Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

US Commitee reports

I recently came across new articles on the FBI Richmond Catholic memo investigation and its Arctic Frost investigation, as well as older articles that have had sections about these investigations added to them (e.g. Paul Abbate) that heavily use, to verify factual claims, various reports and memos of Chuck Grassley's Senate Judiciary Committee which has been raking through Biden-era FBI investigations for arguably partisan reasons. My initial thought was that these are primary sources and over-using them risks OR. But on reflection I wonder if these are not just primary but also hyper-partisan, akin to press releases by politicians. Should they therefore be treated as opinion pieces that need attribution, rather than as primary documents? (Neutral eyes on these articles also likely beneficial.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Congressional committee reports are official government documents, not press releases. WP:PRIMARY allows primary sources for straightforward facts - "the investigation issued 197 subpoenas" doesn't need a secondary source to explain what it means.

Calling Senate Judiciary oversight "arguably partisan" could apply to literally any congressional investigation of the opposing party. Should we discount all Democratic committee reports from 2017-2021 too?

The actual articles use tier-1 sources (CNN, AP, NBC, PBS, Washington Post, Axios) as their backbone. Committee reports fill in specific details those outlets didn't cover. The DOJ IG's April 2024 report independently corroborates the Catholic memo findings.

If you think specific claims are unsupported, please take it to the article talk pages. That's where the content disputes belong not here with vague concerns about entire source categories. Bladerunner24 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

My question is about sources like these:

- BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Those are two different things:

The Virginia AG press release documents an official action - 20 state AGs sent a letter. Primary source for the fact the letter was sent.

The Grassley/Johnson release publishes actual FBI documents obtained through oversight. The underlying FBI documents are primary sources; the press release is just how they were published. Same as FOIA releases.

Both are used with attribution ("According to Grassley," etc.). And the articles use CNN, NBC, PBS, AP, DOJ IG as their backbone.

If you have concerns about specific claims, please take it to the article talk pages. Bladerunner24 (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Whether OR or not would depend how the sources were used. While partisan, they do contain a significant concentration of basic facts, and the editor has recently started to trim any OR down by using secondary sources, so for most of what they were doing I don't see this as an OR issue. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 08:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

"DOJ IG" is another primary source, if I understand right: it's the Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election. I appreciate the editor has trimmed down their use and started adding attribution and primary sources, so these specific articles are in a far better place (they certainly didn't use CNN etc as "their backbone" when I raised the question!). However, my question, which perhaps I didn't articulate well, was a more general one. Something like: To what extent can we treat press releases by elected officials, especially partisan press releases on contentious topics, as usable primary sources for facts? I feel that the response to my raising this (find secondary sources, attribute) shows that the consensus seems to be that these are poor sources for facts, unless the facts are banal. Is that right? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

There might be a policy on this specific issue, but my not within my knowledge. I would merely advise the editor to use discretion, taking into account fact manipulability, likelihood of omissions and in this case especially weasel words, excessive interpretation with insufficient supporting evidence, etc. So pretty much the same as most news articles. The facts concentration just happens to be denser in these government press releases, which might give an inexperienced encyclopedist a false impression of neutrality? This isn't an ordinary new editor, though. They seem to have a decent grasp on what they're using and how they're using it, so I wouldn't worry too much about them getting carried away now that they have been made aware of the relevant policies and are complying. It is also worth noting that almost all of the sources being objected to contain a mix of primary and secondary text. Some are almost completely primary, others secondary. Much easier to handle on a case-by-case basis at the article's talk page than in a general discussion. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 10:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that Arctic Frost investigation article (and related BLP Timothy Thibault) continues to have talk page discussions on appropriate use of primary sources that might benefit from experienced eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This was discussed here in November 2025 (see above). The conclusion was that the sources are being used appropriately — primary sources for facts with attribution, tier-1 secondary sources as backbone.

Since then, I've continued to add secondary sourcing per feedback. The Thibault BLP uses CBS News, CNN, NBC News, TIME, and Newsweek as its primary sources for the allegations. The Grassley releases provide specifics (exact quotes, dates) that news coverage references.

Attorney denials and FBI Director testimony are included for balance.

If there are specific claims Bob believes lack appropriate sourcing, he should identify them on the article talk pages. "Might benefit from experienced eyes" isn't a content dispute — it's a request for backup after losing talk page discussions.

Per WP:FORUMSHOPPING, disputes should be resolved at article talk pages before escalating. Bladerunner24 (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Bob's notice here was within policy (see the first line of WP:CANVASSING), but while there is some continued discussion on the use of WP:PRIMARY sources in certain cases, there is scarcely any WP:OR left in the article, if at all. For anyone reading here and wondering whether or not to bother weighing in, the article no longer has the pervasive issues it had when this section was created and discussion has shifted to a few select cases, most of which end up resolved within a few days thanks to constructive talk page activity. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 04:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! The articles that raised my concerns are now massively improved, no doubt, including improvements since my most recent post here. I just felt a discussion involving the same four editors (plus one IP editor who repeatedly reverted some of the secondary sourced material added in, which partly prompted my return here) has continued for weeks, and I thought it beneficial if uninvolved editors with good understanding of OR issues had a look. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

List of fake news troll farms

My question for this board is: "For a website to be included on/listed in the article List of fake news troll farms should it be the case that a WP:RS has referred to the website as a troll farm?" Background: The article lists many dozens of websites. I opened up a talk page conversation (Talk:List of fake news troll farms#Original research/guidelines for what to include in this article) back in May raising that question and then came back to the article in October. For most of the websites in the article, the attached citations don't refer to the website as a troll farm or with any other phrase using the word 'troll'. I went through and removed many websites for that reason. Here's a typical diff. After that, an editor added back all the websites I had removed with the edit summary "Incorrect actions of subjective reading of meaning of troll." That editor also discussed this change with me on the article's talk page, here: Talk:List of fake news troll farms#Definition of sites. The original creator of the article has returned to the talk page, and disagrees with my belief that for a website to be listed on the article, it should be the case that a WP:RS has referred to it as a troll farm. As the article stands, it currently contains many dozens of websites that haven't been referred to as troll farms or using the word 'troll'. Two editors very strongly disagree with how I see this, so I'm asking those of you who hang out on this board and often think about WP:OR issues for your perspective. Thanks! Novellasyes (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

First, I note that the lead of the article has been changed from identifying troll farms to, The following is a list of websites, separated by country, that have been described by journalists and researchers as spreading false information or impersonating established news websites. (Emphasis mine.) I'll be reverting that shortly.

I would agree that a website would have to be explicitly described as "fake news" and "troll farm" to be included, as to do otherwise is to synthesize a conclusion not stated by the source. It seems to me that the other editors want to write a different article than the current one: they want a list of misinformation news sites, not a list of troll farms, which is a different subject. They should consider proposing a move to a new title if they believe that direction is best. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Biblical archaeology

Big chunks of the article are WP:OR. Also, it should be checked for WP:LLM.

I have reverted it to the last stable version, before WP:OR. Reason: except for brief statements of fact, it was OR slop.

There were chunks which were sourced, I have restored them.

And the reason to think that even the "sourced" chunks are AI slop: books get WP:CITED without page numbers, nor quotes.

Definitely AI slop, since this source is hallucinated: Schiffman, Lawrence H. (2019). "The Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls". Journal of Jewish Studies. 70 (2): 195–210. doi:10.18647/3413/JJS-2019. Introduced here: . tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC opened that may be of interest here

A Request for Comment has been opened at Talk:2026 New Democratic Party leadership election#RfC re: Endorsements without secondary coverage that may be of interest to editors watching this page. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes "Assassination" Attempt

Talk:Nick Fuentes/Archive 6#"Assassination Attempt"; I believe that this is a clear violation of WP:OR. No reliable sources claim that Fuentes faced an assassination attempt; only he says that. It's especially dangerous because the BLP is about a far-right influencer who can use the claim that he was supposedly targeted for an "assassination" to show how his viewpoints are being censored. Bill Williams 19:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I concur that referring to it as an assassination attempt constitutes WP:OR. Is it likely that's what it was? Sure. But no WP:RS I've seen says that, and although Lyons was armed, that isn't enough to unambiguously claim it was an assassination attempt. The intent could've been to scare, to wound, or to coerce, all of which are potential, if unlikely explanations. Terming it an assassination attempt, alleged assassination, or whatever is all WP:OR. Fuentes' own terms can't be used as he's very much not a secondary source on this matter. I also think the section should be renamed, perhaps to "claimed assassination attempt" or somesuch, to make it clear Fuentes is the only one who's described it thus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for being in agreement. I just fixed the WP:OR violation, since it's an urgent issue. I also think this file should be deleted. Its title is also WP:OR and its content is not WP:NOTABLE enough for the file to exist. Few reliable sources place significant emphasis on the event. Bill Williams 07:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Don't ask me to go to that page (trust me, my opinions on Fuentes aren't something that belongs on WP), but I tend to agree. If Fuentes is the only one calling it that, we should, perhaps take a look at the editing patterns of those arguing that we should call it that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Acts of the Apostles (genre)

See Talk:Acts of the Apostles (genre). tgeorgescu (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

"Indian hegemony"

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian hegemony. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 09:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Matthias_Sention_Sr. biography

This biographical article appears to be based on original research from a personal genealogy page. Almost no sources are cited. I am not sure that the subject meets the Wikipedia standards for notability. Lois Hacker (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Matthias Sention Sr. Schazjmd (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

It's easier to take up one issue with an article at a time, so I'm going to ignore your comment about whether Wikipedia's notability standards are met. (If you want to pursue that claim, you could do it by nominating the article for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability of the subject.) Then, there is the issue you raise about the lack of citations. Your observation that the entire article is based on just one citation (this one) is accurate. The most common way to deal with lack of citations in an article is add the more citations needed template at the top of the article. From the article talk page, it looks like there are some active editors who might help find citations. The idea of no original research is different from the idea of a lack of citations, or poor quality citations. Right now, it looks like the main issue to deal with is lack of high quality citations rather than WP:OR. Novellasyes (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer to nominate the article for deletion on the grounds of non-notability, however, I am intimidated by the process as described. I also understand that Original Research is another ground for deletion, which also applies here.

It is not that citations pertaining to this subject can not be made, but that even with accurate citations, the subject is still only an ancestor of the poster, with no interest for the general public. Lois Hacker (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:OR is grounds for removing pieces of original research from an article. If you want to make the case that the entire article should be deleted on the grounds that the entire article constitutes OR, even if you're right about that, you'd have to go through WP:AFD since (as far as I am aware) this OR noticeboard doesn't make article deletion decisions. Here's some research that could be used as a citation in the article as it stands: The Ancient Historical Records of Norwalk, Connecticut: With a Plan of the Ancient Settlement, and of the Town in 1847. Novellasyes (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This is why I believe that deleting the entire article on the grounds of non-notability would be best. Even if the very small initial part of the article that is accurate were well-sourced, the subject would still be non-notable. Not really worth sourcing. Lois Hacker (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthias Sention Sr.. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Empires

Looks like Template:Empires became an inflated OR-ish hodgepodge of various entities not widely considered empires, but which are persistently added by some editors. Mostly those entities were localized kingdoms or realms. In the past, I removed a few, but over time they have been re-added. My particular concerns include Kingdom of Armenia, Dʿmt, Calakmul, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Chagatai Khanate and some others. An overall look suggests major purging. Any recommendations? Brandmeister ^talk 09:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your perception that unless an entity is widely recognized as an empire (or having been one), it shouldn't be in that template. Then the question becomes, what to do about that. There are two different things you could end up having knock-down dragouts about. Those two things are (1) is it true (as you and I think it is) that to be in that template, the entity has to be widely regarded as an empire and (2) even if everyone agrees with that, then I think you'd have to proceed to identify the entities currently in the template that don't qualify. Then you would probably get a knock-down dragout for each of those entities. So if there are ten contested ones, that would be a lot of talk page going-back-and-forth about whether RSes have or haven't said it is an empire. What you might consider doing is opening up a discussion on Template talk:Empires about this, and direct folks here to have the conversation about (1). Then if you get a consensus here about (1) -- the idea that something has to be identified by RS as an empire or else it shouldn't be in the template, you can proceed to the work on (2). Novellasyes (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I see. Might take more time to resolve, though... Brandmeister ^talk 10:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If you achieve consensus on what has to be true of an entity to be listed in the template (namely some relevant RSes need to have described it as an empire), then I would assume that you would then proceed to remove from the template the ones that as far as you are aware, don't make the grade. But then I wouldn't be surprised if people who want a particular entity to be listed in the template would then look for relevant RSes that have described it as an empire. But maybe not! It's possible that once you get agreement on the main principle, it will be easy to remove the non-empire entities from the template because people who would otherwise want a particular entity listed in the template won't try to make the claim that such-and-such entity has been described by relevant RSes as an empire. Novellasyes (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather just go to TfD, since it is too large anyway. I counted 298 links in this navbox. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Kilgore, Texas#Etymology of Kilgore, Texas

Disputed WP:SYNTH, please see Talk:Kilgore, Texas#Etymology of Kilgore, Texas. An editor, User:Luka Maglc, asserts that because the town is named for Constantine B. Kilgore (born in Georgia, US), and because the surname "Kilgore" is of Scottish-Gaelic origin, then "Scottish-Gaelic" should be added as the etymology for the town. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The concern appears to stem from a confusion of two different, well-established concepts in onomastics (the study of names) and Wikipedia practice:

• Toponymic Origin (|Named for =): The historical reason a specific place received its name. For Kilgore, Texas, this is "named for Constantine Buckley Kilgore," as excellently documented by the TSHA source.
• Linguistic Etymology(|Etymology =): The historical origin and meaning of the word or name itself, independent of its application to a place. For the surname "Kilgore," this is "of Scottish Gaelic origin," as documented by the Oxford University Press source.

The `|etymology=` parameter in the infobox is intended for the origin and meaning of the name. Including the verified linguistic origin of the surname there is standard practice for thousands of Wikipedia articles about places named for people (e.g., Detroit notes the name is of French origin; Douglas, Isle of Man notes the name is of Scottish Gaelic origin). This is not synthesis but the separate reporting of two verified facts from distinct, reliable sources. The first fact (the naming) is correctly placed in the article body (or could be contained in a `|named for =` parameter, if one were standard); the second fact (the word's origin) is correctly placed in the etymology field. I am happy to follow the consensus here, but the current etymology aligns with widespread encyclopedic practice. Thank you. Luka Maglc (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Responded at the talk page. Synopsis of my summary there: WP:SYNTH says that if A implies B, and B implies C, and we have sources for "X is A" and "A is B", we're still not allowed to say "X is C". The provided sources establish "X is A" and "A is B", but do not do the necessary step of "X is C". Therefore, stating "X is C" is synth, and prohibited. Also, since there were only two parties involved, WP:3O may have been a better option. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. You raise a valid point regarding WP:SYNTH, and I have sought the specific source you requested.

The entry for "Kilgore" on Wiktionary provides the explicit connection. It defines "Kilgore" as "a surname from Scottish Gaelic" and, under "Proper noun," explicitly lists the relevant toponym:

• Ellipsis of City of Kilgore, a city in Texas, United States.

This source directly supports the statement that the name of the city is of Scottish Gaelic origin(Hanks, Patrick, editor (2003), “Kilgore”, in , volume 2, New York: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 303.), as it is an extension of the surname's established etymology. Therefore, populating the `|etymology=` field with `Scottish Gaelic: Kilgore (Scottish Gaelic surname)` is reporting a verifiable linguistic fact from a reliable reference work, not synthesis.

The separate historical fact of "who" the city was named for (Constantine Buckley Kilgore) is correctly documented in the article body. This is standard practice for distinguishing toponymic origin from linguistic etymology. I hope this clarifies the sourcing and addresses the policy concern. Luka Maglc (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

the ISBN is 0199771693 Luka Maglc (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

First, Wikitionary is not a WP:RS per WP:UGC. Second, even if it were, those are distinct definitions. I doubt you'd assert that, because they both appear under "Paris", that the physical city IS the government.

You cite a book. Have you looked this up in the source yourself? If so, can you provide a quote of the passage that links the TX location to the Scott-Gaelic origin? This really isn't that hard; present a WP:RS which states roughly, "Kilgore, TX's name is of Scott-Gaelic origin." EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: Thank you for the continued review. Let me address the points directly.

1. On the Book Source: You are right to ask for clarity. I cited the Oxford University Press source (ISBN 0199771693) to establish the factual linguistic origin. The entry states: "Kilgore (7389) Scottish: habitational name from Kilgour in Fife, named in Gaelic as "goat wood'. from coille 'wood' + sobhar. gabhar 'goat)" This is a direct, high-quality source for Fact B (the surname's origin).

2. On SYNTH and the Missing "C": The SYNTH policy guards against editorial creation of new claims. My edit does not do that.

• Fact A (Established): Kilgore, TX is named for Constantine B. Kilgore. (Source: TSHA).
• Fact B (Established): The surname "Kilgore" is a Scottish surname. (Source: Oxford University Press).
• The "Therefore C": The policy says we cannot invent "Therefore, the city's founding was influenced by Scottish culture" or similar. That would be synthesis.
• My Edit: I am placing Fact B into the `|etymology=` field. The field's purpose, per the template documentation, is the "origin of [the] name." The origin of the *name string* "Kilgore" is Scottish. This is not a new conclusion "C"; it is the direct application of Fact B to the appropriate field. No source needs to explicitly say "The name of the Texas city is Scottish" because that is not a novel claim. It is a restatement of the surname's origin in the context of the place that bears it.

3. On Precedent and Practice: This is common across Wikipedia. We routinely state the linguistic origin of eponymous place names (e.g., Washington, D.C.'s etymology field notes the name is from an English place name). We do not require a separate source stating "The capital's name is English" because it's derived from the established etymology of the name "Washington."

I am using a reliable source to report the etymology of the name "Kilgore" in the field designed for that purpose. This is standard encyclopedic practice, not synthesis. I am happy to add a clarifying note in the article body that the city was named for the person, separate from the name's linguistic origin. Luka Maglc (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm just going to quote WP:SYNTH since you seem to have misinterpreted it: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Which source explicitly states that Kilgore, TX's name is Scott-Gaelic in origin? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, can you quote where in Washington, D.C. it attributes the location to be from "an English place name", as opposed to the lede with identifies it as from the first President? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

To clarify the standard practice at issue, please see the infobox for Detroit, a former featured article:

• Its `|etymology=` field states: French `détroit ("strait")`.
• The article body explains it was named for the Detroit River (le détroit).

This is the established model: the Template:Infobox settlement states the linguistic origin of the name, while the article narrates the historical naming reason. Applying this same standard to Kilgore, the `|etymology=` field correctly contains the linguistic origin of the name "Kilgore" (a Scottish Gaelic surname), while the article body correctly states it was named for Constantine Buckley Kilgore. This is consistent, encyclopedic formatting, not synthesis. Luka Maglc (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

That's now Washington, D.C. which you claimed above. You also haven't said which source explicitly characterizes the name of Kilgore, TX as having a Scott-Gaelic origin. You also haven't quoted where in the template it says what you claim; all I saw linked to that parameter is the prase, "origin of name" which in no way requires it to be linguistic. Also, note that WP:CONSISTENCY does not lead to a policy page, while WP:NOR does. Me discussing with you does not seem to be productive; I'll let others weigh in now. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You are shifting away from notable high-quality and verifiable sources what I say on this page has nothing to do with what is on the Kilgore, Texas page. Oxford University, dictionary has listed the etymology (the origin and evolution of words) which is the origin of the word not the city as Scottish. This is standard practice as seen by Detroit. And is in the info boxes documentation no one is engaged with edit waring with you. One revert with good faith is not an edit war stop. Luka Maglc (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that a third editor has weighed in suggesting we should only say the city is named after the person. 3:1 seems like a consensus to me. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

etymology (the origin and evolution of words) is unrelated to person it is named after. It is the root of the word. Luka Maglc (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Sandwich is linked to the person, not Old English. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from the page you've just shared,

"Etymology

Named after its supposed inventor, the Earl of Sandwich (see Sandwich)" Luka Maglc (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Also wiktionary is not a credible source. I'm using Oxford University. Luka Maglc (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

... You realize you were the first one to cite Wiktionary, right? Also, I'm not discussing article content; RS don't apply. Anyway, I think it's clear you're here to win an argument, not to figure out consensus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not cite wikitionary as a source to put in the article but as a guide so you can learn what Etymology means, and use the sources on that page yourself like the book that I pointed out. Luka Maglc (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The article uses a completely different subset of references and citations. Luka Maglc (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

 RESPONSE TO THIRD OPINION REQUEST

---

Although there appears to be a third editor involved, they did not directly take-part in the discussion, so I feel I can offer a 3O. This discussion is long and spans two pages. While I have read through it all, it would be convenient if you both summarized your final contentions in a paragraph or two (or less). Thank you. I think consensus was already clear on the article Talk page, but I suppose we can settle it here. Tagging Luka Maglc and EducatedRedneck. MWFwiki (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

This was a bad WP:3O request; it was made unilaterally, and 3O for when no other WP:DR is being used. WP:NORN is a method, per WP:DR#Noticeboards. But since you're here and willing to weigh in as another noticeboard reader, I'll sum-up.

Source A states that Kilgore, TX is named after Constantine Kilgore. Source B states that the surname Kilgore is Scott-Gaelic.

Luka Magic contends that we can, in Wikivoice, conclude that the name Kilgore, TX is of Scott-Gaelic origin, supported by sources A and B.

I contend that, per WP:SYNTH, this is expressly forbidden. The very first sentence of that policy makes this clear, and subsequent clarification reinforces it. We would need some source that explicitly states that the name of Kilgore, TX is of Scott-Gaelic origin. Anything else is textbook SYNTH. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

3O requests are permitted to be unilateral and there is no prohibition against requesting such within other DR methods. It is an unusual request, and smacks a bit of forum-shopping, but I can't bring myself to view it as a bad request. Regardless, whether I offer an opinion under the auspices of a 3O or not doesn't really matter, nor does it add weight to my opinion (or take weight away from it) as you say.

Yes, that is synthesis. Luka Maglc One of your primary arguments has been that you feel that inclusion of etymology within the infobox is "standard practice." In viewing the top 20 most-populous U.S. cities' pages, I found that two pages explicitly included the etymology in the infobox. This information was not cited per WP:INFOBOXCITE as it was explicitly detailed in the article. For instance, Chicago, the "[e]tymology and nicknames" section. There, we see a source which ostensibly verifies the direct link to a language (though it needs a page, and I've marked it as-such). Further, local consensus very generally stays local. What happens on one article is not necessarily what will happen on another, barring a very explicit policy or guideline.

I actually understand your argument, Luka Maglc. You contend that the word's etymology is the same, regardless of whether it is serving as a namesake or not. However, you cannot utilize Wikivoice to say something which is not explicitly supported by a source, full-stop. It may be frustrating and it may not seem right, but I'm quite certain you're aware that his is how Wikipedia works, for better or for worse. A well-sourced section section discussing the namesake/process of naming the city after Constantine and etymology of his name might be acceptable, as many city articles do carry such sections, as previously mentioned. But even then? We still could not say that the etymology of the city's name is the same without a source explicitly stating.

All of this being said, you do, admittedly, raise an interesting point regarding toponymic origin versus etymology. It is compelling enough that I would suggest you take it to an RfC at the Cities WikiProject, asking how best to address this moving-forward. As it stands, I agree with EducatedRedneck, Reywas92, and Magnolia677.

Lastly... if anyone happens to be utilizing an LLM to formulate their arguments, I suggest they stop. It has a very particular way of "writing" which is immediately obvious to many, and it also tends to "invent" evidence. Just a casual observation. MWFwiki (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Luka Magic's replies here definitely sound AI and probably has AI-tells. Basically arguing to an unyielding chatbot. It's like talking to a brick wall. that is also why the illogical 'you cited Wiktionary' while they are the one citing Wiktionary happened. @Luka Maglc I recommend stopping with the chatbot and stepping away from this discussion to actually read WP:SYNTH rather than asking a chatbot to do it for you. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not cite wikitionary as a source to put in the article this was the citation , (the Oxford University Dictionary of American Family Names), falling directly in line with Constantine Kilgore's (a American) sur/last/family name. Meaning it is a verifiable direct Academic source, not a synthesis, made up conclusion, or etc. Luka Maglc (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary was only brought to explain to Redneck what the word etymology means, for them to understand that it is a general knowledge this word is Scottish in origin, and for them to do research, as in looking at the sources that page provided. Luka Maglc (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#c-Luka Maglc-20251229163600-EducatedRedneck-20251229162100

Here you clearly used Wiktionary as a source. Yet you don't know that? That seems like you used an LLM and did not read what it outputted. Also, see WP:LLMTALK, which says that you probably should avoid LLMs in talk pages. Why? Because you won't understand what is being told to you. Please actually read WP:SYNTH rather than derailing the conversation by talking about Wiktionary. However, I don't have much faith in you understanding it considering EducatedRedneck has explained to you how WP:SYNTH works yet you still push your interpretation. Unless a source calls Kilgore, TX a Scottish-Gaelic origin placename Wikipedia isn't allowed to say that Kilgore, TX has a Scottish-Gaelic origin, caspisce? ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I used it on the no original researching noticeboard not the Kilgore's article, meaning it was never used as a source mentioning a separate page here, has nothing to do with its sourcing. It has to do with general knowledge. I never put it in a <ref> <./ref> meaning I never cited it as a source, it was only a brief mention. My source is and only is the Oxford University Dictionary of American Family Names, falling directly in line with Constantine Kilgore's (a American) sur/last/family name. Meaning it is a verifiable direct Academic source, not a synthesis, made up conclusion, or etc. Luka Maglc (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you WP:WIKILAWYERing me right now? You tried to say that Kilgore, TX's origin of the name is Scottish Gaelic. From one of your attempts:

etymology = Scottish Gaelic: Kilgore (Scottish Gaelic surname)

You are misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. Ignore all I said before but this:

Unless a source calls Kilgore, TX a Scottish-Gaelic origin placename Wikipedia isn't allowed to say that Kilgore, TX has a Scottish-Gaelic origin, caspisce?. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

This is about Kilgore's surname exclusively, because it's already an established verifiable fact that the city is named after his surname and it is within in the Oxford University Dictionary of American Family Names which the city is again named after "his" family name, which traces its origin to Scottish-Gaelic. This is what Etymology means (the beginning) by its pure definition, it is "root" origin (the beginning) of the word "Kilgore". "The study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history." - Oxford Dictionary Luka Maglc (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

When the dictionary says that a name has a certain origin, it means only that most (but not all) instances of that name have that origin. When we say that a specific instance of the name has that origin, most is not good enough.

For example, most dictionaries will tell you that my wife's maiden name comes from Bavaria. Her ancestors with that name actually came from Sweden and chose that name themselves for unknown reasons when they emigrated to the US. So in their case, it does not have the usual origin and does not come from Bavaria.

Without knowing more about Constantine K's ancestry, we have no way of knowing whether his name has its usual origin or something else. You are merely guessing based on plausible inference rather than on an actual sourced connection from Constantine K to that name origin. That is forbidden as WP:SYNTH. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Luka Maglc (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

If you would of read what I said above this is directly what I explained to Redneck. Luka Maglc (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't request third opinions if you're not going to cooperate with the process. I most certainly did read what you had to say, I would've hoped that much is obvious. I prefer to permit the two editors a final chance to coalesce their best arguments into a paragraph or two, as much can be lost in the translation of days worth of back-and-forth. Regardless, consensus has been and is clear. MWFwiki (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely did cooperate, what? Part of the process is to challenge other people, their ideas and perspectives to learn. This is exactly why I have not re-added the information back to the Kilgore article meaning I did cooperate. Luka Maglc (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Cooperation does not stop at "I didn't (continue to) edit-war". If you seek a third opinion, you should be prepared to directly engage with the 3O; Only EducatedRedneck has done so, and they didn't make the request. Regardless and again, consensus is and has been clear, and I'm not going to go in circles. MWFwiki (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligent efforts in this discussion. However, as a productive consensus was already reached directly with User:David Eppstein, who provided a clear and substantive policy explanation, this additional layer of process now is redundant. I appreciate your time, but consider this matter settled. Luka Maglc (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Mark Aldridge page additions

Moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Mark Aldridge page additions

Trying to learn more about original research, need some perspective

I have written an article, and it has been rejected twice because the editors believe that it pertains to original research. I am writing about AI tools used for procurement purposes. These tools exist and are being used.

So I am confused by what exactly it means when someone says this article is OR, since the contents of the article are not something I have made up; it exists, and I have given substantial secondary verifiable sources that attribute to the information. I believe I am not clear on the concept of original research, so if someone could kindly explain it in more detail. Here is the URL to the article in question: https://w.wiki/HFMW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writingflows321 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

We only paraphrase and summarise sources, nothing more than that. Practically everything needs to be directly supported by a source. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

In addition to what Kowal2701 mentioned, OR also means that we cannot draw conclusions or analysis that isn't explicitly stated in the sources. I glanced at the article and I noticed the editor who reviewed it noted that there's a sentence that failed verification, meaning that citation doesn't support what's written in the sentence. And on looking further the last section about "ethical and practical concerns" states Ethical and practical considerations have been highlighted regarding hte use of AI tools in supply chain activities. In particular, algorithmic bias, where AI systems produce systematically skewed outcomes due to historical data or design limitations, is identified in AI ethics literature as an ethical issue that can undermine fairness and equity in automated decision making cited to this website which also doesn't support what's written (ethics isn't mentioned in article). So if this section is based on inferences or other personal conclusions/analysis then it's OR. EM (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to add to it, the most important thing is the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia an encyclopedia, which is not a collection of facts that are true; that's a textbook. Encyclopedias are collections of things that reliable sources have said. So no matter how true a thought or sentence might be, if it's not supported by a citation to a reliable source that more or less said it first, it's original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH dispute at "Early life of Joseph Stalin"

Hello! I seek assistance in regard to a dispute at Talk:Early life of Joseph Stalin. To summarize: Editor TheShadowRising deleted a referenced section of text at "Early life of Joseph Stalin". This section discussed historian Stephen Kotkin's assessment of sources -particularily KGB chief Ivan Serov- on Stalin's relationship with Lidia Pereprygina; it was referenced to Kotkin's book Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941 (2017). Oddly, TheShadowRising claimed that this referenced section -which directly quoted Kotkin- was a case of WP:SYNTH. I pointed out that the text directly replicated Kotkin's arguments; as proof, I added an extensive quote of Kotkin directly to the reference itself. Regardless, TheShadowRising kept deleting the section, claiming that this text by Kotkin was WP:OR or WP:SYNTH because Kotkin had not discussed Serov's reports in a previous book Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 (2014). I argued that quoting Waiting for Hitler is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but TheShadowRising persisted.
Frankly, I genuinely do not know how to argue with TheShadowRising, as I completely fail to understand their claim that quoting Kotkin's second book is somehow a case of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. To avoid a senseless edit war, I request your opinion. Applodion (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Replied on talk page; the dispute seemed to be over the inclusion of a quote, with TheShadowRising claiming it was not in the source Applodion provided. I have verified the quote via Google Books; it passes verification. TheShadowRising, if that was not your concern, please clarify your position here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: I'll paste my answer here:

I'm not saying that the passage doesn't exist. It does. But it is not the source Kotkin uses to discuss anything that our paragraph on Pereprygina covers (again, their affair is discussed in detail on another book, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power). The note is from a paragraph where Kotkin discusses an episode from 1930, when two of Pereprygina's siblins were arrested, and Stalin was already 50. It does say that Serov's research on Stalin's paternity of Alexander is "lazy police work", but it does not say anything about what is said prior in our own paragraph about their affair. Again, I don't mind if you guys really think that it should be on the article. I don't see the point, but the way it reads, it suggests that Kotkin used it as evidence for the whole affair, which is not the case since Paradoxes of Power, the main source on the subject, does not list Serov, Taraseyeva or Lidia sources. TheShadowRising (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC) TheShadowRising (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Weaponization of antisemitism

There's a dispute at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism over whether the "particularly in left-wing anti-Zionist discourses" in the lead's The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized as antisemitic or rooted in antisemitic tropes, and as a rhetorical device employed across the political spectrum to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, particularly in left-wing anti-Zionist discourse. is supported or is original research. Pinging @IOHANNVSVERVS. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we could safely resolve this by saying "particularly in anti-Zionist discourse" and omitting "left-wing" altogether. That is clearly more prevalent in all the sources and would hardly be controversial at all. Since anti-Zionism is usually associated with the left, then that covers it anyway.

I have previously pointed out that "left-wing" can be a word to watch, as it's rarely a term used by subjects to describe themselves (though that varies), but I take the point that most critics of the subject focus on the left in this context. That's why Zanahary and I had previously agreed on the current wording, which I think was acceptable at the time (and probably still is).

Of course, bias is also a factor—some of these critics might be on the political right and attacking their opponents, as it were—so there's also attribution as an option. I suspect this will be one of those situations that could go either way, since it's true (trivially or otherwise) that most critics are talking about incidents on the left, even though most of them don't explicitly say words to the effect of "this is more a problem of the left than the right". Lewisguile (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources and quotes raised the discussion:

Here's a non-exhaustive selection of quotes I can conveniently access:

From The Peculiar Appeal of the "Jewish Question": The Case of Left Antisemitism by Lars Rensmann: Judith Butler and some (post-)Marxist fellow travelers do not recognize current antisemitism... but only detect 'the charge of antisemitism' with its allegedly 'chilling effects' on debates, as they charge those who raise it with bad faith and argue that they ought to be combatted politically."

From Antisemitism and the Left: Confronting an Invisible Racism by Sina Arnold and Blair Taylor: "Let us now turn to how the contemporary U.S. left addresses antisemitism ... we identify three common responses to attempts to discuss antisemitism on the left: denying, downplaying, and derailing ... Generally, such derailments redirect to Israel; indeed, this dynamic has been described by antisemitism scholar David Hirsh as “The Livingstone Formulation” (2016). As a result, antisemitism can never be addressed by the left as a social phenomenon on its own, but only in relation to Israel. ... This political context has created a “boy who cried wolf” situation, where many left activists instinctively distrust allegations of antisemitism or see them only as politically motivated smears. For many on the left, antisemitism has become an almost inherently right-wing issue used to weaken the left. ...

From From Occupation to Occupy: Antisemitism and the Contemporary American Left by Sina Arnold (tr. Jacob Blumenfeld): Whether hurled from inside or outside the Left, activists almost automatically reject any kind of accusation of antisemitism. ... It is characterized by two aspects: the automatic rejection of charges of antisemitism (as opposed to a rationally justified rejection that carefully argues why certain accusations may not be true) and the assumption that those who make them do so for purely strategic reasons, without concern for the truth. ... Instead of talking about antisemitism, activists almost exclusively talk about accusations of antisemitism and the “abuse” of antisemitism.

From Demonization Blueprints: Soviet Conspiracist Antizionism in Contemporary Left-Wing Discourse by Izabella Tabarovsky: It is a style of antizionism that was formulated and infused into the global hard-left discourse by the USSR through a massive inter-national propaganda campaign, which it ran between 1967 and approximately 1988. ... It claimed that Zionists ... complained about antisemitism in order to smear the left. ... The adoption of these troped by the left began in the 1970s.
From Contemporary Left Antisemitism by David Hirsh: The Livingstone Formulation is in fact a specific instance of a wider phenomenon. Preferring to define opponents as not belonging rather than seeking to win them over is an increasingly mainstream characteristic of left-wing culture. Opponents are constructed as being outside of the community of the good or the progressive. ... Hostility to Israel is becoming more and more a marker of belonging on the contemporary left. The Livingstone Formulation clears the way for this kind of hostility, and it inoculates the progressive movement: not against antisemitism itself, but against having to take the issue of antisemitism seriously.

From John Byford's chapter "Conspiracy Theories" in Key Concepts in the Study of Antisemitism: In the UK too, it has become commonplace for anyone on the Left called to book for an antisemitic remark to claim victimhood of “the Lobby’s” disingenuous smear campaign.

From Rifat N. Bali's chapter "The Banalization of Hate: Antisemitism in Contemporary Turkey" in Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives: What is more, for many of the leftist/liberal intellectuals, the Holocaust may have been a tragedy, but it was one that does not concern Turkey. ... In the end, this same group believes that the state of Israel exploits the charge of antisemitism by immediately labeling all critics and criticisms directed toward it as antisemitic, and by using the Holocaust as a “moral shield” against honest criticism. As a result, these groups’ sensitivity toward the phenomenon
of antisemitism tends to be quite low.

From Michael Shainkman's introduction to Antisemitism Today and Tomorrow: In fact, accusations of antisemitism directed at left-wing politicians or intellectuals are routinely met with the counteraccusation that the claim is made in bad faith in order to silence criticism of Israel.

Leading to this exchange:

IOHANNVSVERVS: None of these sources actually state the conclusion that this is something particularly prominent on the left. What you've provided proves nothing as there is plenty of content about the right doing the same thing. This would be a textbook case of original research if we were to state "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".

Zanahary: What? All of these sources describe a particular left-wing tendency to regard claims of antisemitism as weaponized to silence criticism of Israel or to smear the left.

IOHANNVSVERVS: I'm sorry but what do you not understand about it being original research if we were to state "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This is very basic policy Zanahary.
The sources you provide definintely show that this phenomonon happens on the left, but we also know that it happens on the right too. So if the sources don't say that it is something unique or particularly prominent on the left, then it is textbook original research for us to reach that conclusion.

Zanahary: I think you'd better take this to the original research noticeboard if you don't think these sources support that summary.

IOHANNVSVERVS: You know what, I think I will.

꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

First, this is clearly NOT WP:OR. The sources explicitly support the statement made. What may be being argued is whether its inclusion in the lead is WP:UNDUE. @IOHANNVSVERVS I'd like to hear you weigh in on this. There's a whole section in the article about the political left, but I don't see (at first glance) one for the political right. Can you point out where in the article it discusses, in depth, the political right? Given the relative size of the "Political Left" section, it does seem to warrant a summary in the lead. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck there is a shorter section discussing the European far-right ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I am more concerned about potential undue weight. A lot of these sources are from relatively fringe authors and institutions. Setting that aside in this discussion about original research, none of the sources identified speak to the weaponization being "rooted in antisemitic tropes." Dauntbares (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it clearly stating a conclusion not explicitly made by any of the sources?

And see Weaponization of antisemitism#Charges of weaponization by the far-right. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS What conclusion is it stating that you think is unsupported? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The bit about this occuring "particularly in left-wing anti-Zionist discourse".

Yes there are many sources to support that this is something done by the left, but there are a lot of sources that say this is something done by the right too, and no sources make the conclusion that this happens more or less often in the left than in the right. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

There are way more sources examining it as a left-wing phenomenon. It’s just an accurate summary of a major aspect of the article content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

But there have been concerns expressed by myself, by Dauntbares, and by at least two other users in the past few days that there is certain content being "significantly overrepresented in this article already", and "vastly overrepresented in this page".

Now imagine an article about antisemitism. Most of the sources in that article are about antisemitism in the United States. It would be textbook original research to state based on this that antisemitism occurs "particularly in the United States" if none of the sources themselves state this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims about overrepresentation don’t count for much, especially when the sources are academic books and journal articles by subject-matter experts. But that is irrelevant to the original research dispute at hand here, anyways.

I think we each understand the other’s position as to whether this lead prose is or is not in violation of the original research policy. The point of posting on this notice board is to solicit wider comment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this analogy and whether or not it applies here, @EducatedRedneck. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think I may have keyed onto the problem here. Is it the word "particularly" that you object to? The sources provided all very clearly identify and specify usage by the left, so I'm guessing it's the implication that it's something especially prominent among the left as opposed to center or right which you think is WP:SYNTH. If that's the case, I can see the WP:OR objection to the word "particularly". @Zanahary What would you think of rephrasing the passage to something like, ...delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, and has been repeatedly observed in left-wing anti-Zionist discourse. I feel that saying "repeatedly" accurately represents the distribution of sources on the matter, and falls within the aegis of summarizing the preponderance of sources. Would that work with either of you? EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

That would resolve the OR I am concerned about. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Your response @Zanahary? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The statement that charges of weaponization come primarily from left-wing anti-Zionist sources might be trivially true because (1) there are many more left-wing anti-Zionists than right-wing anti-Zionists, and (2) right-wing anti-Zionists are often blatantly antisemitic and don’t seem to care about being accused of antisemitism (or racism or misogeny). (Today’s NY Times reported that Trump’s MAGA movement has been sharply split over Israel, with many of the rightists openly antisemitic.) Left-wing opponents of Zionism, on the other hand, generally find the charge of antisemitism to be both false and insulting, and so speak of “weaponization”. Perhaps that’s the reason why it’s easy to find sources that attack left-wing anti-Zionists’ use of weaponization, but much harder to find a source that says that they’re talking particularly about the left wing. The phrase in dispute is not only WP:OR, but also WP:UNDUE (especially for the lead), and doesn’t belong in the article. NightHeron (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused by your conclusion. You state above that the passage is trivially true, which implies it's a practical certainty. Then you claim the passage is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, implying that none of the sources don't say this trivially true thing, and that something for which it is easy to find sources that attack left-wing anti-Zionists’ use of weaponization the statement is note in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources? I'm honestly confused here, as the the last sentence of your post seems to conclude the complete opposite of the rest of it. I must've misunderstood something. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry I was unclear. Let me back up and try again. The sources are basically pro-Israeli writers who want to refute the accusation that Zionists have been weaponizing antisemitism to use against anyone who opposes Israeli policies. The people who accuse the Zionists of weaponizing are anti-Zionists who are also strongly opposed to antisemitism and hence angry about their anti-Zionism being called antisemitism. They are likely to be people who are politically on the left or center-left and who support the Palestinian cause. None of this is surprising or worthy of note – that’s what I meant by “trivially true”. However, the wording of the quote in dispute is very problematic. The phrase “particularly in…left-wing discourse” is generally read as undermining credibility. It suggests that the common occurrence of the weaponization charge “in left-wing discourse” is a notable fact that casts some doubt on the validity of that charge. Thus, the quote takes a non-notable fact that none of the sources bother to mention (hence WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR) and presents it in wikivoice as if it lends support to the pro-Zionist POV (hence also violating WP:NPOV). NightHeron (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts on EducatedRedneck's proposed wording of: "to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, and has been repeatedly observed in left-wing anti-Zionist discourse."? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. Sort of a subtle combination of WP:SYNTH (from implying lack of validity not stated) and WP:NPOV from source cherry-picking. I could see the synth concern (per above), and don't know enough about the subject to have any idea about NPOV. Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate it! I also would like to hear, per IOHANNVSVERVS, if my proposed reword addresses these concerns. If not, I'd welcome further thoughts on how to fix it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

No comment on that from me. Thanks for asking. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you breaking it down. I've been glancing at the race card page to see how a similar issue is handled there. The equivalent sentence is:

"Critics of the term argue that it has been utilized to silence public discourse around racial disparities and undermine anti-racist initiatives."

I imagine the term pops up more in right-wing discourse, and I think the editors maintain neutrality in the lede by not characterizing where the accusations generally arise. Dauntbares (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

My only reservation about ER’s proposed wording is that the term left-wing (like the word socialist) generally has a negative connotation in the U.S. (but not necessarily in other countries). The result of a debate about whether or not to use that word in Ilhan Omar’s BLP was that the word “left” does not appear in the lead or infobox of that article. Per WP:NPOV it’s best to be very careful about using “left-wing” in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This makes no sense. If sources refer to the left, Wikipedia doesn’t have to censor itself in summarizing those sources because some people don’t like the left. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the distinction between wikivoice and an attributed quotation from a source. We can describe the strong POV of an RS with proper attribution, but it would violate WP:NPOV to give the POV in wikivoice. If the source contains loaded terminology having negative connotations, we can include it in quotations from the source, but not in what we write in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This is getting off the topic of original research. @NightHeron, we could use more editors participating at the weaponization article talk page discussions. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the phrase and carried my explanation of reasons for removal over to the talk-page. I should have done that earlier; you're right that it doesn't belong on WP:NORN. NightHeron (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm more swayed by the dueness and NPOV arguments. Which leads me back to removing "left-wing and" from the sentence. Lewisguile (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources used for home address

I am doing the GA review for Adélaïde Ducluzeau. The article contains the statement "In the early 1830s, she lived at 18 rue Saint-Benoît, moving to 16 rue Jacob around 1833. A "Mlle Ducluzeau" living at nearby 8 ter rue Furstemberg, is likely her daughter", which I requested a quote verifying. The nominator (@CounterpointStitch) has replied:

"I did wonder if this is straying into OR/PRIMARY as no secondary sources state this explicitly. I added the line as she has the same address as Ducluzeau's daughter on her wedding certificate at around the same time - and has the same unusual surname (though spelled slightly differently). Is there a WP compliant way of saying this?"

Is there any way this can be used to verify her daughter was still living at the same address she had been at her wedding? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. Even if you cite the marriage certificate (which is iffy; we don't like citing legal documents like that) it would still be WP:SYNTH. Unless a reliable source says, "Her daughter was living at nearby 8 ter rue Furstemberg" or the like, we would be interpreting the data and reporting our conclusions , which is very much WP:OR. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hebrew Roots

Largely unsourced or very poorly sourced content gets reinstated. See . tgeorgescu (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Marincyclist self-reverted; I think we're good here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I got confused and quickly reverted my mistake. Marincyclist (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

And reinstated a few days later by an entirely new account. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Yahweh

At Talk:Yahweh#Requested move 8 January 2026 some editors claim that Yahweh would be the modern name of the God of Judaism and of the God of Christianity. That's WP:OR at best. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Is "Yahweh" the modern name of the god of Jehovah's Witnesses? Is "Yahweh" the modern name of the god of Rastafarians? What god do modern Samaritans believe in?

This discussion started after somebody wanted to split the page Yahweh between the current believers in the god and the ancient believers in the god. Guz13 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The claim is at best unsourced, at worst it's (Personal attack removed). WP:CITE WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Its not OR.See Brittanica. Tiamut (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Fails WP:V. See also Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 201#What is the standard (not ideal) to which DYK should hold itself?.

Hint: "Israelites" does not mean "modern Jews". See Shaye J. D. Cohen's free course at BAS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible. Look, I get that the Tetragramaton is the more faithful representation of the divine name, but there is lots of scholarship transliterating it as Yahweh too. Not that interested in this topic though, and it seems you are very dedicated to it, so am happy to leave it alone. My proposal was an attempt to mediate, not impose anything. Tiamut (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yup, mainly Bible scholars, apologists, and fringe sects use "Yahweh". Most Christians who want to mention God's name say "Jehovah", which is a different word. While Jews say "Ha-Shem".

This is disingenuous as Hashem means "the Name", and specifically refers to this name. Ogress 01:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

E.g., an evangelical scholar: Rhodes, Ron (1997). The Complete Book of Bible Answers: Answering the Tough Questions. Harvest House Publishers. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-56865-661-8. Retrieved 8 January 2026.

See also The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal. Virginia Allan Detloff Library of the C.G. Jung Institute. 1988. p. 69. Retrieved 8 January 2026. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)a

As a side note, HaShem means "the name" but that usage is more Orthodox. Jews may use the names Adonai, Eternal One, G-d, The Lord, Shaddai, etc., see Names of God in Judaism. When the actual Tetragrammaton is used, it is more commonly YHWH. Andre🚐 22:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait a second. Maybe it's true that Bible scholars, apologists, and "fringe" sects use "Yahweh," but it's also true that the name routinely comes up in thousands ordinary Bible studies all over the world—in which students are told that this is the name of their God. Given that, it is simply the case that it is sometimes used by ordinary believers. Hence the suggestion that it somehow "belongs" only to a speculative ancient polytheistic sect, long gone, is simply and obviously false. No one thinks so—no responsible Bible secular scholar would claim that. Larry Sanger (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

First, the Ancient polytheistic god had a name. That name was probably Yahweh.

Second, the traditional Christian term is Jehovah, Christians who use Yahweh are the new kids on the block. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"Jehovah" is not a separate term; according to biblical scholars, "Jehovah" is an alternate reading of "Yahweh" formed by putting the vowel marks for Adonai on the letters of the Tetragrammaton. It's the same name. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Jehovah and Yahweh are different articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

But it's still the same name because both are written with the same four Hebrew letters: יהוה. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

They're different articles not because they are different names, they're different articles because the alternate reading "Jehovah" is independently notable. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

These sources argue that Yahweh/Jehovah is not a name at all. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That isn't what either of those two cited sources are saying. Woodward and Armstrong are discussing the meaning of "I am who I am" from Exodus 3 (specifically arguing that the phrase is meant as a refusal of Moses' previous question) in contrast/relation to the idea of "I am who I am" as a etymology/folk etymology for the name "Yahweh", but neither author goes so far as to argue or conclude that "Yahweh is not a name at all". — Jamie Eilat (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=%22god+has+no+name%22 . You will find many sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not original research at all to say that "Yahweh" is one of the modern names f the God of Christians and Jews—considering the stunning assortment of sources of all sorts showing that "Yahweh" (and other transliterations of יהוה‎) are used by Christians and Jews in modern contexts. This much is not arguable; it's simple fact. Larry Sanger (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

though the vocalization Jehovah continues to have wide usage, especially in Christian traditions. In modernity, Christianity is the only Abrahamic religion in which the Tetragrammaton is freely and openly pronounced.

— Tetragrammaton

In 2008, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote to the presidents of all conferences of bishops at the behest of Pope Benedict XVI, stating that the use of the name Yahweh was to be dropped from Catholic Bibles in liturgical use, as well as from songs and prayers, since pronunciation of this name violates long-standing Jewish and Christian tradition.

— Jerusalem Bible

I have WP:CITED 7 WP:RS. The other side seeks to prevail through ipse dixit. The editors I have opposed at Talk:Yahwism and Talk:Yahweh are very vehement, but they never seem to be able to find any sources for the claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm busy at the moment, but I would be more than willing to look for and provide sources. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I tried to find sources. The results were not promising. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point out that tgeorgescu has made almost one-third of all edits to Talk:Yahweh. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Not surprised, I have communicated on there and have felt WP:EXHAUST. Guz13 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Because there is a problem (an unverifiable claim). Or like WP:FRINGE POV-pushing (it concerns previous discussions). Some people pretend that lack of WP:V and POV-pushing should not get answered. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

How is it POV-pushing to add a disambiguator to an article title? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not say that. It concerns past discussions. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Struck. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I support Guz's observation of WP:EXHAUST. The discussion dynamics here are characterized by Tudor contributing a disproportionate volume of replies, often pivoting to demands for sources on tangential points while dismissing the core policy argument for disambiguation (WP:DAB). This pattern makes constructive, good-faith consensus-building exceptionally difficult. The move request is a straightforward application of WP:DAB to a term with two well-documented major meanings, and I agree with Larry that the use of Yahweh to refer to the current Jewish/Christian God falls under WP:SKYBLUE. The opposition's reliance on assertions about modern religious practice and the sheer volume of their responses should not obscure this simple policy rationale. Félix An (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If I were the only one saying that, I would give up. But I'm not, see . You make claims based upon sheer ipse dixit.

our objective is to introduce to the contemporary church what is the most likely pronunciation of the divine name YHWH in the Hebrew Bible. We did not render the majority of occurrences of YHWH as Yahweh because our goal is not only to be accurate but to use an English style that is most familiar to people. Since most Christians today probably do not commonly speak of “Yahweh,” but rather of “the Lord,” we felt it would be insensitive to use Yahweh for YHWH in every case and would make the Bible seem too uncomfortable for most people.

— E. Ray Clendenen

What does the quote say? Promoting Yahweh as the name of God is an agenda. And it is by and large not shared by most Christians.

It will tell you what is the WP:OR part: you use a priori reasoning for something that requires knowledge of empirical fact.

I'm not a misoneist, so I'm not opposed to Christians calling their God Yahweh. I just doubt that they are already there, as a matter of empirical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I have to say it very much is not a WP:SKYBLUE under Christians, as many denominations including multiple large ones where the name Yahweh is never invoked. While Yahweh is one of the names used for God within christianity, to claim it is the name of God in all of christianity (as statements here and on the article talk page claim) is incorrect on multiple fronts (theologically, sociologically, and linguistically). To show it is correct people should start providing sources instead of making claims of global prominence sans sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean, if you're Arab Christian, God is linguistically and liturgically Allah. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine

The artcle Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine has generated talk page debate relating to original research that would benefit from experienced editors' eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on Applying WP:OR to Site Classifications

There is a content dispute about whether a source’s passing comment on a specific article, describing it as “completely illegible” and “obviously AI-generated,” can be summarized as a site-wide “fake news” classification, even though the source did not explicitly label the site as such. I have a COI with the website and am not editing the article; I am only requesting guidance. I would appreciate advice from experienced editors on how original research normally applies in cases like this.

Source article: https://www.404media.co/why-404-media-needs-your-email-address/#:~:text=completely%20illegible%2C%20obviously%20AI%2Dgenerated%20article

Talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fake_news_websites#c-N2225Lba2-20260125184400-MjolnirPants-20260124024200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2225Lba2 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Dead Internet Theory has an RfC

Dead Internet Theory has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

RFC is closed. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Need input on whether or not an excerpt qualifies as WP:SYNTH

There is currently a discussion here (Started by a sock, the discussion then largely changed its subject when the original issue was resolved), on whether or not the Sangh Parivar is a fascist organization. Following this dispute, an editor added an excerpt from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a paramilitary which established the Sangh Parivar, where an argument is made by a scholar against classifying the RSS as fascist. The excerpt, and its related sources, do not contain any mention of the Sangh Parivar, for which reason I believe it to be a violation of WP:SYNTH. The editor has naturally disagreed with the assessment. We would appreciate any input from third parties on this question. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude Can you provide the disputed excerpt here? It's difficult to say if it's SYNTH or not when the talk page discussion is so long, and the page version in question is unclear. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck The disputed excerpt which was added to Sangh Parivar#Fascism, is from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#Fascism. It is as follows:

Jaffrelot argues that although the RSS, with its paramilitary style of functioning and its emphasis on discipline, has sometimes been seen as "an Indian version of fascism", the "RSS's ideology treats society as an organism with a secular spirit, which is implanted not so much in the race as in a socio-cultural system and which will be regenerated over the course of time by patient work at the grassroots". He argues that Golwalkar's ideology shared, with Nazism, an emphasis on ethnic homogeneity but that the "ideology of the RSS did not develop a theory of the state and the race, a crucial element in European nationalisms: Nazism and Fascism" and that, according to Jaffrelot, RSS leaders were interested in Hindu cultural homogeneity as opposed to racial sameness.

— EarthDude (Talk) 19:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

References

I don't see how anything there is synthesis. If you object to it appearing in the Sangh Parivar article, what about introducing it with the sentence, "The RSS is the parent organization of Sangh Parivar." That should put it into context. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention the Sangh Parivar in connection with fascism at all; it only addresses the RSS. While the RSS may be the parent organization, it is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations that make up the broader Sangh Parivar. As it stands, the excerpt is being used as a WP:COATRACK to present an opposing view to scholars who have argued that the Sangh Parivar as a whole is fascist. Even on the talk page, the editor claims that the author "addresses the Parivar as a whole by referring to the RSS," which is simply not true by what the source actually says. The author explicitly only talks about the RSS when dealing with the topic of fascism, and does not even hint about the broader Parivar. The editor also asserts that the Sangh Parivar and the RSS are by virtue not distinct entities. How is this logic of "A scholar says RSS is not fascist; the RSS founded the Sangh Parivar; therefore the Sangh Parivar is not fascist" not WP:SYNTH? Wouldn't it be more consistent with PG to include a paragraph citing sources that explicitly oppose classifying the Sangh Parivar as fascist? — EarthDude (Talk) 21:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused. The lead of Sangh Parivar states that it is formed by, and affiliated to, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). If you're worried that the discussion of RSS is implying something about Sangh Parivar, again, add a clarifying sentence that establishes the connection.

Note that WP:SYNTH does not apply to talk pages. The passage you showed above does not say that Sangh Parivar is not facist. You may infer that, but it is not stated or implied by the text, and so is not WP:OR.

It sounds like you're objecting to WP:UNDUE weight being given to this scholar. That's okay, and you may have a legitimate content dispute. It is not, however, an WP:OR violation, and trying to paint it as such detracts from any legitimate arguments you have. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck Ahh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part, I guess it being WP:UNDUE is more accurate than it being WP:SYNTH. Should I ask for input from WP:NPOVN, considering that the editor who had introduced the excerpt in the first place has refused to comment further in the talk page discussion? — EarthDude (Talk) 08:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude I think NPOVN is a better place, yes. I'm not well-versed in NPOV issues, so I don't think I could offer an informed opinion. Best of luck in finding a resolution! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Do sources make this claim?

This is in regards to Winter Olympics 2022. I have persistent disagreement with another user over 3 cases of WP: SYNTH;

• 1. They have added to the lede that China detained foreign journalists (plural) at the games. The issue is none of their provided sources say that. What their sources describe is a single incident in which one reporter was escorted back to a permitted zone and allowed to resume reporting minutes later. There was no formal detention, and they are amplifying single events through loaded wording and giving the impression of numerous foreign journalists getting locked up in detention centres.
• 2. Additionally they keep saying that dozens of suspicious Twitter accounts were released by the government. The issue again is no sources say this. Throughout the entire article, not once does anyone say it's been confirmed. More importantly, Twitter never confirmed it and say they are still investigating and will disclose if they ever found clear evidence. They banned those accounts for a different reason.
• 3. They also want to add in that China censored discussion over the potential environmental impact of the games. But not only do none of their sources support that. One of them is a dead link dated 2013. Another only mentions some western countries taking burner phones to the 2022 winter Olympics. None of the sources even mention that Chinese citizens were prevented from discussing Olympics-related environmental issues. I removed them per WP:SYNTH but they kept restoring. So it be nice to have a qualified third opinion to avoid an edit war.

Smalledi (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

'Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China says reporters tailed and manhandled by security despite assurances from Games officials. The FCCC also highlighted significant online trolling and abuse of journalists who had covered Olympic events and related stories. “In some cases these attacks were fuelled by Chinese state media accounts and Chinese diplomats,” it said, describing an observed aspect of state-backed online harassment and propaganda campaigns.'

As this and other attacks on journalists fit a pattern of a state-backed campaign then this is significant enough to mention in the lede. Thus, "foreign journalists were harassed and detained" is fair. LionTank (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@LionTank The issue is that's not what the Guardian says. It says that the FCCC claims these things, but the Guardian has not confirmed it. This would be a perfectly fine source for an attributed statement (e.g., "The FCCC claims that reporters were tailed and manhandled...") but is not sufficient for a statement in Wikivoice (e.g., "Reporters were tailed and manhandled.") As for a pattern, we as editors cannot make that conclusion; that's very much WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia summarizes what WP:RS say, and unless an WP:RS says there's a pattern (e.g., of harassment and detention), we can't conclude that. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Lists of cancelled video games

If you may, I would appreciate input on whether or not it is OR to include games that don't have any sources stating that they were cancelled/unreleased in various Lists of cancelled video games. The discussion can be found here. 🦀Cronacrab🦀 | talk 14:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Pronunciation transcriptions

Does WP:TRANSCRIPTION combined with WP:ABOUTSELF permit citing a video or audio clip of a person pronouncing their own name for the IPA transcription of that name, eg. as in Dean Fuleihan? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd treat it in the same way the NTSB does in their transcripts; if it's patently obvious (E.g., "Dean") then sure, but if there's any room for ambiguity, then no. I've seen some bitter arguments about IPA transcriptions that ended in indefs. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

An odd question relating to identifying OR

A question that came to mind while looking something up earlier, and I'm wondering how to square this circle. Now, let's say that you find something in an article that is uncited. Let's also say you also find a potential citation for that information, but you have a strong suspicion that the original adder of the uncited content and the author of what you could use to cite that content are the same person, and there is no other reliable source for the content that was added, thus indicating the content is, functionally, original research despite being published in an otherwise reliable source. My question is, does this count as original research, or does it being published in an otherwise reliable source make it simply a case of WP:COI? And either way, how do you point that out without violating WP:OUTING? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

My opinion is: If Wikipedia says X unsourced, and editor Y put it in, and only source Z says X, then no, citing Z is not OR (as it's citing a verifiable source, assuming the source is reliable), though it may be undue. WP:OR just means original research conducted on wikipedia. Put another way, just because I say something I thought of myself doesn't mean that same statement can't be included if it's reliably sourced elsewhere.

Regarding outing, I'm less confident on this, but I expect you could just lay it out, "Editor Y said X. The only other place I could find anyone saying X is in source Z. I suspect editor Y has a relationship with source Z." It makes no speculation about identity, and does not synthesize anything not already apparent. That's my two cents. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

No, not OR. Original research policy is basically intended to say, “even if it’s true, if you can’t cite it, you can’t include it.” If you can cite it to a reliable source (these are editorially reviewed in some way, eg a journal) even to something you wrote yourself, it’s cool. The advice to OR people is often “if it’s true, go get it published, then you can add it to Wikipedia”. And as for how to notify without outing, send an email. Wikipedia has a feature for that. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Use of Google Earth-based calculations for building heights

I noticed recently that User:LivinAWestLife (who is otherwise doing a great job improving several lists of tall buildings) has in several instances added citations based apparently on personal calculations using Google Earth. (Sample text: Sources do not state the exact height of this building. This figure was determined using Google Earth by subtracting the altitude of the building entrance from the highest architectural point.) I added a template to the Orlando list, which LivinAWestLife removed. As a result, I inquired about whether there is some kind of local consensus to use personal calculations as a reliable source for building height, but have not gotten an answer on the talk page even though LivinAWestLife has been active elsewhere on the project. If this sort of thing is acceptable and does not violate WP:NOR, I have no concern, but my sense is that it probably does count as OR, in which case it needs to be dealt with promptly since LivinAWestLife has added these personal calculations to many lists of tall buildings (including several featured lists for which it might result in delisting if it is considered OR): Jacksonville, San Antonio, Baltimore, Winnipeg, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, Portland, Columbus, Cleveland Cincinnati, Surrey BC, Tampa, Kelowna, British Columbia, Oakland, Indianapolis, San Diego, Kansas City, Ottawa, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Washington, Nashville, and Boston. Thanks for input; happy to be corrected if these calculations are an acceptable source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone show me where Google maps give data on the 'highest architectural point' of a building? It isn't at all obvious, and frankly I fail to see why a map would be giving that at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Dclemens1971 We have to draw the line somewhere, as many of these buildings are undoubtedly among the tallest in their city. I don't believe this is OR. Information on skyscraper height data is incredibly spotty and unavailable for most but the tallest high-rises in a given city. There are only two main sources for it available: The Skyscraper Center and SkyscraperPage. The height criteria stated is exactly the same as that used by The Skyscraper Center to determine building height. Most people who are not involved in skyscraper data collection are unaware of this. Heights on Google Earth are verifiable and trivial to check, and very much accurate as I tested measuring heights of buildings whose heights are actually known. If this is OR it is a very rare exception that it is an acceptable use of it, per ignore all rules, if it actually improves the quality and reliability of an article. It is better for a list to be more reflective of reality and have these calculations than to be missing some buildings that are tall enough because there is no source for its exact height. Before this there hasn't been any pushback against using this tool; in fact I saw there was some precedent for it on other lists so I thought it was fine to do. Both SkyscraperPage and The Skyscraper Center also use estimated heights and these change as they use an accumulated average floor height based on the building type, and I have seen these figures cited on these lists without indication that they are estimates.

I have not been active much since you left your comment on my talk page, and I was hoping to get back to you soon.

There is literally no alternative other than a conversion formula from floor count to height, which would incite more debate over an appropriate number. LivinAWestLife (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree on your points. I believe this is a very rare case where OR should be given a exemption. it would be quite an injustice to leave out buildings in cities that are clearly tall enough to be highrises / skyscrapers but not counted due the lack of a RS ( Many RS dont even account for these towers ) Ahahahaa (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• This is absolutely original research. If a skyscraper's height isn't listed in a reliable, secondary source, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, this is obviously original research. Including a guesstimated (via OR) building height in the infobox or article will just lead some lazy researcher or writer to cite that guesstimated height because "that's what the Wikipedia article says and why should I not trust Wikipedia?!", and cause a case of "citogenesis". Some1 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's perfectly acceptable to cite a primary source for something so uncontroversial as the height of a building (not to say that's what's happening here). ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 21:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Open and shut, blatant OR. EEng 20:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  I beg to differ. These buildings are clearly some of the tallest in their respective cities. Information for skyscrapers is very murky to get an RS on. Sometimes they dont even exist in existing databases like CTBUH. This could be a rare exception as @Dclemens1971 mentioned as there is simply no alternative. Google earth is quite reliable for measuring reliable heights. I would side with @LivinAWestLife and I agree on a lot of points mentioned by @Dclemens1971. There really is no alternative other than OR here. Ahahahaa (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The alternative is to comply with Wikipedia policy, which forbids WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Per this massive RfC, the routine interpretation of maps is not a form of original research (emphasis mine). A source like Google Earth can be permissible so long as the method is reproduceable and able to clearly sourced to accurate datasets. I don't think the elevation data is all that precise, given some tests that I have run on buildings with known height in Seattle; from those results, the Google Earth figures are off by 10 feet for quite a few buildings, which makes a difference in how they would be ranked based on that source. I don't think this would be viable under the current interpretation of WP:ORMEDIA. SounderBruce 21:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would be happy with adding a caveat to the notes or footnotes that the building heights can be off by up to 10 feet. My interpretation was that since this method is easily reproduceable and checkable by anyone, it's not problematic to include it, especially if it is definitely taller than the height cutoff for that page. LivinAWestLife (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think Seattle measurements, due to its terrain, would be variable based on if you chose a particular side of the building (west elevation versus east elevation can sometimes vary). However if you have the known height of a building in any given city and reference it against Google Earth there should be a "constant level of variability" that should apply to other buildings in the area. AtlChampion (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Your 'standard deviation' would be yet more WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention that he doesn't seem to know what "standard deviation" means. EEng 02:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

By “standard deviation” I understand @LivinAWestLife to be stating that figures in the dataset can be usefully compared as they will all be affected by the same kind of distortion. I’d

paraphrase it as “constant level of variability”. I’m sure there is a formal name for this that is known to formally trained statisticians. The words “standard deviation” clearly were not meant to imply that the user had analyzed the data or that they were trying to borrow credit by throwing around some statistical jargon. So WP:AGF applies, as always. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia Routine Calculations rule, this is not original research and is considered permissible.

As per wikipedia, “routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.” User: LivinAWestLife simply used Google Earth to calculate the measurements of buildings that exist. He referenced acceptable sources to show that these buildings actually exist, and in some cases provided imagery.He did not change anything as it relates to buildings that are already noted on reliable sources. Calculating the height of a building using the Google tools is no different than calculating the distance from one city to the next using the same Google tools. The average lay person can get the same result. I have checked quite a few of his calculations and they are accurate. As you also stated “ user:LivinAWestLife(who is otherwise doing a great job improving several lists of tall buildings)”. The “reliable” sources that provide such data are sometimes not updated for years following the existence of buildings and sometimes do not even include buildings that are 1 or 2 decades old. I side with @LivinAWestLife also. I believe he has done an exceptional job in bringing a level of accuracy and reliability to the Wikipedia platform in regards to high-rise and skyscraper developments. AtlChampion (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Blatant WP:OR. Not remotely acceptable under any circumstances. We don't use lack of reliable sources as an excuse to engage in guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Concur this is Original Research for the following reasons:

• WP:SYNTH makes allowances for routine calculations, but as it's not clear to me where building height of buildings is on Google Maps, I don't think that can be something that can be considered "routine".
• WP:GOOGLEMAPS notes, Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered original research.
• The methodology used is unclear. Does height measure from the building entrance to the top floor? What if the building is on a slope? Do we count structures such as antennae? The answers to these are irrelevant, because the questions mean someone else may come up with a different answer. This is why we only summarize sources.
• The point of WP:V is that readers can verify statements for themselves. A Google Maps citation is unlikely to accomplish this.
• I disagree with arguments that WP:IAR should apply here. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to do justice to buildings or whatever, it's to summarize what reliable sources say. If there isn't an WP:RS which clearly identifies these building heights, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, for the same reason my favorite secondary character of an obscure TV show doesn't warrant mention in the TV article, or why not every sports team is listed.
• The inclusion of data such as this, with no other sources, seems to violate WP:NOTDATABASE.

For these reasons, I feel a very compelling reason for inclusion would be needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding 'WP:IAR', the suggestions that we apply it here have to be some of the weakest I've seen anywhere: they seem to amount to 'reliable sources don't report this, so we have to'. Which is getting things utterly backwards. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, built around summarising secondary-sourced material. It isn't a database for fans of tall buildings to add numbers they can't find somewhere else because nobody else cares. If they want to engage in such pursuits, they should try Wikia or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This is OR, and would be a profoundly bad application of IAR. Google Earth isn;t that accurate. And as far as the mention farther up of doing some kind of formula conversion for floors, absolutely not. Most buildings can vary in floor-to-floor height from less than 3m to more than 4.5m. There is no way to base a calculation on a reliable assumption. If we don't know how tall something is from reliable sources, we must be silent. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Absolutely original research. Photogrammetry is literally a research discipline that produces original research from images. Even if it wasn't, Google Earth is probably not the best source to use for height calculations, it uses the Web Mercator projection, so it literally distorts distance, and I'm not really sure what you're measuring. Are you using 3D buildings, or the image? Buildings are going to be distorted based on their angle to the satellite. Calculating the height of an object from an image is a very involved process in photogrammetry.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The distance tool accounts for the trivial to 2 significant figures distortion of local distance and may or may not account for the slight difference from Earth's ellipsoidness I don't know isn't that like day length vs delta-T where the scale factor (as inaccurate as 86400002 milliseconds by now) is trivially different from 1 for distances under a km but they stack so it's built up to 70 seconds in the scores of thousands of days stacking since the mean day length crossed exactly 24hrs going up/tens of km inaccurate (in a thousands of miles long equator to place measurement) since the 0 latitude by the time it reaches the latitude of Scotland? Imagine trying to measure small local distances on pretty much any other map projection ever made besides True Mercator Web Mercator is measuring a giant globe in comparison. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Nobody provided a reliable source that certifies Google Earth precision for tops of buildings, or did I miss it? Without that, this fails RS even if arguments about OR can be had. Zero^talk 02:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: I'm not sure what they are using within Google Earth, but the 3D buildings are created with a mix of photogrammetry and manual editing, I don't believe they give any guarantee about accuracy. The base photos are a mix of satellite images and aerial photos, and dynamically change depending on scale. You can determine building height from these if you have the exact time and date the photo was taken using the sun angle and object shadows, but I don't think that is what they are doing, and I don't think Google Earth gives time stamps that precise. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Even if such data were available, I'm pretty sure that level of complexity (picking a timestamp, looking up solar angle) is far beyond "routine calculations". EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  I believe that if one is doing math, that's routine calculation, no matter how complex the math. Because anyone can validate it, even if they need to hire a math tutor to walk them through it, and any competent attempt to validate it will give the same result.

  That being said, I wholly agree that trying to do this to get building heights from GE aerial imagery is OR, because there are a lot of important data points (exact position of the satellite and the specs on the lens used) that can't be known, and must be guessed at. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  I believe that if one is doing math, that's routine calculation, no matter how complex the math. Because anyone can validate it, even if they need to hire a math tutor to walk them through it, and any competent attempt to validate it will give the same result. Certainly not. Professional mathematicians are continuously publishing research papers that are only understandable to a few hundreds of people worldwide; they are "doing math" that cannot be validated without access to a specialist with a PhD who works in the relevant sub-sub-sub-field (and sometimes not even then, see Inter-universal Teichmüller theory). "Routine calculations" should be understood to mean exactly what it says at WP:CALC: "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. ... In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote." ~2026-13567-93 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  During the writing of this comment, did you ever once stop to ask yourself what are the odds of an editor ever doing any novel maths that would be entirely off-limits except to those with PhDs for the purpose of [checks notes] writing an encyclopedia?

  And, during the writing of that comment, did it ever occur to you that an editor doing novel math is, perhaps, not doing the same sort of thing as was discussed here? Something that was, perhaps, fundamentally different? Something... Novel?

  No? You didn't? That's what I thought. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Wow what a dick. People try to put their original research into math articles on Wikipedia all the time, and defend it with arguments directly isomorphic to what you've written above ("why do I need a source when you can check the proof that I've written?" etc.). The fact that you are unaware of this is ... an interesting fact about you, I guess, but maybe if you don't understand anything about mathematics or its use in an encyclopedia then you shouldn't be offering opinions about it and its use here? (I am the same person as the previous TA.) ~2026-13816-31 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Temp Account, I suggest you strike parts of your post, such as Wow what a dick. That kind of sentiment doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We can disagree without insulting one another. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Wow what a dick. Thank you for noticing, but my eyes are up here.

  Nothing else you've said merits any response other than . ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  According to their product support forum , they use SRTM data which only has 16m accuracy. Nowhere near good enough for this usage. Jumpytoo Talk 03:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with Zero that my concerns would lean more towards reliability. If a source clearly identifies the altitude of the highest and lowest points of a building, and it is reliable (as determined by its fact checking and reputation), then I would accept the content as a straightforward calculation, but in general I don't think Google Earth should be used except as a last resort, and for building heights specifically I think I might find it even more dubious than the general case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If there was a reliable source for the ground level and highest point of a building, then the calculation of the difference wouldn't be OR. But Google Earth is not reliable for these points, and the method being used seems deeply flawed. Images on Google Earth are blended into each other, so extracting exact details from them is never going to end in valid results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Google Earth's data for the heights of these buildings isn't reliable, so measurements taken off them can't be, either. If there's no other source for the info, then the info doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• This is obvious and unambiguous OR. ~2026-13567-93 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Drive by comment, OR - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 15:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• I realize everyone else is calling this OR, but I have to conditionally disagree, just based on WP:ORMEDIA and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources. Depending on the method, I don't really think this is original research / unverifiable. Let me give an example: let's say we'd like to write in an article something like from the observation deck to the Statue of Liberty is about 2.3 miles. (Imagine for sake of argument it were relevant to the article to have an "as the crow flies" distance like this, and the question is just how to properly cite this claim). I think it would be perfectly valid to do measure distance tool in Google Maps as the citation. WP:ORMEDIA lists "maps" first. My point is that approximately measuring distances on a map seems verifiable. For example, I wouldn't trust that apparent distance on Google Maps / Earth to be reliable down to the inch... but why would that be a dealbreaker? I would trust it to within, say, 100ft for sure, and as long as I don't give a misleading number of digits of precision, I don't see the problem. As another example, if I had a topographic map, and I wanted to cite it for the elevation of a particular point of interest, I think it would be valid to read the contour lines and write an approximate elevation accordingly. All that being said, I only agree conditionally, depending on the method. In those two examples I just gave, I think another editor could easily fulfill WP:V and arrive at the same result as me. But, for the height of a building in Google Earth, I am not really sure what method we are talking about - what exact software feature / tool are we referring to? I did a little experiment: I went to Google Earth for Salesforce Tower here, and I moused around the roof while watching the bottom right corner of the screen. The highest number was 330 for the structure, maybe 331 for some protrusions. When I mouse around the sidewalk (salesforce plaza) I get 4 or 5 meters. So I would guess 325 meters. I did not look up the height of the building until just now, and it's 326 meters. That's a 1 meter error, and I had some uncertainty on top of that. But I would claim that focusing on this error is a red herring: we can write "circa" or "approx" or "~" or some such to indicate our uncertainty. I think the real question is whether another editor can verify that number from the cited source. I do believe, a bit tentatively, that this result is verifiable as WP:ORMEDIA as a basic feature of the map. Similar to how a topographic map has contours, Google Earth shows the elevation of what you mouse over. You do have to mouseover the highest point on the building, then compare to the sidewalk elevation, then subtract. This is WP:CALC. I appreciate this is a gray area but I just wanted to throw in my two cents, which is that it's not really about the accuracy of the data, it's more about whether another editor can verify the citation, and I honestly think Google Earth elevations for the roofs of buildings are indeed reproducible by another editor. Leijurv (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Leijurv has summarized my POV on reading this (mostly) thoughtful discussion. I am also impressed by evidence that available lists of building heights are far less rigorous than I had assumed and are far from comprehensive. This may change, and when it does we can update.

  This is crucial to me: Figures derived from Google Maps calculations must be shown as approximate, with a note about method as @LivinAWestLife has offered in response to concerns. This has two key advantages over the alternative of leaving the info out until we discover and cite a RS.

  1. It indicates to readers that calculating heights of buildings is not simple and can encourage critical thinking about how numerical data is sourced.
  2. It answers a very common question that readers ask of any article about tall buildings: How tall is it? An approximate answer is better than no answer.

  What would change my mind:

  • Evidence that refutes the claim that no RS is available for the height of these buildings.
  • Evidence that there is a best-practice method, widely supported by experts, which this map-based estimation method would perniciously contradict (in which case I agree that applying IAR could be reckless).
  • Specific articles where the building heights data is not important or would probably not be expected. In that case it should be omitted, reducing the number of places where updates will be needed as better sources are found.

  As it stands, I believe this is an edge case where OR with maps is permissible, provided that we are transparent about how the figure was obtained.

  I anticipate and am not convinced by slippery slope objections that this could establish a precedent that will invite a flood of garbage data into Wikipedia. I prefer to be WP:BOLD. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Alarob, @Leijurv Thank you two so much for putting into words my viewpoint on precisely why I think such a edge case of OR is permissible. Since this discussion has been brought up, it's affected my mental healthy slightly and I've been more focused on other pursuits in my life. I'll likely be taking a break from editing Wikipedia at the time being, since I think unfortuately most editors won't be persuaded.

  The notes have always been to promote transparency, though I do wish I had indicated that the figures could be off by a given number of feet. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Someone put this thread out of its misery. EEng 04:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Too soon and too many clueless editors who think that we should do it anyway because if we can't guesstimate them this way then how can we get our precious building measurements? So Instead I'll just pile on. The answer is: we can't. It's OR. Don't do it. And if you can't find a more reliable source for the measurements, don't state them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm frankly gobsmacked by the number of experienced editors who don't know what OR is. Pull your sock up people, (and close this thread.) - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 13:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't need to look up Standard deviation either !!! - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 13:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  How do you know you're not in the Epstein files? Isn't that OR? EEng 02:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  At this point, who isn't in the files? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yep, it's OR. The point of WP:CALC is to allow for information that is unambiguously given in a reliable source to be presented in a slightly different, more convenient way. If a book gives a building's height in feet, we can convert it to meters. What we do not do is take data of uncertain trustworthiness and mix it up according to a formula that an editor contrives. If no reliable sources talk about a building's height, WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE both say that we don't talk about its height either. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yep, it's OR. And besides that, all those pages "List of tallest buildings in X" (e.g. Mumbai) are full of OR: "Included in the list since it is certainly 150m+", "Height estimated by number of sanctioned floors and comparing it with other similar projects.", "Floor count is estimated since different sites give a different number.", etc. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

What's next?

Since I'm involved I can't/won't close this discussion, but I count at least 16 participants who either view this technique as OR or consider the results generated insufficiently precise to be a reliable source, and four who believe that this technique can generate replicable, usable approximations of height. I think that counts as a robust consensus and I'm going to tag the affected articles for cleanup. If I have time in the near future I'll clean some up myself, but I hope LivinAWestLife would be willing to participate in the cleanup process; simply rolling back the articles to their earlier state would be unsatisfactory since many other improvements have been made to the lists, but removing some of these buildings from rankings requires fiddly table building and affects the maps as well. I also searched for other articles (in addition to the ones I listed above) that employ this method and came up with the following list (not all of which were added by LAWL):

• List of tallest buildings in Argentina
• Lattice tower
• List of tallest buildings and structures in Belfast
• List of tallest structures in New Zealand
• List of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach
• List of tallest buildings in Wilmington
• List of tallest buildings in Atlanta (a featured list)
• List of tallest buildings in Richmond
• List of tallest buildings in Davao City
• List of tallest buildings in Sacramento
• List of tallest buildings in Wellington
• List of tallest buildings and structures in Liverpool
• List of tallest buildings in Mumbai
• List of tallest freestanding structures

Please feel free to post the list of articles for cleanup to a relevant wikiproject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fredlyfish4, before removing a maintenance template from one of these pages, please review the discussion above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

"Pure-blooded" populations being "extinct"

Looking for some input into how to handle the "extinct" categorisation in the table at Ainu people#Subgroups. I have recently replaced the phrasing "pure-blooded" used throughout the table with "sole Ainu ancestry" to try to move it away from what is outdated terminology within anthropology. But I then realised there was somewhat of an issue with the column on "population" where it listed groups as "extinct", this seems to be based on the idea that through the 20th century we saw an increasingly small amount of individuals in the subgroups where they were recorded as having sole ancestry within the subgroup, as reported in recent sources that discuss primary historical documents and reports of the Ainu over the past couple of centuries (see Shibatani (1990). The Languages of Japan. as an example in the aforementioned table).

As an example, the Kamchatka Ainu are listed as extinct in the table, the reason for this is the claim that they were last recorded as a distinct group by Russian explorers in the 1700s, and after that the Kamchatka Ainu were intermixed with the Kamchadal population. But this is complicated further by the fact that members of the North Kuril Ainu and South Kuril Ainu subgroups were in contact with the Kamchatka peninsula all through this time, and per sources in the "Ainu" article and the "Ainu in Russia" article, later during the 19th and 20th centuries you saw much of these two groups move to the Kamchatka peninsula and once again intermix with the local populations of Kamchatka Ainu and Kamchadal ancestry. Now to run this to present day, Keizo Nakamura was born in the early 20th century with ancestry from all three prior mentioned Ainu groups, he was moved to Sakhalin by the Soviets, and there married a Sakhalin Ainu woman, with whom he had a son Alexei Nakamura in the mid-20th century. Alexei Nakamura has since moved back to Kamchatka, where he has organised with other individuals of Ainu ancestry who were still living in Kamchatka, forming what they are calling the Kamchatka Ainu, and engaging in community revitalisation (all covered in news sources detailed in the article "Ainu in Russia").

So, is it right to be listing these subgroups as "extinct" based on sources reporting on even older surveys about the decline of "pure-blooded" individuals, when at the time per the sources, they were in community with individuals of mixed ancestry, and we have present communities of such mixed ancestry identifying themselves as and communally engaging as members of these groups? And does any part of the present text, or my view to change it based on the sources about present communities run into OR? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, you are absolutely right that we should not be using grossly outdated terminology like 'pure-blooded'. And I have my doubts that recent anthropology would use 'extinct' in relation to an ethnic group either (it might well be used in relation to a language). 'Extinction' is something that happens to species, which ethnic groups most definitely aren't, ethnicity being the fluid, contextual and constantly-changing social construct that it is. I'd like to see some very strong evidence from sources that such terminology was being used at all, and would certainly describe it as WP:OR to apply it without sources that explicitly do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking through the sources, Wurm, Mühlhäusler & Tryon (1996) only discuss the extinction of languages, the same for Shibatani (1990), Howell (2005) talks of how the Japanese and European commentators a century ago viewed the Ainu in total as a people doomed to extinction, so not the "extinction" of specific subgroups, he does also say The Ainu of Sakhalin and the Kurils suffered dislocation repeatedly as a result of the drawing and redrawing of international boundaries in their homeland. The dispersal and even extinction of their communities testifies to the disruptive effects of international competition in the region which would be the closest, though I'm not sure if it really hits the mark. None of the other sources employed discuss "extinction". They may mention the groups "dying out", but that will have to be a search for later. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that 'extinction of their communities' isn't really the same thing as extinction of an ethnic group in such circumstances. Not while individuals have 'dispersed' (or been forced to) elsewhere, to within other Ainu communities. It's problematic, because it depends on whether one is discussing the Aniu as an ethnicity, or a subgroup as one: and depending on context, both can clearly apply. I'd have to look into the sources to confirm it, but one concern I have is that the table of 'subgroups' seems to be conflating where Ainu individuals live with their ethnicity, which doesn't necessarily follow at all. A tricky subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

One example of a group supposedly going extinct is the Taino people Katzrockso (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Ferrari 360 design attribution sources and WP:SYNTH concern

I am asking for uninvolved input on whether specific Ferrari 360 design-attribution wording is adequately supported by the cited sources, or whether part of it crosses into synthesis.

I am not asking for conduct review here. I only want help identifying what wording is safely supportable from the sources.

Relevant diffs:

• diff – designer field changed from Lorenzo Ramaciotti to Goran Popović
• diff – design wording narrowed with the edit summary: "original research. 456 was Camardella, 550 was d'Aprile. Ramaciotti was the design director, not the stylist."
• diff – two sentences removed with edit summary "WP:SYNTH"

The narrower wording I believe is supportable is along these lines:

The exterior theme / principal exterior design of the Ferrari 360 Modena was developed by Pininfarina under the direction of Lorenzo Ramaciotti. Ramaciotti later filed U.S. design patent D411,138 for the 360’s external form.

The wording I recognize may be more vulnerable to SYNTH is:

Although many designers contributed during development, Ferrari and Pininfarina only officially credit the completed design to Pininfarina under Lorenzo Ramaciotti’s direction. No other individual stylist is listed in Ferrari’s press material or in the patent.

The source base includes:

• Bruno Alfieri, Ferrari 360 Modena (Automobilia, 1999), especially pp. 33-45
• Ferrari’s official 360 Modena page
• CADinfo / Pininfarina material on the 360 design process
• Auto & Design (21 April 1999) quoting Lorenzo Ramaciotti directly on the 360 project
• U.S. design patent D411,138 (Ferrari 360)
• Earlier Ferrari design patents D356,982 and D389,436, which I cited as contextual support for Ramaciotti’s established Ferrari design-director role, not as stand-alone proof of 360 authorship

My questions are:

1. Is the narrower Ramaciotti / Pininfarina / D411,138 wording adequately supported by the sources, or is that still synthesis?
2. Are the broader exclusivity / “no other individual stylist is listed” sentences too inferential and better omitted unless backed by a direct secondary source explicitly making that point?
3. If the article should avoid naming a single individual in the designer field, what wording would best reflect the available sources without overstating them?

Thanks. Ferrari360OG (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

MH17 and Air India Flight 171

Editors keep adding trivia about the aircraft that later crashed while performing Air India Flight 171 being near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 when it was shot down. It gets added to both articles with the same source:

• In July 2014, during a flight from Delhi to Birmingham operating as Air India Flight 113, it was in the local vicinity of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 the moment it was shot down over Ukraine.
• Air India Flight 113 (AI113), a flight from Delhi to Birmingham operated by a Boeing 787 Dreamliner with the aircraft registration VT-ANB; the plane would later crash in 2025 in Ahmedabad, India as Air India Flight 171.

That source is from 2014, so it can't be used to justify the assertion that that airframe crashed as Air India Flight 171 in 2025. It's just Wikipedia editors noticing that the aircraft mentioned in connection with MH17 has the same airframe number as the one that crashed as AI171. I realize that it is almost certainly the same aircraft, but using this source is WP:SYNTH, is it not? Geogene (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

That's entirely WP:SYNTH. Things like aircraft being exported, decommissioned or the like can change registration numbers. I agree that it's unlikely, but it's not impossible, which is why WP:SYNTH exists. I'd also note that Firstpost likely doesn't count as a WP:RS; it's known to have posted misinformation in the past as well as have paid pieces. Finally, if this is the only source that mentions that, it's WP:UNDUE. Plenty of notable incidents had aircraft nearby, or aircraft were nearby notable incidents, but without RS to comment on it, such proximity is WP:TRIVIA. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Regardless whether it is WP:SYNTH it is WP:TRIVIA annyway and shouldn’t be included in the articles. IlkkaP (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree, it's WP:SYNTH bc the cited source only supports the 2014 fact (as the article itself predates the 2025 event and makes no mention of it). Linking the 2014 incident with the 2025 one involves combining info not presented in the cited source and is therefore WP:SYNTH. It also fails verification because the citation doesn't support the full claim being made. EM (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

References

concerns about RfC: "the Ashkenazim originate from the Israelites and Hebrews of historical Israel and Judah" in WikiVoice?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There appears to be much original research happening at Talk:Ashkenazi Jews#RfC: "the Ashkenazim originate from the Israelites and Hebrews of historical Israel and Judah" in WikiVoice?. Users are arguing that sources that do not even mention Ashkenazi Jews should be considered WP:BESTSOURCES, including works by non-historian Jason A. Staples, raised for discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Should a non-historian be considered a BESTSOURCE for contentious statement on history of Ashkenazi Jews?. Some users, such as User:Slava570, who has repeatedly argued that All Ashkenazi Jews are Jews, so it's simple logic. If you ask me for a fruit, and I give you an orange, you can't then turn around and say this is SYNTH because you asked for a fruit, not an orange. All oranges are fruit. All Ashkenazis are Jews, so if you make a comment about Jews, you are by definition making a comment about Ashkenazi Jews, which appears to be clear OR. Thank you in advance for your consideration and input. إيان (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and read through the rather extensive debate on the talk page, and I think you are reaching for straws here. I note that there are multiple academic sources cited to support the disputed sentence. Multiple scholars have looked at this issue from multiple angles (religious, historical, genetic, etc) and essentially they all reach the same conclusion.

Remember that NOR is about the article text… not what’s said in debate on the article’s talk page. The article text summarizes the conclusions of the sources. It is not OR. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

An RfC and two concurrent noticeboards feels like overkill to me.

But anyway, there is no prohibition on presenting OR on talk pages as part of constructive discussions per WP:NOR This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Mikewem (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

As other editors have said, this is an abuse of the noticeboard system. There are many editors involved on talk, and the discussion looks productive. Forum-shopping at the RS and OR noticeboards is not appropriate. Obtain consensus on the page talk for any changes. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:FORUMSHOP: Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case, it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.. This is exactly what I have done for two distinct issues, at the relevant noticeboard for each, that both happened to arise in the same RfC. إيان (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, WP:OR doesn't apply to talk page discussions, which makes this thread inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

So it is not appropriate to ask users here to opine on the validity of the original argument All Ashkenazi Jews are Jews, so it's simple logic. If you ask me for a fruit, and I give you an orange, you can't then turn around and say this is SYNTH because you asked for a fruit, not an orange. All oranges are fruit. All Ashkenazis are Jews, so if you make a comment about Jews, you are by definition making a comment about Ashkenazi Jews until content based on that argument has been introduced to article space—have I understood correctly? إيان (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

An editor could decide they want to include a sentence in an article because they saw the sentence in a dream last night, and it still isn't original research if it was published before. OR only refers to article content that introduces a claim that isn't made in any reliable source anywhere in the world. It simply isn't relevant to talk page comments. Katzrockso (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The editor is using the argument—which seems quite original to me, oranges and fruit and all considered—to try to justify citing sources that do not mention the topic at all. This kind of editing has been described to me as WP:SYNTH, which falls under the policy of WP:No original research, which is why I have come here. إيان (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Once again, the policy is very explicit that original research does not apply to talk pages. A bad argument isn't original research.

Please read the last paragraph of the preamble that is very explicit: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Someone could write their own 700-page book and mention it on the talk-page as supporting their argument and it still wouldn't be Wikipedia:Original research, since OR is only relevant to article text. Katzrockso (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

This whole conversation speaks to the need to add some kind of guideline about syllogisms. In a syllogism, if the first two things are true, it means that the third thing MUST be true, logically. So if a source says the first two things are true, but not explicitly the third thing, the third thing is still true... because that's how a syllogism works. For example, if the source says "all insects have six legs" and we know that by definition "all ants are insects," if we write in the article that "ants have six legs" this is not WP:OR, but a necessarily true statement based on the first two parts of the syllogism. Slava570 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If such a guideline is needed, it needs to be discussed in a more appropriate place than a thread based entirely around ignoring what WP:OR actually says. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

To explain further… a syllogistic argument would be inappropriate to include in the text of the article - unless you can cite a reliable source that made that specific syllogistic argument. If no reliable source can be cited for the argument… we consider it as original to a Wikipedia editor and so it falls under WP:NOR. If it CAN be cited, then it is not OR.

However, NOR only applies to article text. Editors can present and discuss their own syllogistic arguments on the article talk page. While the argument may well be “original”, OR is allowed to be presented and discussed on talk pages. We just can’t state it in the article itself. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

What would be the correct venue for uninvolved editors to evaluate the logic of an argument, as above, if the local editorship won't do it? إيان (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

An rfc, which is already open. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claim about José N. Reyes Jr inventing the SMR

An editor (in December 2023) added a claim to the article Small modular reactor ("SMR", a class of nuclear reactor), claiming that José Reyes, a co-founder of NuScale Power, invented the first commercial SMR design. The attached sources included Reyes' patent for NuScale's reactor, and an article talking about his involvement with the company:

• Researchers at Oregon State University (OSU), headed by José N. Reyes Jr., invented the first commercial SMR in 2007.
• Oregon State University Professor José N. Reyes Jr. is credited as lead-inventor of the SMR.

I removed this claim about a week ago because I believe that the sources attached constitute original research and improper synthesis:

• None of them claim that he or NuScale invented the first SMR.
• None of them claim his design is the first SMR.
• No source credits Reyes as the "inventor of the SMR"; indeed no source I have found claims anyone invented the concept.
• Reyes is also a living person, so any claim about him of this magnitude must be directly supported by a reliable source to be on the site per WP:BLP.

I searched for any secondary source that directly supports this claim, but could not find any except for this blog post by an engineering consulting firm, which was published after this claim was added to Wikipedia (February 2024) and essentially rehashes the phrasing the article uses. I therefore believe it is a circular reference:

• Then in 2007, nuclear scientists at Oregon State University invented the first commercial SMR (the blog post)
• The first commercial SMR was invented by a team of nuclear scientists at Oregon State University (OSU) in 2007. (the article at the time)

Essentially, the only sources supporting this claim are the patent itself (a primary source), if one believes that it should be considered the first SMR design patent.

The editor in question (Ludviggy), disagrees, and re-added the claim to the article, stating that the NuScale patent supports the claim unless I find an SMR patent that predates it:

• There is no earlier patent for an SMR on the books that I know of. Nor is there any government approval, such as the NRC, on the books for an earlier patent. These two things can only be challenged if you provide links that clearly state otherwise and identify a patent for an entire plant system comprising small (~77 MWe) modular reactors that can be scaled to around ~300 MWe.

I am currently involved in a discussion with this editor at the article talk page, and I am seeking an outside opinion on whether this constitutes original research. Thank you!

References

- H2so4aq (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Article on Paul László

While copyediting the article on Paul László, I noticed that the article contains a lot of unsourced information. Additionally, Laszlo2 (talk), a user who appears to be related to the subject of the article judging by their name and file uploads, has contributed over one-fifth of total edits to the article—including edits adding unsourced material. I am seeking opinions from more experienced Wikipedians on what should be done. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd say purge or tag the unsourced passages, of which it's most of the article, and bring it to WP:AfD. Looking at the sourcing, of the nine cites two are to primary sources (archived papers of Laszlo's), two are to unreliable sources (blog mid2mid, workshop Hype & Hyper), three are only incidental mentions (popular mechanics and the Hertz bomb shelter), and the remaining two are offline sources I can't access. Discounting unsourced paragraphs, that would leave 3 paragraphs in the article, one of which is one sentence only. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I took some time to improve referencing—including attributing material from External links that was already incorporated in the article—though it still needs some work, especially as some references are unreliable. I also CN-tagged still-unsourced material. What is the reason you suggest bringing it to AfD? —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It's looking better now that you've worked on it. I'd originally suggested AfD because, by my count, there weren't enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG, but you've dug up some extra ones. I'd still be careful of the obituary (WP:NOBITS describes why) but it looks like there's enough to warrant an article, at least. Good work there. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried to be careful with the obituary to only reference statements of fact that were already there, plus adding the rough time of retirement. I appreciate your input. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis Nationality

Hello. I know this is an extremely sensitive topic and is the subject of extensive challenges. The wording chosen, however, has no sourcing provided at all. Looking at the talk pages it looks like a lot of sources that provide WP:V and WP:RS have been repeatedly ignored by endless twisting of various WP policies. The talk page provides a large amount of WP:OR, but no verifiable sources.

There a many provides sources to provided to support an "Irish" label. As yet I have not seen any supporting sources for British, just WP:OR

And it has further escalated as other editors have now edited my talk page entries. I also tried seeking some clarification from a admin and was accused of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS even thought the evidence supports the change. [] BEFSTCp (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

No one has edited your talk page entries at all, you however are removing other editors talk page entries. Canterbury Tail talk 18:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

MOS:NATIONALITY is relevant here. You've provided no argument (or link to an argument at the article talk) for OR. From a glance through the article, it appears to be fine as-is and does indeed have at least once source placing him in the 50 best British writers of all time. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This is being handled at the article talk page… no need to rehash the arguments here. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

inserting explanatory comments

Hello.

the text in question goes thusly:

"The company issued $400,000 5% 10-year bonds dated May 2, 1904, due $40,000 annually from 1907 to 1916. Retired those bonds (rather quickly) and broke even on cumulative preferred dividends in 1907."

all the facts were supported by the sources, but (rather quickly) was not in the sources. A debt that is originally scheduled to be repaid in 1916 and is repaid after only 3 years in 1907 is a bit unusual. Mentioning it is good so the reader notices it and so that the reader is reassured that they are right to assume it is unusual. In other words it is good for the flow of words to insert the (rather quickly).

Debt that is repaid that early is unusual. Is it original research to state an obvious fact? Do i have to find a research paper that investigates typical bond lifetimes in the early 20th century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-18771-17 (talk)

Yes, describing that as unusual, if no RS has explicitly done so, is WP:OR. It also comes off as editorializing, which we aren't supposed to do here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

If i write "Retired those bonds after only 3 years ...", then do i need a source for the word "only"? ~2026-18771-17 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's turn it around. Why would you bother to include the word "only"? I'm guessing it's to emphasize that it's unusual, in which case it's still WP:OR. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I expressed this wrong. I agree that it is OR, but i don't agree that it should or must be removed. I suppose next time i will just not use the parentheses, that way it will fly under the radar for years. I'd rather prefer there would be a way to mark explanatory notes / editorial comments, but it is what it is. ~2026-18771-17 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Would The company issued $400,000 5% 10-year bonds dated May 2, 1904, due $40,000 annually from 1907 to 1916, but retired those bonds already in 1907 and broke even on cumulative preferred dividends. work? I think even a "but" (The company issued $400,000 5% 10-year bonds dated May 2, 1904, due $40,000 annually from 1907 to 1916, but retired those bonds and broke even on cumulative preferred dividends in 1907.) could be enough to bring a readers attention to the fact that retiring them in 1907 is a somewhat counterintuitive thing to thing to follow the first part of the sentence. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 02:00, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

LOL. You agree that it is unusual, but you don't agree to write (rather quickly). No further questions.

I think wikipedia's OR rule is flawed.

(1) what does "original research" have to do with value judgement. People here are not even using words remotely appropriately.

(2) Wikipedia is not Moody's Manual. The downside of being slightly wrong is minimal.

(3) Wikipedia's main concern is to avoid the mere appearance of "OR", while it is in fact chock full of it. You can express OR as long as you do it in an authoritative voice. (This is true for all but the most popular articles were there are enough people who care concentrated).

(4) Uncertainty is in the nature of intelligence gathering. Even the CIA allows "OR", because they are not afraid to admit to themselves that uncertainty is a fact of life.

(5) wikipedia covers its flaws with authoritarianism. people who are hallucinating cannot solve real world problems. ~2026-18771-17 (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to like or agree with the OR policy, but you do have to follow it. Some content violating the policy because nobody has fixed it does not justify adding more content that violates policy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually I don't have to follow it. I was lately adding at least 2 dozen useful contributions a day, but that has gone down to zero now, because people here are just unbearable.

(1) Wikipedia has 5 pillars, one of which is that there are no firm rules. People who enforce rules here have no consciousness of it.

(2) CLick on random a few times and you will have all the original research to remove that you want where nobody cares. Instead people here choose to be confrontational about bullshit and they are driving contributors away.

So there you have it: your rule is still in place. Wikipedia needs about 500,000 new editors to achieve high quality within 5 years, and now it has one contributor less. For a few month at least. It's no biggy after all, but i just can't stand unbearable people popping up in the middle of work that requires concentration. ~2026-18771-17 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry for my language. It is after all not your fault. Wikipedia just needs a feature to block obnoxious administrators for 24 hours if they revert too much. Since you can't make that happen, i shouldn't be wasting your time here. ~2026-18771-17 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Please note that I am not the same person that previously responded to you. You have two people responding to you here. I made no comment prior to the one where I was merely proposing a possible solution that would let you tell the reader what you wanted while also avoiding WP:OR and MOS:EDITORIAL violations. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry for my choice of language. ~2026-18771-17 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

HQ-11

@Universe01. Universe01 (talk · contribs), for the article, HQ-11, using a Weibo post as a reference is not allowed, especially since you are making a conclusion based on reading the picture. This is a blatant case of original research. Provide reliable primary and secondary sources before reverting, and read Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. If you do not properly discuss the reason why you've done these edits repeatedly, I will consider it vandalism.-Loned (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Loned Is there a reason you posted this here at NORN rather than the editor's talk page? EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve discussed with this editor on his and my talk page regarding this issue before (multiple times). He has been ignoring all comments and reinstating his original research without any source backing it up. I sought to escalate the issue here and ask for admin actions/attention.-Loned (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard is usually more about establishing whether something is original research rather than looking for sanctions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag because of evidence that Universe01, who added the tag, is the only one who is doing original research. Nor did they specify which content was allegedly erroneous. Unfortunately, it is possible that their judgment that all the current sources are unreliable is correct — it looks like mostly Chinese propaganda outlets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history and WikiProject China have both been notified of this discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

These edits are not immediately actionable offense, but getting them recognized as OR is good and I will keep tracking the article. I appreciate your input and your help for noticing the relevant discussions.-Loned (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: The product nameplate (yellow label on launch tube, picture 2 of ) shows that the manufacturer of HQ-11 is 上海航天技术研究院 (Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology, a research institute affiliated with the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation). It's very strange that Loned insists HQ-11 is a product of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation. By the way, the source provided by Loned is not reliable. We cannot even verify key information such as the author and editor of the article from 《兵工科技》. Universe01 (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Your reading of the text in the picture seems correct, but I'm not sure I'd consider it a reliable source. I can understand why Loned has a different interpretation: both China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation and China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation are called 中国航天 for short, as seen in the photos of their buildings on their respective articles, and their English names are only one word apart. The link currently cited in the article for its manufacturer is dead, but the source is archived here: . The text has obvious grammatical issues and it may have been machine-translated, so I don't completely trust that the program or human writing it correctly determined which English name corresponds to the 中国航天 in question. Ultimately this means we don't have a lot to go off of. Toadspike [Talk] 00:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike Thanks for your reply. I think exhibition photos are much reliable. Both 兵工科技 and 国防教育周刊 lack credibility and reputation. Loned cited unreliable sources in HQ-11 article and also refused to verify whether the information from these sources was correct. Even after being reminded several times, he continued to do as he pleased, which is very unreasonable and impolite. Universe01 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

No, extrapolating info from an exhibition photo is not considered a reliable source. A photo cannot be used as a singular source for verifiability. Wikipedia:Reliable sources clearly states verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace. articles, lists, and sections of articles. The source must be from a scholarship and news organization. You called 兵工科技 and 国防教育周刊 magazine for lacking "credibility and reputation", yet you chose to use a social media post as your reliable source, which is simply ironic. Moreover, the social media post itself doesn't even mention the name of the launcher. Your source says :

【近程防空利器-HQ-11防空导弹系统】

🔻红旗-11通用末端防御武器系统是我国自主研制的新一代三军通用弹炮结合防空武器系统，主要用于拦截空地导弹、制导炸弹及固定翼作战飞机、直升机等空袭兵器，为高价值目标提供中低空、近程末端防御。

要地近程防空系统主要经历过三代发展，第一代的HQ-6Ⅰ防空导弹系统、红旗-6A弹炮结合防空武器系统以及最新一代的HQ-11通用末端防御武器系统。

🔻HQ-11是一种导弹和火炮相结合的末端防御系统，其主要由两部分组成，一台8×8特车搭载的8联装垂发发射系统的雷达、导弹发射一体车（TELAR），以及一台8×8特车搭载1130“万发炮”的火炮防空系统，

在雷达、导弹发射一体车上有一部可以升降的多功能相控阵雷达，可以独立的进行目标搜索、识别以及跟踪，为导弹及火炮分配目标，根据威胁等级及距离制定打击方案。

当诸如固定翼飞机或者直升机等目标距离较远时，可以通过其搭载的防空导弹进行打击，而当诸如巡航导弹从超低空逼近时，11管“万发炮”可以在较短的距离内精确的打击目标，不放过任何一个来犯之敌。

该系统不止能打击快速飞行的目标，诸如空地导弹、制导炸弹等硬杀伤目标，也可以通过11管“万发炮”进行硬拦截，为诸如机场、交通枢纽等高价值目标，提供极强的末端防御能力，保护我方重要目标。

🔻该系统虽定位末端防御，但与其他中程、远程防空导弹系统进行组网，对敌方空中目标进行梯次防御，组成一套密不透风的防空网络

The whole quote contains no mentions of "China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation" or "Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology". You only get this information because you personally checked the photo and saw "上海航天技术研究院" printed on the launcher itself. This whole process of "opening a photo of a missile, reading the characters on the missile, then making a conclusion and publishing your finding on Wikipedia" is an example of Original research. You are essentially using Wikipedia as a military blog because you personally found out the manufacturer of the missile by reading an exhibition photo. Personally speaking, I am well aware that HQ-11 is a product of the CASC, but this knowledge came from military OSINT forums I read, instead of any reputable sources online. However, I will not break Wikipedia rules, like you, simply because I know something in my head. The process of editing Wikipedia is equally important as presenting the knowledge. And you need to respect this process. -Loned (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I did not insist that HQ-11 is a product of CASIC. The article before you edited only said FM-3000 is a product of CASIC, without claiming anything about HQ-11. You are reading a picture on a Weibo post and using it as a source. This is a prime example of the original research. When lacking a reliable resource, the best course of action is to remove the statement. Your current revision also very obvious issue on verification. You call HQ-11 "AKD11" with this Netease News source . The article doesn't even contain anything about "AKD11" inside. None of your edits passed the threshold that even remotely considered reliable. -Loned (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

You did not insist that HQ-11 is a product of CASIC, huh? See what you have done. . Go and figure out what's original reseach before criticizing me. Universe01 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Reverting an unsourced addition back to a stable version is not claiming the statement is true. I have a concern about the article, but I think it's safe to say that the consensus here is that reading the nameplate in the image constitutes WP:OR. That should conclude the business at this noticeboard. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Past in the future situations

Blanchet House There was an announcement of expected opening, however sources out there do not confirm the fact after the opening. So, to say "it has opened" would be technically be original research as I can confirm it's opened already locally, but there's reliable source to verify it. This sort of thing actually happens fairly often. How should we approach it? https://katu.com/news/local/blanchet-house-opens-bethanies-room-in-nw-portland-with-75-overnight-beds-for-women-shelter-homelessness-support-services

Voodoo Doughnuts for example, used to have contents about Taiwan presence and the opening can be verified at https://www.vice.com/en/article/taipei-is-finally-weird-enough-for-its-own-voodoo-doughnut/ but closure was not discussed in a reliable source. Only bloggy sources like https://www.instagram.com/p/BPG31-fjuiv/ Graywalls (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If there's no WP:RS to say it opened, I agree that claiming it is WP:OR. I recommend using the {{asof}} template to state, "As of May 2026, the opening was projected to have been $date." If no RS ever emerges that identifies the opening, it's probably not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine

The article Zionism states that The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs. My removal of the statement on grounds of synth was discussed here and three editors favored keeping the statement, arguing that the sources support it. I am unsatisfied with the result, in part due to the more direct statements I've collected in the table of sources which I believe further confirm that at least some of the cited authors (especially Alam, Khalidi, Slater and Sternhell) do not really consider the perceived superiority of rights to be a basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine.

For example, while Alam 2009 is cited in support for the statement with the quote "Zionism was a messianic movement to restore Palestine to its divinely appointed Jewish owners... Conversely, the Palestinian, whether his ancestors were the ancient Canaanites or Hebrews, would forfeit all rights to his lands; he had become a usurper," the same author wrote in 2006 that "The Zionist claim to Palestine is based on 'a historical connection'".

I would greatly appreciate more opinions on this issue. Best, NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

It is disingenuous and misleading to say that there were 3 editors in favor of keeping when the text has been discussed ad nauseum previously, with such previous discussions brought up in the most recent discussion. إيان (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I could not locate any lengthy discussions about this. A handful of comments were made, and none of them were about whether this is synth. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do not edit your posts after they've been replied to without marking the changes, as you did here. See WP:REDACT for how to do this properly. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I tend to not mark edits that do not change context. I've marked it now NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I've clarified that the 3 were discussing synth, which was only discussed once, in that section NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

That suggests that the Zionist claim to Palestine was a claim made only in relation to the Arab claim, which of course it wasn't. The Zionist claim to Palestine exists whether or not it "outweighs" that of the Arabs. That reads like flawed critical thinking (or deliberate equivocation). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Wh1pla5h99 Did you review the sources? Which of them do you think do not support the statement? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

From looking briefly, it seems like two separate arguments are being synthesized:

1. Zionists lay claim to Palestine
2. (Many) Zionists believe that their claim to Palestine outweighs that of the Arabs.

It does not follow that 1 is based on 2. That is a strange new claim, presumably invented by Wikipedia editors. It is hilariously circular ("their claim is based on the fact that their claim outweighs..."). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

It is evident that Balfour’s view was that both Arabs and Jews had some claim on some part of the Middle East. He says as much. The current language clearly fails to represent the breadth or nuance of views of the matter, or their evolution over time. Any effort to mention any refinement in language—at least, any effort to mention a refinement in language that does not cast Israel or Jews in an even worse light—is swiftly and efficiently opposed with a vehemence that recalls Sartre’s description: “If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein I find this comment confusing and I believe you did not mean to suggest that editors are systematically opposing suggestions that do not make Jews or Israel seem worse. The answer to the question whether this is synth is yes/no. Did you review the sources in the table? Which do you think do not support the statement? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

None of them do. It is blatant synth. But what can be done. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that, if I were to address this topic further, whatever sources I adduced and without regard to the arguments I might advance, I should be blocked or banned. I have recently read Hannah Arendt’s biography, We Are Free To Change The World, and so I am very reluctant to be entirely silent and therefore complicit. If there is any doubt, I think Wikipedia’s claim is WP:SYNTH and also ahistorical. I have now done what I can, or what I dare. If I am mistaken in any of this, I would be pleased to be informed, but not here.MarkBernstein (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you won't be banned or blocked if you participate, and it will be easy to back out well before it gets to that point. Slava570 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• As I have written in the discussion on the article talk page, I see that the content is supported. It seems to me that NW has an expectation that our phrasing should be very close to the sourcing. I don't think that is required in order to not have any WP:OR issues. As I stated in the discussions there are reasons why we wouldn't want to have our phrasing close. NW has stated that is not what they want; however, this whole discussions seems to me to be predecated on that expectation. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think that the most reasonable conclusion from the sources is that Zionists believed that the Jewish claim to Palestine outweighed that of the local Arabs and that this should be the wording in the article. It is not close to any wording present in the sources in particular. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  There’s nothing the least bit neutral about that wording, which conveys the idea that the Zionists’ belief that they had the right to rule Palestine and expel Palestinians was based on a careful, rational weighing of competing claims. On the contrary, the analogous statement about U.S. history would be that the belief of European-ancestry settlers that they had the right to seize Indian lands and commit genocide against the native population (with the slogan “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”) was based on a rational weighing of competing claims. Ideologies of racial superiority are not the same thing as a rational weighing of competing claims. NightHeron (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  What do you think the lead should look like instead? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I’m not familiar with the published literature on Zionism, so I’m not able to propose sources and wording for the lead, and I’m sorry for that. However, from personal observation I’ve seen the role played by the notion that Jews are “God’s chosen people.” I’ve been shocked to see that even politically liberal rabbis often see nothing wrong with teaching this phrase to children. Of course, many Jews (including some rabbis) reject that notion as antiquated and racist, and also reject the Zionism that’s based on it. Often Zionists refer to them as “self-hating Jews.” NightHeron (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  No offense, but this is an extremely ignorant take on what chosen people means. From a quick google search Chosen people is not about supremacy, but about being chosen to receive and follow the commandments of the Torah. Slava570 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  No offense taken. That's nice in theory. But do you really think that the average person who'se been inculcated since childhood with the phrase "God's chosen people" understands it that way?? NightHeron (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I’d venture that this is veering into a tangent of minimal relevance, and that if you wish to chat further about anecdotal comparative religion you should take it to user talk. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  In response to NightHeron, YES. More importantly, Jews are not supremacists, but the enemies of Jews throughout history have been. This completely false idea of Jewish supremacy, though, forms the basis of much bigotry. And in response to Rosguill, I'm happy to take this to user talk (although NightHeron should obviously have the last word here) but this is relevant because this is possibly the clearest example of bigotry that I've seen. WP:BIGOT applies as passionate as you may be about a particular subject, you should contemplate just how knowledgeable or informed you are on the subject. Having an opinion and being in possession of facts and/or information that support that opinion is a far cry from being truly informed about an overall subject. If you fall into the former category, you should think twice (or more) about any edit you make to an article, even more so if it's about controversial or highly contentious material. Slava570 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I can only say that the quote you've chosen here is very ironic, all things considered, and the issue here is that neither of you is bringing any relevant sources to bear here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Speaking of sources, @Slava570 @NightHeron do you think that the presented sources support the statement? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  It appears to me that there is some confusion over what the word "Zionism" means? I find it disturbing that certain editors on this thread equate Zionism with racial superiority--and would consider that fringe bordering on original research. I will not comment on the slanted state of the Zionism page but it would help to have a strong understanding of Herzl and also the exodus of Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews from their countries of origins prior to assuming that the phrase is about racism or ethnic superiority. It is an extremely nuanced concept that requires a nuanced definition. [] [] Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  How does this imply rational weighing any more than the current version The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs. A belief one claim outweighed another is not different in that regard from a notion that one right outweighed another is it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Many believed that both Jews and Arabs had national rights and aspirations in the region, and that these would best be realized either through a joint effort (which many expected) or partition (which was attempted). There was not need to weight the respective historical rights. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  What you call partition would necessarily involve ethnic cleansing. Not sure what you mean by "a joint effort".

  Also when you say "many believed" do you mean "many Zionists believed"? If so, do you have sources to support that?

  See Slater 2020:

  According to the standard Zionist and then the Israeli narrative, for a number of reasons the land of Palestine rightfully belongs to the Jewish people—and no others, including today's Palestinians.

  And Khalidi 2006:

  The Zionist claim to Palestine, which since even before the establishment of the state of Israel had depended in some measure on arguing that there was no legitimacy to the competing Arab claim.

  - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  To return to the point of this discussion, it is very different to say that the Zionist claim "depended in some measure on arguing that there was no legitimacy to the competing Arab claim" as to say that it "was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs". If this is the best source for that line, it clearly needs revision. Perhaps, if not too much to ask, such revision could account for the breadth of RS opinions on the matter, being as it is in the introduction of the article. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  One must also take into account the more direct statements of the authors. Khalidi for example said elsewhere that:

  We’re talking about what the basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine is. There are four bases. One is the divine argument. One is the argument from positive law, in other words, the League of Nations, the Balfour Declaration. One is the argument from natural law, that is, the need. One is the argument from historical connection. These are the four arguments

  NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Here's some more support for the statement: "In 1896, Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl wrote in Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), considered one of the most important texts of modern Zionism, arguing that the creation of an independent Jewish state in historic Palestine would be the best way to avoid anti-Semitism in Europe. This Zionist claim to Palestine was premised on the belief that the Jewish people’s claim to historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arab Palestinians already living there". TarnishedPath^talk 12:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  This was published in December 2025. That last line, almost verbatim, was in the Wikipedia article much earlier, and therefore it is clearly a case of circular reporting. Worrying that such an experienced editor as yourself can't see that. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  You're suggesting that Lila Sharif, a scholar, has plagiarised Wikipedia without attributing. Do you have evidence for that claim beyond "it was phrased that way on Wikipedia first"? You do understand WP:BLP right? TarnishedPath^talk 12:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I can't quite believe this. Pearl-clutching as if plagiarism in scholarship is utterly unheard of. Given that you will forgive me for completely doubting your good faith at this point, I will just leave the two passages here and let people make up their own minds:

  1. Earlier, Wikipedia quote: The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs.
  2. Sharif quote: This Zionist claim to Palestine was premised on the belief that the Jewish people’s claim to historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arab Palestinians already living there.

  Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I suggest you go and read WP:BLP. All of it. Similar phrasing is insufficient evidence to start accusing an academic of plagiarism. I further suggest you don't make a habit of accusing other editors of bad faith. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice, but I neither find this nor the spam on my talk page intimidating. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Ok please understand I'm not trying to intimidate you when I say this but trying to discount academic sources based on your personal suspicion they may have read the Wikipedia page is a non-starter of an argument and I suggest everybody move along rather than entrenching over a non-starter argument. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I suggest to you that everyone is capable of thinking for themselves. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please WP:AGF and dial back the hostility just a smidge. This is a heated topic area already without calling living academics in the field plagiarists and then getting snippy with people who suggest you stop. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes but competence is required is a Wikipedia policy that must be followed.

  Arguing that a reliable source is invalid by speculating that it's text is "a lazy copy-paste from Wikipedia" is simply disruptive. First because it's wildly speculative, and second because even if they are copying Wikipedia, that just shows that they approve of the wording used. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I find the "wildly speculative" characterization plainly wrong, for two reasons.

  1. The wording is incredibly similar, with the odd word swapped for a synonym (I find this fishy).
  2. It is already a strange and illogical argument, and no one has been able to find a source for it that precedes its inclusion in Wikipedia.

  My apparent zeal in claiming citogenesis was in proportion to how abundantly clear it seems to me. Please don't invent quotes that I have not said. I don't think I need to point out the horror that is even if they are copying Wikipedia, that just shows that they approve of the wording used. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am on the fence in regards to the source. If it really was copied from Wikipedia, it'd suggest that the author has not made her own in-depth research and thus should not be relied on for analysis. The presence of the word "outweighed" along with Wikipedia's sentence structure is particularly sticking out to me as reasons to believe it was copied.

  Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with the discussion of the present sources. As I said below, whether this source is valid (assuming it was not copied) depends on whether the rest of the sources support the statement, because if they do not, then this source is fringe. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please keep it civil, suggesting that others are incompetent is extremely disrespectful; I did not appreciate it when you suggested that I am incompetent and i am sure that Wh1pla5h99 does not appreciate it now. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's not disrespectful at all. It's a policy that can be discussed and it's an extremely difficult topic area to be able to edit in. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Concerns about incompetency should be raised where all concerns are raised, in the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you read the page you linked you'd find that the page itself says that Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack. Also, it is not a policy and shouldn't be invoked as one. I personally observed that you invoke this essay sparingly against those who disagree with you; you should probably stop. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  The notices aren't meant as intimidation. They're meant to alert you to expectations for editing in these topic areas. Again, quit with the accusations of bad faith. TarnishedPath^talk 13:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Wh1pla5h99, while I do agree with your suspicion of the source, I think TarnishedPath does want to have the best and most accurate article just as we and everyone else do.

  @TarnishedPath I think we should centralize the discussion, prefferably to here. As I have said on Zionism's talk page, if not a mirror, it is fringe. Also I cited two additional sources in that comment. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  If you wanted to centralise discussion there, I'm unsure why you started this discussion. Ps, there's more than enough sourcing along these lines to demonstrate this isn't WP:FRINGE and as I stated in the other discussion the additional sources you provide are not contradictory and can be seen as complimentary. TarnishedPath^talk 13:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Whether it is plagiarism or not, it is an RS and we should consider it seriously.

  Whether this is fringe depends on which party of this dispute is right. If the other sources currently cited do support the statement, then it can be said that the source is not fringe. If not, then it is fringe.

  Perhaps these sources are not contradictory, but as I (and Wh1pla5h99) see it, so far this is the only source supporting the statement. If this is not fringe, it should be easy to find more saying the same. The issue here is that it is hard to prove a negative. If many scholars do not say this is the basis of the Zionist claim and only one says it is, then it is probably fringe; and if not, then at least it does not have a place in the lead, since not a lot of scholars found this basis important enough to mention when discussing the basis of the Zionist claim. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  It is also worth reminding (since we both sort of forgot) that this discussion is not about whether this is right, but whether the current sources support it. Sources about other scholars are not that relevant here. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:CIRCULAR doesn't have anything to do with plagiarism. In fact, if a scholar was a proven plagiarist I don't think you would need a guideline at all. Why would anyone write a guideline about something and then force you to have a slam-dunk case against a scholar in order to be able to use it? It would be a pointless guideline that could never be used in practice. What the article actually says: Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. In other words, the only legitimate way to use the Sharif quote is to find out which sources they used as the basis for their assertion, and use those sources directly.

  What's incredible here is that there have been hundreds, if not thousands of articles and books written on Zionism. And the best you can do is this single source which you're sticking to like it's your last drop of water in the desert. If the assertion is not fringe then you should be able to find multiple sources to support it for a topic like this.

  Finally, it is clear to me that unless more neutral individuals get involved in this, we will never be allowed to make any changes to this terrible article. Slava570 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  You have what's happening here backwards - an editor has singled out this source for removal based on an unproven assertion that WP:CIRCULAR applies on the basis of a single line with similar phrasing. It is not that it's the only source, it's that it is the source which was complained about. The complaint seems effectively baseless. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Nope. This source doesn't feature in the article. It was only brought up in this discussion when all the other sources were found to not support the content in question. And the "single line with similar phrasing" happens to not be as insignificant as you suggest as it is the very line that is being offered as the source of the claim.

  But it sounds like you have better sources for it, so by all means lay them (or even just one) out for us. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  It is a WP:TERTIARY source which summarize[s], and often quote[s], primary and secondary sources. Since no one—in my, Wh1pla5h99's (and Slava570's?) view—has been able to provide secondary or primary sources supporting this statement, I think it is reasonable to say that it is plausible that Wikipedia was used as a source here. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, you can definitely include me in that list... Slava570 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, a single example of similarity in phrasing is not sufficient to accuse an academic of plagiarism. TarnishedPath^talk 04:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  In this comment I did not suggest plagiarism, but rather that the authors relied on Wikipedia. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Notably they haven't referenced Wikipedia, so if you're implying unequivocably that they've taken their phrasing from us (as you did when you argued WP:CIRCULAR), then you are also in effect implying that they have engaged in plagiarism. TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Many encyclopedias do not cite sources; this does not mean that they engage in plagiarism. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:CIRCULAR says nothing about having to be unequivocal. We can use our own judgment. The encyclopedia article was written afterwards and it is extremely similar. That's good enough to say we should find another source. Slava570 (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Here are more RS that support the statement:

Israeli historian Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin (1993, 1994), of Ben-Gurion University, described the Zionists' secularizing of the sacred agenda as follows: “God does not exist, but he promised us this land”. In modern secular Zionist nationalism the religious language, theology, myths and fairy tales of the Hebrew Bible are transformed not only into ethno-centric nationalist myths, but also into positively corroborated legal rights and a “title deed” to the land underpinned by sacred documents and a “divine mandate” – a supremacist mandate towering above both indigenous rights and international law.

While European nationalism is intertwined with the concepts of popular sovereignty and self-determination, the theocratic principle of Judaism helped legitimize the Jewish claim to Palestine as a land promised to Jews by God. Furthermore, religious Jews refer to themselves as God’s chosen people, which indicates religious and national exceptionalism and superiority of Jews over other non-Jewish peoples (Roshwald, 2003,). Thus, the Zionist Jewish nationalism is not only informed by European nationalist models, but also Judaism affects and guides exclusivist ethnocentric Jewish nationalism (Roshwald, 2003). The ideas of promised land and chosenness have been used to justify the slaughter and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The promised land must be purified from non-Jews so that God’s chosen people could establish a national home.

M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

For some reason there is no reply button under your comment so I will edit the page. To take these quotes one at a time:

1. This specifies in modern secular Zionist nationalism, which is much more narrow than "Zionism". It also makes no specific mention of Arabs. The quote is much closer to "modern secular Zionists believe their right to the land outweighs that of others", and not that, in a weird circular argument, their right to the land is based on this belief... in their right to the land outweighing others.
2. Again, where is the argument that the Zionist claim is "based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs"? The closest we come is religious Jews refer to themselves as God’s chosen people, which indicates religious and national exceptionalism and superiority of Jews over other non-Jewish peoples, but it is neither stated that their claim to Palestine is based on this purported superiority, nor is superiority over any Arab claim mentioned. This is just the author's definition of "God's chosen people".

I can save you time if you like: you won't find a reliable source for a claim that fails to even make logical sense. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I already saved you and everyone else the time and the energy by quoting RS that support the statement. I saw your responses above, so I don't expect you to agree. M.Bitton (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you not going to respond to my arguments? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

This is just the author's definition of "God's chosen people" are you a reliable source? M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I came to that conclusion when, just before the line quoted, the author said religious Jews refer to themselves as God’s chosen people, which indicates... Either way, the passage in no way supports the problematic Wikipedia claim. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Since you're not a reliable source, your conclusion means nothing to me. As for the reliable source, it supports the statement (this is a fact). M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

How Trumpian of you. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's keep this civil and on topic, @M.Bitton and @Wh1pla5h99. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

While I don't know if this gets to the main issue we are discussing, I agree with Wh1pla5h99 that "this is just the author's definition of of 'God's chosen people.'" I looked into Zhumatay's source for this definition (Roshwald 2003--"Jewish Identity and the Paradox of Nationalism"), and was actually shocked at how blatantly they took Roshwald's definition out of context. Some quotes from Roshwald: the Jewish scriptures and liturgy both presuppose and reinforce a strong sense of national particularism that is inextricably intertwined with universalist themes of ethics and theology.

and

On the one hand, [the idea of chosenness] is used to justify the dispossession and slaughter of Canaanites. On the other hand, the Israelites are warned (in Exodus 22:21) not to "...wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." In Isaiah's vision, the notion of chosenness is developed into a sense of universal mission, whose ultimate, eschatological fulfillment will be the acceptance of the Covenant by all humanity; Israel is to become "a light unto the nations" (Isaiah 42:6).

Modern history is replete with examples of nationalist ideologies that incorporate a sense of chosenness.

and

In some ways, of course , Israel , as the Jewish state, seems to embody the principle of the ethnic polity, in which non-jews can never be full participants. Yet no matter how much of a double standard may exist in practice, the fact that non-jews are citizens of the state who enjoy juridical equality does have important ramifications for the way state institutions function and for the framing of political and cultural debates. Here, too, we have a biblical precedent, this time in the verses from Numbers 15:15-16 commanding that "...there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the sojourner be before the Lord. One law and one ordinance shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you."

Zhumatay makes it sound like there is something uniquely nationalistic about Jews and that there is no nuance to this nationalism. Whereas the source they based this on says that while Jewish nationalism is unique in some ways, it is not unlike many other nationalisms, and secondly that Jewish nationalism involves living with strangers, not expelling them. Slava570 (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

As I have said in other threads on the Zionism talk page, while Marsalha is a good source, Zhumatay and Yskak is at best a very weak RS, written by non-subject matter experts. Roshwald‘s thesis, over several articles, is that Judaism is one of many examples of pre-modern national identity, and not that “Judaism affects and guides exclusivist ethnocentric Jewish nationalism”. The source is also arguing the opposite thing to Marsalha. Marsalha rightly says secular nationalism transformed religious beliefs “into ethno-centric nationalist myths” whereas Zhumatay and Yskak are asserting Judaism itself is an ethno-centric and supremacist nationalist myth. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states whatever point you're trying to make. I have no interest in editors' pseudo-analysis and groundless claims about the sources' reliability (this is not RSN). M.Bitton (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Referring you (without endorsement) to statements you make at times like these: NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Comparing apples to oranges proves that you are yet to understand what you did wrong. M.Bitton (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The appropriate place to allege that I did something wrong is WP:AE or, preferably, on my talk page along with suggestions for improvements. Besides, at times both apples and oranges are equally and comparably tasty, even if on the surface they may appear different to some observers. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Back to substance: these authors have only 40 citations combined . NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no interest in editors' pseudo-analysis and groundless claims about the sources' reliability (this is not RSN). M.Bitton (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

If you have no interest in editors' analysis (and the only response you can muster is it supports the statement (this is a fact)) then is it possible that you, and not those who are willingly to engage, are the problem here?

And this conversation absolutely belongs here since we have not found a single reliable source for the claim in question—even the unreliable one was published after the fact. What do you think original research is? Look forward to more receptive responses. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Might be worth bringing up in his ongoing WP:AE report for administrators to evaluate NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Not the place for this @NorthernWinds. Please focus on content and not contributors. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I apologize. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

we have not found.. we must be reading different discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Then, once again, would you like to explain how either of the sources you presented support the claim The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs? If you cannot (or will not) do so, then I will have to take it that you accept that they do not, in fact, support it. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

They support the statement, and I certainly why I should waste my time explaining the obvious. Since your position is known, your approval is neither needed nor expected. M.Bitton (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for making your position clear. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton, can I clarify what you're saying please about RSN. Are you saying that if I want to criticise the source you've invoked in this discussion, I can only do so on RSN and not here or on the article talk page, and thus to do so I need to raise it at RSN? I am very happy to raise it there if that is what you're requesting, but I'm not clear what the policy basis for that would be, so I just want to check I'm understanding your request correctly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I already saved you and everyone else the time and the energy by quoting RS that contradict the statement.

1. Prof. Anita Shapira: Zionists regarded the denial of an Arab exclusive right to Palestine as a matter of negligible importance.
2. Prof. Chaim Gans: The Zionist movement aspired to realize Jews’ interests in adhering to their culture and in realizing their right to self-determination in the Land of Israel rather than in places where the Jews were currently residing, or in any other territory without a special significance in the history of the Jewish people.3 This aspiration was based on what has often been called the historical right of the Jews to the Land of Israel.
   
3. Prof. Tamar Meisels: The justification of Jewish settlement rests on historical arguments
4. Prof. Roger Frieland & Prof. Richard D. Hecht: religions anchored in these sacred centers have been essential to the formation of modern nationalist movements and the modern nations hold these sites sacred as nationalist - not just religious - centers. Jerusalem is, of course, the sovereign capital of Israel, and the Zionist claim to Palestine is rooted here. After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Jews adapted to their exile by holding tightly to their map of history, to the repeated and promised cycle of exile and redemption. The Jews survived as a people, Eli Wiesel is fond of saying, because they remembered. As Saul Friedlander and Adam Seligman have recently shown, the Israelis placed the Shoah, the Nazi destruction of European Jewry, into this classic narrative form, the singular evilness of exile followed by national redemption. This sequence could be read both as a "secular" statement of historical cause and reason for nationhood, and as a "religious" statement of God's direction of history.
5. Prof. Yosef Gorny: One cannot attempt to answer these questions without clarifying some of the Zionist tenets which determined the nature of the Arab-Jewish problem. Zionism has always adhered to four social and political tenets, without which its existence would have been pointless and its efforts doomed to failure. All these principles had a powerful influence, direct or indirect, on its policy towards the Arabs. The first principle was the desire for the territorial concentration of the Jewish people in Palestine, their historic homeland, Eretz Yisrael-The Land of Israel. This claim for a homeland, in the name of an historical right by a people not residing within it, implied, a priori, a denial, whether moderate or extreme, of the exclusive rights of the Arab residents. (key word: implied; not "was based on" nor anything of the sort. This was a consequence)
6. Prof. Moshe Maoz: Both movements have claimed full legitimate rights over the entire land: Eretz Israel or Falastin. The Zionists, by recounting historical rights and divine promises derived from the Bible, and the Palestinians, by citing historical continuity and religious bonds, as well as their demographic majority cum the right of self-determination.
7. Assoc. Prof. Aaron Berman: He then went on to challenge the very basis of the Jewish claim to Palestine, claiming: ["]Palestine does not belong to the Jews. It does not belong to them on historical grounds. They had full possession of it for less than five hundred years. The Arabs have had it for thirteen hundred years. The Jews were not driven out of Palestine by the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus. Their dispersion for several hundred years had been a voluntary diaspora.["].
8. Prof. Ronald Allen Goldberg: The Jewish claim to Palestine dates back to biblical times, when the Jews ruled their own nation. Dispersed by the Romans, they became a minority in the area. Many years later, following the rise of Islam, the Arabs began to populate the area and eventually became the majority. A small Jewish population remained in the area, augmented greatly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. After the horrors of World War II, the Jewish community pressured for the revival of a Jewish state in their ancient homeland.

Need any more? It is not difficult to find these, you just have to search. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing ORN with NPOVN. Please don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we've discussed it in depth and have reached a stalemate. See RfC on this NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The only way this can be called a stalemate is because we can't move forward. But if you look at the evidence presented, it is an open and shut case. One one side we have an encyclopedia entry challenged on the grounds of WP:CIRCULAR. Two other sources were then presented, which were challenged by Wh1pla5h99 as not supporting the statement. I concurred and I believe so did Northern Winds. The second source was also challenged by myself, and BobfromBrockley added it was a low quality RS. The only response to these challenges seem to be "I'm just right," "I'm the smart one here" and "I have no interest in this discussion [even though for some reason I can't stop posting about it when I could easily just move on to things I DO have interest in]."

On the other side we have a lengthy list of sources provided by NorthernWinds which contradict the statement, followed by a reply of "don't ping me again."

What we need here is an administrator to help us move to the next step and edit the article. Are there no uninvolved adults here who can help us move on? We can't have an RFC about every single issue. Slava570 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

challenged on the grounds of WP:CIRCULAR that's just some editor's unsubtantited claim (it's also a BLP violation since it's accusing a living scholar of plagiarism).

Two other sources... low quality RS that's an unsubstantiated claim (one that will never be substantiated in the appropriate venue).

What we need is some input from uninvolved editors, but for that to happen, the involved editors who are hogging this discussion need to step back. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

What we need to do is move along to the editing phase and stop wasting everyone's time and stonewalling. Are there any uninvolved editors that can review M.Bitton's latest repetition and the responses to it above? Pretty please? Slava570 (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Purely procedural question: Is it possible to do a closure request for a discussion like this, or are noticeboards not included? Slava570 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you and @NorthernWinds should both review WP:BLUDGEON and consider the possibility that your opinion on this matter has been heard. Whether other voices have anything to contribute will likely become more visible when the conversation is not being monopolized. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I think many opinions on all sides of this have been heard, which is why I'm trying to figure out a way to get a neutral closer to end the discussion so we can move on. Slava570 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say its worth a try on WP:CR. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Done Slava570 (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't need and shouldn't have a formal close. Most of the ORN participants are involved in a Talk:Zionism discussion. If people feel that they wish to ascertain consensus it should be taken to an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 06:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 something tells me that the bludgeoning is meant to prevent uninvolved editors from weighing in. M.Bitton (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe neither of us have been making the same argument over and over. Conversely, someone here has been copying and pasting the same sentence in multiple places . NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Please note this discussion as moved on to Talk:Zionism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

References