Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis.
  • Include links to the relevant article(s).
  • Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.
Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II.
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:

  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.
  • For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Include large RCT as primary research in text (RFC)Edit

We have a discussion whether a large clinical trial should be mentioned in the flavan-3-ol text, even though it is primary research. Any comments to reach a consensus would be appreciated. There is no dispute whether the study is primary research - it is whether it meets the criteria specified in WP:MEDPRI to permit inclusion.

Lavender Oil Capsule ResearchEdit

Lavender_oil#Uses current wording:

  • A 2021 meta-analysis included five studies of people with anxiety disorders. All five studies were funded by the manufacturers of the lavender oil capsule used, four of them were conducted by one author of the meta-analysis,[13] and blinding was not clear.[14] In this analysis, an oral 80 mg dose of lavender oil per day was associated with reduced anxiety scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.[13] Due to the limitations of these studies, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.[11]

Where [13] is reference to (von Känel, 2021), [14] is (Generoso, 2017), and [11] is (NCCIH info page, 2020)

  • Explanation of this wording choice by its author[1]

Thank you for helping out.

Discussion of content provided that does not exist in cited sourcesEdit

Hello, in the article BMW G 310 R, we are discussing the possible use of original research. The editor who added it states that information not found in a source, is true because it isn't found in a source. I'm pretty new so I may be wrong but I believe this is original research based on Wikipedia's core content policy. The discussion can be found here and additional expert input would be appreciated. Talk:BMW G 310 R#Not Feature Lists containing original research. A third opinion was obtained and they are in agreement that it is original research but the original poster is adamant it is not. Advice would be appreciated if this is original research.

Cartoon portraitsEdit

I've noticed recently a number of additions of cartoon portraits to articles - see for example Célestine Hitiura Vaite and Chela Sandoval. While I'm aware OR rules are a bit looser around images, I don't think these are accurate representations of the subjects. Anyone have thoughts on how to approach these? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say no, unless we know it is a portrait done with the acknowledgement of the person. Unlike realistic attempts at portraits that do not exaggerate details, cartoon portraits may unintentionally exaggerate parts that the person does not want. Masem (t) 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the captions are also not in English. All of the images were uploaded to Commons by Mina Kara (talk · contribs), but these images were added to the articles by Celinea33 (talk · contribs) along with their infoboxes. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ugh, those are ungodly amateurish, they should not be used as the primary image for a BLP article. NOTE - at least one of the images thus far has been added by user Turktimex3. Not by adding the image directly here, but rather by making a call to Wikidata, where the image was uploaded. This may get messy to untangle if there's more of this. Zaathras (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion reminds me of this RfC: Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article and the whole "Wiki Unseen" project: Some1 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I see I was mentioned here, I don't have much time now but these portraits are part of "les sans images", an initiative by "les sans pagEs". The topic was already discussed before, and it seems accepted, in the en:wiki, see here Celinea33 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are allready quite a few portraits of renowned people which are paintings Joan of Arc, Jesus and with no real clue if these are realistic depiction.
IMO having a drawn portrait is better than having none, and so far there were only two complaints of living persons and the pictures have been replaced and / or changed according to their wishes, or the personnalities have themselves given a free licensed photograph.
Most of the drawings were made by professionals, I would not call them "ungodly amateurish".
The same problem exist with photographs (who was the famous actor who complained about his picture in a press article?).Of course if the persons don't like these, we can change them, but if they don't I don't see the rationale for retrieving them. Hyruspex (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not if they're still alive. WP:Biographies of living persons rules set a very high standard for how living persons are portrayed on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to Hyruspex — these are professional, Free representations of the biography subjects. WP:BLP would obviously apply if these were derogatory, but I think it's a big stretch to suggest that professional illustrations cannot be used to illustrate a biography, especially when no other Free images are available to do so. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For deceased persons that were prior to the age of photography (and thus generally will be in the free image realm), I would expect that we use imagery that academic works have identified as that person, rather than original images. So while the Joan of Arc lede image is clearly not photorealistic, it is, for the time it was created, an accurate representation of her, based on historians. Masem (t) 13:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please take a look at Wiki Unseen, an initiative by the Wikimedia Fundation that I think is great.
Portrait drawings are very regularly used in the national press (Le Monde, The New Yorker...) and I think it is a very good solution to illustrate Wikipedia. Alacoolwiki (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its a terrible idea for living persons, and too amateurish for WP. It was a really bad idea for WMF to run that without thinking of the outcomes on the individual wikis. Masem (t) 04:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't share your point of view. This type of illustration is tending to become widespread in the major newspapers and newspaper websites. There are professional illustrators who contribute to WP and it is a very good way to diversify and acquire new members. Alacoolwiki (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we had a professional illustrator that showed a body of freely licensed works that clearly met the expectations of reasonable accuracy to the subject, that might be allowable. But without that, we're looking at amateur works that simply just don't pass muster. Masem (t) 02:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria, see for example Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article and Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_March_8. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see someone already mentioned Xavier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've had people uploading and using illustrations they've created for a long time. When there are no free images and it doesn't meet NFCC, it's often the only way we can get an illustration into an article. I don't think this is an area where NOR is an issue. I don't think BLP is a big issue in any case I've seen, either, since even a sub-par illustration is better than none (just like how Wikipedia uses thousands of really terrible photos of people because it's all we have). If the subject doesn't like it, the same advice applies as with the bad photo: give us a better one and we're typically happy to use it. Beyond people, a huge number of our dinosaur articles use user-created illustrations, and a lot of our scientific diagrams rely on user-created content, too. This is pretty common, and it's disappointing people think it's ok to insult these contributions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User-created diagrams are one thing. I've contributed some myself. Even some cartoons for example from the infamous JJ McCullough are good illustrations like villain. However the idea that it's OK to use illustrations of living people without in any way an RS or those people personally stating it ABOUTSELF is problematic because we have no way to know verifiably if it depicts them accurately (without I guess, doing original research, right?) Andre🚐 23:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is it different from any other image that relies on a Wikipedia user taking the photo or creating the image? None of those involve RS, either. You're taking the word of the photographer that it depicts the person/subject claimed. The people depicted in these illustrations will be more "verifiable" than many subjects we have because there are almost always going to be publicly visible photos of them that you can just search for (as is the case with the person at the top of this thread). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other images aren't necessarily a living person, and a caricature of unknown relationship to that person. A photograph tells 1000 words as they say. A cartoon tells the brush strokes and line strokes that may or may not be "on model" to use a term of art. Andre🚐 23:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, my concern is not all illustrations, but these particular cartoons; and the concern isn't quality but accuracy. A user-created illustration can accurately represent something, or it can ... not. IMO these fall under the latter. Compare the Xavier discussion cited above - I actually quite like the design/quality of the image in that case, but it too does not accurately represent the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't this belong on WP:BLPN, or perhaps even WP:VPI? DFlhb (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no problem with these portraits. More importantly this isn't the right forum to discuss it. An illustration is really no more likely to contain original research than a photo. pburka (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone doesn't see a problem with the likes of the images to the right, then I'd be a bit gobsmacked. These are chintzy. Zaathras (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree. Some of the previously mentioned images have some merit, but these don't really add anything to the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, they don't add much and I can see people finding them problematic or upsetting. Which isn't automatically a reason to remove them, but is there a good reason why we should have them? Particularly these like those shown on the right: not particularly accurate, simplified, caricature-like illustrations. Not very flattering or descriptive. Andre🚐 23:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images are fine, but most importantly they're not original research. Sketching a likeness of a person based on a reliable source is no different than writing prose in your own words expressing the same ideas as a reliable source. They may not be to everyone's taste, and if you think they can be improved you're welcome to do so. pburka (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kind of think it is different. It involves interpreting the material and recreating it in your own style. Andre🚐 01:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What we get is the artistic vision of the creator. It's not necessarily what we want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could pull up any of literally thousands of low quality photos for ridicule, too. Are they ideal? No, but they're what we have access to. If you don't want to use lower quality images, find something better. If we have an illustration of a subject, then absent of clear arguments as to why they don't adequately depict the subject, we should include them. That is, default to include but decide on a case-by-case basis, like we do for photos. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't want to use lower quality images, find something better. No, we should not be doing that. No image at all is leagues better than a terrible amateur drawing. Zaathras (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Which images are terrible/shouldn't be used may require case-by-case discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photographs don't artificially create new styles or the like (outside of choice of lighting and positioning used in some portrait photos). These images are user-added creativity (beyond simple mechanical changes) that go well beyond what a photograph does. Masem (t) 04:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My take: Our goal with an image is to accurately present what the subject looks like. A photograph is the most accurate, and thus preferred over drawn/painted portraits. A realistic drawing or painting is acceptable if no photo is available. A non-realistic drawing or painting (such as a cartoon) is acceptable ONLY if nothing more realistic is available.
And… upgrading from less realistic to more realistic is encouraged. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update. This issue is becoming a bit concerning, as another user Turktimex3 (talk · contribs) is going on a rapid spree of additions of inappropriate images. I'm not sure where this discussion should even continue, as the issues are multiple. Something blatantly unflattering and cartoonish, File:Ellinah_Wamukoya.jpg, is being used on Ellinah Wamukoya, thus a BLP concern. Johanne Nielsdatter is adorned with File:Johanne Nielsdatter.jpg, the description tag of which is literally "An illustrated idea of Johanne Nielsdatter, whose actual appearance is undocumented", thus blatant Original Research. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of those looks like it might be a traced derivative work therefore a copyvio too. Andre🚐 01:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. The one of Wamukoya should be removed. Not because Zaathras doesn't like it, but because it's obviously a derivative of this photo. The Nielsdatter image is the first one I think makes sense to talk about on this noticeboard. An illustration does need to be based on something. The illustrations at the top appear to be based on an impression from many other photos/illustrations. If there's enough written about her appearance (or, in this case, death) such that not too many details are pulled from the artist's imagination, it might be ok. That particular illustration looks like it might as well be a stock image of a woman being burned at the stake, though. In other words: if there really is too much OR involved, it should probably be removed; if there are no extant images, but there are very detailed descriptions (kind of like what WikiProject Dinosaurs bases their "dinosaur restorations" project on), then there may be cause to include them; if the images are created based on an impression from many extant images then they're almost always going to be better than nothing as long as they're not a clear derivative. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, tap the brakes a little here, this isn't strictly an Ugly Image Crusade. The quality of the images is just one aspect of the issue here, but the first few that I stumbled upon were really bad, I find the style of File:Célestine Hitiura Vaite.png particularly distasteful and unflattering. I'm not opposing paintings en masse, have come across some that are rather good, e.g. the one at Nancy Tuana is decent. But there is a lot of lax sloppiness out there that should be discussed. Zaathras (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find this subject interesting, so was talking to a non-wikipedian artist about these illustrations. Her take was that a lot of the illustrations work well (including all of the ones created through Wiki Unseen), but when it came down specifically to the three displayed above, she pointed out a lot of problems with the two on the left and I think I may be persuaded that they should be omitted from the articles. For Sandoval, in addition to arguably being a bit unflattering, the skin tone has been changed, and that's a potential BLP issue. For Vaite, it's not simply a low "resolution" illustration -- it just doesn't really depict the person it purports to show. The cheekbones, shape of the mouth, shape of the eyebrows, shape of the eyes, etc. are all off the mark. The main thing tying her to the photos is the flower, but it's a different flower worn on the other side (whether there's significance there I don't know). Fundamentally, would you be able to recognize the person based on the illustration? In that case, probably not, and that's probably the most important question. I have no problem with simple, user-created illustrations, but I guess I wasn't really scrutinizing the proportions/details. These should still be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on an actual analysis rather than simply "they're bad". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another complication is that some of this has been done at Wikidata, Turktimex3 is aware of this discussion, but has thus far declined to participate. Zaathras (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please let me know if the image to the right is better than no image at all. Some1 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say no image is better. Compare that to the actual person - . Zaathras (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The portrait on Robina Asti is fine and not cartoon style like the others presented here. If there are further proper portraits like Asti's, then I oppose the removal of those ones. Also, I don't see a consensus here on this subject yet, so please don't go on a removal spree of your own accord, Nikkimaria. SilverserenC 02:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rather than a "spree", I'm assessing whether the images appear to be a accurate depiction of the person. I wouldn't agree that that one is, but if you feel otherwise we can discuss it specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is that drawing a derivative of this photo (from the New York Times article[8])? Some1 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It certainly resembles this. And it shows why we really shouldn't be drawing illustrations based on copyrighted work. Andre🚐 03:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is a shame if it is a copyright issue, as that image is actually quite nice. Zaathras (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose to sketches used for living people or subjects for whom it should be possible to eventually find a photograph. For historic subjects, there's obviously a precedent of using paintings or drawings, but in almost all cases those paintings or drawings were done by professional and often notable artists, not by hobbyists. The recent additions from User:Turktimex3 are for the most part ridiculous and embarassing for an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's much further than what's even being asked here. You oppose all sketches (what about other forms of illustration) for BLPs, because we might get a photo of them at some point in the far future? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drawings and digital simulacrums
  • Strongest possible oppose - It's a question of original research or copyright washing. Either the artist making the cartoon is copying another work that can't be used due to copyright, or they're adding their own "interpretation" based on a blending of other people's work (cf. original research), or, in the worst-case scenario, they're simply inventing things out of zero. This is a very important discussion that have. Please see here for a discussion on this topic on Village Pump from a few years ago. I cringe every time I see File:Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi painted.jpg. I don't think it should have ever been allowed on Wikipedia. That's just my "strict-constructionist" interpretation of No OR. Why, for instance, should that cartoon be allowed (and featured on the Main Page) but others be deleted given that they're both based on copyrighted works? Is it because the artist of the former based it on multiple copyrighted works and, thus, diluted his derivativeness? Wouldn't it be, then, an OR issue? And remember that modern technology can create digital simulacrums of people based on multiple copyrighted pictures. Where does that fall into this? -- Veggies (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Is it because the artist of the former based it on multiple copyrighted works Yes. The idea is that if you look at many, you can have an impression of the person's likeness that you can use to draw them. To be deleted on Commons (where the copyright question should really be addressed), you typically need to be able to point to one or two specific images it's a clear derivative of.
    • Wouldn't it be, then, an OR issue No, because we apply a looser definition of OR to images. Same with photos. Is the lead image at fish crow a fish crow just because I said it is? Verifiability comes from e.g. searching for other images of the subject and/or reading descriptions of the subject.
    • Where does that fall into this? - Currently, Commons applies the same "is it a clear derivative of one or two images" sort of examination to AI art, meaning most of them are allowed [for now -- it's very much unsettled legally]. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes. The idea is that if you look at many, you can have an impression of the person's likeness that you can use to draw them. That's the definition of original research. Thanks for admitting it.
      • No, because we apply a looser definition of OR to images. Same with photos. Is the lead image at fish crow a fish crow just because I said it is? The policy itself reads: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light." And that's directed at photos, not random doodles by anonymous internet artists. Are you seriously trying to argue that the policy that prohibits photo manipulation as unacceptable distortion is just fine with wholecloth invention by an unaffiliated party—especially regarding living people? Please! As for your "fish crow" analogy, there is nothing to even hint at the possibility that the lead image isn't a photograph or that that photograph isn't of a bird. The fish crow is not an individual of which there is only one that looks the same—it's a species—of which people are freely able to find and photograph themselves. At worst the lead photo is not of a fish crow but of another species of bird, which a knowledgeable reader could then point out and correct. How, exactly, can someone "correct" a drawing? Or are you arguing that once someone slaps together a doodle of a person for a Wiki article, it's inviolate because "hey, I 'read a descriptions of the subject' and who are you to say otherwise"? -- Veggies (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veggies: Hey, I commissioned that drawing of Jashodaben. If you think it might be a copyright violation, then either you or I can bring it to commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I support that, and you can present your reasoning. I do not think it is a copyvio because it is an original portrait based on a lot of photos and videos that I listed in the Commons metadata.
There is a separate issue of whether this or any drawing is any good, or whether we should have original art at all. In this case I wanted the art because the person is extremely high profile but also out of public view, and unlikely to be photographed with a free license. I think this has been a top 0.01% article by popularity since I published it, and readers like having images. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. I'm not planning on nominating it for deletion. I simply dislike the principle of a Wiki editor drawing a picture themselves of an individual person for an article. It's the definition of NOR to me. -- Veggies (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is this turning into a vote? I'm against inclusion of such images in almost any circumstance. The one thing I want to clarify is that something brought up above is whether an image is "flattering" or not. While images certainly shouldn't be used as attack images (and policies already exist to delete them on other grounds), and very low-quality work obviously never "has" to be included, I don't think this should be the major fulcrum of analysis. The main concern is accuracy. If a flattering, yet imaginary, image is created of a subject, it should still not be used, and probably deleted from Commons as well. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that we feature portraits painted in the 1600s of figures from the Greco-Roman classical era that are based on wild guesses, or for that matter 1600s noble portraits that aren't accurate either. But those weren't done by random Internet users. In the unlikely scenario of a notable artist independently creating such artwork and licensing it freely and at least attempting to be accurate... maybe, because then the art itself might be relevant. But if some well-meaning volunteer artist decides to just take every person missing a portrait and let their imagination run wild? No. It's better to have no image in such circumstances, especially if there are subtle factors in play that might get solidified by a misleading representation. Maybe the subject is French and the artist depicts them wearing a beret and carrying a baguette, but the artist didn't notice that the subject's parents and family were immigrants to France from Spain and thus wasn't part of the "standard" cultural milleiu. That example is fairly harmless, but it can get bad real fast, like that famous bar painting of the Battle of Little Bighorn (I think?) that depicted the Sioux with Zulu-style shields. The rare cases where a modern imaginary portrait are allowed should be WP:YESBURO style approved - here's the family giving a sign-off, here's proof the artist did some research, etc. It should be the exception, not the rule. SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think this meandering discussion (flattery? copyright? quality? professionalism? accuracy? WMF influence? BLP?) can really end in a clear consensus except as it relates to some of the specific images, but just in case someone decides to cowboy-close this with some sort of quasi-binding finding of consensus, here's a summary of where I fall: we should illustrate articles. If we have a good photo, use it. If we don't have a good photo, an illustration is perfectly acceptable as long as it's not a copyright violation (something which can be sorted out in Commons DRs rather than on enwp) and as long as it depicts the person reasonably accurately (ask whether you could recognize the person based on the illustration). Just like we don't typically remove our only photo of a subject because it's low quality, so, too, we shouldn't remove illustrations just because they're low quality or "unprofessional". Remove them if they don't accurately depict someone. If it's a BLP, then whether it's particularly unflattering can be considered. So support use of amateur illustrations in general, but oppose certain cases (which I described above). All in all, this is something that should be determined on an article-by-article basis, and not based on the personal preferences of a couple editors following amateur illustrators around to multiple articles to impose their own version of wikipolicy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I strongly object to your characterization of the matter, consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt. User Turktimex3 has had nearly all of their additions reverted, by several editors. Their tactic of going to Wikidata to shoehorn the images in there has also now been raised at that project's admin noticeboard, as this has for the moment necessitated the addition of a suppressfields=image parameter to every biograph in question's wikidata line. Zaathras (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you articulate consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt in a way that reads more like a wiki guideline? We're not going to make a rule for one user's images, so what exactly at the limits here? You have multiple people above who seem inclined to prohibit any and all user-created illustrations on the ground of NOR, which would obviously take something more like a well-publicized RfC to take effect, you have people with opinions about the specific images mentioned here (sometimes varying between images), opinions about what should/shouldn't be considered when evaluating an illustration, etc. If you were to close this, what precisely would you say there's consensus for? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you were to close this.... Turktimex3 would be blocked, and we would continue to rid biographies of illustrations, if there are any left. Zaathras (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since I asked what there's consensus for, you're saying there's consensus in this to remove all illustrations from biographies? All user-generated biographies from biographies? All illustrations added by Turktimex3, but not others? Just the ones identified in this thread? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This side tangent of yours is no longer worth my time. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If we don't allow information in BLPs other than what reliable sources have verified, how can a drawing by an editor pass BLP? It can't. The only exception to RS use in BLP is WP:ABOUTSELF. These drawings fail BLP by a mile. And a larger discussion should be had at VPP if policy needs to be clarified but honestly BLP already covers it. Slywriter (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FYI, used User:GerardM/100_Women_-_BBC to weed out a few more of the glaringly obvious cartoon images. Drawings that at least have a semblance of professionalism/accuracy e.g. Zheng Churan have been left as-is, though others may object. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Although there seems to be no consensus on using / not using such illustrations on wikipedia, there seems to be a tracking of some editors work to remove all of their content related to uploading such images. I don't think this is done with a collaborative spirit. Such illustrations when there are no others provided is useful and brings value to the articles. Photographs are also providing depictions of BLP that may not be "realistic" all of this is very subjective. These mass removal are problemetic IMO. Hyruspex (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your assessment of the consensus of this discussion is rather off the mark, as all but 3-4, including yourself, have expressed concern or outright opposition to the usage of some of these types of images in biographies. User Turktimex was approaching a block for his belligerence until finally backing off. I would say that if you are about to visit these articles and restore bad images back to the lede or infobox, that would be, well, unwise. Zaathras (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From my point of view, I would find it very serious if the images were deleted in a grouped and systematic way from Commons. Alacoolwiki (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This isn't Commons. Just because drivel is allowed to be uploaded there has no requirement that it be used here. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Once again, the point has been dodged. The more important question isn't whether doodles like the one on the right provide anything of value. I would argue they don't. It's whether these drawings are passable given the BLP and NOR (and copyright) issues that have been brought up above. I haven't read a convincing argument to the contrary as yet. Many of these drawings are simple copies of copyrighted photos found on the internet. I've tagged many of the obvious ones on Commons for deletion as derivative works. It's little different than trying to Flickrwash a photo as your own. As for your silly argument farther above that we have illustrations of Jesus and Joan of Arc: well... yes, they didn't live in the time of photography and, more-importantly, the images of Jesus and Joan of Arc and other historical figures on those articles are not ones scribbled up in the past few years, but historically significant works dating back centuries, usually notable per se, typically some of the earliest depictions of that figure, and all necessarily in the public domain. It's farcical to expect a photograph of Jesus and beyond egotistical to compare the ancient manuscripts, frescos, and statues that editors have selected for their quality in portraying these historical figures in their respective articles to no-name amateur caricatures, some plagiarized, and others totally invented out of nothing by Wiki editors and calling them "professional" and "commissioned" works. Further, however "subjective" a photograph might be, it presents whatever passes through the lens and onto the photo sensor. The photographer can choose the moment and maybe the lighting and setting if it's a staged shot, but whatever goes through the lens is recorded. For that reason, photo manipulation is greatly frowned upon on Wikipedia. The subject should be presented as clearly and close to reality as possible, when possible. That's why the preferred medium is photography. -- Veggies (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Rhododendrites. There's a mix of deep ignorance combined with a juvenile attitude that it is ok to mock people on the internet. If you don't like these portraits and don't think they add value to the article, say so respectfully on article talk page and discuss what better options there are. Having no likeness of the person is a dire situation, and one that Wikipedia is fairly unique in having since most publications can afford to licence professional material. Anyone who thinks a camera doesn't lie or can't be used to flatter or ridicule the subject needs to do some learning, frankly. I think this sort of discussion demonstrates clearly some of the problems of Wikipedia, where you get effectively a "Lets ask a random person on the street a complicated question they've never thought of before" combined with "Yes you know nothing at all about the subject, but please tell the world the opinion you just made up right now" invitation. Certainly, those editors have said they are going through Wikipedia removing "cartoon" images they don't personally like need to stop right now. Go read Wikipedia:The parable of the wildflowers. -- Colin°Talk 12:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Having no likeness of the person is a dire situation, no, have a terrible image is far more dire than no image at all. those editors have said they are going through Wikipedia removing "cartoon" images they don't personally like need to stop right now. It is always peculiar when people speak with authority that they clearly lack. When we come across an unflattering, unrealistic cartoon illustrating a BLP, we are duty-bound by policy to remove it. Zaathras (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If someone took an unflattering or illegible photo of a living person whom we don't otherwise free imagery available, we are not required to use it. For example, we'd reject a highly-zoomed image of a living person that is blurry and barely recognizable. The same principle would clearly apply to illustrations created by Wikipedians. We have no requirement that every BLP (or biography page even) must have an image. We'd like an image, but the image should be of the person in a recognizable fashion and does not unfairly portray the person. Masem (t) 16:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Having no likeness of the person is a dire situation There is absolutely nothing "dire" about an article without an image of the subject in question. There are plenty of featured articles that don't have any likenesses of the person. What silly hyperbole. Anyone who thinks a camera doesn't lie or can't be used to flatter or ridicule the subject needs to do some learning There's a reason why most biographies of people post 1880 have photos and not artistic depictions of the person. There's a reason why articles of animals and plants and objects all prefer photos rather than drawings. As I've argued above, photography is the most neutral medium for capturing the subject. No one here has argued that a photo can't "lie", "flatter" or "ridicule" someone. Quit throwing out straw-man arguments. -- Veggies (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts (16), we get the point. Masem's now seems to be arguing we should apply the same principles to photographs as to illustrations (such as whether they are unflattering (well, that's not necessarily our priority to flatter), illegible, barely recognizable) whereas earlier he argued the problems were specific to illustrations. Not sure what Veggies point is, but I'm glad to see nobody is any longer suggesting (a) there is some policy against user-created illustrations and (b) NOR has anything to say about illustrations. It is a red-herring to bring this complaint to this noticeboard. Pick up any portrait photography book and you can learn how to add or remove 20 years from a subject, make the ugly beautiful and vice versa, make the powerful weak, make the weak powerful, add or remove femininity or masculinity, add or remove weight, curves, chins, spots, rosacea, make someone grey go white-haired, give someone dead eyes like a shark or twinkle like a fairy, make someone look like they are about to cry, or make them look malevolent. The very idea that illustrations are fundamentally OR or more OR than photographs is ridiculously naïve. By all means discuss their qualities respectfully, but don't go deleting stuff because it is a user generated illustration. There's no policy behind that at all, and positively destructive to our mission to educate within our limitations. -- Colin°Talk 21:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree, there is a NOR issue with creating a caricature or a likeness of a person by looking at 8 photos of them and trying to capture their essence. That is original artistic thought. I don't think it's a clear-cut case of a violation of the policy. I think it's just that we should probably discourage the creation of images that BLP subjects might dislike, disagree with, or find offensive. The idea of a photo used for someone on Wikipedia can annoy or upset the subjects of the articles even if it is a likeness of them. We should tread carefully on the "educational value" of a crude drawing of a human. Aside from the potential copyright and derivative work issue, there could very well be a lot of problems with your idea that anyone can modify a photograph or an illustration and claim that it is a reasonable representation of the original subject. Not to mention in 2023 we have issues with AI created art and deep fakes which can affect copyright. I think this practice should be discouraged. User-created illustrations should be used for inanimate objects, diagrams, or charts and graphs or other aides to understanding a concept, like maps and timelines - NOT for human beings. Andre🚐 21:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but that's more of a you problem. Neither I nor (I believe) anyone else has suggested a 100% blanket removal of non-photographic representations of living people from Wikipedia articles. Rather, it has been the removal of the most atrocious examples. I will personally nuke from high orbit any use of the File:Célestine Hitiura Vaite.png style in a WP:BLP. Finally, yes, illustrations are more fundamentally Original Research than photographs, the notion that anyone would claim otherwise is absurd. That is the core of the problem here, that until this discussion began, some BLPs were adorned with caricatures. Not authentic images, but caricatures. Zaathras (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Andrevan, you can write words on the page, and have done several times in this section, but that doesn't make them so. An illustration is no more OR than when I read sources and write a summary of their facts in words that are entirely of my own choosing thought up out of my own head. The only NOR we have for images is at WP:IMAGEOR and you will notice the use of "image" and not "photograph" and that "Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light". You could argue that an individual illustration fails that criteria just as a photograph may, but the various points you have made in this discussion are entirely false. You have an opinion, but it isn't in any way based on policy or practice. -- Colin°Talk 21:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A false or disparaging light is exactly what I'm referring to. You just quoted the exact policy and practice that supports my argument. Andre🚐 22:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts (16), we get the point All users are welcome to participate fully in any complex debate without some ad hoc limit. I don't see anything Zaathras has written that was uncivil toward a user. Not sure what Veggies point is, but I'm glad to see nobody is any longer suggesting (a) there is some policy against user-created illustrations and (b) NOR has anything to say about illustrations Since you're having trouble, I'll make it as simple as possible. WP:NOR literally states: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image." This is a firm policy, directed at photographs. Is it your contention that the policy that prohibits image manipulation by a Wiki user on a photograph is copacetic with any doodle or Microsoft Paint scribbling being passable for a person's portrait? Please! The very idea that illustrations are fundamentally OR or more OR than photographs is ridiculously naïve. I'm flummoxed as to how a person can type that with a straight face. Photographs per se are whatever passes through the lens of the camera onto the sensor. The setting, lighting, and object can all be staged beforehand or manipulated post-production, but it's as passionless and accurate a medium as possible. That's why we use them to illustrate virtually any article about a post-1880 person/object. It's the best medium for illustrating a topic. The idea that an illustration isn't OR or more OR than a photo is absurd. Even if you were drawing from life, which many of these "artists" obviously aren't, you are still limited by your skills with a brush, pencil, etc. That fundamentally introduces a bias that a camera does not have. Now, if you aren't drawing from life, then you're using other people's photographs (yes, that's right: photographs!) to try to circumvent the prohibitions against copyrighted material on Wikipedia. Are you seriously saying (with a straight face) that the photographs that these Wiki editors are using to make their illustrations from are more biased and OR than the illustrator who's literally copying them?? It's enough to make a cat laugh. -- Veggies (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Photographs per se are whatever passes through the lens of the camera onto the sensor I'm flummoxed as to how a person can type that with a straight face. Zaathras has made many uncivil posts. Guys, just stop. I get your arguments. They were wrong the first time you made them. -- Colin°Talk 21:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I suppose I'll take that as it is—which is you dodging every argument and disputation that many users here have already made. -- Veggies (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well I don't feel the need to specifically argue against all the wrong stuff on the internet. It is up to you guys to point at policy and say here, in black and white, is text supporting the argument that has been agreed on by the community. All we have are a few opinions of people who clearly don't know much about portrait photography or illustration and that don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Life is too short to pull them all apart. You can for sure argue that a random photograph might generally be superior to an illustration and might often capture the subject more faithfully, but there isn't anything about the latter that is forbidden, and we have lots of illustrations of people both historical figures for which there are no photographs and less so for recent figures. That you may be unfamiliar with the use of illustrations to depict a recent person perhaps suggests you should expand your reading material, for it is more common that you think. -- Colin°Talk 22:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Colin, your tone is getting quite combative and I think you should consider that at best, opinion is split on the approach here and that there is if anything, no consensus for some of the particularly non-representative, original illustrations to be used. Andre🚐 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

particularly non-representative, original illustrations to be used - there is the problem. A "WP:NOR" citation is an expedient veneer of procedural fact stuck onto what's really at issue: a subjective content dispute over whether a certain illustration is good enough for an article. You can just bypass the article-level consensus-building process by just citing "NOR" and use that as justification to mass revert, edit war, insult, and dismiss (mainly thinking of Zaathras and Veggies more than Andrevan and Masem). In other words, the NOR argument does not have merit in the context of our image practices, but that doesn't mean we have to display any image just because they exist, either. You just have to be ready to have the debate on a case-by-case basis rather than attempt to point to this as evidence. If a handful of people here are looking to follow through on the NOR argument, I'd be happy to help shape a straightforward RfC (which would need to be based on user-created illustrations and/or user-created illustrations based on many images of a subject -- BLP, quality, etc. are separate issue). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zaathras has contributed quite enough insulting posts, Zaathras has made many uncivil posts. First off, Colin, it's pretty creepy of you to keep speaking about me in the 3rd person, within a thread in which I am an active f#$%ing participant. If you have a problem, then either 1) address me directly here, 2) come to my talk page, or 3) follow a course of action at WP:DR. If you decline those options, then kindly keep my name out of your mouth. Now, policy and consensus here already support the limiting of unrealistic image use in biographies, and I see no reason to change course. Also, as far as I am aware, the matter has largely cooled off. There was one rather belligerent user who refused to participate here and who edit-warred to restore a handful of images. But it appears the threat of a block by an admin has righted that ship. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has "cooled off" in the sense that you and Veggies have been edit warring across many articles and even across projects to remove these images, citing this discussion to say "no cartoon portraits" and "NOR issues". That you have forced your way and insulted people sufficiently to get your edits to stick doesn't mark this issue as resolved. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my humble opinion, only Turktimex3 was "edit-warring", for which he was reprimanded. That user has since uploaded several non-free images as replacements, which may or may not be suitable but that is up to another venue to discuss if someone wants to. I note your acknowledgement of the image relocation at Esra'a Al Shafei, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The majority of the contributors to this discussion are opposed to your views. You have dodged the many points and argumentations that have been brought up. Now you have the chutzpah to declare ipse dixit that we "forced our way" and "insulted people sufficiently". Remarkable. -- Veggies (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This started of as users mocking what they considered badly drawn cartoons. I look at Veggies contribs and see them edit warring to remove high quality illustrations. You guys need to stop. There is zero policy, especially not OR, to remove good quality illustrations of a subject. Numbers of people in this discussion are not relevant. It isn't a vote. It doesn't need lots of people to say "you are flat out wrong" before you should be getting the message. The policy page itself explicitly says you are wrong. At the moment, Veggies, you are on a WP:IDHT path to an AN/I topic ban on removing images.
This policy begins, "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." The words "original research" do not mean "user created" because the text on Wikipedia that is not inside quotes is supposed to be user created, and many of the photographs I've taken are user created. The policy explicitly exists for "facts, allegations, ideas" that cannot possibly be verified because they are not based on a published source. Our policy explicitly permits user created images, and that includes artworks of subjects whether living or dead (see WP:BLPIMAGE, which says nothing about artworks). Artworks may well be considered second-class to a good photograph by many users (though we have no PG to say that) but that doesn't mean they are in any way to be removed from articles leaving nothing. You can argue about an illustration that it is totally unrepresentative of the subject or puts them in an unfair bad light. And if the image is a copyright violation, it can be deleted on those grounds and I'd fully support that.
Veggies, unless you have copyright reasons, and an ongoing deletion review on Commons/Wikipedia for an image, please will you self-revert your image removal. Otherwise, I think I may be required to ask an admin to prevent you removing them. I hope that is clear. Your insulting colleague may also end up joining you on the naughty step. -- Colin°Talk 08:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maria Felipa de Oliveira or Luisa Mahin? How can we know?
This started of as users mocking what they considered badly drawn cartoons. No. This conversation started out of concern that the cartoons were not representative of the subjects and were very low quality. And that's a point that many people in this conversation agreed on. How ironic that you bring up "inventing a consensus" elsewhere. There is zero policy, especially not OR, to remove good quality illustrations of a subject. I'm not sure if you're aware, but many of those so-called 'high-quality' illustrations were proven to be straight-up copyvio derivative works that I had to spend my time investigating, tagging, and taking down. The "artist" who made them uploaded them as their own—basically copyright-washing other artists' photos—and licensing them as their own free-use work. (As an aside, I'm 100% certain that all of c:User:Little maquisart's drawings are derivative copyvio). And, now, when I take them (and other dubious illustrations) down, and raise the very serious question of where and how can these illustrators know what these people look like (apart from the equally-serious question over quality—for which many examples have been thumbnailed here), whether user-created illustrations of things as complex as a person's likeness constitute OR (I obviously argue that it does), and how editors dedicated to the project can ensure readers that an illustration actually is the person it's portraying (see the side-by-side images here), I get threatened with a topic ban. Colin: it's your privilege to go speak to an admin anytime you want. I'd be happy to answer for anything I've done. Go ahead. -- Veggies (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just looked at Zaathras's contribs back to 16th and discovered they also removed a bunch of images from articles citing this discussion. And those were specifically discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive333#Image question which was very positive about them. This kind of action, where an editor invents a consensus that isn't there, and goes on a spree deleting stuff from articles, is very much the kind of thing folk get blocks and bans for. So I'm asking Zaathras to also self-revert. The editors working on those articles are perfectly capable of judging if images are appropriate and don't need someone going around the project with a scythe.
This sort "destruction of things I don't like" activity is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is about. This is a collaborative editing project where the whole community work in various ways, in writing, in photography and in art, to inform readers about a subject. Smashing stuff that others created (whether with insults as on this page or with the editor removing illustrations) is not on. -- Colin°Talk 10:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The changes made to remove the images from pages appear to be fairly easy to undo, and certainly far from "smashing" the work of others. Images are still available at Commons. Also I am having a hard time find the claims of insults being thrown around by Zaathras in this discussion. That's not helping to keep this civil. --Masem (t) 18:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, nobody has disputed that images that are copyvio should be removed and discussion of that belongs on another forum. But Veggies first post here was "Either the artist making the cartoon is copying another work that can't be used due to copyright, or they're adding their own "interpretation" based on a blending of other people's work (cf. original research), or, in the worst-case scenario, they're simply inventing things out of zero.". For the middle clause of their claim, they are flat out wrong. And this flat out wrong is the only bit that is relevant to this noticeboard. If the images don't bear any resemblance to the subject (or are entirely fictional) then that's dealt with by existing explicit policy text, so no need to ask here.
Masem, as for "claims of insults", here they are:
  • Ugh, those are ungodly amateurish
  • If someone doesn't see a problem with the likes of the images to the right, then I'd be a bit gobsmacked. These are chintzy.
  • No image at all is leagues better than a terrible amateur drawing. (originally "a shitty amateur drawing" when written, to give a flavour of the language being posted here)
  • this isn't strictly an Ugly Image Crusade
  • Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt
  • Drawings that at least have a semblance of professionalism/accuracy
  • This isn't Commons. Just because drivel is allowed to be uploaded there has no requirement that it be used here.
None of those comments are appropriate on this project. I don't know how you can have a hard time finding them as I have a hard time finding a post by Zaathras that isn't concerned with mocking people's contribution to the project. There are ways of commenting on the work without insults and mocks. That needs to stop. Masem, I don't think an argument that an editor going around deleting content from articles is "fairly easy to undo" is in any way relevant to whether that behaviour is acceptable, particularly when accompanied with edit warring and insults and an editor who is dislaying IDHT on the policy. I don't think "Well, my edits are fairly easy to undo" ever got anyone out of jail at AN/I. It is a wiki, we all know any edit is intrinsically easy to undo. You are just inventing reasons to defend Veggies, and that's not helpful. -- Colin°Talk 19:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of those are insults directed at editors, only the content added. I routinely see normal text only edits removed on the basis of being too amateurish, or other factors along WP:CIR, and the comments above are all in the same ballpark for images.
The problem is that these are umprofessional-looking images, particularly if we are talking BLP and a photograph is possible. There is a very valid concern that several editors agree with here. Sure, the language could be less colorful, but the end of the day the issue is that there is something wrong with these non realistic images that does come down to artistic skill. There's no way to not discuss the amateur nature of the works with pointing out how poor they look. So no, no kne is going out of their way to insult the contributions, as that's the essential element of this discussion.
And in term of "easily indone", the bar we use is at WP:FAIT.. mass changes that put a difficult onus on editors seeking to undo (such as mass AFDs) are strongly discouraged. Whereas the image removals from articles are a simple undo click away.
You also may want to step back and look at the accusations that you are throwing against other editors, including myself. Eg, I am not defends Veggies here, I am standing on the need to avoid the cartoon-like images since they do not provide a respectable image for the subjects given. That aligns with Veggies' take but that doesn't mean I am scrambling to find reasons. I know what us expected of images via policy and MOS and these simply aren't appropriate. Masem (t) 19:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I'm asking Zaathras to also self-revert. Well, no, I will not be doing that. As others have pointed out, my criticisms are directed at the poor quality of the content, not the contributor, so you need to kindly drop that tangent or go try to make hay of it at WP:ANI or wherever, but with your incessant bomb-throwing, I'd suggest ducking. Here's something you can do - pick one image that I have removed, and let's all have a discussion at that talk page. Any of your choosing. Zaathras (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the top of this page is says "This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis." It is not a forum to discuss the artistic quality of images, whether BLP or not. This page is does not exist to change existing explicit and clear policy wrt user-generated images nor is it here to establish some minimum technical standard for artistic ability that can the be cited to permit mass removal.
There was a discussion on four images at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive333#Image question. The images were regarded favourably. All four were deleted from articles by Zaathras, citing NORN, which falsely implies there were OR policy issues. One of the articles has got a good quality photo now. The other three do not. I note that these images were created as part of "Les sans images" and "BBC 100 Women" projects, so their removal is doubly concerning in that they are the destruction of big community projects' output. They should be restored.
Earlier Zaathras wrote wrote at Talk:Marie Magdelaine Mouron that "We're not just going to go onsey-twosey with you to every article talk page about this, and if you continue to edit-war unabated, this will wind up at the Admin Noticeboard, WP:ANI, and that may not be a happy ending. This is an odd way of framing a reaction to the revert of a mass deletion, as though it is the other guy who is being destructive on a mass scale. We see Zaathras's reaction to the idea of having to argue about every image. But the thing is, those images were removed without individual discussion. Without consensus at all, just the opinion of an editor. So, no, I don't want to go around Wikipedia having arguments with Zaathras about their quality. That timesink is very much why I stand by my earlier comments that such mass deletion is destructive. Masem, no they can't be restored with the click of a button. There's an obstruction in the way, in the form of an editor who has so strongly and insultingly expressed their opinion on the Internet, that they have dug themselves into a hole wrt backing out, and who has demonstrated they are willing to revert to keep the images out. This asymmetry, where mass deletion without consensus is easy but individual restoration with per-article talk is hard, is why you are wrong, Masem. The first step is for Zaathras to restore the images they removed, and then if they wish, for Zaathras to work gain consensus at each article talk page for their removal. They don't have that consensus currently. -- Colin°Talk 09:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two earlier statements are most concerning. Firstly Zaathras was asked how they might close the discussion (and rephrase their earlier "consensus is pretty clear that Amateur Hour is being brought to a screeching halt" comment) and they responded Turktimex3 would be blocked, and we would continue to rid biographies of illustrations, if there are any left. Perhaps Zaathras wants to strike that, as it is as clear a "Please take me to AN/I to get me topic banned" a statement as one could make. Secondly, that here they "FYI, used User:GerardM/100_Women_-_BBC" to identify material they went on to remove. That's specifically targetting a community project in order to remove some of its output. Again, I don't know if Zaathras wants their account abbreviated, but actually telling people that you targeted a community project to destroy some of its output isn't helping. -- Colin°Talk 10:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colin: why are you going back and editing your day-old, previously-signed, and already replied-to comments? [9] -- Veggies (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least with the four images from that prior discussion, those would have a chance (IMO) of being kept, though still need to merit discussion. They are at a midpoint between amateur and professional works.
And while I agree that per ONUS, should the consensus reflect that we keep all amateur-looking image, then I would expect Zaathras to restore the removed ones. But right now, the consensus appears to be keeping them out, so Zaathras appears to have taken a bold step to remove them. That said, they should also be careful about performing any additional removal of images until this consensus is decided, per ONUS as well. Masem (t) 13:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm honestly no longer going to read or reply to Colin's messages going forward, just a brief skim at most for the slight possibility of something useful, as his behavior is unsettling and bordering on harassment. As for "any additional removal of images", I think that would need to be evaluated case-by-case. If Colin goes on a unilateral revert-spree, that obviously won't be allowed to stand. Or if I find any further images we missed of the File:Célestine Hitiura Vaite.png style, I will remove it as a WP:BLP violation. Zaathras (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing your consensus, Masem, and remind you this is not the forum to discuss whether "amateur-looking" images should be deleted from Wikipedia articles. Most reasonable editors haven't sought to use it for that and chose not to comment on that. That not everyone here wants to argue against editors who insult and bully others and boast of using a wiki project page to find material to destroy doesn't mean they agree with them. It seems mainly those editors who think Wikipedia is a place to insult people's artwork thought this was a page to enlighten us of their artistic opinions. Its the NORN noticeboard. If you wanted to establish that kind of consensus, never mind the blanket removal of illustrations on biographies that Zaathras above claimed to be permitted by the consensus they imagined at that time, you'll need to go big, really big. I don't think you stand a chance of doing so on Wikipedia. And what really do you think would happen if you had such a doomed RFC. It would just be another place where juvenile ignorant insults were thrown at the work of artists who contributed in good faith. I'd have no doubt these two editors here would create a gallery for mocking, and throw every insulting adjective they have. This is Wikipedia at its worst. Please both of you, stop this now. Go find something construtive to do. There was never any OR issue. Zaathras is now boasting he'll block any reverting. You see Masem, there's a fait accompli. -- Colin°Talk 20:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ...artists who contributed in good faith. "Good faith" is irrelevant when discussing whether to exclude or include content in this project. The most well-intentioned human on the planet could have a great deal of prose to contribute to the English Wikipedia, yet if their mastery of English is poor, it will be reverted without a second thought. We see WP:CIR invoked at WP:ANI all the time. This is tbh no different, substandard artwork has been contributed to the project, which can and should be rejected. Lest some here need a reminder, Turktimex3 was on the verge of a block if they persisted in restoring bad images to BLPs. Their response was a (yet-unfulfilled) threat of off-Wiki brigading. Colin need to refocus on who the disruptive actor in all this is, cuz it ain't me. Zaathras (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikipedia requires images to avoid being an unpleasant wall-of-text. Photographs often include an element of originality in the composition and selection of the subject and this seems unavoidable. I could give more details and examples for the cartoon case but don't think this is the correct forum for this discussion which is mainly a matter of image policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia requires images to avoid being an unpleasant wall-of-text. Requires is a rather assertive word, that implies a basis in policy. Can you provide a link to that policy? Zaathras (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please see this link. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You make a dubious assertion, are questioned about it civilly, then infer bludgeoning. What a fascinating psyche. Perhaps you should see this link. -- Veggies (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Andrew, cope better with opposing viewpoints. Zaathras (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OR/SYNTH dispute at Talk:LGB AllianceEdit

At Talk:LGB Alliance there has been a long standing, and extensively discussed dispute (November 2022, November 2022, November 2021, August 2021, September 2021, September 2021, April 2021) over how many co-founders the organisation has.

According to recent statements by the organisation, there are two co-founders: Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. However multiple, independent reliable sources additionally list Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott as co-founders, but no single reliable source lists all of these people together as a set of co-founders.

With the sourcing that is available, is it synthesis to state The group was co-founded by Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott, with each name being sourced to one of the independent and secondary reliable sources about the organisation? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent statements by the organisation, and this Guardian article...  Tewdar  20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, The Guardian does have a history of disagreeing with itself over how many co-founders there are for the organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just in case it is interpreted that "recent statements" represents some sort of change in position, I would like to clarify that these additions are consistent with the oldest statement from the org as to who the founders are, which to my knowledge is a Twitter thread from the organisation from November 8th 2019 which names the same two founders as Kate Harris and Bev Jackson, and lays out broadly the same history of formation as appears on the more recent additions to their site. Void if removed (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also some sources describe these people as 'founding members' rather than founders, in case you think that makes a difference. All in previous discussions, I'm sure.  Tewdar  21:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some salient points I would reiterate to condense my many many comments that are scattered all over these discussions:
- The about page and timeline are very clear, mentioning other names as early team members, not founders.
- The principal source for Malcolm Clark is a Pink News article he directly disputed himself on Twitter. One other source was changed after publication and no longer names him as a co-founder.
- One source for Ann Sinnott was changed after publication and no longer names her as a founder, but as a founding member.
- The five names that accrued over time on the wiki article have subsequently appeared in the same non-alphabetic order in other places, including Pink News, and I have raised the issue this may be WP:CIRCULAR. Void if removed (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first reply to Malcom Clark's tweet is someone pointing out that he is directly listed as a founding member on the day the group was incorporated. He claims he was a director, but this seems like a distinction without a difference. "Founding members" seems like fine phrasing to me, the members listed as working for the group when it was incorporated. That's how founders are usually listed via sourcing. This claim that because the two women involved had the idea for the group months earlier doesn't equate to the rest not being founding members when the group was actually and officially created as a registered body. SilverserenC 21:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The directors of a PLC are not the founders of an organisation, and not all orgs are PLCs. Past discussions are littered with counterexamples (like the GLF UK). Pointing at a tweet from the individual named in an article, saying "I’m not a founder", is a clear rebuttal, and a random account on twitter sifting through Companies House is neither here nor there. There's even followup in the same thread from Bev Jackson reinforcing that she and Kate Harris are the sole founders. There's even another denial from Malcolm Clark directed to Pink News Head of News Ryan Butcher (archive link because Ryan Butcher's account is deleted, so you can't see his acknowledgement of the error).
What I'd argue is that one supposedly reliable source (Pink News) is demonstrably unreliable on this matter as they have never corrected this. Void if removed (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, three weeks ago The Times stated that Clark is a co-founder of the LGB Alliance. There's also The Independent who called Clark a Founder back in March 2022. And also Vice back in November 2021. These later two are sources that we missed or glossed over during the last time we discussed this, and the former was only just published.
Is it not within the realms of possibility that each of these independent sources, some of which have biases in favour of the LGB Alliance's position, and some of which are in opposition to it, are actually correct? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One possible solution here is to explore this topic in some detail in the body, ie. attribute what different sources and the organization say (So it might be a bit messy), and simply remove the founders section from the infobox since it's too complicated to explore there. I think that's the approach WP:NPOV would indicate, if you have different sources giving different accounts Tristario (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then the wording in the lede could be changed to something like "The group was founded by Bev Jackson and Kate Harris, and also reportedly co-founded by Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott" Tristario (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the suggested form would only be appropriate if we had direct reporting of an actual controversy over who the founders are, ie. a piece stating that there is a dispute, rather than what can easily be written off as trivial failure of fact-checking. For example, if a company's own website describe an employee as the MD, and an extensive profile in a newspaper calls them the MD, and a passing mention in another newspaper describes them as CEO, we don't report this as a he said/she said controversy, we just accept that the company is more likely to know who its own employees are and don't go searching for other sources to create a dispute. Here, we have primary and secondary sources in agreement, and some secondary sources that don't actually challenge the org's own story about itself, but just happen to mention other individuals as "founder". The latter are being given undue weight, especially when some have been corrected since publication, or directly challenged by the principals. Void if removed (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem is more to do with divergent definitions of the term 'founder'...  Tewdar  10:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since we came to this noticeboard for outside opinions, I don't think editors who have already argued and failed to reach agreement should repeat that mistake here. So I'll just post my thoughts and see what others think: I think one of the problems isn't so much that two is correct and five is wrong, or the opposite, but that both can be correct depending on who you ask and how you think about "founders". We have a problem that probably the most notable member, Allison Bailey, the only one to have an article, is described literally everywhere (including our own article on her) as a "founder" or "co-founder" of LGB Alliance. So if the text only mentions Bev Jackson and Kate Harris, readers coming here to learn about the organisation that Allison Bailey co-founded will be confused to read that she didn't. Furthermore, the Wikipedia talk page of that article appears to be the only place on the internet that cares if it is two or five, and no published source has described two levels of "founder", with some people being more foundery than others. That's why I think listing five names is best, because that doesn't contradict sources that only list two. We can't explain the difference, so let's just list what we know and leave that hanging. -- Colin°Talk 10:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems to me that this could be resolved by differentiating the directors and the members, saying something along the lines of: “The organization was founded by Jackson and Harris as directors, with Bailey, Clark and Sinnott as members.” Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd leave off "as directors" as that complicates things (when it was incorporated as a PLC a month after it formed, both Clark and Sinnott became directors), but aside from that this is my personal preferred approach. Void if removed (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And where do we have sources that make that distinction, that classify some as "founding directors" and some as "founding members"? We would effectively be inventing a hierarchy of foundership solely to satisfy a squabble between Wikipedians who seem to care about something nobody else does. I wonder alternatively if we could list all five and have a footnote mentioning that some sources only list two. -- Colin°Talk 15:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was a founding member of a human rights advocacy organization, while personally having zero to do with the organization or its founding. It meant only that I was on the very first list of (paying) members when the organization was created/chartered/registered or whatever it is that associations do to set up their legal existence and tax regime, and whose founding had been announced well in advance in related media, along with a call for support and to "become a founding member", which conferred some privileges on my membership (mostly fees) going forward, and the right to be called a "founding member" forever. I can't vouch for how these news organizations used the term, but that's what it meant at the time. Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At a glance, I wouldn't think that something like this (a simple list of essentially disconnected data-points) would be synthesis - synethesis isn't just juxtaposition; there has to be some sort of meaningful implication not in the sources. There's no real implication to putting people together in a list of founders, unless "there were five founders, specifically" is meaningful somehow (and I'm not seeing how it is.) Attribution is an alternative, but I'd be cautious about it in that it implies that there is a controversy when that may not be the case (ie. it would mean the lead would read "the group says X, other source says Y, third source says Z"); it reads worse in that it is making the question of how many founders the group has look like a controversial point, which the sources may not support. I don't think, though, that we can simply omit people who are described as founders in multiple high-quality RSes just because the group doesn't list them; generally speaking, using a primary source to try and rebut secondary sources would be WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The specific makeup of the founders is of significance to an LGB organisation claiming to be founded by lesbians and lesbian-led, especially when LGB politics has consistently been dominated by gay men.
    Who is or is not the founder has also had knock-on effects for inclusion of material in the article over the years, since the actions and opinions of those listed as "founder" have been in some cases attributed as views of the org itself.
    The "History" section as it stands could do with reworking, but available info cannot be easily incorporated since the timeline of 2 lesbians spending months preparing to launch their own org - and then being joined by other supporters - is not straightforwardly consistent with the current list of five founders. Any attempt to merge these conflicting histories will be WP:SYNTH.
    And it isn't just rebutting multiple secondary with a primary source alone - it is multiple primary sources plus multiple consistent secondary sources. Meanwhile PinkNews does come with the proviso "caution should be used", so perhaps this is one such case. Void if removed (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The specific makeup of the founders is of significance to an LGB organisation claiming to be founded by lesbians and lesbian-led, especially when LGB politics has consistently been dominated by gay men. That still doesn't make it WP:SYNTH; the other sources disagree with that timeline even taken individually - combining them into a list doesn't change that, since the fact that the timeline you're suggesting is not reflected by coverage is established by any one of the sources cited. And your interpretation of the significance of the founders raises a much more serious issue for your attempts to use a primary source, since if they're claiming that then their own descriptions of their founders are unduly self-serving and can't really be cited to them under WP:ABOUTSELF. We can cite uncontroversial points to a non-WP:RS primary source, but if it's being used for the argument you seem be presenting here (about how it lends the organization importance and significance relative to others of its type) that's certainly not something suitable for WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing. With that in mind we probably should not be citing them for their own founders at all. This should be obvious, but the same applies to anyone affiliated with the group talking on Twitter. Do you have secondary, independent sources backing up your assertion that the organization was founded by lesbians and lesbian-led in as many words? If not, by trying to imply that in the lead without a secondary source stating it, it seems like you're the one attempting original research. We should not be trying to imply that the organization was founded by lesbians and lesbian-led in the lead unless independent sources actually highlight that aspect - even putting aside the fact that significant amounts of secondary sourcing suggest that your inference there may not be accurate. --Aquillion (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At no point did I suggest putting "founded by lesbians and lesbian-led" in the lead, I'm not sure why you suggest that?
And the talk archive is extensive so I don't want to rehash it in great depth but, the "significant secondary sourcing" is an exaggeration.
There are no high quality secondary sources explicitly naming all five as "founder" in one place that predate this wiki article, so what is there is by definition WP:SYNTH
The list of 5 names has been assembled from passing mentions, headlines and photo captions, where any of those five has been referred to as "founder", even in stories not specifically about the org or with comment from them.
In one case (halfway down this archive discussion) I went through 8 provided sources for Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott. 2 were corrected post-publication and no longer support the assertion, 1 actually said "founding member" and also contained a factual error in naming Eileen Gallagher as a founder, 3 were WP:OPINION, and the remaining 2 were PinkNews, one of which Malcolm Clark directly disputed multiple times on Twitter - and again I reiterate, with PinkNews, "caution should be used".
There are few secondary sources specifically addressing the founding of the organisation, with ones that do exist mostly being WP:OPINION, eg this Spectator article which says "Its founders Bev Jackson and Kate Harris were veteran lesbian campaigners. They were joined by filmmaker Malcolm Clark and barrister Allison Bailey", which supports the narrative on their website that there were two founders whom the others joined, but again, WP:OPINION.
Multiple high quality secondary sources that expressly name Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as the two co-founders have been argued as not necessarily exhaustive (eg. this from the Guardian: "the two co-founders of LGB Alliance, Bev Jackson and [Kate] Harris, both of whom are lesbians").
And the list of 5 assembled first in this article have subsequently appeared in exactly the same non-alphabetic order in at least 3 other places, so I still question whether this is now quite possibly WP:CIRCULAR. Void if removed (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AI images of real peopleEdit

Similar to the above discussion on cartoon portraits, we now live in a time when basically anyone can tell a deep learning model like DALL-E or Midjourney to "give me a realistic picture of X". This is apparently the case with Sofie Dossi and File:DALL-E Sofie Dossi handstand.png. Have Wikipedia guidelines caught up to this issue? If not, we should, and very soon, otherwise every person, living or not, without a freely-licensed credible photograph might soon get an uncanny valley digital portrait that's technically copyright free but risks giving a distorted view of reality. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I think using AI art to represent real people should be a blockable offense. But then again, I'm strictly anti-AI art. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly this is an even worse case than the cartoon portraits above, at least this particular example. There's nothing in that image to even suggest that it is of the Sophie Dossi, it is just a random woman in a contorted (I am familiar with what she is famous for, having watched AGT for years) gymnastic-like pose. Zaathras (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presenting an AI-generated image as that of a real person is simple falsification, and thus entirely contrary to multiple existing Wikipedia policies. Revert immediately, and if anyone persists in doing this, report them so they can be blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The answer on AI images is really easy - they have unclear copyright status. While the YS Copyright office has stated thatbAI generated works cannot gain a new copyright, there remains the question of what works were used as part if the AI training, and if those are copyrighted, that makes the image a derivative, non-free work which can't be used on BLP. There are a few legal cases in progress that may clarify this more but for now AI art should be treated as non free. Masem (t) 17:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it's like the "cartoon portraits" section in that it's on NORN but not actually a NOR issue. If you found that image of Sofie Dossi generated by some random Flickr user and imported it here, it would still be inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. Similarly, it doesn't actually matter if the portraits in the section above were created by a Wikipedia user or found elsewhere; the reasons some of them shouldn't be used are because they inadequately depict the subject and/or take too many liberties not verifiable in reliable sources (reliable sources including actual photographs of the subject and/or detailed descriptions of the subject an artist could follow, like the folks do over at the dinosaurs wikiproject).

The discussion that needs to happen, if it hasn't already, is what to do with AI-generated images that verifiably do look like the subject, and AI images based on detailed descriptions from reliable sources when there are no extant images of the subject. Obviously an image like the one that started this shouldn't be used -- it looks nothing like the subject (straight hair, yada yada). Might as well put up a random image of a gymnast. Also like the "cartoon portraits" section, people are quick to draw bright lines with huge implications based on the worst possible example. What if we took scientific papers about dinosaurs, put them into an AI, and generated an image that followed those descriptions to a T? Why is that automatically worse (or, given we're here on NORN, somehow more of a WP:NOR problem than a user doing the same thing)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously the AI generated image of Rossi is crap and doesn't even really depict the subject and shouldn't be used, but a more pertinent hypothetical example would be if somebody created an AI generated photorealistic portrait of a well-known person, which would be difficult to distinguish from a real photograph. Given the current generative AI struggles with photorealistic faces, I don't think this will be an issue for the present, but I could easily see it becoming one in the near future. Obviously AI can more easily generate drawing style illustrations of people, but I would consider that covered by the "Cartoon art" discussion above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we please stop using offensive language and insults to describe images on this forum. There's quite enough of it in the cartoon section above, let's not make it a feature of this page. -- Colin°Talk 20:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All this diatribe over "crap", fucking really? This is Wikipedia, not a kindergarten class. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's an AI drawing of a living person that's featured on their article. I'd be very interested to hear what people's thoughts are now. -- Veggies (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having just used Google to look at lots of actual photographs of her, I can honestly say that I wouldn't be able to recognise that this is supposed to be a picture of her. I would be against using it on the article even if its copyright status were clear. Girth Summit (blether) 17:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recall seeing that one when perusing User:GerardM/100 Women - BBC, and decided to leave it as it seemed a bit of an edge case. Comparing it to the results of a google image search for "Sirisha Bandla" however shows little resemblance. Zaathras (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just finding this discussion - I'm the user who wrote the article and added the image. Copyright questions aside, I'm now finding the resemblance less and less convincing, especially the lack of curly hair - something I noticed before uploading the image but which apparently was not enough to dissuade me. I was pretty eager. Part of my inspiration was a series of watercolors of billionaires (that used to be) used to illustrate several of those bios. I still think the idea of AI portraits is feasible, but this was clearly not the best implementation. Won't try again until (unless?) there are clearer guidelines. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Rhododendrites pointed out, there isn't a NOR issue. A respectful discussion of how to handle AI images belongs somewhere else. No possible consensus on the matter could be achieved here, as it lacks any really authority outside of the question of applying existing OR policy. There is a danger, like the cartoon discussion above, that users imagine this small corner of Wikipedia has any power to decide other things about AI or user created images, like a quality threshold, say. It doesn't. -- Colin°Talk 20:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In relation to copyright, the best and safest way is to simply follow real-world discussions. U.S. Copyright Office Says AI-Generated Images Do Not Qualify For Copyright Protection, so that's the way it will be, even if we don't like it or don't understand it. We do not say what is copyright protected and what is not, laws say that (and judges, in case of doubt). Cambalachero (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not the full story. While the images that an AI may produce may not be eligible for a new copyright, the question of whether they are derivative works of the images used to seed the AI remains in question. Gettys Images as well as other artists are suing Stable Diffusion because they can prove that the AI was seeded with copyrighted images. Thus, until we know how those cases result to establish case law, we must presume that they are derivative works of possibly copyrighted images, and thus are non-free. Masem (t) 03:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone may want to tag this image (the one of Sirisha Bandla), then. It was made by Stable Diffusion. -- Veggies (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to outsmart reliable sources is a kind of original research. You say the image may be a derivative work of images used to seed the AI... do you really think the Copyright Office had forgotten to consider that angle? Do you think that they don't know what is a derivative work, or get informed on the way those AI work before ruling this? Probably they considered that, even if there were copyrighted images seeding the AI, the impact of such copyrights may be De minimis if there's no actual similarity between any of those images and the final one. I know that I'm making an assumption here as well, but the assumption that reliable sources know what they do is the main pillar of verifiability itself.
By the way, see here. Three artists started a lawsuit over exactly this argument: that AI may be using copyrighted images as seeds and the resulting images would be copyright infringements. But anyone can make a lawsuit about anything, the judge is yet to consider the case and start it if he finds that there is enough merit to it to do so. Until then, going by the ruling of the Copyright Office seems safe enough. The article also warns that the main argument may be faulty, and let me cite:

User:Cambalachero: If you're going to dump a bunch of text, you need to sign your post. -- Veggies (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Copyright office decision nor additional coverage expressly consideref the training data of how an AI image was made. Only the produced work being a new copyright or not. Derivative work copyrights are a separate matter. It could be the case that they may not be (the de minimus argument), but we really should wait for case law on the current lawsuits to say if there are issues and possible derivative work aspects. Even before these lawsuits, it was clear many felt AI art was violating copyright, so we should be well aware of this as a red flag on AI images. --Masem (t) 15:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry but the editor putting the details into the AI generated is choosing which details to supply and deciding on how well the output matches those inputs, I just don't see how that's not OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As others have said, AI generated images of specific people and things would be WP:OR, in that they could reflect hidden things in the prompt ("create an unflattering image of X") or the training set. When it comes to AI generated images on other pages, though, I would be opposed to removing them just for being AI-generated in strongest possible terms. The theoretical copyright concerns above are just that, theoretical; editors who are not lawyers should not be deploying legal arguments. If an unambiguous legal case shows that there are legal issues with AI-generated art, we should of course take it down; and if the foundation's lawyers, who are the people with the actual expertise employed to judge such risk, tell us that the risk is too high, then we should take them down. Otherwise they stay - allowing people to remove images with no clear copyright issues over vague and speculative concerns would have a chilling effect by effectively extending copyright to every random editor's pet theories. We should go by what the law requires, nothing more and nothing less. --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soviet RblEdit

An editor (presumably TCG) argued that "Rbl" is the sign of the Soviet ruble, citing a document at an earthquake-related conference and a book on communist countries as source. However, both times around, there is a canned search for "Rbls rouble" without quotes. Therefore, I think it might be TCG cherry-picking sources that support them. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from Talk:Soviet ruble. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As I have written to NotReallySoroka at their talk page, I don't see why this question needed to be escalated to this noticeboard as it seems uncontroversial. The two "citations" for Rbl are not valid: they are (isolated) examples of use that may merely be the authors' convenient shorthand. The place that actually gives a firm assertion of an abbreviation is the CIA World Factbook, which says "R". As that is the only RS, that is the only one that should be shown. I'm not convinced that it is OR as such, just failure to comply with WP:BURDEN: (A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the issue isn't OR but WP:DUE. If there are only two cherry picked sources for Rbl, and the rest don't support it, then it's undue to include it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of country calling codes: use of deprecated Russian sources to imply legitimacy of de facto control by Russian administrative domain in occupied Georgia and UkraineEdit

As of today, the section of that list asserts without qualification that the Russian-controlled or occupied territories of Georgia and Ukraine are within the administrative domain of the Russian authorities. The authoritative source for the list, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) document LIST OF RECOMMENDATION ITU-T E.164 ASSIGNED COUNTRY CODES, does not recognise Russia's claims or its puppet "states". The article (as it stands) cites and as the basis for the assertion: TASS is explicitly deprecated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and is Putin.

The disputed section reads:

Nevertheless, Russia does have de facto control and insofar as landlines exist, international access to them is via Zone 7. I tried to recognise this reality by replacing them with an NPOV statement: Telephony services in Russian-occupied territories of Georgia and Ukraine are operated by Russian entities and use the 7 prefix. This has been reverted and the original claims have been reinstated.

Given that the statements made are only supported by unacceptable sources and are not recognised by the authoritative source, I identify the material as a WP:NOR violation and move that it be deleted. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more general point is how these puppet "states" should be handled because few reliable sources give them any credence. So anything we write about them inevitably teeters on the edge of OR. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have noted on the talkpage, the article is structured like this throughout, and it's hard to see how a consideration of OR ends up highlighting one of the few sections with any sort of sourcing, however deprecated. The replacement text was also unsourced. One of the few other sources on the page, here, suggests Abkhazian codes at least are supposedly operated by a local entity. The reliable source availability argument also misses the problem at hand. There are huge bodies of literature on these puppet "states", what there isn't is a huge body of literature on country calling codes... CMD (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no basis for that assertion. The Country Calling Codes are well documented, the ITU document does so in full detail.[4] What the ITU does not do is go into detail of local area codes within an administrative domain. The Russian-occupied provinces of Georgia and Ukraine are not independent states, they do not have E.164 codes (assigned or otherwise). The article is pretending that an area code assigned by the Russian authorities is a country code. It is not.
Specifically as WP:No original research is defined, we have no reliable evidence that these area codes have any meaningful existence. That and assert it as fact does not make it fact: they have a solid track record of creative accounting. So on what basis other than OR do we have to retain them, unless it is to give credence to Putin's narrative?
Yes, I agree that my suggested replacement text is uncited and thus OR too and I would not try to defend it. That Russia has de facto control of northern Georgia and south-eastern Ukraine is not in doubt; whether it actually operates any telephony services in Ukraine is certainly conjecture (and we know that they have turned off the cellular network because their conscripts were failing to obey radio silence orders). I am content to let it drop.
If there are other OR problems with the article, they should be dealt with too but let's resolve the most egregious case first. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A primary source documenting country codes is not a substantial body of literature. At any rate, they're not the most egregious case, they're similar to various degrees, including very close degrees, to other cases throughout the article. (Or even less egregious, as they have some semblance of a source.) Long before you even get to this section, there is for example "Morocco (including Western Sahara)", which reflects a less coherently controlled territory, and doesn't even put the irredentist claim in a separate bullet point! CMD (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference is that the ITU documenent is the authoritative source. Any "substantial body of literature" must inevitably rely on it as sui generis data: any source (such as or that purports to do otherwise is lying.
The position of Western Sahara is not nearly as egregious, given UN recognition of its "complicated" status. But yes, we should delete that "clarification", since without supporting citation it is just scent marking and more OR.
As I'm sure you know, WP:other stuff exists is not a acceptable argument so can we stick to the main issue: these Russian area codes are not country codes and there is no reliable evidence that they match the facts on the ground. To retain them is OR (and WP:ADVOCACY for the Putin narrative). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OSE is about deletion discussions, and is about comparing articles. This is the same sort of content from the exact same article. Poisoning the well with unfounded suggestions of advocacy for Putin narratives is deeply unappreciated. CMD (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not suggest that you are advocating the Putin fantasy, I was referring to whoever put it there. Same sort of scent marking as the Morocco entry.
Yes, the OSE essay is overtly about "that article exists so why can't I have this one" but the logic is readily generalised to "that section exists so why can't I have this one" and even "that line exists so why can't I have this one": all are fallacious arguments – see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for many more, for example

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability applies to the whole article: every entry that is not in the ITU list and not cited by an RS must be deleted because it is original research. That is the fundamental point. I am still waiting for anyone to refute it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is also a stretch to assert for whoever put it there. I would expect a proposal concerned about NOR and V relate to the article vis a vis the official ITU list to propose removing all the area codes and the regional sectioning, turning it into a plain list in line with the ITU document. What has been proposed so far is a selective treatment of one particular issue with reference to UN recognition, despite other situations having consistently for decades received even more severe UN opprobrium being present with even less sourcing. CMD (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support unequivocally deletion of any and all examples of unsourced content. Whether or not the UN has passed a resolution is entirely incidental. The article says that it is a list of country calling codes. If it is not in the ITU list, it is a fake. An area code assigned by a neighboring country, whether for convenience or revanchism, is not a country code. To say otherwise without a reliable source is original research. As soon as we affirm that principle here, we have authority to clean up the article. Do you accept that principle? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mentioned the UN above, I was replying to that. I believe the comment I gave above about NOR consistency covers my opinion on the question. CMD (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, I recognise that I didn't help matters by framing the discussion around one specific case when the list has many more examples. But I think we have reached agreement?

  • The only valid country calling codes are those given in the ITU document. Any other numbers that purport to be country calling codes are ipso facto not verifiable and it is a WP:NOR violation for an editor to attempt to add them.
    • Specifically, area codes are not country calling codes. It is a WP:NOR violation for an editor to identify an area code as a country code. Consequently the list needs to be weeded to remove any such entries.
    • Application by a country of one its own area codes to the territory of another is outside the scope of the article and should not be recorded. This is true irrespective of the motives of the country concerned.
    • A country's name should given as that of its respective article, without embellishment.
    • Any exceptional cases can be discussed at the article talk page. These are likely to be tiny islands and the like and can be treated as non-contentious de minimis cases.

Agreed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Looking at the references neither of the refs for Abkhasia mention "995 (44)" as the country code for Abkhasia, and so fail verification. This appear to be a greater issue than just Abkhasia, as the reference for Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir doesn't mention their specified country codes either. Looking at the ITU documentation doesn't show any of these either. The list includes The codes are defined by the ITU-T in standards E.123 and E.164., I suggest cutting it back to meet that statement unless actual references can be found to support anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also maybe where referencing can be found, for instance where Russia supplies local codes outside of its borders, have a heading explaining that these areas can also be reached using the using the 7 dialing code. So as not to imply in wikivoice that they are part of Russia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The core question seems to be whether the article is about the ITU codes, or about how to call countries. Currently the page setup appears to be the latter despite the list lead. If it is shifted to the former, then that should be applied across the entire article. In either case, I have had difficulty finding good-quality secondary sources on the topic. There are a couple of extensions we could source, for example the ITU simply lists everything in the North American Numbering Plan as +1 and notes an "integrated numbering plan", but I've only found a primary source and don't understand the interaction between the ITU and NANPA (my assumption is NANPA can do what it wants within +1, and the ITU doesn't care). CMD (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And I suggest strongly that the answer to that core question is the same as the answer to "what is a country calling code?" The article should do exactly what it says on the tin. It is not a "list of ways to call a country", because that would violate WP:NOTGUIDE. The International Telecommunications Union is the only body that holds the master registry of country calling codes. There can't be any "good quality secondary sources" because to be good quality, they can only replicate the ITU registry. If a county/number combination is not on that list, it is not an international country calling code but just some locally convenient back-channel which may not work outside the administrative domain that has assigned to it one of its area codes. So no, we should not show cases "where Russia supplies local codes outside of its borders" because these are area codes: they are not country calling codes.
    What the article should not do is get sidetracked into political disputes about what constitutes a country and what to call it. If we stick to the technical specification and leave it to others to deal with the politics, we will avoid the OR trap. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is an understandable position, some of the impacts and questions of which I have mentioned. The case for it should be made on the article talkpage. Subsequent effects on the Russia entry would be relatively uninteresting effects of such a major page shift. CMD (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The key outcome we need from this discussion on this page is a determination of what passes or fails the "no original research" test. That guideline established, the article talk page can sort out the details; without it, the discussion will flounder in a policy vacuum.
    We have already agreed, I believe, that it is OR to make an assertion that is not supported by a reliable source. That is WP:Verifiability 101. Consequently,
    1. The only reliable source for Country Calling Codes is the ITU registry.
    2. If a country (however defined, it doesn't matter) does not have an entry in the ITU registry, it does not have a Country Calling Code, period. It is OR to pretend it does, because it is certain to fail WP:V.
    3. An area code assigned by a neighbouring country (for whatever reason) is still an area code, it is not a CCC.
So may we take it that you accept all that? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:V is about whether something can be verified. I'm reasonably confident most of the information in the list could be verified. My reading of the issue is whether all of the information is due, and to an extent whether it fits the topic, arguably bringing SYNTH concerns. Answers to those questions depends on what the page topic is. So, for point 1, yes if the concept is ITU codes then their registry is the primary source, and we have no secondary sources on the matter as it stands. On 2, the question of shifting to a plain reflection of the ITU list is not a WP:V question, but a country (or other entity, the list has quite a few odds and ends) without an ITU calling code does not have a country calling code. To 3, same as to 2. CMD (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My original comment was based on the fact the that the article has the following in the header The codes are defined by the ITU-T in standards E.123 and E.164, so if anything is in the list that is not defined by those standards it should be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 16:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ a b "Абоненты мобильных операторов ДНР и ЛНР включены в российский план нумерации 7". Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media (Russia). 7 May 2022. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
  2. ^ a b "Абонентам ДНР и ЛНР выделили телефонный код российской системы нумерации". TASS. 7 May 2022. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
  3. ^ a b "ЛНР полностью перейдет на телефонный код России 7 в июле". TASS. 17 May 2022. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
  4. ^ "LIST OF RECOMMENDATION ITU-T E.164 ASSIGNED COUNTRY CODES" (PDF). Geneva: International Telecommunications Union. 15 December 2016.

Modifying and making up examplesEdit

(1) Is it original research if examples from a source are modified, for example, to make them more accessible? For example, this article on knowledge talks about different types of knowledge. One type of knowledge is knowledge-who. It is expressed using the term "to know" followed by a who-clause. One of the examples given in the source is "knowing who is due to visit". Our article knowledge gives the example "knowing who killed John F. Kennedy". Are modifications like this a violation of WP:OR? (this is being discussed at Talk:Knowledge/GA1)

(2) In some cases, sources only contain a general discussion of the issue without giving any examples. If it is clear from the description in the source of what is meant, is it original research when an uncontroversial example is given to make the explanation more accessible (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the example really is uncontroversial and that no substantial new claims about the topic are introduced)? Phlsph7 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am neither a philosopher nor an administrator, but I have a couple thoughts. Most importantly, having read the discussion at Talk:Knowledge/GA1, I'm not sure that a noticeboard is the right place to resolve this rather general question that feels like it should be the subject of an essay. Yet, here we are. In that vein, my position is that this may be best described in the "Translation and contextualizing" section of the non-policy essay These are not original research. The original source used an extremely academic tone in stating "who is due to visit." The use of "due to visit" is somewhat archaic and may be unfamiliar to readers. A minimal translation of that sentence to Wikipedia style would be along the lines of "Knowing who is coming to dinner." But I don't think it's unreasonable to fully translate the example to a very familiar context (like "Knowing who killed JFK"). My instinct is that the former is more preferable than the latter, but that either is an exercise in making the example fit Wikipedia's style rather than being beholden to the exact wording of a scholarly text. If the translated example were controversial or disputed then of course it should be reverted to the verbatim original. But here, it doesn't sound like anyone is saying the JFK quote is not a valid example, so I would let it stand or use an example like "who is coming to dinner." 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@49ersBelongInSanFrancisco: Thanks for the feedback! I think you (and Thebiguglyalien) are correct that it is preferable to have examples that closely resemble the text so I'll follow your suggestion concerning knowledge-who. I work a lot on philosophy articles and there it is often the case that examples are necessary to get the message across but that the exact examples in the sources are less than ideal for the average Wikipedia reader. The bottom line may be that modifications are not automatically original research but that it is better to avoid unnecessary liberties in order to ensure that the result is an uncontroversial example. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elaine Chao and Donald TrumpEdit

This edit erased the following sentence from a BLP: “Via spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump denied that his racist attack on Chao was racist.” So my question is whether or not the erased sentence fails verification, as alleged by User:SPECIFICO. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kudos to OP for turning himself in to the authorities on this one.😎
The Original Research is succinctly stated by Anythingyouwant on the article talk page here. The cited source merely says that the staffer made some sort of ambiguous statement in their own voice, which OP quoted in this diff. Trump, meanwhile was doubling down on his attack even after widespread condemnation of what RS call a racist slur. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Politico: “Steven Cheung, Trump’s spokesperson who is Asian American, said in a statement that the former president’s criticism of Chao was centered on her family’s potential financial conflicts and not race. Chao has been scrutinized over her family’s shipping business….But few outside Trump’s inner circle dispute that the ex-president’s posts about Chao are racist.”

Newsweek: "Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Newsweek in a statement that 'people should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads' when asked for comment on Chao's response. 'What's actually concerning is her family's deeply troubling ties to Communist China, which has undermined American economic and national security,' Cheung added."

Washington Post: "Trump spokesman Steven Cheung, who did not immediately respond to The Washington Post’s request for comment, told Politico: 'People should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads.'"

The Blaze: "Politico reported that Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said via a statement that Trump's criticism focuses on Chao's family's possible financial conflicts, but not on the issue of race. 'People should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads,' Cheung said, according to the outlet. 'What’s actually concerning is her family's deeply troubling ties to Communist China, which has undermined American economic and national security.'"

Salon: "Trump spokesman Steven Cheung, who is Asian American, told Politico in a statement that Trump's criticism of Chao is focused on her family's shipping business and its ties to China, not her race. 'People should stop feigning outrage and engaging in controversies that exist only in their heads,' Cheung told the outlet. 'What's actually concerning is her family's deeply troubling ties to Communist China, which has undermined American economic and national security.'"

Raw Story: "Trump spokesperson, Steven Cheung, who is an Asian American, claimed that the insults "China-loving wife" had nothing to do with her race but her family's long-time shipping business that Chao's father began when he came to the United States."

MSN: "Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Politico that the former president’s criticism of Chao was related to her family’s potential financial conflicts, not race." Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All you've shown is Trump PR staffer and election denier Cheeung trying to do damage control while Trump keeps up repeating the same smear all over social media, etc. Surely you don't think Trunp was concerned about "financial conflicts". If he were, he would have said so. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See spokesperson. It’s interesting! 😎 Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or see a dictionary: “spokesperson: a person who speaks for another or for a group.” All the reliable sources say Cheung was speaking for Trump, and Politico also says people in Trump’s inner circle dispute that he was being racist toward Chao (Trump himself is obviously within his own inner circle). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of any existent or non-existent OR issues, the word WP:RACIST should be avoided in WP:Wikivoice. If you have a source describing something as racist, then attribute it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting point, I hadn’t realized that we have to “use in-text attribution” for charges of racism. In this instance, the in-text attribution would be to every mainstream media outlet that has addressed this matter. So the sentence in question would be modified to this: “Via spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump denied that his attack on Chao was racist, though it has been widely characterized as racist by media reports.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an expert or an admin, but I would propose simplifying:"President Trump referred to Chao using a nickname described by many media outlets as 'racist'" rather than deciding whether Trump is actually racist. There are numerous RS that described the name "Coco Chow" as "racist." [1][2][3][4][5]We can focus on the very widespread description of that term as "racist" (it's the rare example where the NYPost and Mother Jones agree on something; both called that name "racist" as well as the WSJ, Politico, and many others). With that in mind, we don't need to resolve whether Trump is racist, nor provide false balance by giving a Trump spokesperson a chance to explain why it's not racist. The fact being reported is that the media called it "racist", which is true and doesn't require false balance.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco, if we say Trump’s words about Chao were “described by many media outlets as 'racist'” then we’d be saying there is an allegation against Trump. Whenever we describe allegations against someone, we have to mention any denial, per WP:BLP which says “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.” So that’s why mentioning the Trump-Cheung denial is important. Anyway, the issue here is verification, not BLP. In other words, is it original research to say, “Via spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump denied that his attack on Chao was racist, though it has been widely characterized as racist by media reports.“ I don’t think it’s original research, because the cited sources back it up. But there is a very slight chance I could be wrong about that.😝 What do you think? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a very strange point to be arguing. There is no false balance required here. If you believe we absolutely need to include Trump denying that the sun rises in the east, then use as few words as possible: "Trump denied it was racist.[cite]" That's 5 words; I think it could be done in 4. There's no need to add all the extra words about "Through a spokesperson... though it has been widely characterized as racist." Any concern about OR is solved by simplifying the denial. Let's do that rather than open the OR pandora's box about how much we can say about his spokesperson. Let the facts speak for themselves. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where’s the false balance? If we say there was an allegation then we have to attribute it (in article text) to whoever made the allegation, per WP:RACIST. Then we would have to say Trump denied it, per WP:BLP. I thought it would more closely track the sources to mention the spokesperson, but we don’t have to. I’m just trying to improve the article, because right now there’s an allegation without in-text attribution (“Trump used the racist nickname again“) and also without the denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@49ersBelongInSanFrancisco: The problem is there's no source that states Trump denied it. What occurred was that Trump did not deny it, but rather he kept repeating it in the face of very widespread criticism. That was quite unusual for him, since he regularly "walked back" such comments in other contexts during his presidency. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SPECIFICO I haven't seen an RS that has a credible denial of the racism charge either, as I don't know how someone could credibly say that calling an East Asian American "Coco Chow" was somehow a statement about "conflicts of interest." The best end state is no denial sentence at all, but I'm not offended by a a very short addition of "Trump later defended his statement" and a link to the Cheung comments. If @Anythingyouwant is adamant about WP:BLP then those 5 words ("Trump later defended his statement") achieve the balance required by WP:BLP without giving more airtime to a completely non-credible statement that doesn't actually address why people thought the original statement was racist ("Coco Chow" and "China-loving"). The original sentence proposed by @Anythingyouwant runs almost 20 words long and tries to shift attention from the language widely described as racist to something completely irrelevant (who cares what Trump says he was really thinking, as he doesn't explain how that language isn't racist). Anything along the lines of "Cheung said it was really about shipping" is off-topic as the outcry over the language was about alleged racism, not shipping.
Proposed compromise: "Trump used the racist nickname again in a November 13, 2022 post criticizing McConnell, saying "everyone despises [McConnell] and his otherwise lovely wife, Coco Chow!" Trump later defended his statement.[6] 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, I only suggested quoting Cheung in a footnote. My initial suggestion here for the main text was much less than 20 words (“Via spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump denied that his racist attack on Chao was racist.”). I don’t think that shifted attention or created false balance or anything like that, but I’m glad to consider alternatives & improvements, user:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your suggestion is: "Trump used the racist nickname again in a November 13, 2022 post criticizing McConnell, saying ‘everyone despises [McConnell] and his otherwise lovely wife, Coco Chow!’ Trump later defended his statement.” Another editor already objected that we should not say in wikivoice that it was racist per WP:RACIST. Also, do you object to providing a footnote that quotes Cheung, which seems informative to me, whether it’s BS or not (readers can judge)? The policy WP:BLP does not distinguish between credible denials and stupid, dishonest, ridiculous denials. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
49ers, he did not deny it. There is no source that says he did. It's the purest OR, stated explicitly by OP based on his personal beliefs about staffer ventrilquism or something. We also know that particular staffer is a fabulist. Anyway, without some RS about a "denial" this thread has served its purpose. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The denial by the subject still has to comply with WP:DUE. So if a BLP makes overtly racist remarks, we don't have to give the same weight to the denial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides the unreliable Raw Story piece, none of the listed sources seem to be characterizing Cheung's comments as a denial that Trump's comment was racist. There's a well-respected "it's not OR if the analysis has been published anywhere at all, even in unreliable sources" crowd, and I'd rather not get into it. Whether strictly OR or not, we shouldn't be giving weight to that view if it's not common in the body of reliable sources. I think a description aligned with the best sources would be fine, something like "Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said Trump was more focused on Chao's conflicts of interest than on her race." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds okay to me, user:Firefangledfeathers. Also, I’d make sure the Chao BLP doesn’t say in wikivoice that Trump’s comments were racist, another editor pointed out above that WP:RACIST says we should provide in-text attribution for that. Also please note that MSN (quoted above) says, "Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Politico that the former president’s criticism of Chao was related to her family’s potential financial conflicts, not race." The words “not race” are a denial that it was about racism, seems to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheung is not significant to Chao's bio. He's a paid PR guy for a politician with a history of racist statements and RS clearly convey that the statement was widely condemned as racist. This has no place in her bio. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scanning what started this, it looks like it's about whether what Cheung said can be attributed directly to Trump? "A spokesperson said" seems like the clearly preferable choice in those situations (vs. "said via a spokesperson"). The exception would be if there's language in the sources like "Cheung relayed a statement from Trump" or "Cheung said that Trump wanted to say xyz". But just doing the standard PR/apologist/talking points/spin games doesn't mean what they said are the words of the person they were hired to represent. I haven't traced exactly what the implications for that conclusion are for the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is simply an attempt to mitigate this little ugly wart on the carcass of Trump's racist and misogynistic legacy. Cheung's statemnent has nothing to do with Chao. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the spokesperson’s statement did not amount to a denial by Trump, then BLP policy does not require inclusion of the non-denial but does not forbid inclusion either; nevertheless, it would not be even slightly mentioned at the Chao BLP because User:SPECIFICO staunchly opposes inclusion. Heck, even if WP:RACIST clearly requires in-text attribution, it will likely be impossible to put that in the Chao BLP either. This is because all efforts are taken to make sure that every “little ugly wart on the carcass of Trump's racist and misogynistic legacy” is presented as much as possible in that manner, neutrality notwithstanding. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement, not Trump, was identified as racist in the RS. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-racists don’t make racist statements, AFAIK. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'd like to get some clarity on the use of to establish dates of birth. Thanks to the Wikipedia Library, we now have access to extensive birth and death databases, including the Social Security Death Index and various state birth registries. This can allow us to verify the birth dates of article subjects, both living and dead. Question is, what are the parameters for use? I am thinking of two specific examples. One is a notable actress, a living person, whose birth date is unavailable in third party sources. However, New York City birth records and other records make her birth date quite clear. Another situation I've encountered involves a person who died within the past year. The articles currently contain no reference to birth date.

I notice that Ancestry is used routinely to confirm or correct birth dates of long-dead people, but living persons and recently dead people are a matter I haven't seen addressed. Would appreciate some input on this. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coretheapple, it would not be appropriate to use public records via for DOB of living people, see WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPDOB. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks I imagine it would be different for even recently deceased persons? I'm thinking of Tim Rutten. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe WP:BLP still applies to the recently deceased. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 17:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I see that BLP applies to persons deceased six months to two years, depending upon consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] is considered a generally unreliable source (WP:GUNREL): WP:ANCESTRY. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lists of members of Nobel-winning organizationsEdit

I started a discussion at Talk:List of Brazilian Nobel laureates and nominees#Laureates and non-laureates concerning what I believe to be WP:OR (as well as off-topic) at that article and three similar lists for other nationalities, but since several articles are involved, I'm wondering whether I should have started the discussion here instead. At any rate, I figure this is an appropriate place to post a notice of the discussion. Summary: When a Nobel Prize is awarded to an international organization, is it OR to treat national branches or employees of these organizations as laureates in their own right? In other words, if the International Red Cross receives an award, are Brazilian employees of that organization themselves "laureates" to be listed in a "list of Brazilian laureates"? Largoplazo (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

admittedly without checking any policies here. When an award is granted to an organisation the employees are not co-recipients unless that has been explicitly stated at the time of the award. In general a high ranking individual within the organisation accepts the award on behalf of the organisation, literally because you need a person for this, but it is not their award. So my view is no they are not recipients of Nobel Prizes just because they worked for the organisation that received it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A WP:DRN in regards to this failed, so now I'm here. This is for the Picts article.

Short summary: The proposed content are the statements by Caesar and Pliny about Celtic Britons painting themselves, as a possible explanation of the etymology of the word "Picts".

The woad article currently states that the northern inhabitants of Britain came to be known as "Picts" by the Romans because they painted their bodies or possibly tattooed themselves.[1] The Picts article mentions that the etymology of "Picts" is that it means "painted" in Latin, but then says nothing about how the Picts possibly painted themselves. So, I want to include edits saying that Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder reported that the Celtic Britons would paint themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad", but originally may have meant "glass" and "green", respectively.[2][3] Even Britannica's short entry on the Picts states: "Their name may refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing."[4] There seems to be confusion as to whether the Picts are Britons and if the comments by Caesar and Pliny can apply to them. From what I can tell, The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain,[5] which matches what the woad article currently says. Furthermore, I added an additional source by the Roman poet Claudian where he says the Picts were tattooed[6] and that was reverted as well, even though there was already consensus elsewhere in the article that the Picts tattooed themselves. WP:OR occurs if the editor didn't provide reliable sources that clearly state what the editor themselves are stating. Word for word, here are what my reliable and academic sources state: "Caesar describes the use of body paint by ancient Britons: "All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad.""; "There is a plant in Gaul, similar to the plantago in appearance, and known there by the name of glastum: with it both married women and girls among the people of Britain are in vile habit of staining the body all over, when taking part in the performance of certain sacred rites"; "the legion that kept the fierce Scots in check, whose men had scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts.". I see no reason why Wikipedia's woad article and Britannica's Picts article can state painting as the most likely etymology for the word Picts and cite Caesar, but not Wikipedia's Picts article itself.

Here is an additional source that makes the synthesis for me:[7] "Prior to the sixth century, the Pictish system seems not to have existed. However the very name "Picts" (from the Latin Picti) almost certainly means the "painted people." The original name for the inhabitants of Britain as a whole, the Prettani, may originally have meant the "people of the designs/symbols." Looking at both names in conjunction, it may well be that the pre-Roman Britons and the post-Roman Picts were both particularly associated with symbolic motifs long before the Picts developed their script. It is conceivable that the sculpted characters derived from earlier motifs used for body painting."

Also, one editor at the DRN case listed this source as a reliable secondary source: Fraser, James E. (2009), "From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, vol. 1, ISBN 978-0-7486-1232-1

This source cites Caesar on Page 27. Others argue the Celtics Caesar encountered were only in England, too far from Pictland, for his comments to matter, but I disagree. I feel even if one disagrees the Picts can be included in any sort of Celtic cultural shared identity across the British Isles, mentioning Caesar is still acceptable as background information on the etymology of the word "Picts". Furthermore, I see no reason why Pliny's statement wouldn't equally apply to the Picts as well as any other Celtic British tribe. LightProof1995 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Carr, Gillian (2005-08-01). "Woad, Tattooing and Identity in Later Iron Age and Early Roman Britain". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 24 (3): 277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.2005.00236.x. ISSN 1468-0092.
  2. ^ Van Der Veen, M.; Hall, A. R.; May, J. (1993-11-01). "Woad and the Britons Painted Blue". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 12 (3): 367–371. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.1993.tb00340.x. ISSN 1468-0092.
  3. ^ Pliny the Elder, The Natural History. Volume 4. BOOK XXII. Chapter 2. 78-79 A.D. """"
  4. ^
  5. ^ Ravilious, Kate. Land of the Picts. 2021
  6. ^ Claudian, The Gothic War. 402-403 A.D. "*.html" "...the legion that kept the fierce Scots in check, whose men had scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts." Note Getae in this text refers to the Visigoths.
  7. ^ Keys, David. Rethinking the Picts. 2004
I have tried to be gentle with LightProof1995 in the spirit of WP:BITE as they are a novice editor, but it looks increasingly like I am going to have to file a report at WP:ANI as this is beyond disruptive. We all start editing as novices and I admit some of my early edits were also at odds with WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, notably in articles related Picts back when I got interested in the subject (yikes) fourteen years ago, but with advice from some experienced editors I was able to learn WP policy. I've tried this approach with LightProof1995, but it appears impossible to get through to them. A brief scroll through their edit history would suggest that their problematic editing has not been limited to this subject area.
LightProof1995 has already attempted to edit war this WP:UNDUE material into the article (receiving a block), has attempted to bludgeon consensus on the article talk page and, when they failed to gain consensus for their edits, took it to WP:DRN, which also failed. They have also been warned by an admin from whom they attempted to get support, that this approach is likely to end in their being sanctioned.
We have a major issue in the way LightProof1995 is trying to synthesise a narrative from sources that are not about the article subject, that talk about unrelated people and people from different ages, or that rely on inaccurate translations. They are unable to recognise reliable sources (case in point, "Rethinking the Picts" by David Keys, is a book review in a magazine written by a non-specialist and intended for a non-specialist audience). They also appear to be unable to use reliable sources. Fraser's textbook does indeed mention Julius Caesar, but he is talking about Septimus Severus' negotiations with Argentocoxos, nearly 500 years before the advent of the Pictish Kingdom in the 7th century, comparing this with Caesar's negotiations with tribal leaders in Germania, 250 years before that.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just don't have $101 to buy that book in full, nor do I have a car to go to my local library, unfortunately. Thank you for clarifying exactly what he says about Caesar.
Everything else you say here has noting to do with content, and everything to do with seemingly personal beef against me. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note for other editors, this is now at WP:ANI Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the ANI discussion has covered this subject in sufficient depth. Filing editor has been indefinitely blocked and this can now be closed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maintenance tags: inline "Citation needed" or "More citations needed" on top?Edit

I'm currently working on a script to add "Citation needed" tags to unreferenced paragraphs, see User:Phlsph7/AddCitationNeededTagsToUnreferencedParagraphs. I wanted to get some feedback on how to deal with articles that contain many unreferenced paragraphs. For articles or sections that contain no references, it is probably best to use the tags "Unreferenced" or "Unreferenced section" and add no inline "Citation needed" tags. But the question is how to deal with articles that have serious sourcing issues where these tags don't apply. Let's say, an article has over 10 unreferenced paragraphs spread across different sections. For such articles, should every unreferenced paragraph get its own "Citation needed" tag? Or is it better to just add the tag "More citations needed" to the top and let the other editors figure out for themselves where the problems lie? Or should both be added: the "More citations needed" tag at the top and the inline "Citation needed" tags? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really hate the idea that this would be done by an unthinking bot… it is quite possible for an article to contain several paragraphs (or even an entire section) all verifiable by one single citation to a strong reliable source. In such a situation, there is no need to repeat the citation at the end of each paragraph… the citation at the end covers all the information.
I do realize that this isn’t always the case… but that simply means that we have to do things the “old fashioned” way - check which parts are covered by the single citation and which are not - and then manually tag as is needed. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. There's no need to automate this. Time is far better spent researching and improving the citations in articles, and manually tagging things with {{cn}} where a citation can't be easily found. pburka (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Blueboar and Pburka. Thanks for your feedback. I think there is a misunderstanding: I'm working on a script to assist editors, not on an automatic bot. Please let me know if something in the description of the script is unclear so I can fix it.
Wikipedia has certain guidelines for inline citations. For example, according to WP:V, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Certain information is excluded from this requirement, as stated in the policy Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_not_original_research. Inline means that the reference should be given in the same paragraph. It would be difficult to check for original research and ensure source-text integrity if any source was assumed to cover all the preceding text in the article.
The responses so far did not answer the original question. Let's assume there is an article where over 10 paragraphs really merit the "Citation needed" tag. For such articles, should each of those paragraphs get a "Citation needed" tag? Or is it better just to add the tag "More citations needed" to the top and let the other editors figure out for themselves where the problems lie? Or should both be added: the "More citations needed" tag at the top and the inline "Citation needed" tags? Phlsph7 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the proposal. There's no need to script this. And even if there were, style questions aren't within the scope of this notice board. pburka (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your position. The replies are not what I expected but they are helpful nonetheless. Regarding how to deal with potential cases of original research: what do you think an editor reviewing an article should do in the following case? They encounter unreferenced paragraphs (with or without the assistance of a script) and it's not obvious that all claims made in them are verifiable. Ideally, the editor would go through all the other sources found in the article, read through them one by one, and do a detailed source search on their own to verify or falsify the claims made in those paragraphs. This could be an extremely time-intensive process. Based on the editor's available time, expertise, and access to sources, this may not be feasible. In such a situation, is it acceptable (and useful) to add "Citation needed" tags to the paragraphs to make other editors aware of potential cases of original research? Or, in comparison to that, would it be preferable to do nothing? I hope this board is the right place to ask this type of question but, if not, I would also be happy to ask it elsewhere. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ideally the editor would so some research and either add sources or remove the questionable content. If the content can't be easily sourced, they can easily tag it with {{cn}} or one of the more specific tags via the editor. What we don't want to encourage is drive-by, script-assisted splattering of warning tags with no effort to even try to fix or investigate. I also think you're confusing verifiability with original research. The vast majority of uncited material on Wikipedia is not original research; it's just poorly cited. If you think a paragraph is OR, you should be tagging it with {{Original research inline}}. pburka (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware of the difference but thanks for the explanation anyways and for your answer. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ayrton SennaEdit

Do the following 4 paragraphs from the article Ayrton Senna require citations to comply with the policy WP:Verifiability?

However, the biggest incident of the year happened at the Italian Grand Prix at Monza. With two laps remaining, Senna held a five-second lead over the Ferraris of Gerhard Berger and Michele Alboreto, who were closing in on the McLaren (Prost had earlier retired with a badly misfiring engine). Going into the Rettifilo Chicane, Senna closed on the Williams of Jean-Louis Schlesser (standing in for the unwell Nigel Mansell). Schlesser steered wide, attempting to give Senna room to lap him, losing then regaining control to avoid going into the sand trap, and the two collided; Senna's car was beached on top of a curb and had stalled. Ferrari went on to finish 1–2, the first in an Italian Grand Prix since the death of the team's founder Enzo Ferrari. This proved to be the only race McLaren did not win in 1988.

During the season, Senna rewrote the record books. His eight wins beat the old record of seven jointly held by Jim Clark (1963) and Prost (1984). His 13 pole positions also beat the record of nine held by Nelson Piquet (1984).


As Senna rounded the high-speed Tamburello corner on lap 7, his car left the racing line at around 307 km/h (191 mph), ran in a straight line off the track, and hit the concrete retaining wall at around 233 km/h (145 mph), after what telemetry showed to be an application of the brakes for around two seconds. The red flag was shown as a consequence of the accident. Within two minutes of crashing, Senna was extracted from his race car by Watkins and his medical team, including intensive care anaesthetist Giovanni Gordini. The initial treatment took place by the side of the car, with Senna having a weak heartbeat and significant blood loss from his temporal artery being ruptured. At this point, Senna had already lost around 4.5 litres of blood, constituting 90% of his blood volume. Because of Senna's grave neurological condition, Watkins performed an on-site tracheotomy and requested the immediate airlifting of Senna to Bologna's Maggiore Hospital under the supervision of Gordini.


He took part in the Masters Karting Paris Bercy event in 1993, an indoor karting competition held on a temporary circuit at the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy. This event is notable for being the stage for the last on-track duel between Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna.

This issue is being discussed at Talk:Ayrton_Senna#Unreferenced_paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone challenges it, then it needs to be cited. Since his career was very well documented, I don't imagine it will be difficult for someone to add the necessary citations. pburka (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once § Mention "most-awarded movie ever"?. There is discussion as to whether original research contradicting a source is sufficient to justify the omission of the source. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on changing WP:OR regarding the use of maps and charts in Wikipedia articlesEdit

See the discussion at the village pump. BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Routine calculations"
JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RfC has been expanded since announced here. The proposals are now:
New proposals are marked in bold. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]