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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

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

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

And now you’re just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Multiple users disagree with you on article talk page. users disagree with you at WP:RSN. Multiple users disagreed with you at WP:NPOV. So in continuing your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you’ve now brought it over here. Volunteer Marek 17:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Multiple users" are you and My very best wishes. Let's hear other voices please. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And User:Adoring nanny and User:GizzyCatBella. Did you just “happen” to forget them? Like I said. FORUMSHOPPING. IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Followed by more FORUMSHOPPING and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. This is why you’ve been banned from two other wikis and why everytime this stuff has wound up at ANI you end up almost getting a topic ban [8]. That “almost” is unlikely to keep repeating endlessly. Volunteer Marek 03:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: As you well know, this isn't a forum for raising behavioral problems, so focus on the content.
@Gitz6666: Generally speaking, it's inadvisable to cross-post once a discussion has commenced on another board. In some cases you may post a notice leading editors to another discussion, but it should be clear that you're not looking to split the discussion. François Robere (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Volunteer Marek, actually GizzyCatBella didn't say anything about the issue being discussed here. I don't doubt she agrees with you, but how do you know, do you take it for granted? The only comments she made were about having a section on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces (now under discussion at NPOVN). Re forum shopping, as far as I understand it, I did not raise the same issue on several noticeboards: I closed the discussion at RSN and moved it here because, as MVBW pointed out, the issue is not whether the sources are reliable, but rather whether the sources support certain claims. The discussion at NPOVN is on a different subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, not true [9] Volunteer Marek 02:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this all appears to be from a UN a report, wouldn't it be better to have an article about the report? TFD (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Four Deuces Yeah, not a bad idea. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gitz6666 Do you want to create a new article about the report? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
..or expand this --> Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. We don't have any sources about the 27 September 2022 report and I doubt it's notable. The report is not notable, but is reliable, and is probably one of the best source we have about what's happening in Ukraine. With regard to the scale of sexual violence, it says: OHCHR cannot yet draw conclusions regarding the scale of CRSV perpetrated since February (para. 54). We also have an update released on 02 December 2022. With regard to sexual violence, it says

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

This is what we know about the extent of sexual violence in Ukraine. Is it "mass rape"? Is rape being used as a weapon of war? To answer the question, take a look at the citation clutter Volunteer Marek has added to the article - 10 news articles, most of them dating back to March-April, most of them reporting allegations, claims by named individuals, sometimes politicians, sometimes human rights activists, about "fears" or "threats" of systematic/weaponized rape - and tell me if we have enough independent reliable sources to support the statement about the use of mass rape as a weapon of war in the lead section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is one source. There are a dozen OTHER sources which discuss mass rape. Your argument appears to be “this one particular source that I myself picked unilaterally must have the precise wording you wish to add or it can’t go in even if a whole bunch of other reliable sources talk about it”. Not how it works. Volunteer Marek 02:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion risks being unproductive. Given the time it takes, it may not be worth it. Let's change the approach and try to make this discussion productive for the encyclopaedia. I have just published a section with all the information we have on the extent and nature of sexual violence in Ukraine [10]. I might have forgotten something: if so, please add it. When the section is stabilised, we can decide how to summarise its content for the lead. This is the right way to proceed according to MOS:LEAD: from the body to the lead, not vice versa. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes that was a constructive edit and thank you for that. Volunteer Marek 02:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least now one can read the whole set of sources and express an informed view on the open question of this thread: should we say with wikivoice that the use of mass rape as a weapon of war is taking place in Ukraine? Or should we rather say that Ukrainian officials and human rights organisations have warned that rape is occuring on a large scale and may be used by the Russian army as a weapon of war? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My attempt to modify the lead section to make it compatible with MOS:LEAD was reverted [11], which is fair enough (here is the text I proposed for the lead). However, the problem remains: the statement with wikivoice (now in the lead) Armed Forces of Russia [have resorted to] the use of mass rape as a weapon of war is the product of a synthesis of various articles reporting the views of specific individuals (often Western politicians and Ukrainian officials), as is made clear by the ugly citation clutter added by Volunteer Marek. As such, this statement is an original research that should be removed despite the lack of consensus on a new lead section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nature and Extent section is a WP:PROSELINE, it needs to be replaced with a proper section detailing the nature and extent or simply erased. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've rephrased/edited the section to avoid WP:PROSELINE [12]. Honestly, however, WP:PROSELINE - which is an essay - is the last of our problems here. We have a piece of original research in the lead section and it contains a very serious accusation, made in wikivoice, about mass rape used as a weapon of war. Do you want to know what mass rape as a weapon of war looks like? Read this: [13] (para. 55-70). By trivializing the notion of weaponised rape, we make it even more invisible than it already is, we fail the mission of any encyclopaedia, which is to bring clarity and knowledge in place of prejudice and confusion, and we also breach non-negotiable policies (WP:V but also WP:NPOV) by combining together various sources on "allegations", "threats", "fears" of systematic and weaponised sexual violence in order to claim that sexual violence is already systematic and weaponised. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see that among the sources in the first sentence are indeed many that are not acceptable arbiters of whether war crimes are happening. And the first sentence has completely the wrong tone. Maybe strip it all down and use the UN (and ICC?) documents as a framework for rebuilding the article - first sentence leading with something like "The UN (insert agency here) and ICC have asserted that Russian troops have been using sexual violence as a weapon of war during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine"?
I think with your "By trivializing" sentence, you're suggesting there is a problem with agreeing what source is reliable? Well, whether we all like it or not, the UN and ICC are the ultimate authorities in the world on whether or not war crimes are happening, so those should be the uttermost sources for this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which sources do you think are not reliable? And no, relying on the UN alone would only create another kind of bias and POV problem. The UN is most certainly not the "ultimate authority" on this issue, especially since its Human Rights Council includes and is dominated by countries like.... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, Russia [14] (as well as, oh let's see, Pakistan, China, Cuba, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia ... I mean half of it is a veritable who's who list of "worst human rights abusers in modern world"). Of course that doesn't mean we CAN'T use it but no way do we treat it as authoritative or "ultimate". Volunteer Marek 00:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a misunderstanding here. In the endless discussions on that talk page and the other talk pages in the Russo-Ukraine area, I am the "UN guy", so to speak; I systematically read OHCHR, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and propose these sources as the standard we should follow in reporting on war crimes. My interlocutors, however, find that The Daily Beat, Yahoo News and Kyiv Post are often a better choice to express what they feel we need to express in this area. Now, with regard to sexual violence in Ukraine, so far OHCHR, Amnesty and HRW have NEVER said or even suggested that systematic and weaponized rapes were occurring. The day they'll publish a report on rape as a weapon of war in Ukraine, I'll be the first one to report this content both in the body and in the lead. But my interlocutors can't wait to have mass rape as a weapon of war showcased in the lead section and have therefore combined various sources, a dozen or so quotes, to pull the rabbit out of the hat. Am I the only one who finds this way of doing things unacceptable? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that rape has been systemic and has been used as a weapon of war by Russia has been said and reported by top scholars in the field, including Dara Kay Cohen [15] (author of [16] Rape During Civil War) and Mia Bloom.
The Daily Beast, Yahoo News are not used ANYWHERE in the article, so you're simply lying about what your supposed "interlocutors" are supposedly up to. Volunteer Marek 00:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, provide a source. If it's reliable, we may add it to the article. And why don't you write an article on the two top scholars in the field you just mentioned since none of them appears on Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here [17]. Now how about you strike your false assertion and the personal attacks (about "posses") above? Volunteer Marek 00:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
probably Mia Bloom is this Professor of Communication at Georgia State University... well, OK, "top scholar in the field" I honestly don't know... anyway, I'd like to read the paper where they argue that rape is used as a war weapon in Ukraine and add it to the sources, thanks. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Her studies specialize in ethnic conflict, rape in war, child soldiers, female terrorists, and terrorist communications.[3][4][5] Bloom was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations in 2003–2008.". Nice try though. Volunteer Marek 00:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
". Bloom is the editor for Stanford University Press’ new series on terrorism and political violence. She is regularly featured as an expert contributor on CNN, CNN International, MSNBC and Fox News for terrorism and national security issues. Bloom is a member of the UN terrorism research network (UNCTED) and a member of the radicalization expert advisory board for the Anti- Defamation League (ADL). Bloom holds a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University, an M.A. in Arab Studies from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a B.A. from McGill University in Russian, Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies." Volunteer Marek 00:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two sources of April 2022, great. The two authors have no detailed information about what is going on the ground and make hypotheses on the basis of the news reports that followed the re-taking of the Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Kyiv regions. The first piece is an op-ed based on the premise "I believe that the Ukraine conflict is an ethnic war", the second is an interview were the interviewed doesn't claim that rape is used as a weapon of war but says that this is likely to happen during genocides. Well, if the two authors are notable enough we may include their views in the article. Expressing their hypotheses in wikivoice as if they were established facts? No. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this edit to Jechonia OR?[edit]

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

Seems fine; that encyclopedia was written by scholars, and had an editorian board. DFlhb (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DFlhb I see my problem. I thought large chunks were unsourced, but in fact it's all copied from the source so is copyvio. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do note its publication date; it's in the public domain, and is being attributed as required. Unless we're looking at different edits? DFlhb (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DFlhb tagged by User: Diannaa as pd, but I was relying on the copyright date.[18] sp I’m confused. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm assuming the copyright date doesn't include the encyclopedic entries, and just refers to the website itself (logos, links). It says on its front page that all entries are pd.[19]
I've verified that for this page[20], the text matches the scanned picture, and that the scan matches the[21] scan of the early 20th century (pd) edition. One academic database[22] confirms its date of publication is pre-1927.
The website is WP:UBO,[23], but it's probably best to directly cite the expired book, even if the website is where the text was copied from. DFlhb (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DFlhb I see, thanks for the clarification. I’ll admit I don’t like it when large swathes are copied, especially with no date for when they are written or the authors. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DFlhb I can't find a date for this - it's either late 19th c. or early 20th. And some of the wording seems unencyclopedic, eg "s sad experience". And how does "(Benjamin of Tudela, "Itinerary," ed. Asher, i. 66)" help the reader? Or the references to "Buder"? Doug Weller talk 10:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

Yoshiko Kawashima[edit]

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

John C. Box[edit]

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

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

Yes, definitely Original Research. More importantly, since the article does not mention anything about allegations that the subject was in the KKK, there is no need to include a refutation of the allegations.
I have removed the OR sentence. However, I also see that there has been no discussion attempted on the article talk page. If the OR is returned, try talking rather than edit warring. Explain why we can’t accept the contribution. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 8 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 [28][29][30] 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 ([31], [32]) such as Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work, despite the source he used [33] 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)[34] 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 ([35]), 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]