Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 46

SYNTH and summary table in US presidential rankings
Hi. I'm arguing on the talk page of Historical rankings of presidents of the United States about how to treat the overall-summary column at the end of the summary table in that section. It's at least partially a SYNTH problem.

The table is a list of how various polls of historians over time have ranked the presidents. The last column is "most-frequent quartile". This is the "most-frequent" among the polls we've chosen to include in the table, not in any absolute sense, which itself might be a SYNTH issue.

There are two issues we've been arguing over: sorting and how to sum up the overall results.

The first problem (IMO) is that the table is sortable, and sorting by the rightmost column produces misleading results. For example, it typically places George W Bush 2nd from bottom; one time I sorted, it placed Grant dead last. Yes, I understand that this is because the 2ary sorting is whatever the previous sort was (by default, the historical order of presidents); the question is what to do about it. I don't see how the results are encyclopedic, and they are potentially misleading. The obvious solution (for me at least) would be to disable sorting in that column. However, I've been reverted twice, both times with the claim that not making the column sortable is a violation of SYNTH.
 * Sorting

My problem is that the sort order is inherently evaluative. If we sorted cities by country, then there would be no expectation that the resulting order of the cities within each country would be meaningful. There's no evaluation or judgement implied in their order. However, because the poll table ranks presidents according to how historians rate them, and all the other columns with quartile coloring sort according to how they've been rated by historians, and because the quartile colors are intended to make those evaluations immediately visible, with 'best' on top and 'worst' on bottom (or vice versa), it seems to me that it is seriously misleading for the sort order to be jumbled within that overall evaluation, in a way that cities sorted randomly within countries would not be.

The other question is how to decide which quartile (and quartile color) each president should be assigned for their overall ranking in the rightmost column. That is, which presidents should be colored blue, green, yellow and orange, and labeled 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the last column.
 * Counting quartiles

The argument (if I understand it correctly) is that, to avoid SYNTH issues, the overall ranking and quartile color must reflect the modal quartile among the polls of each president. But that can produce some bizarre results. Suppose we have two presidents and nine polls. One is ranked Q3 in 4 polls and Q2 in 5. We label him a Q2 president and color him green. The other is ranked higher: he's Q3 in the same 4 polls as the first, but the other 5 polls are Q2 in 3 and Q1 in 2. We'd label him a Q3 president and color him yellow -- a lower ranking overall despite him having higher rankings in the polls. If we instead sorted by the most frequent half (whether he's rated by historians as above or below average), he'd still be in the top half: if he had been ranked lower by the historians who rated him highly, he would rank higher in our table. Would it be a violation of SYNTH to list the average quartile instead (which would be Q2 for both), so we don't get screwy results like this?

In order for the sorting order of the rightmost column to be sensible, I proposed listing the average rank in the polls instead of most-frequent or average quartile. (There's a table of what that would look like on the talk page.) It was objected that averaging poll results violates SYNTH, and I suspect those of you here probably agree. I'm not arguing for it here, but I'm not clear on how a count of most-frequent poll results would not violate SYNTH if an average of them does -- both are simple ways to report aggregated information. Another possibility would be to use the averages for 2ary sorting, with the hs tag, which wouldn't be visible to the reader. That way we wouldn't tell them that e.g. Grant is on average ranked 33rd out of 44, but when the table was sorted by that column, the resulting order would reflect how the presidents have been evaluated.
 * Averaging rankings

(BTW, I don't know or care much about Grant in particular; I initially chose him as an example on the talk page because I was taken aback when the table sorted him in 44th position, well below presidents that are generally evaluated as worse.)

— kwami (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I don't get why it has summing up quartiles when the polls over-time have different sets of quarters (eg. quarters of 30 does not seem comparable to quarters of 40) -- and do quarters constructed by pedians have any meaning, certainly no meaning pedians can give them. I also don't think average makes much sense when, you have someone who can be 30 in one poll, and 44 in another, just because the units counted in each poll is different. Has a median column, and separately a mode column (for presidents who have a mode) been discussed? Otherwise, doing no summing up column, at all? --Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this should be moved to WP:ORN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * [moved — kwami (talk)]
 * That whole table is an attempt at a meta-analysis of what historians say, and I don't think we should be doing editor-generated meta-analysis on Wikipedia at all. If I was ruler of Wikipedia, the only time editors could do statistical calculations would be when it was verifiable that all the statistics came from sources that used exactly the same methodology.—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole table? Isn't part of the table just listing what 'historians' have done? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why the standing consensus is NO AGGREGATES of Historian generated data in the table. Only basic counting methods are allowed. It's been that way for at least a year by my count. there was a long, drawn out RfC about it, but this user accusing me is very stubborn and demanding to put WP:SYNTH content in the article. Then, when I revert per consensus, they come to my personal talk page to yell at me about it. I have repeatedly asked the user to stop. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

[moved from SYNTH — kwami (talk)]

PS. User there, User:Sleyece, has repeatedly deleted the POV tag I've added to the section. I'd also announced a couple weeks ago that I would be adding 2-3 UK polls to the table, to balance what had been all-US polls. I've finally tracked down the 3rd, from the Times, by subscribing so I could access their archives. He had no problem with the first two, but now that we're arguing about the summary column, he's deleted the 3rd without providing any reason. There seems to be an WP:OWN problem here. — kwami (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I deleted the POV tag once per Wikipedia policy, and we aren't arguing for the record. I would like to make it clear that I blanket REFUSE to engage in this. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You deleted the POV tag twice, and there is no such policy. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:3RR. User is NOT here to build an Encyclopedia. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Most frequent quartile is synthesis and should be removed. In order for it to be meaningful, we would have to weigh the various studies. Some studies, I assume, are more respected than others. Note that Nate Silver in his average of polls does that. Also, since more than a quarter of presidents (12 out of 46) have been elected since the first study in 1948, the quartile ranking seems questionable. I also don't like all the colors used for quartile rankings, which is distracting. TFD (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You just said two different standing consensus on the article should be removed... which is fine, but for the love of God do an RfC! -- Sleyece (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a similar discussion now at No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 43. The article aggregated various lists to determine an order of popularity. The vote for deletion was unanimous. (See Articles for deletion/Popular castles of Scotland.} But just because I think the list violates OR doesn't mean I have to write an RfC. TFD (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your logic is inverted, my good user. Most Frequent Quartile is simple counting, which it is why it was decided on as the consensus. It was specifically put in to avoid any aggregates in the table. Thank you for defending my position, although I didn't need it. I've simply been reverting per consensus. -- Sleyece (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I may not have made myself clear. "Most frequent quartile" is synthesis because it implies that the rankings are of equal weight. Nate Silver, as I mentioned, collates polls for elections. When doing that he weighs the polls according to reliability. He determined for example that the Zogby poll routinely overstates Republican support by on average 1.2% and adjusts them before including in his aggregate. Whether we weigh these surveys equally or adjust them is a matter of judgement, i.e., original research. We cannot do that ourselves, but need a source that does that.
 * My objection to the color coding of quartiles is not an issue of no original research but mostly aesthetics. The other issue is that more than a quarter of all presidents served after the first study was released. the studies are using different lists.
 * TFD (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're still not getting it. Unless we do something like directly remove all the polls and replace it with Nate Silver's aggregate, replacing MFQ with our own aggregate will be replacing a not perfect solution w/ a far grater WP:SYNTH violation... I also have to admit that you're probably right that this is a situation that may not require an RfC if admins determine a replacement solution that better suits Wikipedia Policy. I don't think making the article the "Nate Silver Display Case" is a good solution, but it would solve the problem on the bleeding edge of technicality. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The color coding of quartiles is to accommodate colorblind readers. Something that is required by Wikipedia policy to the greatest extent possible. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Accommodation for colorblind readers should not be a reason to have important info indicated only by background color. Color-only data is also inaccessible to blind readers. For those reasons, it's strongly recommended against by MOS:COLOR. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Missed this but yes Firefangledfeathers is correct. It's an explicit WCAG violation. We shouldn't be figuring out which color schemes are the most accessible to blind or colorblind users because the simple act of indicating information using background colors is a major accessibility issue. You cannot possibly account for everyone with a disability; the best you can do is adhere to a set of standards to create content that is accessible to the broadest application of people as possible, which is the entire purpose of WCAG, and why WCAG is the gold standard in several countries and international standards. SunnySydeRamsay (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD's reference to the Popular Castles of Scotland was spot on. Any metric invented by Wikipedia editors (e.g. most frequent quantile or average ranking) is synthesis. At most, you could probably get away with some qualitative meta analysis in the prose, e.g. "Many historians rank Andrew Johnson among the worst presidents", but creating our own scoring system, even if it's completely derived from reliable sources, is synthesis and therefore original research. Local consensus among the editors of the page doesn't overrule policy. The most frequent quantile column should be removed and it should not be replaced with another aggregating function. pburka (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Just use Nate Silver's aggregation of polls of 538. I don't like it, but to remove the data takes a lot away from the table. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are options to have an aggregated table that satisfy WP:SYNTH, so saying "The most frequent quantile column should be removed and it should not be replaced with another aggregating function" is a personal opinion that is ALSO WP:SYNTH -- Sleyece (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm being facetious because I already know that "Most Frequent Quartile" is neither Synth nor Original Research because of WP:AVRC -- Sleyece (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sleyece, you say that averaging the results violates SYNTH but that counting frequency does not. But both are acceptable per AVRC: averaging results is simple arithmetic. But no-one is arguing that the arithmetic violates policy, only that the comparison does. If counting is acceptable, then averaging is acceptable, and averaging gives better results. My objection to the column is that it can rate an above-average president as being in the bottom quartile. Whether or not that's a violation of SYNTH, it's misinformative and IMO should be removed for that reason.
 * You refused to allow an average score, which would more accurately reflect the poll results, citing SYNTH as the reason, which didn't make sense to me (if one is a violation, they both are), so here we are. — kwami (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The solution to that problem is not to change the aggregator, but to remove older polls from historians that had outdated (and lets face it, abhorrent) personal views. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither aggregation is acceptable. Regardless of how simple the calculation is, neither is "an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." There is no obvious, correct, and meaningful way to aggregate the sources. The fact that you two can't agree on the technique seems to support my position. pburka (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * pburka, Sleyece has said (I think) that he's not opposed to averaging the results, but that he was blocked for doing so, so we must therefore use a simple count. That's why I came to the SYNTH board -- it didn't make sense to me that one simple aggregate would be a violation of SYNTH, but not another, so I wanted clarification on whether that's actually policy. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not opposed to averaging results, I just haven't found a way that doesn't eventually bump synth (all methods I know have been tried). I think removing all of the six polls from before "Sienna 1994" from the table clears up the problems we're having w/ MFQ quite nicely. However, if there is an acceptable aggregate that fits policy better that a basic count, I'm clearly all for it, just cynical about the prospect. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lmao, there's two types of people in the world. Again, you technically solve the problem with a nuke, when you could also solve it with a letter. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind restricting the comparison to, say, 21st-century polls.
 * You said you got indef blocked for this issue, and that from that block you learned that only simple counting of quartiles was acceptable per SYNTH. Your understanding of SYNTH stems from that incident. It would therefore be helpful if you could link to the discussion of how quartile-counting is the only acceptable aggregate calculation. I've looked, but I can't find where that was the reason for your block. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was speaking is the whole. My indef block came when I was an infant editor, and I was trying to do many changes at once to the table we're discussing. The RfC that lead to the establishment of "Most Frequent Quartile" came a couple of years later. However, my entire experience on English Wiki has involved learning and being punished for the policies revolving around that God forsaken table. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:AVRC. It has a section explaining why averaging values from different sources is discouraged. Counting them is equally invalid. If you want to publish your own meta-rankings, use a blog. pburka (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:AVRC is in this case an extension of what Synth is not. And Synth is clearly stated to NOT be intended to be interpreted to be this rigid. Like I've stated several times, this whole table is a maddening bundle of Policy Paradoxes and Logic loops, and you're not going to hit me with a "gotcha". -- Sleyece (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly you're not going to be convinced, but you introduced that essay to support your position, and now dismiss it when it contradicts your desires. Instead, we can look at WP:CALC (an actual policy), which says "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." Presidential rankings are statistics from different sources that use different methodologies, so should not be compared. And you can't aggregate without comparing. pburka (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CALC creates a double violation of WP:SYNTH per above. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Andrew Jackson was once considered one of the greatest U.S. presidents because he was seen as a champion of the common man. But his presidency has been reassessed and he has fallen from 6 to 22. Less spectacularly, his VP, Martin van Buren, has slipped from 15 to 34, slipping as low as 40 in one survey. As statisticians will tell us, averages can be misleading when there is a wide distribution of values. When Jeff Bezos walks into an Amazon warehouse for example, the average net worth per employee is in the millions, although most employees are working for low wages. TFD (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the polls commented on that. I think it was Jackson, actually. There was a split in how the surveyed historians ranked him, some quite low and some quite high, so he averaged out as middling, making him indistinguishable from the crowd of so-so presidents. Now with Trump, I expect his reputation might take a further hit. But whatever you think of him, he wasn't humdrum, so yeah, his ranking is misleading. But that kind of limitation is inherent in simplistic surveys like this. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jackson was unanimously ranked in the top ten in the early surveys and now ranks a lot lower. Why should we give the same weight to a 1948 poll as one conducted in 2021? Obviously the criteria used by historians has changed. And the Democratic Party, which once honored him in Jefferson-Jackson dinners, has backed away and he was adopted by of all people Donald Trump who put his portrait in the Oval Office. Nate Silver would have eliminated the early survey as no longer representative and probably would have given 100% weight to the most recent survey which reflects the most up to date thinking of historians.
 * It's as if in an article showing support for same sex marriage in the U.S., we averaged the 27% of Americans who supported it in 1996 with the 67% who support it today and said support averaged 47%. Not a useful number.
 * TFD (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Though Silver wouldn't give 100% to any poll. He'd weight them, which we can't do. But we could have a cut-off date, say this century. That would probably resolve the few cases when the most-frequent quartile diverges from the average. I'm not sure what that would gain us, though: you can see how things line up just by looking at the rest of the chart. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The colors! I had specifically removed those colors because I had deemed them excessive, imparting no real information atop of the number ranking, and even if they did in a manner that didn't violate WP:SYNTH and WP:IINFO, we'd need some text-based means of quartiling per WP:COLOR. I was reverted by a, who disagreed with my judgement of being unnecessary, before pointed out that WP:COLOR still applied. Even if I'm wrong about the quartiling being superfluous, the column of "Most-frequent quartile" is an obvious SYNTH and WP:NPOV breach.As a brief aside, I had previously encountered an ANI report about another user who coincidentally started with K, concerning WP:COLOR violations in lists created by them in a series that is now facing batch deletion per IINFO and SYNTH. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 23:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see how COLOR is an issue. The colors don't add any info, but rather are just a way to visually organize the data, and as for accessibility were chosen from one of the primary sources recommended by the WP color help page. If they're not good choices, the fault lies there and should be fixed there first. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The sole use of color to convey is a violation of WCAG 2.1 SC 1.4.1. New information is communicated as as one or more mathematical formulas are performed and the results are only communicated through the use of color. A person who is blind or colorblind may have a more difficult experience obtaining that information, whereas if a text-based alternative is provided, the ability to access the content within the article is increased dramatically. These aren't mutually exclusive options either; you can have both color and a text based alternative, and still remain compliant with WCAG. SunnySydeRamsay (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Can we tag the cells the way we add summaries to images for screen-readers? — kwami (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly not sure. Can definitely try it out and then test it with a screen-reading software (NVDA is a free one) to see how it outputs. As long as it communicates the information equitably that would work. SunnySydeRamsay (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Since the unanimous opinion here is that the last column is a violation of SYNTH, no matter how we aggregate the data, I've deleted it. The table is now a simple list of poll results. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this has probably been enough time. Can one of you close this discussion? User Sleyece restored the column, claiming that the removal of aggregated data is a violation of SYNTH! With claims like that, I can't tell if he's editing in good faith. Anyway, if you close this discussion with a finding that the column is a violation of SYNTH, I'll remove the column again and enforce through ANI if need be. If you close with a finding that it's not a violation of SYNTH, then I'll leave it be, and perhaps Sleyece and I can come to an agreement to limit the scope of that column to this century. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even restricting it to this century is a form of weighting. The only aggregates I would find acceptable are min and max, as no weighting is required. Could Sleyece find a compromise around that? (I don't understand the insistence that some aggregation is required, though. The table is fine, and probably better, without it.) pburka (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even the choice of which polls we include in the table is a form of weighting. I read the discussion above as clear consensus against having the aggregate column. But Sleyece insists that not aggregating the data is a SYNTH vio, and that there is no consensus here against aggregating the data. We seem to be in post-truth territory here, but perhaps I'm missing something. Rather than edit-warring with him over it, I would appreciate a clear summary judgement here as to whether the column is or is not a violation -- and if you judge it is acceptable, then for my benefit, explain whether listing the average quartile rather than the modal quartile would also be acceptable. With a clear judgement here, rather than me tallying your opinions and finding consensus, I would feel more comfortable enforcing the decision. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Straw poll
Let's see if we can find a consensus. Please briefly explain your position below. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep: the aggregate quartile column is acceptable routine calculation
Comment Removing the table is also a severe violation of WP:SYNTH, but do whatever you want. I've done my part. This NoR will lead to policy changes in the long run. Removing the table is basically just short term whining and denial of the paradox presented. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete: the aggregate quartile column is unacceptable synthesis

 * Delete. Averaging implies weighting, which requires judgment that veers too far into WP:OR. Even counting the most frequent quartile has biases (selection and recency), but they're more subtle. Just present the raw data and let readers draw their own conclusions. pburka (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherently POV, SYNTH. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 22:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ab initio I take the position that the most frequent quartile column would be a violation of SYNTH because of the note on WP:SYNTH under routine calculations that editors "should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." There are necessarily different methodologies because history is always ongoing, and something that happened twenty, thirty years ago is bound to be viewed differently post facto to some extent. Time is a variable that cannot be properly managed in this table.


 * As to the earlier discussion, unless I misunderstood the thread, from a logic standpoint, removing content should not equate to a violation of the no original research rule simply because one cannot possibly create new research by removing content, and if one did so, I can't think of a case scenario where it wouldn't be a malicious edit. Such a discussion seems to be epistemically misframed. SunnySydeRamsay (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete that column. It violates synth because the poll methodologies are different and the units in the polls are different. Perhaps another way can be found, but not averages, and not this. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * thoughtful aggregation and weighting of polls of expert is research work that should be done by reliable sources, not editors. I see this as a straightforward reading of OR. I can't fathom the counterarguments that removing the column violates SYNTH or that CALC doubly violates SYNTH. I lean toward removing the quartile info entirely for similar reasons. If that data is to stay, it should be communicated in some way besides color. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It's synthesis because it assumes that all the studies have equal weight, although they were taken at different times. The most obvious example is Andrew Jackson, who was once considered one of the best presidents, but has since been reassessed because of his perceived racism. TFD (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:CALC says "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies."VR talk 01:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
This NoR has been "resolved" by using tunnel vision to resolve SYNTH by committing SYNTH. The square peg that was forced into this round hole will likely fall faster than Kabul. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this statement at all. How can removing an aggregate calculation commit SYNTH? If we (hypothetically) deleted the page completely would that also be SYNTH in your opinion? I'm trying to understand your position. pburka (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, deleting the entire page would not be SYNTH I assume. Deleting that column is SYNTH because there are outside sources that use an aggregate for relatively the same data. So, you're just saying you know more than reputable sources, deleting whatever you don't like, and calling it a day. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To which reputable sources are you referring? pburka (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to hold your hand. I already said "do what you want". -- Sleyece (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Michael Collins (Irish leader)
Recommend that unaligned/neutral editors review the Michael Collins (Irish leader) article. Large sections are undersourced or unsourced entirely (see, , , et alia. 2603:7000:1301:281D:2C7B:E55:975E:2648 (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Recommend that you raise your concerns at the article talk page first (which you don't appear to have done) and, only if they are rejected without good reason, come back here to escalate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Original research at Novogrudok


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: 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  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/. -- Po  fk  a  (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)
 * 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 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. -- Po  fk  a  (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. -- Po  fk  a  (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. -- Po  fk  a  (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)


 * 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)
 * 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 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. -- Po  fk  a  (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. -- Po  fk  a  (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. -- Po  fk  a  (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)

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. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Lithuania was established in the 14th century and Mindaugas lived in the early to mid 13th century, so it is an irrelevance to whether Novogrudok was the place where Mindaugas was crowned and it also being the supposed capital of Lithuania, as the rulers of Lithuania (including the Catholic King of Lithuania Mindaugas) were not Orthodox during the whole existence of the Metropolitanate. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:20, 9 July 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)
 * This sentence is spurious because it is illogical, a problem only worsened by the fact your claim has a source with a paywall. How can the author even make such doubtful claims about Mindaugas' homeland when so much is simply unknown? Lack of sources does not mean that it is allowed to invent nonsense. Even worse for your sentence is that what is known about Mindaugas directly refutes such claims, as Mindaugas was one of the Lithuanian dukes (List of early Lithuanian dukes) and, in the 1240s, Lithuania conquered Novogrudok, not the other way around, so that sentence is straight-up lies. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:26, 9 July 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)


 * Total nonsense. It is clearly written and sourced in the Novogrudok article, that: "In 1241, Grand Duke Mindaugas conquered Novogrudok." The falsehood of "Baltic enclaves on Belarusian lands" is demonstrable by the fact that there were no Belarusians as such during those times, ergo no Belarusian lands (just as there would be no Belgians or Americans in the Middle Ages). However, Balts are known, due to Marija Gimbutienė's and other's research, to have lived from the Vistula to Moscow (if not an even larger area) since millennia before Christ. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:45, 9 July 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)
 * Grand Duchy of Lithuania was formed on the basis of the ethnically Lithuanian Lithuania proper. The theory of the capital at Novogrudok was mentioned for the first time after centuries had passed since Mindaugas and the relevant time frame. The claim about the capital has no validity, as for now, the only contemporary mention of a 13th-century capital is Voruta, whose location is a matter of debate, but it was certainly not in newly taken over lands.
 * Any attempt to masquerade that GDL was a Belarusian or Slavic state is a complete misportrayal, as the Kingdom, later Grand Duchy, of LITHUANIA was founded by Lithuanians according to Encyclopedia Brittanica, this research project, this research article and multitudes of other sources. All of these sources are objective and following WP:NPOV, contrary to whatever Лобачев Владимир is quoting. A state can be of a certain ethnicity even if the state is multi-ethnic. e.g. Apartheid South Africa (ASA). The white minority was ruling over the black majority (Zulu people, Xhosa people, etc.). Does having a majority black population make ASA a black state? No - the state belonged to the whites, not to the blacks. So, ASA was founded and maintained by the white Afrikaners - it was a white state. What about GDL? Where there Slavs in it? Yes. Even if they were a majority in some parts of it, which is uncertain due to lack of statistical data and Polonization/Slavicization affecting many Lithuanians, that in no way makes GDL a Slavic State. GDL was founded by Lithuanians, maintained by a Lithuanian elite and is thus a LITHUANIAN STATE. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 22:05, 9 July 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)

Russian sources obviously fail Reliable sources in a Lithuania-related topic due to the Propaganda in the Russian Federation. Provide non-Belarusian, non-Russian reliable source. Encyclopedia Britannica do not support this WP:OR. This English source certainly is not a reliable source and is absolutely not comparable with the Encyclopedia Britannica. '''Novogrudok never was capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is a WP:OR of some Russians and Belarusians, not supported by other reliable sources. The only mentioning of Mindaugas's castle (unknown if it was capital or not) is Voruta. Not surprisingly, location of his crowning is also unknown, thus various modern WP:OR should not be presented.''' Following the conquest of Novogrudok by Mindaugas, the city was ruled by his son Vaišvilkas(Lithuanian reference about this). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC) "Ru: Государство Миндовга не имело постоянной столицы, правитель со своей дружиной перемещался по дворам и замкам, утверждал свою власть и собирал дань. Историки гипотетически реконструировали домен Миндовга, который располагался в Восточной Литве. Миндовг рано утвердился на землях Чёрной Руси (центр – г. Новогрудок); в Полоцке правил племянник Миндовга князь Товтивил, признававший его власть, что положило начало литовской экспансии на русские земли." "Translation: The state of Mindaugas did not have a permanent capital, the ruler with his retinue moved around the courtyards and castles, asserted his power and collected tribute. Historians hypothetically reconstructed the Mindaugas domain, which was located in Eastern Lithuania. Mindaugas early established itself on the lands of Black Russia (center - Novogrudok); in Polotsk the nephew of Mindaugas ruled, Prince Tovtivil, who recognized his power, which marked the beginning of the Lithuanian expansion to the Russian lands."
 * Миндовг (Mindaugas) // Great Russian Encyclopedia:
 * --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Show such statements in Encyclopedia Britannica. :) The fact that you keep reinserting Russian/Belarusian sources only strengthens the obvious fact that you and your friends push WP:OR into Wikipedia and systematically violate its rules on a daily basis. Russian/Belarusian sources can be simply ignored and proves absolutely nothing in a Lithuania-related topic because it is inappropriate to write other countries history from a foreign POV, especially when foreign sources contradict the national historiography, which is supported by democratic countries abroad. This discussion is long enough already, but users Johnny Moor and Лобачев Владимир fail to provide at least one non-Belarusian, non-Russian Wikipedia:Reliable source supporting their statements. Funny, but it was obvious from the start that they will be unable to defend their propaganda with Reliable sources. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just a policy clarification - if there are Belarusian sources that say Novogrudok was the capital, then saying so on WP can not be called Original Research (as the idea did not originate here on WP). I have no opinion on whether those sources are reliable or not… but their existence means the idea is not WP:OR. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would not be a problem if it said that Novogrudok was capital of Belarus, but they are ridiculously attempting to prove false statements about a foreign country - Lithuania and the Lithuanian, non-Belarusian, non-Russian sources do not support such pseudo theories, propaganda. I cannot see any reasons why attempts to distort facts about foreign countries should be tolerated in an encyclopedia (Here to build an encyclopedia), which is based on facts. Would we, for example, accept statements from various Iraqi sources, which would claim that the United States is a terrorist state or just imagine if we would rewrite article United States based on sources from Iran? Toleration of false information about foreign countries would quickly open the Pandora's box in Wikipedia. This discussion has clearly shown that when I asked to provide at least one reliable non-Belarusian, non-Russian source these editors were not able to do that. That's a perfect illustration how fake these statements are and this is a clear violation of Reliable sources, but it is not surprising as these sources were published in an authoritarian states. According to No original research: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", so it is clear that no reliable sources were provided as of now, therefore it is a baseless WP:OR. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear, as you can see, this issue is very much politicized by modern Lithuanians. Who refuse to take into account any source that mentions it in any way, saying that it is either evil Russians or Belarusians. In the article about Novogrudok itself, if you noticed, there were not only Belarusian and Russian sources (and after all, the sources may be simply Russian-speaking without reference to Russia itself), nevertheless, the Lithuanian participants refuse to take them into account at all, since this contradicts their doctrine, which they are ready to sift out in any way. It is useless to prove to the Lithuanian participants that either is useless, you have seen for yourself their loud statements and the pressure with which they push their point of view. Johnny Moor (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So will you finally provide a reliable online non-Belarusian, non-Russian source supporting statements that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania? Save your and others time. I provided articles from Britannica which are fully neutral and completely reliable. Here is one more which says that the Belarusians had no state until 1918 (Belarus | Britannica). We don't need your walls of texts in which you baselessly blame the Lithuanians for denying your fairy tales. Afterall, Belarus and Russia are currently considered as an authoritarian states, so rejecting unreliable sources about other countries is understandable. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your judgments that Belarus and Russia are "authoritarian states" and therefore their opinions cannot be taken into account are worth a lot. You didn't care that many of these sources were written a long time ago, some are even chronicles. That is, if some source was written in tsarist Russia, Kaiser's Germany or Austria-Hungary, then it is forbidden to take them into account, so there were authoritarian regimes there? Do not accuse us of promoting "fairy tales", while you are doing the same thing that you accuse others of. And your link to the Briatnik does not show anything at all, because it is generally empty from your own words. Is it normal to insert a source where there is no information at all about the described event? And you still refer to the original research everywhere here, despite the fact that you have not provided any reliable source refuting this theory to any of your statements. And most importantly, where did you see in the article about Novogrudok that "The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is an exclusively Belarusian state", where did you get such interesting statements? You are sitting here all day promoting the Lithuanian national agenda, while "we are still wasting time". You would have done something useful, not rewriting history. Your recent statements are pure Xenophobia, I note that none of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian editors have ever refused or scolded Lithuanian resources, which is what you are actively doing. Your behavior is disgusting and not worthy of Wikipedia. Johnny Moor (talk) 11:09, 09 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As expected, yet again none neutral sources were provided to support false nationalistic claims about the history of Lithuania. Pure pseudoscience and baseless accusations. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on SYNTH, OR...
Hypothetically speaking, if I had reliable sources which claimed, for example:

parameter at all, I would suggest you stop using that as 1) it makes citation sections too big and 2) it is a red flag that the citation is too complicated to support what is in the article. Second, you need to switch the sources you're using from cases (primary) to secondary sources. You'll notice that in these FAs, there are many citations to books, a couple to newspapers, a couple to law reviews, and a couple to cases. That is probably the ideal balance in this topic area. Your style of citing all cases probably works great for an attorney in a courtroom, whose job it is to make persuasive arguments using any available precedent they can find, but this does not work great for the job of an encyclopedist, whose job it is to concisely summarize mainstream views and scholarship and obtain the correct WP:WEIGHT. The skillset of an encyclopedist is not identical to the skillset of a great lawyer or legal scholar, please listen to skilled encyclopedists who are trying to teach you their skillset. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I deal mostly with immigration-related articles. Those cases you cited have nothing to do with immigration. Some of the "quotes" could be removed, including some of the cases, I have no issue with that. I added them for the convenience of readers so they don't have to click on the sources. I also have no issue with sources other than court opinions, and I never stopped anyone from citing them. Immigration-related articles are mostly visited by attorneys and immigrants or aliens. That's the reason why I wrote them that way. "The proliferation of immigration laws and regulations has aptly been called a labyrinth that only a lawyer could navigate." --Libracarol (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The article reads more like a legal paper than an encyclopedic article. In exlaining the law, legal experts will consult case law and explain how it evolved and which parts of decisions are binding. Typically, they will reference numerous cases to show that earlier decisions are still accepted as precedence and the various instances in which they apply. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, articles are not supposed to do this, they are supposed to summarize what these papers say. TFD (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, will you clean up your articles?
Hi. By my count, including the WikiProject Law talk page thread, we are at 9 editors stating that court cases (including Supreme Court cases) are primary sources, and 2 editors against (including you). At this point I think we have a very strong consensus that you are incorrect about this. Most of these editors also agree that you are engaging in original research, and some have raised WP:NPOV concerns as well. Are you willing to make a statement that you understand that this is the wrong way to write Wiki articles, and also commit to cleaning up your existing articles? – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're making this as a court opinion where the majority's opinion controls but that's not how things work in Wikipedia. It's the quality not the quantity that matter for resolving the issue here. You know one editor can email all friends and invite them here? And you know that some editors have more than one user name? You saying Supreme Court opinions are primary is unsourced POV. Only admins can decide if I'm engaged in OR but you're not an admin.--Libracarol (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Shrug. I've been trying to convince you of community norms patiently and politely, only escalating to the next noticeboard if/when you are inflexible. You've got 9 editors (8 very experienced, including an admin) and Identifying reliable sources (law) telling you that we do things a certain way, yet you are still not convinced. You sound like a subject matter expert so it'd be great to convince you of our community norms via persuasion rather than sanctions. But it doesn't sound like we're getting through to you. Bummer. Sounds like we'll have to go to yet another noticeboard. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll always be ready wherever you take this issue to. May I remind you that everyone might laugh when you say to them that a written opinion by Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and accessible through Harvard Law School is a primary source and not a reliable secondary source.--Libracarol (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Libracarol, they will not laugh, I can tell you that for sure. In fact, they might consider that there may be a WP:CIR issue at play here. JBchrch   talk  14:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We shall see.--Libracarol (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Related discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol cleanup
The ANI is over and ended in a topic ban. So I guess all that is left to do is clean up. What approach should we take to cleaning up these articles? At a minimum, probably need to put primary tags on all of them. We could also do other things if we judge it to be necessary, such as replacing the large citations with citation needed, TNT, draftify, AFD, etc. By the way, the list above is not exhaustive, I have found other articles in the user's history that have the same issues that are not included in the original list. How shall we proceed? Can a law editor spot check one of the articles and let us know how bad the OR is and what their recommended course of action is? Maybe spot check one of their creations and also one of their overhauls (overhauls are likely to not be as bad. example: ). . Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've generated a list of all pages that LC has edited here, with redirects and minor edits removed. Unfortunately some of these single edit pages are still large edits (e.g. here) so we need to check all of these. I'll go through these slowly, but if anyone else takes on any please just remove or strike through the entry on the list when you're done. Alyo  (chat·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 16:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a first step, I would suggest to stubify the articles for which Libracarol has 90-100% authorship (if they are not eligible for AFD). (We can check one by one the XTools data for each of the article in the data pulled by : see for instance for Title 8 of the United States Code here, despite a single edit.) Given what has transpired here and at ANI, we know that a significant part of the content will not meet the relevant standards, and I think it would not be cost-effective to sift through every edit and every citation to find what little can be kept. IMO, and  imply some sort of AGF by the "tagger", but I don’t think we can assume much here. I'm ready to do it myself and take responsibility, btw.  JBchrch   talk  16:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

List of right-wing terrorist attacks
This very lengthy list has very few inline references. My concern is that a lot of the items in this list are not "terrorist attacks" - they are just racist or other hate crimes. Not all hate crimes are terror attacks. For example, the Murder of Mireille Knoll, the Murder of James Craig Anderson, and the Death of Sean Kennedy were all horrific hate crimes. But nothing about them suggests that they were terrorist attacks. For that matter, I don't see anything in any of these articles that ascribes any particular political views to the assailants, so I'm not sure how these are "right-wing" occurrences either. (They are most certainly "hate crimes". But just being a "hate crime" does not make something "right-wing terrorism".)  I think this list needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb and anything that doesn't have a reliable source calling it "right-wing terrorism" or perhaps "neo-nazi terrorism" should be stricken from the list. I'm also not entirely convinced that some of the 1960s things belong on here - for example, Medgar Evers was literally murdered by a Democrat and the Democratic governor of Mississippi appeared in support of him (the murderer) at his trial. So I'm really having trouble with this list - it looks like someone cobbled together a list of every hate crime and declared them to be "right-wing terrorist" attacks, with no reliable source for that designation on any of them. --B (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Much the same can be said for most Wikipedia articles on 'ideologically-motivated-terrorism', all across the political spectrum and beyond. Rife with POV pushing, OR, and poor or non-existent sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * When we provide this type of list, I think the list itself should be supported in reliable sources. Since right-wing terrorism is terrorism motivated by right-wing ideology, it is often difficult to classify, since we don't necessarily know the motivation, particularly with individuals involved in one event. Most right-wing terrorists, unlike other types of terrorists, are mentally disturbed and act alone, which makes the determination of motivation difficult. They tend to act alone because they are disturbed and unable to trust other people.
 * The other issue is that other types of terrorism, such as religious, single-issue and nationalist can be committed by people who are right-wing. Orange terrorists for example tend to be right-wing and religious, but the motivation for their terrorism is ethnic/nationalist: they want to keep Ulster in the UK.
 * Organized terrorism is easier to classify, since in is easier to determine the motivation of a group.
 * TFD (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Before considering whether each item meets probably undefinable criteria, such as finding an RS that can define 'right-wing' as a coherent ideology, a proposal for deletion might be a better investment of time. ~ cygnis insignis 14:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * CAUTION - This is an area that is prone to original research. First and foremost, labels such as “terrorism” and “terrorist” are extraordinary claims and thus must be supported by VERY reliable sources.  And even then, we should use in-text attribution to make it clear to our readers exactly who has applied the label to the event or person. To then add an ideological modifier (whether political, religious, or other), we also need extraordinarily high quality sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 'must' and 'should' are very nice sentiments. Unfortunately it has been amply demonstrated that the Wikipedia article-creation-and-editing process is incapable of actually maintaining content that complies, when dealing with such subjects. 'Anyone can edit', so the POV-pushers do. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * To add, since "terrorism" can have legal implications (acts of terror tried with more penalties that other crimes without that motivation), these should be based on what authorities have classified the crimes as, not simply what reliable sources say (as they will tend to call a lot of things terrorism that aren't actually tried as such). And since rarely do authorities include "right-wing" type aspects in this classification, this entire list is pretty much a violation of NOR. --M asem (t) 15:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that "right-wing" can be established even without the media calling them a right-winger - for example, if they are a member of a "right-wing" organization. But for a whole lot of these (probably the majority), there is no such membership - it's just the assumption that any hate crime must be a "right-wing" perpetrator, which is obviously false. --B (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of order, Medgar Evers was murdered by a Klansman, who were very much right wing. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Democrats were very much on the right wing of American politics. His assassination, if not terrorism, was definitely political violence committed by the right wing. BSMRD (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's more a modern re-interpretation / rewrite of history than anything they would have thought of themselves as being. FDR's New Deal was as progressive or more progressive than anything today, for example.  Just because the Democrats were the racist party at the time doesn't mean they were "right-wing". --B (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean if you think Strom Thurmond and his Southern Democrat ilk were leftists I can't stop you, but I think they and anyone who has written in depth about American politics at the time would disagree with you. Regardless, the important thing that makes Evers' killer a right-winger isn't that he was a Democrat but that he was a Klansman. BSMRD (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If Medger Evers' killer was "right-wing" and a "terrorist", then you should be able to find a reliable source referring to both of those characteristics. Certainly someone who is a klansman today (or a Proud Boy or a member of some other similar organization) is almost certainly "right-wing" and simply their membership in that organization would satisfy the requirement to demonstrate "right-wing".  But in the 1960s, the lines were much more blurred.  So if a before someone who is a member of such an organization in the 1960s is called a "right-wing terrorist", I think a reliable source for the characterization of them as "right-wing" needs to be provided.  Certainly Strom Thurmand's political views are well documented and "right-wing" is appropriate for him.  But I don't know (and it needs to be shown) that Medger Ever's killer was "right-wing". --B (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Before I do, and assuming there will attempts to retrofit citations in support, is there a reason NOT to propose this for deletion? ~ cygnis insignis 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I could not think of one either, so opened Articles for deletion/List of right-wing terrorist attacks. ~ cygnis insignis 12:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the AfD has closed as "keep", there is quite a bit of clean up needed, IMO. The article death of Sean Kennedy, for example, describes a vile homophobic attack but I don't see how one homophobe bashing and killing a gay man makes the attacker or his actions "right wing" and nor are they terrorism.  There are homophobes who do not have any interest in politics, nor do they espouse a right-wing ideology (or left-wing ideology, for that matter).  A homophobic assault is not necessarily intended to terrorise.  Assigning such motivations without solid evidence in RS seems to me to be a manifestation of OR, which this noticeboard exists to address.  172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Unitary state
Originally the government types on Wikipedia in the infoboxes came from the [www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ U.S. CIA World Factbook - here] which under "Government" tab listed what each government's type is.

Someone came along and created all new government types, it seems to get away from that convention and has been creating new ones such as for Barbados on Wikipedia they were calling it a "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Since republic this has become a "unitary state parliamentary republic" To which I stated it needs a reference. Nothing in the government has announced that change to which the unitary state page was pointed to without any firm sources but goes on to call many other states "unitary".

At the time the U.S. CIA World factbook called Barbados a : "parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy; a Commonwealth realm".

Guyana is called a : "parliamentary republic" Trinidad and Tobago is called a : "parliamentary republic"

This unitary state page seems to use a single page to say what a "unitary state" is but that site doesn't define every country and only lists a handful. So where are the rest getting their confirmation from in order to not be original research? If this is going to be used as a reference for all of wikipedia shouldn't it have profiles for each country with a designation that they attribute to each country to be conclusive? CaribDigita (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Assange mini-stroke possible synth
At Talk:Julian_Assange there is a discussion about inclusion of whether to include that his fiancee Stella Moris said Assange suffered a mini-stroke on the 27th October on the first day of a hearing into his extradition. One objection is that putting it in would amount to synth, "... Moreover, juxtaposition of a statement about Assange's health with unrelated content about his court appearance would constitute SYNTH and could mislead our readers". It seems a bit much to me to remove the information because it happened during the hearing. Is synth really saying that or should it really be put in a seprate paragraph and no mention made of the hearing or what? NadVolum (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * When writing a biography, one normally does so in chronological order. Which generally results in things that happened at around the same time being described in proximity in the text. I suggest that the article merely reports the facts according to whatever reliable sources we have, and leaves it to the reader to decide whether there is any connection between the events described. It is generally better to assume readers have the ability to think for themselves... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
 * The article is not organized chronologically and frankly, I've seen no biographies of controversial living persons that follow such a scheme. Or even bios of the long-departed e.g. Jonathan Swift Isaac Newton Horace.
 * At any rate, the issue of Assange's health has repeatedly been raised by various of his supporters, attorneys and others in several contexts to plead for denial of the extradition mandate that is the subject of current discussion and the article section in which this content was inserted.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if his state of health has been raised by his attorneys, it would seem rather strange to omit content regarding said state, since it is clearly relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * . It has not been raised by his attorneys nor by anyone else other than his consort, as far as we know.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be contradicting yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not clear. This claim that he suffered a stroke has not been raised by the attorneys or magistrate in connection with the legal proceeding that is the subject of the section in which the stroke claim was placed in the article. Also, please note that on this noticeboard the issue OP raised is whether this is SYNTH or might promote a synth association between the health claim and his legal standing. As to whether this content is DUE WEIGHT or whether it might qualify for some other section of the article, I believe those are questions for other WP venues.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, we are writing a biography of Assange here, not an article on formal court proceedings. Regardless of whether Assange's attorneys have raised this specific claim or not, multiple reliable sources have chosen to report it, while discussing the trial. See e.g. the Sydney Morning Herald, which not only reports the claim, but draws attention to Assange's "dishevelled" appearance during the hearings, which it seems to think relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Biographies are not required to be in chronological order, particular the way we usually push off Personal Life details to their own section and leaving clear career factors in the "main" section. Unless RSes have tied the mini-stroke to the trial, it would be inappropriate to highlight it there, and within a Personal Life section, could be said "ahead of his October 2021 trial..." --M asem (t) 19:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Assange's state of health isn't just a 'personal life' issue if it is seen as relevant to the trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a small personal life section that gives a bit about his former wife, his fiancee and children. Actually looking at it now I think some of it relating to his imprisonment should perhaps be in the main chronologial part and cut it down even more. The stroke happened on the first day of the hearing. NadVolum (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is the notional synthesis? If this implication drawn from a combination of sources exists, we should at least know what this notional synthesis is. It's certainly not apparent from a reading of the proposed article text. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 20:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. I've not seen anything being discussed here which looks like synthesis. No novel conclusion is being drawn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Placement in the section relating to his trial will suggest to many readers that there is a connection between this (undocumented) stroke and his legal case. His supporters have insinuated claims of health risks into many of Assange's prior and ongoing conflicts with authorities.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So, no actual novel conclusion at all then. Just sourced and relevant content you'd rather not see in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting Specifico that there is no synthesis. Were there to be a connecting clause or even merely a conjunction, joining or providing a connection between the preceding content about the hearing and this content about a mini-stroke that occurred during the same hearing, one could make an argument of synthesis (but not a strong one).


 * No such clause or conjunction has been proposed. The notional synthesis was illusory (or invented). It’s entirely appropriate to place a separate sentence, about an incident that took place at the exact same time in Assange’s biography as another event, in proximity to the description of the latter event. Obviously. What you claim, without any evidence, that "his supporters" (you give no indication how you know who they are) have "insinuated" is of no relevance or consequence to this discussion, except inasmuch as your belief may go some way to explain the exceptionally poor judgement you exercise as to what content policies are relevant to this issue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you have reliable sources that tie the stroke to the trial (beyond noting the stroke happened on the first day of the trial), it is absolutely synthesis and coatracking of an undue aspect (medical health) to his legal situation. I don't know if there are sources or not that comment on the stroke and the impact on the trial, but they absolutely need to be there to make that strong a connection outside of Wikivoice. --M asem (t) 01:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You write of that strong a connection. There is no connection whatsoever implied in the proposed text. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 01:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Placing the information about the stroke outside of a personal life section and alongside the trial is coatracking that information, which is synth and not appropriate. --M asem (t) 04:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From WP:COATRACK (an essay, not policy, incidentally): "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects". The subject of the article is Assange. Everything in it relates to his personal life. Including his health, and the trial. There has already been much discussion in reliable sources regarding claims over health problems as possible grounds to halt extradition. And there is nothing in policy that dictates a biography arbitrarily divide related content into different sections, purely to avoid placing content together because some contributors would prefer that readers not be allowed to come to their own conclusions about possible connections within it. If such a policy were ever enacted, and enforced, it would make writing biographies impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With (still) no explanation of where this notional synth or coatrack arises, this remains an unsupported bare assertion. Proximity alone is not a basis for tenuously claiming two unconnected sentences about two events that occurred on the same day to the same person as a synthesis. That’s not in the policy, and as Andy says, such a policy would make writing BLP next to impossible. Which is presumably why consensus has not seen to include that in the policy (nor indeed has anyone ever suggested it). The article subject is Julian Assamge’s life, not the intricacies of a court case. The section subject is also Assange’s life, in the most recent period. The notion that including an event that occurred in the relevant section of his life is a coatrack is not grounded in reality. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 09:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Stella Moris certainly did make a connection to the trial and his previous treatment in what she said but the proposal did not include any part of that. That would just be her opinion. I guess others might make that connection too but I think we'd need something better saying there was or was not a connection before going down that path. It is a pity her statement about him having had an MRI scan and being on stroke medication is omitted in the green listed perennial souces at WP: RSP and only in yellow ones currently - there was someone at the discussion saying basically it might all be a lie by Stella Moris, they'd need an MRI to check and why is it not on the BBC site if it is worth putting in the article! NadVolum (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia won't accept it as wikipedia censors it. But for those who do like the truth. Julian Assange's dad did an interview yesterday on RT America stating his son had a stroke. CaribDigita (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Rosemarie Koczy
Rosemarie Koczy is an American Artist known for her her many works dealing with the Holocaust, who she claimed to be an survivor of. These claims and her Autobiography was examined by German historian in 2017, who came to the conclusion that her biography was forged and neither Koczy nor her parents were subject to persecution by the Nazis. The Historians have since published a broschure in German (which follows scientific standards e.g. presenting sources in footnotes) were they present their research. Both the New York Times and Deutsche Welle wrote articles about their research (there are more articles in german). Both Articles present the forgery-claims not as facts, both also dont contest the conclusions of the historians.

The Wikipedia Article about Rosemarie Koczy currently dismisses the claims of forgery as unproven and false. One of the editors of the articel Yashchi argues, that he read the broschure and didn`t found it convincing. He presents multiple counterarguments on the Talk Page against some of the conclusions of the broschure, which I in turn don´t find convincing, but which also (under my understanding) constitute Original Research. He wrote an Email to the authors of the New York Times and Deutsche Welle Article about the forgery claims which contain the same arguments he presents in the Talk page and presents these as a source for the Wikipedia-Article itself. These Mails, which are provided in form of an Affidavit, and the arguments on the Wikipedia Talk Page are (aside from a statement by Rosemarie Koczys husband) the only rebuttal of the forgery claims made by the German Historians. I tried multiple times to propose paragraphs that show the conflict from a Neutral Point of View and show both sides of the controversy. Yashchi currently blocks any changes that try to present the forgery claims from a Neutral Point of View with reference to his counterarguments on the talk page and demands that ""if anybody has issues with the facts or arguments that I used, please present them on this Talk page""

- Yashchi He also demands that the authors of the broschure have to defend their conclusions and debate his arguments on the Wikipedia Talk Page.

When I removed the claims that are only sourced by his affidavits (containing his E-Mails) and formulated a paragraph that presented the claims by the german historians not as "disproven" but only rejected by her husband, he accused me of "Libel" and claimed that removing his affidavits was "illegal". (you can read my proposed formulation here) I dont want to discuss the forgery claims or Mr. Yaschi rebuttal in depth, because from my understanding this would constitute Original Research but I exchange all my arguments with Mr.Yashchi and could use an outside perspective (maybe I`m in the wrong?). Qwerwino (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * is clearly an WP:SPA. Since creating the Rosemarie Koczy article in 2008, every single edit that Yashchi has made has been on the topic of this bio, except for this single edit in 2016.  Only being interested in a single topic is fine, but not if  it is
 * "creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia" (quoting WP:SPA).
 * Yashchi's posts have a clear agenda in relation to Koczy's wikibio that includes treating an affidavit that he has written as an RS and treating his OR conclusions, that dismiss published materials, as definitive in article space and in Wikipedia's voice. I have no idea whether the allegations of forgery are true, nor whether the content is covered in an NPOV and DUE way, but I can see that Yashchi appears unwilling or unable to follow project norms and policies, appears to have a personal agenda, and is creating a legitimate reason to question his neutrality.  I agree with  that there is a problem with OR and with third opinion contributor  that, even as a SPS, Yashchi's affidavit is problematic for inclusion.  Yashchi's response is dangerously close to violating WP:NLT, stating to Firefangledfeathers that:
 * In relation to your comment on libel, the Wikipedia policy also protects "recently deceased" people, so there is nothing metaphorical about my characterization of a false forgery claim against her as libel. Note that this claim appeared within 10 years of her death. Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that libel is also defined by the law of the land and not only by the Wikipedia policy. In relation to your suggested compromise, I consider removing Affidavit-2 which exonerates an unjustly accused person as an intentional libelous act - so, it is morally unacceptable (by agreeing to that, I would also be breaking the law).
 * And then, to Qwerwino, declaring that:
 * In relation to you question on proposed continuation, you can contact people in Wikipedia dealing with libel. I can see a clear push to smear the name of this prominent artist, and this might be the right time to get them involved in the process.
 * As I see it, there are two issues here:
 * What to do about Yashchi, his legal comments, and his agenda? If he does not start to recognise WP policy and norms, this may end up being evaluated at WP:COIN or at WP:ANI.
 * What NPOV and RS-supported content is DUE for this wikibio?
 * 172.195.96.244 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I dont want to cause Yashchi any problems and recognize his contributions to the Article about Rosemary Koczy.
 * I just think that the forgery claims should be included in the article without being wrongfully dismissed as "unproven" or "false". I`m new to wikipedia, so I dont really know how to proceed. Should I just edit the page again, knowing that Yaschi will likely just change it back again? That seems like an "Edit War" that should be avoided.
 * I added a new section to the Talk page about the brochure and the different conflicting sources concerning Koczys life story, that may clarify what content would be NPOV an RS-supported. I still think that my proposed edit from december presents the controversy in a balanced way. It relies on Yashchis depiction based on Koczys Memoir and simply supplements it by the corresponding conclusions of the german historians, without taking a position itself. I would happily discuss critique, suggestions for improvement or alternative formulations based on the Wikipedia guidelines and not Original Research or Refusal to engage with the brochure or the articles reporting on it.
 * Qwerwino (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)