As far as her notability, she's gotten international press coverage for over two years now so I'd say she's past borderline. If it's up to my judgement and DOB supports it, I'm gonna add it. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, per WP:DOB that's good enough, right check mark and everything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OR/SYNTH dispute at Talk:LGB Alliance[edit]

At Talk:LGB Alliance there has been a long standing, and extensively discussed dispute (November 2022, November 2022, November 2021, August 2021, September 2021, September 2021, April 2021) over how many co-founders the organisation has.

According to recent statements by the organisation, there are two co-founders: Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. However multiple, independent reliable sources additionally list Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott as co-founders, but no single reliable source lists all of these people together as a set of co-founders.

With the sourcing that is available, is it synthesis to state The group was co-founded by Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott, with each name being sourced to one of the independent and secondary reliable sources about the organisation? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent statements by the organisation, and this Guardian article...  Tewdar  20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, The Guardian does have a history of disagreeing with itself over how many co-founders there are for the organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just in case it is interpreted that "recent statements" represents some sort of change in position, I would like to clarify that these additions are consistent with the oldest statement from the org as to who the founders are, which to my knowledge is a Twitter thread from the organisation from November 8th 2019 which names the same two founders as Kate Harris and Bev Jackson, and lays out broadly the same history of formation as appears on the more recent additions to their site. Void if removed (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also some sources describe these people as 'founding members' rather than founders, in case you think that makes a difference. All in previous discussions, I'm sure.  Tewdar  21:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some salient points I would reiterate to condense my many many comments that are scattered all over these discussions:
- The about page and timeline are very clear, mentioning other names as early team members, not founders.
- The principal source for Malcolm Clark is a Pink News article he directly disputed himself on Twitter. One other source was changed after publication and no longer names him as a co-founder.
- One source for Ann Sinnott was changed after publication and no longer names her as a founder, but as a founding member.
- The five names that accrued over time on the wiki article have subsequently appeared in the same non-alphabetic order in other places, including Pink News, and I have raised the issue this may be WP:CIRCULAR. Void if removed (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first reply to Malcom Clark's tweet is someone pointing out that he is directly listed as a founding member on the day the group was incorporated. He claims he was a director, but this seems like a distinction without a difference. "Founding members" seems like fine phrasing to me, the members listed as working for the group when it was incorporated. That's how founders are usually listed via sourcing. This claim that because the two women involved had the idea for the group months earlier doesn't equate to the rest not being founding members when the group was actually and officially created as a registered body. SilverserenC 21:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The directors of a PLC are not the founders of an organisation, and not all orgs are PLCs. Past discussions are littered with counterexamples (like the GLF UK). Pointing at a tweet from the individual named in an article, saying "I’m not a founder", is a clear rebuttal, and a random account on twitter sifting through Companies House is neither here nor there. There's even followup in the same thread from Bev Jackson reinforcing that she and Kate Harris are the sole founders. There's even another denial from Malcolm Clark directed to Pink News Head of News Ryan Butcher (archive link because Ryan Butcher's account is deleted, so you can't see his acknowledgement of the error).
What I'd argue is that one supposedly reliable source (Pink News) is demonstrably unreliable on this matter as they have never corrected this. Void if removed (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, three weeks ago The Times stated that Clark is a co-founder of the LGB Alliance. There's also The Independent who called Clark a Founder back in March 2022. And also Vice back in November 2021. These later two are sources that we missed or glossed over during the last time we discussed this, and the former was only just published.
Is it not within the realms of possibility that each of these independent sources, some of which have biases in favour of the LGB Alliance's position, and some of which are in opposition to it, are actually correct? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One possible solution here is to explore this topic in some detail in the body, ie. attribute what different sources and the organization say (So it might be a bit messy), and simply remove the founders section from the infobox since it's too complicated to explore there. I think that's the approach WP:NPOV would indicate, if you have different sources giving different accounts Tristario (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then the wording in the lede could be changed to something like "The group was founded by Bev Jackson and Kate Harris, and also reportedly co-founded by Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott" Tristario (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the suggested form would only be appropriate if we had direct reporting of an actual controversy over who the founders are, ie. a piece stating that there is a dispute, rather than what can easily be written off as trivial failure of fact-checking. For example, if a company's own website describe an employee as the MD, and an extensive profile in a newspaper calls them the MD, and a passing mention in another newspaper describes them as CEO, we don't report this as a he said/she said controversy, we just accept that the company is more likely to know who its own employees are and don't go searching for other sources to create a dispute. Here, we have primary and secondary sources in agreement, and some secondary sources that don't actually challenge the org's own story about itself, but just happen to mention other individuals as "founder". The latter are being given undue weight, especially when some have been corrected since publication, or directly challenged by the principals. Void if removed (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem is more to do with divergent definitions of the term 'founder'...  Tewdar  10:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since we came to this noticeboard for outside opinions, I don't think editors who have already argued and failed to reach agreement should repeat that mistake here. So I'll just post my thoughts and see what others think: I think one of the problems isn't so much that two is correct and five is wrong, or the opposite, but that both can be correct depending on who you ask and how you think about "founders". We have a problem that probably the most notable member, Allison Bailey, the only one to have an article, is described literally everywhere (including our own article on her) as a "founder" or "co-founder" of LGB Alliance. So if the text only mentions Bev Jackson and Kate Harris, readers coming here to learn about the organisation that Allison Bailey co-founded will be confused to read that she didn't. Furthermore, the Wikipedia talk page of that article appears to be the only place on the internet that cares if it is two or five, and no published source has described two levels of "founder", with some people being more foundery than others. That's why I think listing five names is best, because that doesn't contradict sources that only list two. We can't explain the difference, so let's just list what we know and leave that hanging. -- Colin°Talk 10:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems to me that this could be resolved by differentiating the directors and the members, saying something along the lines of: “The organization was founded by Jackson and Harris as directors, with Bailey, Clark and Sinnott as members.” Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd leave off "as directors" as that complicates things (when it was incorporated as a PLC a month after it formed, both Clark and Sinnott became directors), but aside from that this is my personal preferred approach. Void if removed (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And where do we have sources that make that distinction, that classify some as "founding directors" and some as "founding members"? We would effectively be inventing a hierarchy of foundership solely to satisfy a squabble between Wikipedians who seem to care about something nobody else does. I wonder alternatively if we could list all five and have a footnote mentioning that some sources only list two. -- Colin°Talk 15:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was a founding member of a human rights advocacy organization, while personally having zero to do with the organization or its founding. It meant only that I was on the very first list of (paying) members when the organization was created/chartered/registered or whatever it is that associations do to set up their legal existence and tax regime, and whose founding had been announced well in advance in related media, along with a call for support and to "become a founding member", which conferred some privileges on my membership (mostly fees) going forward, and the right to be called a "founding member" forever. I can't vouch for how these news organizations used the term, but that's what it meant at the time. Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]