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. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N 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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Wikipedia. I thought I knew but reading WP:NOR from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.Prezbo (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that just be socialism with Chinese characteristics? Aydoh8^[contribs] 15:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but I think there have been discussions along those lines on various talk pages. My question is a little different but probably not easily answerable given the nature of Wikipedia. Prezbo (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your analysis on the talk page is correct. The article should be rewritten to prioritize scholarly views, not those of MLM groups. There is a milieu of scholarly Left journals that may be RS for this topic, despite not necessarily being general RS (e.g. International Socialist Review), but that's not what's being cited in this article, which are mostly just statements by various MLM groups. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of my difficulties here is that I think half the time Wikipedia only functions as well as it does in spite of its policies, not because of them. I think the sources you describe may be helpful but I’m not bold enough to stubify the article Prezbo (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there’s almost certainly reliable coverage in “mainstream” academic history and social sciences publications as well, I only point out the category of scholarly Left reviews because they could be fairly easily confused with the less reliable, more propagandistic literature put out by these groups, which are currently the lion’s share of that article’s bibliography _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m less optimistic…I think an article written from mainstream sources might be worse (further from reality) than the current one…I may try writing one as an experiment. Thanks for your input. Prezbo (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll note that this is a confusing and potentially misleading title. The subject of the article is not Maoism as a whole, but on a subset of that ideology, the ideology (or maybe ideologies) of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and its member organizations. Perhaps this material should simply be merged back into that article? If not, I think retitling the article with "(Revolutionary Internationalist Movement)" in parentheses to clarify what the subject of the article actually is. Peter G Werner (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent failed motion to merge it into Maoism which might be a good idea but I haven't read the discussion archives. Merging to RIM or retitling it as you suggest makes less sense to me...if nothing else, the literature around some of RIM's member organizations (Shining Path, RCP-USA, CPN-M Nepal) is much bigger than the literature around RIM itself. Anyway rather than talking about mergers or titles I think it's more productive to talk about how the article content itself might be improved. Prezbo (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article on MLM is definitely needed, it's been a problem in many articles over a long time to handle categorization schemes and links to ideology without being able to separate MLMTT and MLM. If we understand 'MLMTT, commonly referred to as "Maoism"' as the main subject for the article Maoism then MLM need to have a separate article. And MLM cannot be equated with RIM, RIM is now defunct and the concept of MLM is used outside of just ex-RIM organizations. --Soman (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the current article is a house of cards with respect to Wikipedia's actual policies. Prezbo (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Understanding the Maoist Movement of Nepal could function as a good ref (roughly pages 185-189), but I only have it in snippet view. --Soman (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a few scholarly sources out there, they're just not online. I may go to an actual library for this one. But there's no way we could construct anything like the current article from scholarly sources. It would probably end up being like three paragraphs. Prezbo (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally speaking, "stubify and rewrite" is a sort of an explosive option (the relevant page is even called WP:TNT). Sometimes when people are working on a very old article they will do this as part of the creative process, but it is necessary only in rare instances. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with quoting from Maoists in an article on Maoism, any more than it is wrong to quote from Hegel in an article about Hegelianism, or from Zoroastrians in Zoroastrianism -- not merely in the WP:ABOUTSELF sense, but in the sense that expertise on any belief system will often include at least some peole who hold it. Of course this should be balanced by outside perspectives -- especially if there are claims being made like "Hegelian dialectics have ended over 9000 wars and cause everyone who studies them to become a stable genius" -- but it's not ipso facto evidence of bias or original research, in my opinion. jp×g🗯️ 05:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought to WP:DR, with the suggestion being to consult a third party for wording choices/advice which is why I'm bringing it here.

The short version is that the other editor thinks the wording in the article should be that Lorenz left the Washington Post to focus on her Substack publication, based on past posts being available in an archive on said site, which I believe is in violation of WP:SYNTH. I feel we should go with what reliable secondary and primary sources state, and stick to the sources.

After several edits back and forth, a talk page discussion occured, with Delecto's reasoning being that the material should be "focus on" since her website existing counts as a reliable source -

"WP:PRIMARY states, among other things, that primary sources can be used to describe statements of fact. See below. This is not WP:OR"

and

"Go to her substack, go to the archives, you will see prior to her announcement that there are significant articles. Existence is certainly a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts. If you disagree with my interpretation of policy, feel free to take it WP:DRR."

Relevant links below:

• Post on X by Lorenz ~personal news~ I'm going independent and launching my own media outlet on Substack called User Mag.
• The Hollywood Reporter Tech culture columnist Taylor Lorenz is striking out on her own, exiting The Washington Post to launch her own publication on the Substack platform.
  Lorenz is launching User Magazine, which will “cover technology from the user side.
• New York Times Taylor Lorenz, the high-profile tech columnist for The Washington Post, said on Tuesday that she was leaving the publication to start her own subscription newsletter on Substack.
• Instagram Thank you to the New Yorker for covering the launch of @usermagazine and my decision to return to independent media!
• New Yorker On October 1st, she announced that she was leaving the Post to launch User Mag, an independent publication on Substack
• Washington Post Taylor Lorenz, a Washington Post technology columnist, announced Tuesday that she is leaving the paper to launch a new publication on Substack, bringing to a close a 2½-year stint. [..] Lorenz will launch User Mag on the Substack newsletter platform, which has become home to a number of notable writers in recent years
• NPR When tech columnist Taylor Lorenz left the Washington Post last week, she did so with a splash: An interview with The Hollywood Reporter about launching her own digital magazine, called User Mag.

Awshort (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell reading that discussion on the talk page, some people (People A) think we should say she left the Washington Post to focus on her Substack, and other people (People B) think we should say she left the Washington Post to launch the Substack. so the argument is mostly just between focus versus launch as the preferred terminology. If it's more than that, I missed it. People A note that she already did have some history of writing on a Substack prior to the time she left the Washington Post, and can point to primary resources to validate this observation. People B argue that RSes call what happened when she left the Post a launch and that it is WP:OR to dig up the primary sources from prior to the time that she really got going with the Substack (after she left the Post). I agree with People B that it is WP:OR. If I periodically catered parties out of my home, and then one day quit my day job and opened a restaurant, a reporter covering this would want to decide whether to describe this new chapter in my life as a launch ("she launched a restaurant") or as a different focus ("She quit her job to focus on her passion for cooking"). We have to go with what the reporters decided to say about this. Someone who dredged up the fact that I used to do a bit of catering from my home should not write a letter-to-the-editor complaining that the reporters should have called this a change of focus and not a launch and point to my previous bit of catering, however much everyone agrees with the fact that I used to do that. It's WP:OR to overrule how RSes interpreted the event. Novellasyes (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to wait until the discussion at DRN has completed before engaging here. That thread is still open. Delectopierre (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That thread is on hold indefinitely. Given that, I will paste my response here.

The sources that Awshort claims we must use in this post, and in their statement above, all attribute their reporting to statements by Lorenz. See below (emphasis mine). Doesn't that make these WP:PRIMARY as well?

• "Lorenz, who is leaving the newspaper to launch the publication, says that it will "cover technology from the user side," in contrast to traditional coverage of social media."
• "Taylor Lorenz, the high-profile tech columnist for The Washington Post, said on Tuesday that she was leaving the publication to start her own subscription newsletter on Substack."
• "Taylor Lorenz, a Washington Post technology columnist, announced Tuesday that she is leaving the paper to launch a new publication on Substack, bringing to a close a 2½-year stint"

I will note here, the distinction between a product release and a product launch. See eg: 1, 2, 3.

Delectopierre (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond, can you say whether this particular WP:OR is just about whether to use focus or, rather, launch, to describe what occurred when Lorenz left the Washington Post and devoted herself to her substack? Novellasyes (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s basically the question?

In my eyes, it’s about whether it’s allowable to use focus based on the sources.

Perhaps not as relevant on this board, but I am open to discussion about style vs accuracy etc. It’s just that I don’t believe that based on policy, ‘focus on’ is not allowed. Delectopierre (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sometimes with discussions like this, more than one policy gets thrown into the mix. I think one policy that got thrown into this mix has to do with the use of primary resources (in this case, the word Lorenz herself used to describe the change) versus secondary sources. Because this is the WP:OR board, I'm going to totally ignore that discussion. It's not uncommon for an editor (this happens to me) to have certain ways of using language or to feel (as I sometimes do) that something is perfectly obvious so I wish it could be put that way in the article. What WP wants us to do instead, though, is to (perhaps even somewhat simplistically) is look and see the language that reliable secondary sources used to describe the situation, and to stick like glue to that. If different secondary sources used different language -- some of them saying "focus" and some of them saying "launch" -- then you'd have to balancing type conversation -- how many used which term, and are the ones that used this term more reliable, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case here -- it looks to me like most of the reliable secondary sources used "launch". So I think we should stick with that, even if they are wrong and should have used a different word. I appreciate the good work you are doing on the article. She's a fascinating person. Novellasyes (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in depth response.

Does the fact that those RS are all quoting her have an impact? Or is that the part that’s not for this board?

Just re-read. I get it now. But one other question that begs: Would it be OR/SYNTH to say something like 'she left the post in xxxx year to launch her substack, although she had a substack prior to that date.' Note that I'm not advocating for that, just trying to understand the part where the synth/OR occurs.

And yes - I agree that she’s fascinating. Delectopierre (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be SYNTH to add "although she had a substack prior to the launch date" if there are reliable secondary sources that say that. Part of the reason that WP cares about the use of reliable secondary sources is to determine whether a fact, even if true, is a notable fact. It has to be notable (as judged by whether reliable secondary sources mention it) to make it into an article. When thinking about all of this, it's important to recognize that no one doubts that she had a substack prior to leaving the Post. If a WP editor plays the SYNTH card, they are not doubting this. They are questioning whether that fact is important enough to make it into the article. To decide on that, they would rely on whether reliable secondary sources talk about it when talking about the launch. If reliable secondary sources don't mention it or talk about it in connection with the launch, then the judgment would be that that's because they didn't think it was important enough to mention, when they wrote about the launch. If another editor strongly thinks that it does matter that she already had a substack, unless that editor can find reliable secondary sources that write about that prior history of substack publication as if it mattered when discussing the launch, then it is SYNTH to put it in the article in connection with the launch. The question you'd want to rely on reliable secondary sources for isn't the question of whether she had a substack she wrote on before she left the Post. The question is whether that fact is notable enough, or matters, when it comes to talking about the launch. If some reliable secondary sources talk about it that way, then you can make the case that it should be in the article. If not, not. Novellasyes (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems completely reasonable. Thank you, again, for taking the time to explain the logic.

I want to ask a bit more about this, part, specifically: It would not be SYNTH to add "although she had a substack prior to the launch date" if there are reliable secondary sources that say that.

First, though, let me reiterate that I am not certain it should be launch or focus on.

I'll note that the reason why I think it might matter is that she had some original reporting and interviews on substack prior to the launch of usermag in Oct 2024. Some of that reporting is culturally and societally important. Additionally, her substack is where she announced she had been banned on twitter, which in my view, gives her substack more relevance prior to the launch of usermag in Oct 2024.

And to that end, there are some sources that mention the existence of her substack prior to Oct 2024, and some that link to her substack, prior to the announcement that she left the Post.

I'm not convinced that means her article on WP should say one or the other, as I've noted. But I wonder if that changes the application of the policy I quoted above (or any other interpretation of policy)? I know it's not the same as the articles covering the launch mentioning it, which is why I wanted to ask.

Here are some of the RSs:

• Jan 8, 2021 Buzzfeed

• “A public forum is better because it sparks change, or at least attempts to,” the gay man in his late twenties running the account told reporters Taylor Lorenz and Alex Hawgood. (He did not respond to requests from BuzzFeed News.)

• Jan 11, 2021 SFGATE

• Vu, a San Francisco-based salon owner, went on to tell reporters Taylor Lorenz and Alex Hawgood: "People stay home too long and they lose control of their lives and try to control other people's lives."

• Dec 17, 2021 Variety

• Lorenz’s Twitter account, which she activated in 2010, had more than 340,000 followers before it was suspended. “Earlier tonight, Elon Musk suspended my Twitter account,” she wrote on her Substack. “I received zero communication from the company on why I was suspended or what terms I violated.”

• December 18, 2022 Forbes

• In a Substack post, Lorenz said she was kicked off Twitter after tweeting at Musk seeking comment on a news story she and her colleague Drew Harwell had been working on.

• Dec 18 2022 The Daily Beast

• “When I went to log in and see if he had responded to our query, I was suspended. I received zero communication from the company on why I was suspended or what terms I violated,” Lorenz wrote on her Substack.

• September 1, 2024 Semafor

• Big in Brazil: Brazil’s brilliant internet has always played an outsized, oddball role in global digital culture, and the X ban will spill out into global fandom, writes Taylor Lorenz on her Substack.

Delectopierre (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that multiple reliable secondary sources were aware of the fact that Lorenz had a substack that she wrote things on prior to the time that she quit the Post and either renewed her focus on it or launched it is not relevant in deciding which word ("focus" or "launch") to use in describing that event (the event of the renewed focus and/or launch). What is relevant is how reliable secondary sources describe that event. If the WP uses the word "launch", which it should if that is what multiple reliable sources use to describe this event, using that word does not nullify the meaning or importance of anything she published on the substack prior to the time of what came to be known in reliable secondary sources as its launch. It's unusual in my experience to spend this much time on a relatively small issue, and I won't continue on with this conversation since I think it has run its course. Novellasyes (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the policy application: thank you for the explanation, again.

Regarding me beating a dead horse: my apologies, that wasn’t my intention. Fully testing any assumptions I might have helps me better understand how to apply policy going forward. But I now see the impact that had here, and again, I apologize. Delectopierre (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Far be it from me to criticize how people choose to spend their time pursuing hobbies on the Internet, but to be clear, this entire argument is over whether the lady's article should say she left her job to "launch" a newsletter or to "focus on" a newsletter? Why does this make any difference? jp×g🗯️ 04:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's the entire argument. —Alalch E. 04:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Christ. jp×g🗯️ 15:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not much of an OR problem. WP:ABOUTSELF is relevant here: Lorenz is quoted as "saying" or "announcing", and seeing how it is beyond doubt that the substack had already been in existence, the claim that she "launched" runs into There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. It could also be seen as a mildly self-serving claim because a fresh thing being started is a more appealing and cleaner narrative for a news story. There is absolutely doubt as to the authenticity of her claim that she launched. More than doubt. She either said that she is launching when she was not launching, or her statement (about herself) was imprecisely paraphrased, inaccurately quoted or was embellished. When an editor assesses these ABOUTSELF claims critically, as should be done, this is not OR.—Alalch E. 05:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. You've articulated this better than I was able to.

  As I've said, I think there are reasonable arguments to be made for using "Launch", "Focus on", "Run", and frankly a lot of other ways to word that sentence.Delectopierre (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not OR, because a blog archive is a source, it's just a WP:PRIMARY source. Either:

a) The difference between "focus" and "launch" is purely an issue of wording, in which case WP:OUROWNWORDS applies. Sources source facts, not wordings. It's not up to the sources to tell us how to phrase an article.

b) The difference between "focus" and "launch" really is a factual claim, in which case we get into WP:WSAW territory because the Substack can be proven to have been launched long before she left WaPo. We probably should describe the conflict; something along the lines of: Lorenz left The Washington Post in October 2024. Most sources said this was to start her own Substack publication called "User Mag", though blog archives exist going back to 2018. (or just drop the reason entirely) Loki (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That much weight on the minor discrepancy is a little insensitive/uncharitable. Let's just say that "following her departure from X, she has been writing the blog Y". —Alalch E. 21:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Chalk giant has added a great deal of content to Involve (think tank) attempting to build up a controversy over Involve's appointing Andrew Cave, who was previously employed in the tobacco industry, as a trustee. Their sources for the existence of the controversy are Linkedin posts by one person, [REDACTED - Oshwah]. All other sources do not mention a controversy in any way, creating a web of OR precariously balanced atop this one LinkedIn post and a single [REDACTED - Oshwah]. Chalk giant has repeatedly stated that LinkedIn sources are acceptable "if the identity of the posters are confirmed". You can see my attempts to discuss this issue on the talk page. (Note that they have also inserted functionally identical content on several other tangentially related pages, which I have removed as WP:HATSTANDing and which thus far have not been reinstated.)

A few example of the problematic content taken from the first three paragraphs; bear in mind the entire 15 paragraphs or so are like this:

• "Involve's appointment of a trustee with a history of employment in the tobacco industry has been disputed by ethics experts and deliberative democracy activists.", unsourced; nearest sources are a Tobacco Tactics page on Cave and his LinkedIn page, neither of which show any dispute by anyone at all. The only source with any evidence of such a dispute I can find on the entire page is [REDACTED - Oshwah] and the [REDACTED - Oshwah].
• "Some of Involve's funders are also strictly opposed to investments in the tobacco industry, meaning their continued funding of Involve is called into question", sourced to Involve's "Who funds us page", which is a bare list of funders and does not mention tobacco in any way. The following sentence mention one specific funder, [REDACTED - Oshwah], and states that they avoid "material investments in... tobacco", the source for which is that [REDACTED - Oshwah]'s website which again does not mention Involve in any way.
• "It is unknown whether these key stakeholders were consulted about Involve’s appointment of a trustee from the tobacco industry, yet difficult to imagine they would approve it, given the fundamental conflict with their principles.", completely unsourced

In addition to the OR issues, this there are clear NPOV/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS problems with the text, e.g. "it is in the public interest to document possible tobacco industry influence in NGOs like Involve", "This gives grounds for concern relating to his appointment", "These words are an attempt at whitewashing the image of PMI", "All of the above information on Cave and PMI is discoverable with simple search queries. This makes the Involve board’s decision to appoint this former tobacco industry executive hard to understand, given the multiple conflicts of interest with the values of its stakeholders and funders." etc etc etc.

I generally dislike dragging disagreements to noticeboards but Chalk giant has stopped responding on the talk page. I would appreciate if editors not currently involved in this could take a look and weigh in. Rusalkii (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. This isn't really close to say that this violates WP:OR. It also has a number of other problems, as you observe, which include WP:COAT, Linked-In not a good source, and also WP:BLP, because although the article isn't about a person, the content they added is. Novellasyes (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate explicit confirmation from this noticeboard this is fine to remove in it's entirety and advice on what to do if Chalk giant continues to readd it, because I'm uninterested in slow motion edit warring here. It looks like they've continued editing instead of responding here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly if there's unsourced info it can be removed and the onus is on the editor to re-add the info with a cited ref. Additionally, agreed that using Linkedin to cite a controversy is not the best choice of ref, took a quick look to see if other kinds of sources are available for the issue but was unable to find any WP:RS, so it may not be WP:DUE for the article. Also glancing though the article I see a lot of WP:SYNTH and unreferenced WP:POV statements such as this and this: "It is entirely plausible, therefore, that the tobacco industry would turn its attention to trying to influence and infiltrate public participation organisations, in addition to its established political lobbying channels, once it became apparent that these were to be increasingly used to help governments to formulate health policy. This seems to be what has indeed happened in the UK, with the Involve Foundation and the Sortition Foundation now both with the same former tobacco industry top executive on their boards". Their most recent addition of ref also fails verification. I think the possible COI issue is probably the most concerning as you noted that the same person adding the controversy info to the page is using their own Linkedin page as a ref, can take a closer look later. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence, "Involve's appointment of a trustee with a history of employment in the tobacco industry has been disputed by ethics experts and deliberative democracy activists. Andrew Cave, who was Head of Communications at Philip Morris International (PMI) from 2012 to 2022, became a trustee of Involve in April 2023." is reference by a link saying he was employed at Philip Morris and a Linkedin post (probably not reliable and definitely not usable for BLP details WP:BLPSPS). So the vet first sentence was both WP:V and WP:BLP issues. I've posted a notification to WP:BLPN as that board gets a lot more views. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrew Cave, who was Head of Communications at Philip Morris International (PMI) from 2012 to 2022," is accurate. MAJOR investigative reporting by REUTERS imply he's a nasty piece of work. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/pmi-who-fctc/. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any dispute that he was employed by PMI or that sources have reported that PMI is terrible, just that dragging this into Involve's page is both synth and undue as no reliable sources discuss any kind of controversy as to his appointment as a trustee at Involve. Rusalkii (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there's no dispute that MAJOR investigative reporting by REUTERS imply he's a nasty piece of work? That he lied about PMC targeting the FCTC -WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control? That "the tobacco giant has specifically been found to have manipulated tobacco legislation in [several] countries" while Cave would have had a leading role in "what may be one of the broadest corporate lobbying efforts in existence," per news reports?

Already-provided sources for the existence of the controversy include [REDACTED - Oshwah], Sutcliffe and Shaheen, so why did you state otherwise? Also, "employed in the tobacco industry" is an odd way to describe a former top executive who may well still have PMC on his entirely secret client list and still hold PMC securities. Still, the content does have massive UNDUE issues. It strikes me as good investigative reporting by @Chalk giant, but until it actually appears in a news source, it is indeed problematic. A shame, but most of it probably needs to go. Even though it is verifiable, it's not WP:verifiable. Someone should publish it! RememberOrwell (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I continue not to dispute that Reuters, in a major feature piece, reports that he did a bunch of extremely shady things, and I'm confused why you're acting like I am. I'm not trying to defend Cave here, if this was an article about Cave citing Reuters I'd have no objections. "Employed in the tobacco industry" was not meant to be a precise description of his career.

Sutcliffe's statment is sourced to a comment on [REDACTED - Oshwah]'s Linkedin post by [REDACTED - Oshwah], and I can't find the statement she linked in her link in that comment. Shaheen is said to have commented on this but I can't find any sourcing in the page backing this up. So, in fact, the only sourcing backing this up in the article are [REDACTED - Oshwah]'s Linkedin posts, which is what I said. If you can find better sourcing to back some of this up and reinsert it (in somewhat more moderate amounts and more encyclopedic tone) that seems completely unobjectionable. Rusalkii (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sutcliffe's statment is sourced to a comment on [REDACTED - Oshwah]'s Linkedin post by [REDACTED - Oshwah] " I see: [REDACTED - Oshwah] [REDACTED - Oshwah] is by [REDACTED - Oshwah]]. Still presents pretty much the same sourcing issue though.

It is shocking that Involve has resorted to baseless legal threats. I know UK defamation law is weird, but even so, I can't see how it is 'defamatory to Involve' for her to claim to have “secured a commitment from Dr. Shaheen that, should she be elected, neither the Sortition Foundation nor the Involve Foundation would be tasked with organising the CCA due to ethical reservations concerning their directors/trustees.”

I wonder if @Chalk giant's write-up would meet WikiNews' editorial standards. It all seems verifiable w/ reliable sources in the journalistic sense of those words.

The Philip Morris Files (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/pmi/) - Wow. A lot of dead links, TGFIA. https://web.archive.org/web/20170920065746/https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/projectid:%2033738-the-philip-morris-files ... RememberOrwell (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely unsurprised by the AP reporting, but that in no way justifies using LinkedIn as a source for BLP details. Doing so is directly against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Saw the notice at BLPN. I think WP:RSPLINKEDIN is pretty clear: Posts that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. LinkedIn should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. If better sources can not be found, anything sourced to LinkedIn should be left out. And out of 4527 words (readable prose size) for the entire article, approximately 2328 words are dedicated to the "Big Tobacco trustee dispute" section, which is a ridiculous amount of detail, making it wildly undue. Furthermore, the page length for the entire article is 50,370 bytes, and in this one edit seen here, Chalk giant added back 43,205 bytes of undue material, when they knew the content had been disputed.
  Quite frankly, all those sub-sections under "Governance" need a good dose of WP:DYNAMITE, and need to be re-written entirely, and summarized succinctly, if high-quality reliable sources can be found to verify the content. WP:ONUS is pretty clear as well: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Have to agree that governance section probably needs to be TNTed. I mean some of the stuff it says e.g. those parts also mentioned by Rusalkii are a major WTF? Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yah, should be restored to the last stable version before the governance section was added. Chalk giant also seems to be adding similar info across different, related articles [1] [2] [3] by again citing Linkedin for BLP info. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I restored the last stable version per this discussion. And yes, those three diffs are outrageous, where on earth does this originate from - Normally, when people want to rehabilitate their reputation.... That sounds like straight up editorializing from a WP editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, some of the info also sounds like WP:SOAP based on other similarly written unsourced pov info, some noted above by Rusalkii. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that @RememberOrwell removed some of my initial comment above as a WP:OUTING violation. I don't think this was, in fact, an outing violation, but if it was it should be revdeled (and if not restored). Rusalkii (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It in fact was. Mopped up: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=167883609 RememberOrwell (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional information needed suppression due to WP:OUTING and other violations. Please review Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing and do your best to follow them. I know and completely understand that the whole "WP:COI/WP:NOR/WP:PAID vs WP:OUTING" kerfuffle can be tricky, messy, gray, and even frustrating. ArbCom made a ruling on a somewhat recent case detailing where this kind of information should go (I think it's WP:VRT, but don't quote me on that). Regardless, please use those avenues to properly report this information where, what would be considered WP:OUTING here, to the correct avenues so the information can be evaluated properly. Since this whole "WP:COI/WP:NOR/WP:PAID vs WP:OUTING" subject is still... somewhat controversial on both sides, I'm not going to call anyone out or put my foot up anyone's ass over it. Let's just remember how to properly handle sensitive information like that and call it good. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the outing policy forbid mentioning the name of the author of the main source used in an article, without connecting to any wikipedia account, if it had earlier been connected to an account but the connection has now been removed? Rusalkii (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial comment above was a WP:OUTING violation AND "attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". And it was quite disruptive/time consuming to deal with. There was no WP:PAID issue complicating/creating a grey area around the clear policy barring WP:HARASSMENT, so you're lucky. The WP:OUTING policy states: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment. I suggest steering well clear of the thin ice. Something like, "Sorry to anyone I outed, misidentified or who had to deal with my mess. Thank you." would be nice to hear. Would go a long way. And I appreciate that you just stumbled upon and just saw you said you'd never heard of Involve. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the previous content has now been readded, with some edits that as far as I can tell do not introduce any substantial new sources beyond an additional LinkedIn post. I don't intend to engage with this any further but would appreciate if previous commenters could take a look. Rusalkii (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what, the third <cough> falsehood Rusalkii has posted in this discussion? 16,435 bytes is not "the majority of" 43,205 bytes. <38% was readded. WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notifications (Biased Campaigning) should be avoided, not resorted to three times in a discussion. I AGF and presume admins presume there's a covert conflict of interest once enough evidence piles up. I also see that 'Something like, "Sorry to anyone I outed, misidentified or who had to deal with my mess. Thank you." would be nice to hear. Would go a long way.' fell on deaf ears.

As I said, 'most of it probably needs to go', which is why I removed ~62% of it. I took out what I saw was UNDUE, unsourced or OR. I "would appreciate if previous commenters" heed WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy. RememberOrwell (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing consensus in this discussion to add any of that content back. And LinkedIn is considered generally unreliable as a source, but yet you used LinkedIn to source this - and conflict of interest concerns have been raised, WP:RSPLINKEDIN explicitly states that "LinkedIn should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons". It's obvious the trustee the LinkedIn post is referring to is Andrew Cave, that needs to be removed immediately per BLP. And the second paragraph you added back in that section uses this source, which does not even mention Andrew Cave at all, so apparently you interpreted the source yourself to add all that information about Cave. Can you tell me where specifically in that source it states: "This gives grounds for concern relating to his appointment, since such incentives raise questions of possible bias ... for example, a citizens’ assembly on cancer prevention and the NHS". That's straight up original research and is absolutely not allowed. And then there is this completely unsourced statement at the end: "They invited Foulkes to attend a meeting with them in what they called a ‘restorative approach to conflict,’ but it appears both legal threats to sue are still in place; they have not been retracted, as one would expect if a true attempt at reconciliation was being made. This ‘invitation’ is therefore still of a coercive nature". I'm going to revert your edit, and I would appreciate it if you heed no original research and WP:ONUS - The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm just trying to salvage what I can from some good, but largely un-encyclopedic investigative research. Improvement to the disputed content is welcome. You should have removed the parts you thought were inappropriate, as I attempted to remove the parts I saw were inappropriate (and missed some - errors you so undiplomatically attack me for.) Why did you remove all 16KB? Please AGF and stuff your "apparently you interpreted the source yourself" ad hominem attacks. Obviously, I didn't write the content you're challenging; I'm trying to salvage from some good, but un-encyclopedic investigative research.

True (and WP:V) or False or OR, say you:

1. Involve appointed a trustee with a history of employment in the tobacco industry, Andrew Cave, who was Head of Communications at Philip Morris International (PMI) from 2012 to 2022, and became a trustee of Involve in April 2023.^[1][2]
2. A significant portion of his financial incentives, whether in the form of shares currently held in the company or as part of his retirement arrangements, are related to the tobacco industry in general and Philip Morris in particular.
3. Investigations by Reuters have shown that Philip Morris International (PMI) also secretly infiltrated global tobacco control negotiations and Andrew Cave then lied about it: "Asked in an earlier interview whether Philip Morris conducts a formal campaign targeting the treaty’s biennial conferences, Cave gave a flat “no.”"^[3]
4. The World Health Organisation is committed to promote public participation in health policymaking in its member countries - even to the extent of producing its own guide to conducting mini-publics (e.g. citizens' assemblies) on health policy. ^[4][5][6]

RememberOrwell (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any difference whether you wrote the content or not, once you restored the content to the article, you take responsibility for it, and it is your responsibility to make sure any material you restore is reliably sourced and verifiable with no original research. You didn't do that. And Wikipedia does not allow "un-encyclopedic investigative research", otherwise known as original research, and since it appears you don't understand that, and since it also appears you don't understand why the 4 examples above should not be in the article, just reinforces my belief that you shouldn't be editing this particular article at all. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your irrational, unfounded beliefs don't matter. To be clear, I'm just trying to salvage the encyclopedic content from some good, but largely un-encyclopedic investigative research. Obviously. I asked, "True (and WP:V) or False or OR...", and you didn't answer. RememberOrwell (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were you involved in the outing? RememberOrwell (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if if you honor WP:EDITCON, as you are expected to, and not dodge. Most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. RememberOrwell (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to note I have removed the section again based on the fact it uses primary sources for original research and unreliable sources such as LinkedIn. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's clear that there is no consensus for re-adding any of this material back with the sourcing issues and original research issues. This is beginning to look like more of a behavioral issue that may need to be addressed. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The use of self-published and primary sources to make contentious comments about a living person are both against policy (WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPPRIMARY). If reliable secondary sources have criticised the organisation for hiring the BLP, then something could be included. But as it stands that section can't be added back. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to specifically IDENTIFY the 'contentious comments about a living person' you are talking about. Do you contend 1 is contentious? 2? 3? 4? RememberOrwell (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no consensus for removing all of it. Ask you keep dodging questions and refusing to clarify. 4 doesn't even mention a living person, or contain any interpretation of facts. Yet you have removed it. Repeatedly. Why, exactly? RememberOrwell (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ActivelyDisinterestedYou claim it 'Contains OR based on primary sources' and on that basis reverted the whole thing, violating WP:EDITCON which I just asked be respected. I'm following WP:EDITCON and you aren't so yes, there's a behavioral issue - you keep violating WP:EDITCON.

  True (and WP:V) or False or OR, say you:

  1. Involve appointed a trustee with a history of employment in the tobacco industry, Andrew Cave, who was Head of Communications at Philip Morris International (PMI) from 2012 to 2022, and became a trustee of Involve in April 2023.
  2. A significant portion of his financial incentives, whether in the form of shares currently held in the company or as part of his retirement arrangements, are related to the tobacco industry in general and Philip Morris in particular.
  3. Investigations by Reuters have shown that Philip Morris International (PMI) also secretly infiltrated global tobacco control negotiations and Andrew Cave then lied about it: "Asked in an earlier interview whether Philip Morris conducts a formal campaign targeting the treaty’s biennial conferences, Cave gave a flat “no.”"
  4. The World Health Organisation is committed to promote public participation in health policymaking in its member countries - even to the extent of producing its own guide to conducting mini-publics (e.g. citizens' assemblies) on health policy.

  (citation links above)

  Again, are these facts or not? @Isaidnoway, I reiterate the need for a response from you as well. You claim OR but refuse to clarify when I ask these 4 questions. That's not collegial. We cannot clarify what content is acceptable and which is not if you refuse to provide clarifying responses to reasonable questions.

  I cannot find any interpretation of facts therein and thus dispute the contention that they are OR.

  You haven't said that EVERYTHING I put back and you re-removed is OR, but you used the claim that some of it is as the basis to remove ALL of it. While you refuse to identify what parts you believe are OR. RememberOrwell (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's uses primary financial publications to make judgements about a living person, I think that OR but if it isn't it's still against BLPPRIMARY. The only reference that makes a direct link between the hiring of the individual and his tobacco industry background is a self-published post on LinkedIn, against BLPSPS. The rest of the references only discuss the tobacco industry and not the individual. It's junk and per policy (WP:ONUS) if you want to restore it you have to get consensus for doing so.
  EDITCON says "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." this has been disputed and reverted, multiple times. You are also editing against WP:BLPRESTORE, do not restore it unless you can get consensus for doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of this content is acceptable the way it is written and the misuse of sources. You can not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, and you can not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. For instance, the Reuters source does not say anywhere in that article that "Andrew Cave then lied about it", you are analyzing/interpreting the Reuters source to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. And you can not use a primary source from Philip Morris that does not even mention Cave at all to say - A significant portion of his financial incentives ... And per WP:ONUS it is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of the material, and you have not done that. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "It"? What are you referring to? 1,2,3,4, or are you being non-responsive to what I asked, while being repetitive? You keep dodging questions; if this round results in no answers, I'll put it to an RFC. AGAIN: How does "The World Health Organisation is committed to promote public participation in health policymaking in its member countries - even to the extent of producing its own guide to conducting mini-publics (e.g. citizens' assemblies) on health policy." violate BLPPRIMARY, exactly? You are full of nonsense. AGAIN: 4 doesn't even mention a living person, or contain any interpretation of facts. Yet you have removed it. Repeatedly. Why, exactly? It uses NO primary financial publications and makes NO judgements about a living person. RememberOrwell (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not hearing what is being said, the content you added (restoring content is the same as addition) was unacceptable. If you wish to go ahead with an RFC I can't stop you, but as I said in reply to your comment on my talk page your questions are irrelevant in respect to BLP policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The section you added back, as seen here, is titled "Big Tobacco trustee", which equates to Andrew Cave. The first paragraph you added back is a couple of sentences strung together to reach this conclusion stated at the end of that paragraph - conflict of interest concerns have been raised - so who exactly has raised these concerns, that conclusion is unsourced, and since it is obviously related to a living person (Cave), it can not be included. Why did you add that paragraph back?

  The second paragraph you added back is sourced to this document, which does not even mention Andrew Cave whatsoever. Why did you add that paragraph back?

  The third paragraph you added back concerns an investigation by Reuters into Philip Morris secretly infiltrating global tobacco control negotiations, and the Reuters article does not even mention Involve (think tank) at all, so why did you add that back, it looks like to me it is an obvious attempt to smear Cave with allegations about lying. And what precisely does the statement from The World Health Organisation about promoting public participation in health policymaking in its member countries, have to do with Involve (think tank). Why did you add that back? If you want to start a RfC, go right ahead. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Isaidnoway, look again. You are not hearing what I'm asking: "conflict of interest concerns have been raised" DOES NOT APPEAR in 1,2,3, or 4. RememberOrwell (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are arguing against content I have already indicated - 14 days ago and again yesterday - I have no interest in keeping in the article. Your link above is to a version last edited by Chalk giant, not me. You refused to answer my question about each of 1-4, so I attempted to put them back - as my edit summary made clear: "No specific concerns raised when I asked about these, so restored." - but it seems I put back the "conflict of interest concerns have been raised" bit as well, by accident. At least I'm not the one belligerently violating WP:FIXFIRST and WP:EDITCON or Wikipedia:OUTING! Whoops! Both of you, by refusing to answer my questions about each of 1-4, perpetuated the problem.

  You're peppering me with questions about 1-4 even as you refuse to answer the one I've asked?

  You ask: > And what precisely does the statement from The World Health Organisation about promoting public participation in health policymaking in its member countries, have to do with Involve (think tank).

  You don't know or forgot what Involve does? It's all about promoting public participation in policymaking. Sheesh!

  @ActivelyDisinterested don't keep not hearing my questions/deeming them irrelevant. The specific clarifying question I've been asking, in the spirit of WP:FIXFIRST, is which of 1-4 violate BLP - which do you contend contain "contentious comments about a living person," I asked! You insisting that questions about BLP policy are "irrelevant in respect to BLP policy" sure feels like Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING to me. RememberOrwell (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is simple it's bad content that is against BLP policy, you restored it with this edit[4]. That you did so after what had been said here before you restored, and the content of the relevant policy, is actually concerning. Everything else is not worth discussing, the content is against policy and nothing that can be said will change that and is irrelevant. That you think that there could be any discussion on this means you are not getting a very simple point, so simple it's does seem you don't want to understand it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you believe I'm gaslighting or behaving disruptively in any other way take me to ANI, but I wouldn't suggest it as I'm not the problem here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also you say that you had no desire to keep the offending content 14 days ago, but restored it 7 days ago, and are still arguing over it. If you have no desire to keep it, and the content is never going to be restored to the article, then we all agree and can go do something else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Guatemala City bus crash § Crash contains:

The crash in Guatemala City occurred just two days later another major accident, when a collision between a bus and a trailer truck on the Escárcega–Villahermosa highway in Mexico killed 41 people.^[1]

1. ^ "Tabasco: Southern Mexico bus crash kills 41, authorities say". BBC. February 8, 2025. Retrieved February 10, 2025.

A GA review had recently wrapped up (its conclusions I agree with), leading me to remove this from § Background. However, one editor dismissed this exact concern before the GAR and just readded it to its current section today. This is despite the source not containing the word "Guatemala" at all, thus not directly related to the topic of the article. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One RS newspaper mentioned two other bus accidents in their coverage of this incident, saying, "Road accidents leading to dozens of fatalities are common in Central and South America" and then going on to list two such accidents. There is agreement that those can be included in the article, because an RS mentions them in the context of the event that this article is about. The disagreement is about whether other bus accidents with numerous fatalities that have occurred in recent years in Central and South America can also be added to or mentioned in this article. There appear to be five other accidents like that, so the dispute is over whether one or more of them can be added to the list in 2025 Guatemala City bus crash#background. A GA reviewer said no, on the grounds that that would be OR. An editor, however, after that statement by a GA reviewer, added a sentence about one of those other accidents to 2025 Guatemala City bus crash#crash (that is, not where it used to appear, which was in the "background" section). That user (ArionStar) justifies this by saying, "A mention is different from original research". The GA reviewer said it is okay to reference episodes/events/other things that an RS hasn't specifically mentioned in the context of the incident the article is about, but the place to do that is in the "See also" section, as opposed to in the main body of the article. ArionStar, the difference of opinion between you and the GA reviewer seems to be about where in the article these mentions can occur. Can you spell out in more detail what you mean by saying "A mention is different from original research" and would you be content to put these other mentions in the "See also" section instead of in the main body of the article?Novellasyes (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Background" part, the mention of another major bus crash just has the propose of remembering that two days prior there was a similar accident in a neighboring Latin country with a high death roll. ArionStar (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is extremely interesting that there have been all those high-fatality crashes. If I were a newspaper reporter, I would definitely put all those into an article because there's some kind of a pattern here. Or I wish that the NYT or similar would write a big article about this. But I don't think the OR/SYNTH rules allow us to put it in the article (except apparently in the "See also" section). Novellasyes (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems undue to me if it's just a passing mention and the source doesn't say why it's relevant beyond an example of something similar. But the much more immediate OR concern is that it's an article that's written exclusively by WP:RSBREAKING sources in violation of WP:PRIMARY. And this sort of issue is one of the many reasons why we aren't supposed to do that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest putting it under "See also" as an alternative, but I see it's there already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

some guy is taking over and just deleting iranain regime critism with ai propaganda https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Iranian_applications&diff=prev&oldid=1278557077 Baratiiman (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted him. He is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Taha_Danesh. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Web novels in South Korea" claims that the term "wepsoseol" (Korean: 웹소설, "web novel") was created by Naver in 2013. But if you search for this term online, you will see that it was used many times before 2013, and therefore Naver is not the creator of this term, and the article "Web novels in South Korea" gives incorrect information. I mentioned in this article that the term appeared in an article titled "What is Hyperfiction?" published in the South Korean literary magazine "Today's Literary Criticism" in 1997 and in an article about the film "He Was Cool" published on the Naver News website in 2003, and added links to those two articles, but another editor of the article "Web novels in South Korea" marked my addition as original research. If my addition is removed, all that will remain in this Wikipedia article is the false claim that Naver is the originator of the term "wepsoseol."

Some people who read the article "Web novels in South Korea" mistakenly claim that Naver, a South Korean internet company, created the English word "webnovel" in 2013, and that the word did not exist in English before 2013.

Authors of South Korean books and articles about web novels usually copy various false facts about web novels from each other, and they don't take the time to check through Google or any other search engine whether the term "wepsoseol" was used anywhere before 2013, or to check any of these false facts. For example, South Korean web novels appeared in 1989, but authors of books and articles about South Korean web novels claim that South Korean web novels appeared in the late 1990s, early 2000s, or mid-2010s.

The editor who marked my contribution as original research advised me: "You may want to have your additions, including that one, reviewed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Активная Мечтательница (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• From what you say, it sounds like you have discovered that the cited source (giving the 2013 date) is erroneous, but you can not cite a source that comments on this error and gives a correct date. Instead, you (yourself) have looked for earlier dates, and discovered that there are some. You are the first person to comment on these earlier dates, and that is indeed “original research”.

What this means is that while you can challenge the reliability of the erroneous source (and thus remove the incorrect 2013 date)… you can not add the earlier (correct) dates that you have discovered. My advice would be that the article should simply omit discussing “first use” completely. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100%. Novellasyes (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite 100%. It is permitted to remove the claim that 2013 is earliest. It is not permitted to write "the claim that 2013 is earliest is wrong because...". However, it is permitted to write "the term was used by [some source] in 1997" if that is reliable and no conclusion other than the plain fact is drawn from it (for example it can't be claimed to be the earliest). That would be just citing a source for something it contains. Zero^talk 08:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EssentiallySports please check the edit history; it's so strange to see a particular user keeps adding their own thoughts and removing material, explaining it "it's so obvious... that I will write what I think about". I don't think they understand the basics of Wikipedia, and what OR is. --87.97.80.45 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Canadian church burnings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Our article 2021 Canadian church burnings is about a series of arsons and suspicious fires which many have speculated to be reactions to the discovery of Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. However, officials have found no motive or connections between the fires, as our article points out. The fires in June and July 2021 received a great deal of coverage in reliable sources. CBC News news (in print and video) looked at what they believe is a wider range of fires, from May 2021 (one month earlier than other reports) through December 2023, although they also admit that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have found no clear motive. The Christian Post reported on another fire in October 2024. (Note that thoughts on The Christian Post at RSN have been mixed in discussions from 2015 and 2020.) As I mentioned, the initial fires in June and July 2021 received a lot of coverage. As far as I can tell, the only major news source to connect them to fires through December 2023 has been the CBC. No other sources seem to connect them to a fire in October 2024. And again, officials have found no motive for any of the fires, even in June/July 2021.

Are these sources sufficient to support the claim that the Canadian church burnings are an ongoing situation, or would this be original research?

My thoughts are that the claim is original research, and that we need to rely on the findings of official investigators as reported in reliable sources. These appear to be unfortunate, periodic fires, and extrapolating that they are onging is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation. At Talk:2021 Canadian church burnings#CBC article verification, another editor believes that not saying they are ongoing is actually original research because no source has stated the fires have ended. To me, this seems like an "absence of evidence" fallacy relying on what sources don't say. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woodroar is trying to get a source to say something it doesn't. To point that out isn't a fallacy. The relevant source only comments on events through December 2023 precisely because it dates to January 2024 and never claims that the events ended the month prior. There is no compelling interest to add an end date. We don't have to claim that the matter is ongoing, nor do we have to say it's ended until we have a source that says that. What Woodroar proposes is definitionally original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if some event has a definitive ending (e.g. the new president is elected, the boat is unstuck from the canal, the spaceship lands) it will be reported on definitively, but if it doesn't it can be very hard to track down. We have articles about all kinds of stuff like crime waves, tornado seasons, musical microgenres, et cetera, which... I mean, there are hundreds of newspaper articles when a new fad becomes popular, but imagine trying to find a source saying "people are wearing this thing less often nowadays". It would be pretty hard, no? I mean, off the top of my head (literally), do we really need a source that specifically says that the Straw Hat Riots of 1922 stopped occurring to write the article in the past tense? jp×g🗯️ 15:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue is that no one reporting on this has suggested it has stopped or slowed down. Instead, we have reporting that suggests to the contrary ([5], [6], [7]). Even if we appraise these sources as possessing marginal reliability, there's sufficient basis for us to say that Wikipedia to unilaterally assessing this as something that's over would be an unsourced controversial statement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we say the fires have stopped or slowed down. Claiming that they stopped would be just as much of a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue. Claiming that they're slowing down is more nuanced, but it would require a great deal more information from officials about convictions, motives, arson vs. accidents, etc.—analysis that no reliable source has reported on, as far as I know.

For what it's worth, if a source did claim that the fires will continue or have stopped, I'd argue that we probably shouldn't cite them ever again. Woodroar (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there's the issue: we have an uptick of fires that have been tied to one another over several years. We need a retrospective that identifies an end to the trend (or statistics that suggest that things have changed) to comment on this matter with a definitive end date. You provided a definitive end date of December 2023 but that's unsupported. I agree with what I believe you're implying about us understanding that churches will inevitably burn down/be subject to arson, so we have to avoid assuming that any fire at a Canadian church represents a continuation of that trend. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a challenging situation. I assume that some churches in Canada burn every year for a wide variety of reasons. Let's say that in the average year, when there is no cause of a spike, the statistical average is 8 churches a year that burn down. And, that a spike caused by motivated arson started in 2021, according to RS, so that for several years, there were (say) 25 church burnings a year. I agree with the commenter above who noted that if/when the number of churches that burn down in Canada every year goes back down to the historical average of 8 (in my hypothetical example), it's unlikely that a reporter in Canada will write an article taking note of that fact that can be RS-used to justify an end-date on the spike in burnings, which makes our job somewhat harder because in the ideal situation, we'd want an article like that to justify putting an end date on the spike in burnings. Still, it wouldn't serve readers, in the absence of an article like that, to imply in the article that the spike continues, if it hasn't. It's surely okay to let that uncertainty run for a few years but if in (say) ten years, the number of burnings a year has returned to historical averages for (say) nine years, we are under-serving readers by not having a way to put that into the article. Novellasyes (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Novellasyes on essentially every part of what they said, but would say that a even just three or four years (rather than 10) on from the last comprehensive report that discusses it as an ongoing subject is sufficient time. That would start the clock at January 2024 for now, with it possibly restarting if a new piece of high-quality RS coverage presents it as still ongoing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute revolves around a single word. Should the article say Followers of certain kinds of modern paganism identify as witches and redefine the term "witchcraft" as part of their neopagan beliefs and practices. or should it say Followers of certain kinds of modern paganism identify as witches and have reclaimed the term "witchcraft" as part of their neopagan beliefs and practices. Reliable sources, as listed on the talk page, use "reclaim". However, all attempts to change the wording have been reverted,[8][9] as other editors argue the term "reclaim" is not accurate. This argument, however, seems to be original research and the article should reflect what is written in reliable sources, IMO. The full debate can be read at Talk:Witchcraft#Defining neopagan witchcraft. Additional opinions from experienced editors would be welcome. Nosferattus (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "has appropriated the term..."? My knee-jerk reaction is that "reclaim" states that the modern pagans "had" witchcraft in the first place.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaim is an odd word to use there, appropriated does sound better. Neo-pagans have taken the word and use it on their own terms. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This follows a question raised in the NPOV forum, which user:Alaexis responded to but may be more appropriately discussed here. The discussion stems from an ongoing debate with user:Bogazicili, not about resolving a specific content dispute (Talk consensus resolved it) but rather as a case study to establish a consensus-based approach for similar future discussions.

The topic concerns the Byzantine Empire article. Traditionally, Byzantine scholarship has described the empire as "multi-ethnic," though more recent research recognises this as just one of many perspectives. Additionally, scholarship from other fields, such as sociology and political economy, offers alternative viewpoints. Take as one of many examples, Wolfgang Gabbert writing "Ethnicity in history" in the book Ethnicity as a Political Resource. Published in 2015, this book is the "first attempt to analyze ethnicity from an interdisciplinary angle in a comparative, global, and historical perspective". It describes ethnicity as a concept that emerged in the 18th century, closely linked to nationalism (p.183-184). He argues that ethnicity was historically rare or nonexistent before this period (p.191) and that it was largely shaped by European colonialism. While Gabbert distinguishes between groups such as the Romans and Greeks, he concludes they should "not be regarded as ethnic communities, but rather as religious or cultural categories" (p.191-192).

Given that:

• Older Byzantine scholarship described the empire as multi-ethnic,
• More recent Byzantine scholarship acknowledges this as one perspective among others, and
• Research from other disciplines, prominently sociology but also a recent article stating this same consensus but covering political economy suggests that ethnicity is a modern construct,

...would it constitute WP:SYNTH to apply findings from fields outside Byzantine studies to challenge the use of "multi-ethnic" in the Byzantine Empire article? Alternatively, should such discussions be placed in articles specifically about the concept of ethnicity and not impact in the Byzantine Empire article? Biz (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not SYNTH as you did not add a synthesis into the article. But it's a WP:NPOV issue, since based on one group of sources you ignored other group of sources. The goal should be to give a concise overview of what all the sources say, with due weight.

Also, it's not older Byzantine scholarship. The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium is from 2022. Bogazicili (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]