Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY

Moved from Wikipedia talk:No original research

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

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

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

• Goszei, that's a pretty accurate representation. I never took issue with the "straightforward etc." matter--and what that means, IMO, is that this talk page is not the best venue for this. It's not about OR; it's about when primary sources are better characterized as spam links. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate further on what separates an admissible primary source from a "spam link"? WP:REFSPAM says "Often [spam refs] are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation." It also says, "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I think we all agree that these links do verify a specific and narrow piece of information in the article, and that they help build the encyclopedia, so I would like to hear more about your specific definition of "spam link" in this context. — Goszei (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Also: consider if all of the release dates were contained on a single page on the publisher's website, which was then used as a primary source under this guideline. Would that also be a "spam link"? If not, it does not seem logical to draw a distinction here based on how many pages the usable and WP:PRIMARY–admissible information is spread out on. — Goszei (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another point that was not raised on that talk page is this passage in WP:PRIMARY: an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label. I would also like to solicit opinions on this point: would a track listing on a record's label website become inadmissible, if there were seller links on the same page? What about a banner linking to a seller page on the side? What about a link to subscribe to a publication, like the New York Times? When does an otherwise admissible and usable source become spam? — Goszei (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• I will also highlight a quotation from WP:AFFILIATE: Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page [...] in order to verify such things as titles and running times. — Goszei (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from the editor who started the discussion at Talk:New Game!: I think the use of primary sources in the manner the article is using them falls well within the bounds of WP:PRIMARY and related standards for the reasons outlined on that talk page. If it's ok to use a track listing from a record label, I don't see how release dates from a publisher is any worse. Link20XX (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Primary affiliated sources are normally given a pass, but if they are challenged then a secondary source must be provided. Otherwise it's WP:UNDUE and potentially promotional. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Generally I would agree above with Guy, the only real dissent is that things like release/publication dates are a piece of information regarding any creative media you would expect to both see in an encyclopedia, and have sourced appropriately. I have zero issue with a primary source being used to reference a release date unless there is actually some reasonable suspicion to doubt it. That the page used as a reference also contains links to where you can get it is process wonkery for the sake of it. Unless its blatantly illegal/copyright etc, we dont refuse to use something as an online reference because its got other stuff we wouldnt put in the article on the same page. If its that much of an issue, convert it to an archive link and then going forward it will be historical. Its not like we are putting up to date pricing information like certain members of the medical article cabal wanted to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I wonder what a true secondary source (remember, Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent) about a release date would look like. How does one combine multiple, previously published primary sources into a novel analysis of a release date? In other words: yes, it's perfectly fine to use non-independent primary sources for bare statements of uncontested routine facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Public Documentation

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

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

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

WP:Primary allows historical materials to be used as primary sources. For what purpose do you want to use a historical document that WP:Primary would prohibit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

We are allowed to use FOIA responses, Congressional testimony, executive orders, internal memos etc. per WP:Primary; we should only be careful to state exactly what the document says and not make WP:OR on it. Ideally, if there are secondary resources, these have priority over primary ones.

As for verification of WikiLeaks cables - I doubt they will answer that FOIA request if you send it to, say, Dept. of State because of "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) policy that is in place in most major Western countries when it comes to leaked documents. It isn't bound to change anytime soon, so we're out of luck here. The chance some researcher has verified the documents and published the results is also not too big, but if you find one who could confirm the authenticity of the cable, it will be wonderful. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A FOIA response is fine if it's stored in a reliable repository, held in a library, etc. But if the only copy is in a Wikipedia editor's drawer, that's not acceptable because it isn't published

@Jc3s5h: - So then I would ask you if it was stored at Commons would that qualify? DoctorTexan (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Commons is a wiki where anyone can put anything, and there is seldom any checking to verify that an item is what it purports to be. So a publication that is only available to the public from Commons would not be acceptable. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think something that should be stated or addressed here is when such material is DUE. DUE is often the problem with primary source material. For example, what someone said in court is going to be a public record. The question is if that content is DUE in an article. This is where a secondary source is needed. Where this is gray to me is where we as editors can fill in gaps. As an example: Mr Smith is making a public statement which is recorded in a primary source ("This development should go through because it will bring jobs to the area and will reduce crime"). A local paper (RS) says, without a quote, that Mr Smith said he would bring jobs to the area. To what extent can we use the primary source in the article (assume this is not an ABOUTSELF case)? I think most would agree we can cite the news paper and link to the primary source. Can we use the specific quote from the primary source if the secondary source doesn't use it? That part I'm not sure about. On one hand it can often provide better detail but is that detail UNDUE because the secondary source didn't mention it? This part I'm not sure about. Springee (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 to @Springee. Even if you managed to use a source in a way that doesn't violate NOR, there's often a problem with WP:DUE. If no proper source talked about this, then why should it be in the Wikipedia article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I remember when a Canadian MP was reported in Hansard that he was a proponent of racial discrimination. The words were reported and the MP claimed that he had said "opponent" and it was incorrectly recorded. Note that if it had not been reported in the media, we would not have had the full story. Possibly the MP would then complain to Wikipedia and we would ask him to publish a response so that we could report it. We would then have to determine how credible his response was. Even if we merely reported Hansard and his response, we would be giving equal validity to the two versions. Also, journalistic ethics would require us to contact the MP before publication. That would turn Wikipedia into a news reporting service, which would conflict with its status as an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Definition

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

We are not really offering a definition. There is no interest in offering a definition of "crusading movement", because it has a natural meaning. As we pointed out to Borsoka, none of the many authors who used that expression bothered to define it. In fact, Borsoka himself complained that this sentence does not mean much, because it refers to Crusades. If it does not mean much, it's not really a definition. It is just a very natural and general affirmation regarding "crusading movement" that we use to be more explicit about the scope of the article, which is something that must be done as soon as possible in the article. There is nothing contentious in this affirmation. We asked several times Borsoka to explain what is contentious in this statement. His reply above is that it is problematic, because the definition of crusades is problematic, but we avoid this issue, because we refer to the article Crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The text in question is based on Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1995). "The Crusading Movement and Historians". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan (ed.). The Oxford Illustrated History of The Crusades. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–12. ISBN 978-0-19285428-5.. Riley-Smith was one of the foremost academic, educator and influencer working in the field. Dominic Mayers is correct in writing that the lead does not offer a definition because as Riley-Smith wrote It must be admitted that crusading is not easy to define. The movement lasted a very long time and opinions and policies changed; for instance, the development of crusade leagues was an adaptation of crusading to suit the rise of the nation state. Crusading involved men and women from every region of western Europe and from all classes; attitudes can never have been homogeneous. And it appealed at the same time to intellectuals and to the general public, so that we are faced by a range of ideas from the most cerebral to the most primitive, from the peaks of moral theology to the troughs of anti-semitic blood-feuds. Ideas from different ends of the spectrum, moreover, interreacted. Because crusading was a voluntary activity, popes and preachers had to transmit the theology in a popular form, and it was not uncommon for popular conceptions to attach themselves to official Church reaching. For instance, crusades had technically to be defensive—Christians could not fight wars of conversion—but at grassroots' level people perceived Christianity to be a muscular religion, and missionary elements again and again pervaded crusading thought and propaganda. In particular reference to the sentences in question he wrote The crusading movement had involved every country in Europe, touching almost every area of life—the Church and religious thought, politics, the economy, and society—as well as generating its own literature. It had an enduring influence on the history of the western Islamic world and the Baltic region and The astonishing achievement of the expedition partly inspired the departure of 'the third wave', the so-called crusade of noi, but no one in these years could have predicted that what Urban had conjured up would prove to be only the First Crusade, nor that the crusade would come to be deployed elsewhere than in the Holy Land and against opponents other than Muslims—in short, that the crusading movement would emerge to become one of the most important components, and defining characteristics, of late medieval western culture. Those last two quotes are sourced in the body and provide a pretty good description of what this article is about e.g. the Crusade Movement and why. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: thank you for copying this lengthy quote. Which part of it verifies the statement that the crusading movement was "the progressive creation of institutions and of an ideology associated with crusades", especially because Riley-Smith does not speak of institutions or of a single ideology. @Dominic Mayers: thank you for your remark. If my understanding is correct you suggest that Riley-Smith is wrong when writing that "crusading is not easy to define" because "crusading movement" has a natural meaning. Could you explain the natural meaning of the term? Or, alternatively, could we conclude that references to common sense and natural meaning are useless in connection with the crusades and crusading? Borsoka (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to debate when the lead changes mid-discussion. I have restored to the last good version, so the search for consensus can continue. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we all have changed the lead mid-discussion. Thank you for not restoring your original research. This is an important step to reach a consensual lead. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka by "usual meaning", I referred to the usual meanings of "movement" and "crusades" whatever these are. These meanings vary in different contexts, but they have enough in common to claim that there is a "usual meaning". For example, the term "movement" has a different meaning in Religious movement, Political movement, Social movement, etc., but it is always the "usual meaning" of movement, the same one as in "Crusading movement". My point is that despite these important variations, no experts bothered to formally define "crusading movement". Instead, they relied on the usual meaning and its use in the context. The statement only clarifies a bit this meaning in the context of Crusades and we need to do that, because it makes the scope of the article more explicit. There might be room for improvement. In particular, after reading Norfolkbigfish's quotes, I realize that we are not only interested in institutions that are created to support the movement and are part of this movement, but also in the influences the movement had on existing institutions. However, this is not the issue that you raise. You seem concerned about the proper use of the terms "institutions" and "ideology", and require that we can verify these uses. Perhaps Norfolkbigfish can provide examples of the use of "institutions" and "ideology" in the context of crusading so that, if these uses exist, we can see that our use of these terms is compatible. If there are none, it's not a problem, because it only means that we use the common meaning of these terms, which is fine, as long as the content (not the exact terminology) is verifiable. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

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

I am glad that you understand the usual (or natural?) meaning of the term "crusading movement", but please also understand that scholars are less optimistic. I agree that the lead and the article need significant improvement, especially because the article's scope and its existence are still debated, but perhaps we all should follow usual (or natural?) WP policies, including WP:NOR when editing to reach a consensus. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the scope of the article, if you disagree that there should be an article that focuses on the ideology behind crusading and its relation with institutions, then explain why, but not here, because the scope is something that we decide and it does not need to be verifiable. Of course, there must exist articles that discuss ideology and institutions in relation with crusades, but there are many and there is no OR issue. What we decide to cover and how we explain it do not need to be verified. The discussion here should be closed. It is easy to create a problem by seeing the necessary specification of the scope as if it was a definition of "crusading movement" and insists that it must be verifiable, etc. But using this to refuse to clarify the scope of the article is not practical at all. It will bring us nowhere. We just need to explain what is the scope (as above) without presenting it as a contentious definition of "crusading movement". Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

From the beginning, I emphasized that institutions and ideologies could be an acceptable scope for the article about crusading movement. I maintain that the article may contain only statements that can be verified. As Norfolkbigfish deleted your joint original research, I agree there is no need to discuss this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

So, I consider this discussion closed, but there is no consensus that there was OR. There were issues in the sentence, but only because it did not describe well the scope, not because it was OR. Certainly, it makes no sense that we can describe the scope above the lead as you did in your last edit, but yet cannot do it in the lead because it would be OR. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. I accept your argumentation. If we cannot describe the scope above the lead without verifying it, we should merge the article into crusades as it is suggested by many editors. I suggest we should continue this discussion on the article's Talk page. 06:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Editingwiki777

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

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

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

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

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Miles Davis § Request for Comment - Religion. Elizium23 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Original research at SoftSwiss

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

I. Conclusion that is not directly stated

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

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

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

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

II. Rephrased with a change in its meaning

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

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

III. Links to zines and webarchive.com

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

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

(h) The author makes references to arhived data here ana here.

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

Original research at Novogrudok

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Does this claim attributed to Rolling Stones mag pass WP:V

On the Andy Ngo article a statement has been added which claims a Rolling Stones article has supports the following claim, "Several sources have expressed a view that Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"." About half way down the article RS says, "But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process."[[1]]? While it is clear the source is critical of Ngo the source does not say "Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"". Looking for input from others. The disputed article edit is here [[2]]. Springee (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, "several sources" refers to Rolling Stone and Jacobin which is also cited. –dlthewave ☎ 12:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, however, I'm specifically asking if RStones supports the claim. Jacobin is a strongly opinionated source with limited weight. Even if they directly make the claim WEIGHT is still an issue. RStones would help with weight but only if the source supports the claim. Springee (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to make the claim more specific. Instead of "several sources", consider "Journalists such as E.J. Dickson (writing in Rolling Stone) and Arun Gupta (writing in Jacobin) have expressed the view that Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"." pburka (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the RStone source doesn't ever say he shouldn't be considered a journalist. That is a interpretation of some text from the article, not an accurate summary which is my concern. Springee (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I like pburka's suggested language, although I think we can take journalist out of quotes. I think the language is a fair paraphrase of the Rolling Stone line. Having read the article, it's not taken out of context either, the main point of the article is that Ngo is a huckster/troll/shit-stirrer (not my words) and not a journalist. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee - my reading of the quotes: But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. = "The incident showed Ngo to be a right-wing provocateur and not a journalist, but this isn't the important thing here". It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process. = "The important thing is that in spite of significant evidence that Ngo is a right-wing provocateur and not a journalist, Ngo had convinced so many of the opposite." In conclusion, it would be reasonable to write that "E.J. Dickson of Rolling Stone does not consider Ngo to be a journalist." starship.paint (exalt) 08:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Or, more specifically, "E. J. Dickson of Rolling Stone considers Ngo a "right-wing provocateur" rather than a journalist." XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• By directly attributing (as Pburka suggests), we better pass WP:V… but WP:V is not the only policy in play here. We must also consider WP:NPOV (and specifically WP:UNDUE). Does highlighting the views of E.J. Dickson and Arun Gupta give them undue weight? Do they represent a fringe or the mainstream? Remember that we are dealing with a BLP here, and so should be extra cautious. Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Springee I'm not sure why you haven't pinged me given this was my point you reverted.Rolling Stone quote 1:Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. Rolling Stone quote 2: Even if Ngo himself were a fraudulent journalist, and the victim narrative he promoted was also under fraudulent pretenses, his ability to get bad ideas in front of a mainstream audience was all too real. In particular, the wording of as opposed to a journalist makes it clear the article is positing that Ngo should not be considered a journalist, but something else. It could be changed to "legitimate journalist" at a pinch. Btw, I've collated other sources' assessments' of Ngo on his talk page, partly to support the claim that Ngo's "frequently accused" of sharing misleading or selective material,[3] which Springee has rejected.[4] We're not talking about a single accusation-good sources remarking on Ngo's dishonesty or lack of credibility/integrity: CNN, Harvard academic Joan Donovan for MIT Technology Review, Salon (magazine) The Oregonian, Media Matters for America, BuzzFeed News, The Intercept, The Guardian, renowned public intellectual and Yale Professor Jason Stanley for the SPLC,, Columbia Journalism Review, plus[5][6], a report by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism by four respected subject-matter experts plus another good quote from Rolling Stone. In fact, I haven't found many RS's that do treat Ngo as a credible journalist. Noteduck (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

References

does this settle it all for you Springee? Noteduck (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Scrappy Doo Biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citing my own photo of a memorial plaque

 Resolved

The article on Susannah Martin mentioned a memorial, with a transcription of the plaque (historical marker), with a "citation needed" tag. As it happens I was nearby, so I stopped and took photos, and published to Commons (memorial, plaque). I'm fairly confident this is not OR, since anyone can go there to Verify the inscription, or even look it up on Google Maps. This would would arguably be a Primary Source per WP:LINKSINACHAIN, but that's okay AFAIK. My question is, is this acceptable, and if so, how would I go about citing a photo I took? Should I just use {{cite AV media}} with the Commons URL? Is there a better way to approach this? Or does this break a guideline/policy/rule? I've been unable to find this situation treated in the WP: namespace or archives here; pointers welcome. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this is perfectly fine. It's the plaque that's being used as a source: not your own creative work. I'd use {{cite sign}}. pburka (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, {{cite sign}} seems like a perfect fit for this. Looks like I can put both my photo URL and the map URL in there, too. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)