User talk:John17three

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you please be more specific? John17three (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * sure:

I hope that is helpful. I would suggest if you want to edit wikipedia, you start by reading about the WP:5P fundamental principles of editing here, and then start by making small, non-controversial edits to articles you do not have a vested interest, agenda or conflict of interest with in order to learn the ropes. Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Your only edits here so far have been to add an almost identical paragraph to at least 15 different articles, which suggests you have some kind of agenda - please read WP:NOTADVOCACY.
 * 2) The only source you provided was the WP:PRIMARY source of the letter itself. Wikipedia works instead by seeking to cover what independent, reliable, secondary sources have said about a topic. Editors choosing to insert material sourced only to primary sources are often engaging in WP:OR - their own original research - which is not allowed on wikipedia.
 * 3) The wording used in the insertions did not appear to abide by wikipedia's WP:NPOV guideline, but rather used the language of the advocacy itself
 * 4) You created a section called "activism" for each article but inserted only this specific example, which suggests it is WP:UNDUE - that is, giving weight to one particular example of something rather than considering the bigger picture. In this example, these are biographies of a person's whole life. Are they known for advocating for various causes? If so, writing about that and including examples of it might be "due", but otherwise it just becomes one random example of something they have done when thousands of other things they have done are not included


 * 1. I have no agenda. Any open letter signed by 167 Nobel Laureates is objectively worth inclusion. WP:NOTADVOCACY states "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Whether or not you believe it, I did attempt to use a NPOV. If the problem was a seeming lack of neutrality, I suggest you assume good faith and make small edits to make it more neutral, instead of erasing the work entirely on the assumption that it is advocacy (WP:AGF).
 * 2. WP:PRIMARY states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That is the case here. The paragraph makes no subjective assertions about any controversial topics. It merely summarizes the contents of the letter and states that the relevant person is a signatory. If you disagree with the summary, feel free to change it.
 * 3. Again, I fail to see why it was necessary to delete the content instead of revising it to have a more NPOV.
 * 4. I only created a new section in articles where it did not seem to fit with any other articles. Being a signatory on a letter regarding public policy is almost the definition of activism. Again, if you have another word to use, feel free to replace it instead of deleting John17three (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding #4, why did you delete the paragraph on Peter Agre's article, when by your own logic such a paragraph would fit given his already-existing long section on scientific activism? John17three (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you that an open letter signed by 167 Nobel Laureates is objectively worth inclusion, but I disagree that it should be included in the articles of each of those 167 people, and certainly not without a secondary source. It would be far more useful to find a relevant article on the topic the letter is about, and then include secondary sources that note the letter and its signatories in that article, perhaps naming or linking to some of the most prominent/relevant of those 167 signatories (particularly if the secondary source does). On WP:PRIMARY, that is not the sole factor here, it is the combination of factors, but even then, the most that could be included as a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact would be to say "X signed Y letter". As soon as the content/position/argument of the letter is included, that to me is beyond the scope of what that exception for primary sources is about. Surely if this letter is so significant, there are WP:RS that have noted its existence, so why not find them, and then use them in a relevant article (which could possibly include biographies of signatories in a limited way if that secondary source named them). Melcous (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)