Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 54

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Uness232 is claiming Köppen climate type for a city is WP:CALC, even when reliable sources contradict the calculations they claim.

There does seem to be simple formulas for climate types, but the data collection may not be that straightforward.

For example, [1]:

2.2 Data sets
ERA5-Land is a reanalysis data set providing an accurate description of the climate of the past, created by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. It has been produced by replaying the land component of the ERA5 climate reanalysis, at an enhanced horizontal resolution of 0.1° × 0.1° (i.e., native spatial resolution is 9 km) and hourly temporal resolution (Muñoz Sabater, 2019). Reanalysis combines model data with observations from across the world into a globally complete and consistent data set using the laws of physics, and it produces data that goes several decades back in time. The ERA5-Land data set, as with any other simulation, provides estimates that have some degree of uncertainty that grows as we go back in time, because the number of available observations is lower.
E-OBS is a daily gridded land-only observational data set over Europe, with horizontal resolution of 0.1° × 0.1°. The blended time series from the station network of the European Climate Assessment & Dataset (ECA&D) project forms the basis for the E-OBS gridded data set (Cornes et al., 2018). All station data are sourced directly from the European National Meteorological and Hydrological Services or other data-holding institutions. The observations cover 24 h per time step, but the exact period can be different per region and the reason for this is that some data providers measure from midnight to midnight while others might measure from morning to morning. However, it is made sure that the largest part of the measured 24-h period corresponds to the day attached to the time step in E-OBS. While it remains an important data set for the validation of climate models, E-OBS is also used more generally for monitoring the climate across Europe.
In this study, we used both ERA5-Land and E-OBS climate data sets, from 1961 to 2020, for Southeastern Europe.

Is Köppen climate type WP:CALC, even when those calculations contradict reliable sources? Bogazicili (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili I have four points to make here:

1) I do not believe there is any contradiction between WP:RS in this case. This is a methodical issue; which is that the source used for the climate rules of the WP:CALC made in that page, and the rules of the map source used by Bogazicili use slightly different variants of the Köppen climate classification. Specifically, one uses 30mm as the differentiator between Cs and Cf climates, and the other uses 40mm. As the city in question, Istanbul, has summer rainfall between 30mm and 40mm (also see map source by Turkish Meteorological Institute), the WP:RS seem to conflict, but if 40mm were used by both, the WP:RS would agree. I therefore object to the framing of this issue as one related to contradiction, because there is no contradiction, just different methodology.

2) The data collection method presented here only applies to maps (and the source is indeed a map), and is actually a very good demonstration of why we generally don't use maps to determine Köppen types for locations. Station data weather collection is very simple, and is stored in reliable sources (like NOAA), is (as long as the source is reliable) always standardized, real weather data, and as Köppen only accepts one set of values, these climate classifications were specifically created for station data. Maps on the other hand have to use simulations (that are often only somewhat accurate) as it has to create a square grid out of weather stations which are unsurprisingly not arranged in a square grid. It is important to note (as the source also does) that simulation data, such as those of ERA5, is not real weather data:

The ERA5-Land data set, as with any other simulation, provides estimates that have some degree of uncertainty that grows as we go back in time, because the number of available observations is lower.

This is why a good climatologist would oppose an attempt to replace station data with reanalysis data, as they often contradict each other. There is no uncertainty in the data of a weather station. It just reports what it measures, and it is the industry standard for measuring climate.

3) As for the purported WP:OR/lack of WP:CALC, the policies state:

The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation.

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.

If,

• The editor cites the rules of climate zone calculation in a way that anyone can verify; (checks the CALC box)
• The editor also has reliably sourced data in the same article required for the calculation; (checks the NOR box)

then there should be no argument for OR, as there is nothing here that is not verifiable using simple math.

Quick demonstration below:

• You get; climate data for Sarıyer, and the rules of Köppen from reliable sources.
• You then calculate:
  • As the climate has a month over 10C, it is not an E climate. As its precipitation is above 288mm, it is not a B climate. As its coldest month is between -3 and 18C, it is a C climate.
  • As its rainfall maximum is not in summer, it can not be a Cw climate. As no month has precipitation below 30mm, it can not be a Cs climate. Therefore it is a Cf climate.
  • As it has more than 3 months over 10C, it is not a Cfc climate. As its hottest month is above 22.1C, it is a Cfa climate.
  • Cfa, according to most sources (this one included), is called humid subtropical.
• Then you write.
  • According to the Köppen climate classification, Sarıyer has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa).

None of this is original research, in fact there's very little research at all.

4) The method I just described is the one common across all of Wikipedia. Look at any popular city article, and you will see that they are made with the implicit assumption that climate types are WP:CALC. Changing this would render 90% of climate sections WP:OR. I am deeply uncomfortable with the destructive effect that would have for the climatology part of this encylopedia, and as usual, synth should not be ubiquitous. Uness232 (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

How many years worth of data from Sarıyer? Why do you think Sarıyer is representative of Istanbul?

Your calculations contradict multiple reliable sources, which all show Istanbul as mainly Csa

• "İstanbul has a modified Mediterranean climate (Csa in the Köppen–Geiger climate classification) that is both wetter (humid subtropical: Cfa) and stormier (oceanic: Cfb)" Landscapes and Landforms of Turkey p. 250
• "Although the climatic structure varies regionally due to the influence of the Marmara Sea and the Bosphorus, the city has a Mediterranean climate" journal article
• Map: [2]
• Map: page 471
• Map: [3] (European side only)

Also while Britannica can be used, it's not the highest quality source. Here's a journal article: Cs uses below 40mm, not 30 Bogazicili (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Uness232, the fact that you are using your own data with potentially outdated Britannica definition (below 30mm) makes this WP:SYNTH.

You haven't provided a single quality source that contradicts above sources, besides your own calculation. Bogazicili (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

How many years worth of data from Sarıyer? Why do you think Sarıyer is representative of Istanbul?

30, as is the climate normal (this has been the standard since the 1930s). Sarıyer is not representative of all of Istanbul, I am simply saying that some parts of Istanbul would be Cfa if the 30mm threshold was used, but not if the 40mm threshold is used. Whether or not 30mm or 40mm should be used is not our discussion right now: you are claiming that finding a climate zone from reliable station data and the rules of a climate classification is SYNTH. I am disagreeing with that.

Your calculations contradict multiple reliable sources, which all show Istanbul as mainly Csa

They are not my calculations, they represent wording that was placed here years ago (which I removed for softer wording). They also do not contradict each other, as per what I explained to you in my previous response. If I were to use the 40mm threshold as your sources do, I would find that Istanbul is Mediterranean, because the sources also use 40mm. Also, if indeed there is a decision made that only the 40mm threshold be used on Wikipedia, I would gladly agree with you that Istanbul is entirely Mediterranean by the Köppen classification. Mind you, I'm not the one inserting the wording, I am the one challenging your assertion that this is clear cut. And it is not.

the fact that you are using your own data with potentially outdated Britannica definition (below 30mm) makes this WP:SYNTH.

What? That's not what WP:SYNTH means. First of all, this is data obtained from the NOAA, and is the standardized data of WMO stations. They are not my data. Also whether my data is outdated or not (again, separate discussion) has nothing to do with whether it synthesizes an argument not explicitly stated by either source. On that note, (analogically) I have a source that says that Istanbul has temperature X, and another saying that ALL cities with temperature X belong to zone Y. This can not be SYNTH. More analogically, if this is WP:SYNTH than so must be this blurb below:

• I, Uness232, am a member of the famous indie rock band "the Wikipedians". This is certain and is reliably sourced.
• You get reliably sourced information that ALL members of "the Wikipedians" have been infected with COVID-19 and had to cancel their tour, but the article doesn't mention me by name.
• You write this sentence into my article: "Uness232, along with all other members of "the Wikipedians", was infected with COVID-19 and canceled their tour."
• I then cry SYNTH, saying that the source does not say that I specifically was infected.

The temperatures are from a reliable source, the rules are from a reliable source, nothing has been synthesized that can't be verified with some simple math, therefore it is not SYNTH. Uness232 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, you do not understand Wikipedia policies if you are saying something like Also, if indeed there is a decision made that only the 40mm threshold be used on Wikipedia,

Wikipedia does not make decisions like that. We just go over the sources and how to best represent them in line with WP:PAGs. Bogazicili (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I meant something like the RfC process and precedent of consensus, but go ahead. I'm not entertaining an accusation like that: my point still stands. Uness232 (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Right now, the WP:ONUS is on you to show these type of climate type calculations you personally make is not WP:OR. That is what I had meant in previous discussions. Bogazicili (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The assertion you make is neither at WP:ONUS nor WP:BURDEN, and I did not personally make these calculations, but either way; is defending these methods not what I'm doing now? I have told you why I don't believe it to be OR, provided logical reasoning, what else do you expect me to do? Uness232 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You have said: On Wikipedia, we calculate Köppen weather types using the rules of Köppen (ideally relaiably sourced), and the reliably sourced weatherbox info provided in the article. Until we get through this issue, I am done arguing [4]

I am saying you need to gain consensus that this is not WP:OR.

This includes if and when you add such material into Wikipedia (you might not have done this before) and when you are contesting reliable sources based on your calculation.

For example, I had requested reliable sources[5] for your claim that Under Köppen's classification, as I demonstrated above, Istanbul has equal stakes to all three climate zones [6]

The ONUS part is implicit. For example, you are claiming, based on your calculations, mentioning non-Mediterranean climate types have equal weight for Istanbul without providing any high quality sources. Instead, you are just saying "we calculate Köppen weather..." Bogazicili (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning many times, and you keep dismissing it out of hand. I am not individually responsible for the encyclopedia, and meither do I need to individually gain consensus for a years-long status quo. If there is consensus against it I would gladly join in. I am also no longer interested in continuing this discussion. I believe a third party should step in. Uness232 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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. Is there a demonstration of such consensus here that the calculations are correct and meaningfully reflect the sources? Because it sounds like, from the mere existence of this discussion, that there's not. If there's no consensus, then they're not routine calculations, they're original research via synthesis. Your statement that you're not required to gain consensus here is incorrect; it's explicitly required by the policy you're citing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I also asked if there was an RfC before [7][8] but did not get a response.

It should be clear these are not routine calculations, since the results get published in journals. The data collection part is the part that requires expertise [9]. But routine calculations like arithmetic would not be published as research articles in peer-reviewed journals. Bogazicili (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Your statement on data collection is incorrect, because the data collection is done for maps, not for station data. All your sources are maps, which require expertise to create. Point taken otherwise. And I'll stop arguing about this. Uness232 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester I am not in a place to argue the specifics of policy here, especially with an admin, so I'll just say this. I believe that this decision, if made, could enter territory that's very damaging to the climate sections of this encyclopedia. By your definition 90% of climate information on this encylopedia is WP:OR by WP:SYNTH, and as someone experienced in editing climate sections I think this would hurt, and not help, the encyclopedia. I leave the rest to you guys. Uness232 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned with WP:OR violations at the International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article. There are two parts I would like to address:

• The first is a note on the article that applies the Montevideo Convention to states that have withdrawn recognition from the SADR. To summarize, the convention was signed by a handful of states stating that "once one state recognizes another as a fellow sovereign state, this recognition cannot be revoked." The application of the Montevideo Convention "to all subjects of international law as a whole" is controversial among academics, and the sources provided do not argue that the Montevideo Convention applies to states that have withdrawn recognition from the SADR. Rather, the Center for Studies on Western Sahara, often cited as a reliable source for the number of states recognizing the SADR, only applies the convention to 7 out of the 37 states that have withdrawn recognition as a breach of their obligations. This note has been tagged as "dubious" for over a year, and no other Wikipedia article on the recognition of disputed states contains this note. Since reliable sources are not making the argument that this article is making, I believe this could be a WP:SYNTH violation.
• The second is a sentence that states: "Several African countries and Caribbean or Pacific island-states have taken such actions subsequent to Moroccan lobbying and offers of economic and other exchanges, although the association of such decisions and these efforts is disputable". The sources cited, added between 2010 and 2012, are reports of Moroccan investments in Caribbean nations; they do not connect these projects to anti-SADR lobbying. I believe this could be a WP:OR violation. I attempted to replace this with a scholarly source, but was reverted.

Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It's properly sourced to scholarly RS about states recognition (more can be added if needed). It's definitely not synth, and being tagged is meaningless as anyone can tag anything they want. The one source that you are citing now is not about international law and wouldn't trump all the others even if it was.

I haven't looked at the second sentence properly, but I will note that you came here after blanking part of the article and without raising any specific issue on the talk page (vague claims and links to various policies don't mean much). M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I was looking to update the Eurofighter internal fuel capacity. The source I have is in litres but the standard for aircraft on Wiki is in KG. To convert JetA1 form L to KG you multiply by 0.8. I am being told this is OR. This seems absurdly strict frankly. What do you guys think? Liger404 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This might fall under WP:CALC, which is explicitly not original research. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not OR if the factor 0.8 is verifiable. I believe it is a standard of some sort, though the actual value varies. Zero^talk 06:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah there is a standard industry value of 0.8 even though the real world value is a range. https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/products/fuel-conversion-factors-jeta1.pdf Liger404 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I consider that a clearcut WP:CALC case as long as there's an RS for the density, which looks like is the case here. If there's a known range for the density, you can note the corresponding range for the weight instead of using the single density value of 0.8kg/L. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a known range, it's just not industry convention to to allow for it, the conversion is just Lx0.8=KG. Some guys seem to think even doing that is original research. Liger404 (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There was more to Liger404's calculation than just the density factor (though I'd have to suggest that even if it is an 'industry standard', it may not be the one applied by the aircraft manufacturer, who might e.g. use a more accurate figure. 0.8 is a nice easy-to-remember factor, ideal for in-your-head calculations. Designing an aircraft will be done with the best data available.). Objections were more concerned with other assumptions being made, in the face of contradictory data: specifically, multiple sources giving different internal fuel mass. The actual figure seems to have been classified at some point, leading to estimates, and even now, the official Eurofighter website [10] states that "The maximum fuel capacity amounts 7,600kg" - a figure which only makes sense if one assumes it includes external tanks. And although we can make a good guess about the capacity of said tanks (probably 3 x 1000 l), we couldn't rely on guesswork. Hence the objections.

If Liger404 has a source stating internal fuel volume, where has it been cited? I can't see anything of the kind in the talk page discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I know nothing about aircraft design. But if RSs only have estimates, and their estimates vary, then the article should note that, per WP:SOURCESDIFFER. If RSs sometimes use mass and sometimes use volume for the fuel capacity, what is the purpose of converting all of the values into weight?

Liger404, unless you have an RS saying that it's the industry convention to use 0.8 and not the range, it would be OR to rely on your personal knowledge of what occurs in the industry. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I have a Civil aviation authority PDF linked above showing the method for converting fuel in litres to kilograms. But you can find this method and online calculators all over the place. It's not my personal method, it's the official method. As to Andys concerns that its a round number for ease of use, that's rather beside the point, but he is wrong. An aircraft manufacturer can't use a more accurate number because fuel, as with all things, is manufactured to within an acceptable tolerance range, not perfection. There is a SG range that the manufacture promises to stay within, but the SG of any given batch of fuel is not known and is not measured. Indeed the SG of fuel is not even constant, as it moves with temperature. The approved method is to assume a SG of 0.8. The inherent inaccuracy of this is allowed for in aircraft certification, just as the fact that passengers weigh different amounts but are not actually weighed is. Here is the reference from the New Zealand Civil aviation authority. https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/products/fuel-conversion-factors-jeta1.pdf Liger404 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to claim that there is an 'official method' through which Aircraft designers and manufacturers are obliged to use a factor of 0.8 when converting jet fuel volume in litres to fuel mass in kilogrammes, you will have to provide a source that says so. The document you link doesn't state that it is an 'official method' for anything. The filename describes it a 'sticker'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not required to prove these sorts of things Andy, you put up unrealistic barriers for seemingly unknown reasons. All I am required to do is show that the method of converting litres to KG is to multiply by 0.8. I would say YOU are the one required to provide a source that says manufacturers do it differently, seems you are the one postulating that they deviate from the provided source. Liger404 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to claim that there is an 'official method' for something, you are absolutely required to provide a source that explicitly backs that up. That is how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

With no diffs or a link to a discussion, it's very difficult to put things into context. You say that you have a source in litres that you want to convert to kg, while AndyTheGrump linked to the official source that mentions the maximum fuel capacity in kg (something that you're not disputing).

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the conversion issue aside, why are you trying to convert litres to kg when you already have a source in kg? M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

We had another source but it was in litres. They said I couldn't convert that to KG. It is conventional on wiki to report fuel in KG. That seemed incorrect to me, so I asked the question. And as we can see, it's still opposed by Andy but not by others. Liger404 (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. Please stop making vague allusions to sources, and instead tell us what it is you are proposing to cite. If this is from Janes, we have already discussed why the source is problematic: it has relatively little to do with the units used, and everything to do with the fact that Janes said that the fuel capacity was classified, and gave an estimate. It really isn't appropriate to lump together a recent authoritative source for total fuel capacity with a decades-old estimate for internal capacity, regardless of conversions etc.

Incidentally, it is normal practice to provide a link a noticeboard discussion concerning content for a specific article on that article's talk page, so others involved in the discussion can participate. That way, they can say for themselves what they have or haven't opposed. Probably necessary, given how disjointed the discussion there became. I'll add a link at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#Adjust internal fuel capacity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion started when I was told I couldn't convert L to KG, and that's quite literally all I was using the board for. It's not a, hey come join the Eurofighter page recruiting effort, or somewhere to air every concern you have about that article or my sources. And the purpose was most certainly not to expand a debate with someone who had already made their position abundantly clear, I was seeking other peoples opinions. You didn't have to jump in Andy, you choose to. The question is fairly simple, is it OR to convert 1L of jet fuel to 0.8KG of Jet fuel? Liger404 (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You don't get to decide who participates in discussions, and it is grossly inappropriate to take a discussion to a noticeboard without informing others already involved. As to your question, the only answer you are ever going to get is 'it depends' (and probably with the proviso that any conversion should be labelled 'approximate', since that is clearly true, given the documented variation in density of jet fuel). This notice board does not give authoritative rulings on abstract questions (it doesn't have any authority to do so - certainly not without a much broader discussion than this). We need to be told what is being cited, and what the proposed text is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Re read what I said Andy. I said you choose to join the conversation (whilst complaining about it) not that you are not allowed to join the conversation. And as you say, it's collaborative, you do not get to dictate the opinions others have or will hold on the topic. Indeed answers different to yours have already been given. Liger404 (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of argument: if you have a reliable estimate in litres that you want to convert into kg, then theoretically, it's doable, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct. Since there are RS^[1][2] stating that "the specific gravity of aviation fuels is around 0.8" (emphasis mine), then the most you can do is present the result of the conversion with the circa preposition (again, assuming that others agree). M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

To add to the above, I'd suggest if the source cited gives volume in litres, you should give that first: "Fuel capacity XXXX L C1 (approximately xxx kg C2)", where C1 is the citation for the volume, and C2 is the citation for the conversion factor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is original research. There isn't consensus on 0.8 - you'll see that I provided a link on the article talk page to a military JP-8 fuel manufacturer that give the density in the range "0.775 – 0.840 kg/L". That means the choice of 0.8 is purely arbitrary and is OR. TBH I still don't see what the fuss is. Military pilots load fuel by weight, measure weight and balance in their aircraft by weight and calculate fuel remaining in weight. Volume to them is irrelevant - not least because ambient temperature and in-flight temperature means the density and thus volume can vary. The reference is for weight, so leave it as weight. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear: 0.8 is not "purely arbitrary." If you round to the nearest tenth, everything in the range 0.775 – 0.840 rounds to 0.8. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Rounding up is not encyclopaedic. Again though I ask, why bother? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This encyclopedia certainly rounds figures at times (e.g., "The square root of 2 (approximately 1.4142) ...," and my objection was to your phrase "purely arbitrary," when it's not arbitrary. As for "why bother," I don't know. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

At least in airline work we are delivered fuel by volume and convert it to mass for the weight and balance calculations. The trucks measure how many litres or gallons they pump, not how many kilogrammes or pounds that weighed. That's what that reference I provided is for. And it's the source that uses 0.8 for fuel mass conversions. It's not arbitrary at all, it's the published method. Liger404 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

In that case, a range can be given. Whether one should bother is unrelated to the question of original research. Dege31 (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it's also worth noting that the article British RAF's other fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, quotes fuel weight not volume. So again, my argument is why bother? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That source is conveniently in mass already, even in both pounds and kg. So no conversion is necessary. Thus the need to convert figures does not apply and ultimately is unrelated to this question. Liger404 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd like some outside input on Long Peace. In my opinion, it has a huge amount of synthesis. My question is: should we limit the scope of the article to deal with it? Discussion here: Talk:Long_Peace#Synthesis,_Scope_&_Article_Length Apfelmaische (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The article is West Baray, the image is the one that says "The yellow marker was placed on West Baray." uploaded and marked by User:Isenberg. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete as copyright infringement. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

There's now a whole section about it's visibility from space, I've marked it all as potentially being OR but would appreciate a third opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The current text is:

"The NASA photo ISS070-E-71795 shown below was taken from the International Space Station when it was, according to NASA image metadata, vertically above location 13°36'N 104°42'E at an altitude of 417 km while the lake is located at 13°26′N 103°48′E slightly southwest from the space station. The Sun was, according to the same metadata, shining from azimuth 241° and elevation 22° above the local horizon, which is generally the south-west direction. As the Sun reflection on Earth is nearly centered in the image, the viewing direction matches roughly the sun azimuth in the south-west. The reader is encouraged to find the lake in that image as it should be visible according to the calculation in article Artificial structures visible from space as the lake is larger than the 2km high letter which is given as visible example in that article. For comparison purpose a Google Earth screenshot is added below, taken at the same geographical location and same altitude"

The Google image was deleted as copyvio. I can't see the rest as anyththing than OR. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the section. Woodroar (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the copyright problem by replacing it with just a link to the same Google Earth view without any manual location attribution by me. Isenberg (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Eclectic Pal. Is this edit [11] by them a proper use of WP:PRIMARY sources or is it WP:OR? Is the included information relevant? Super Ψ Dro 23:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you specify which claim in the article you're referring to, and which primary source? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph that the editor added to the article. Super Ψ Dro 20:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. The sources were an e-commerce site that sells documents (arguably, evidence that a primary document exists), a PhD paper published by a military university that quotes the document but says nothing about its importance; an online used bookstore (again, evidence that a primary document exists); a Bucharest embassy site that mentions the document but says nothing about its importance. What we need are reliable, secondary, independent sources that specifically and unequivocally say that these documents are important to understanding the phrase that the article is about. Unfortunately, these sources do not do that. Woodroar (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I was reading the page about the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting and got to the Conservative commentators section, finding Elon Musk and Benny Johnson shared posts alleging a pattern regarding violence and trans identity, despite data showing only 0.11% of mass shooting suspects over the previous decade were transgender. This is explicitly mentioned in the source that follows, which states:

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and conservative commentator Benny Johnson also shared posts alleging a “pattern” regarding instances of violence and trans or nonbinary gender identity. (These statements are patently false: As the Gun Violence Archive noted in 2024, about 0.11% of known suspects in mass shootings have been transgender in the last decade.)

My question is whether this classifies as WP:SYNTH? It is overtly true, but the article frames it in a way that makes it sound like editor opinion, rather than the findings of an independent study.

The same is true of another sentence at the end of the section that does the same to a comment by Donald Trump Jr. I don't know if I'm just reading the use of "despite" as instantly being synthesis; does it match encyclopedic tone to write it this way? Advice would be appreciated - not that I can yet edit it myself, as the article is extended-confirmed protected. Corsaka (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not synthesis. Synthesis is when we combine two sources to make a point not found in either of them. When a single source itself combines two things to make a point, on the other hand, it's just the source providing its reporting, interpretation, and analysis, which is what secondary sources are for. In fact, if someone were to take only the first sentence, chop it off, and summarize it in our article without including the information from the second sentence, it would be misusing the source - we have to summarize the entire thing, which means saying that it's false; any usage of that source that didn't unambiguously say that the claims made in those posts are false would be inappropriate, since it wouldn't be accurately summarizing their conclusions. WP:SYNTH / WP:OR are about how we, as editors, cannot connect things and do our own sources; we're expected to (and in certain cases required to) rely on and reflect the connections, research, and interpretation made by reliable secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense, thank you! Corsaka (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

How would you rephrase the sentence (so that the readers understand that the statements are patently false)? M.Bitton (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd probably separate it into two sentences with "...and trans identity. However, the Gun Violence Archive found in 2024 that only 0.11%...", though I'm realising that might be clunky and seem more like injecting editor opinion. Corsaka (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the details are not needed. Something like Posts making utterly false statements regarding about an alleged pattern regarding violence and trans identity were shared by Elon Musk and Benny Johnson should be enough, though there is also the possibility to add a footnote if necessary. M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

So here’s the problem… the source cited attributes the rebuttal to the Gun Violence Archive. Who are they, and why should we treat their statistics as accurate? Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

i mean. you trust that the source is reliable and has gotten its information from reliable sources. that's inherent to the medium. as it happens, the Gun Violence Archive is a well-examined source anyway. Corsaka (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The Gun Violence Archive appears to be used by others. M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

this reads as violating WP:NPOV to me Corsaka (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

How? M.Bitton (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The source clearly supports the statement but I would question the source due to the scope and ambiguity regarding what is a mass shooting. The broadest definitions would include things like gang style drive by shootings that kill X number of people. It's possible that Musk et al are thinking about a subset. Certainly the % would change if we look at high profile mess shootings. Also just looking at % over a decade may not mean much vs say a change in taste pretty year or something similar. This is simple stat that really couldn't answer the question it's claiming to answer. However, that is pure OR on my part and I personally don't want to give Musk any benefit of doubt. Regardless, I don't see OR in the original question and assuming the source is of sufficient weight I don't see a policy issue with inclusion absent an editor showing the stat is wrong. Springee (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Article: Habte Giyorgis Dinagde Talk: Discussion underway on the article talk page. Talk Page - (ping: Magherbin)

Disputed claim (in "Early life"):

The article states that Habte Giyorgis was initially captured fighting under the Hadiya army led by Hassan Enjamo and later assisted the Abyssinians in defeating the Hadiya.

This is cited to ref [6]: Getahun Dilebo, Emperor Menelik’s Ethiopia, 1865–1916: National Unification or Amhara Communal Domination (PhD thesis, Howard University, 1986), p. 102.

Concerns

• WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR: The article appears to combine the capture passage with the later Hasan Ingamo episode to imply that Habte was captured while serving under the Hadiya army/Hasan Ingamo. I don’t see the source explicitly making that connection.
• Verifiability (WP:V): I cannot find wording in Dilebo that directly supports the specific claim that he was “captured under the Hadiya army led by Hassan Enjamo.” If a reliable source explicitly states this.

For ORN

1. Does the present wording constitute original synthesis and/or failed verification under WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR / WP:V?
2. If so, is it appropriate to (a) reword strictly to what Dilebo states (capture during a Gurage campaign in his early life; and another edit about the later conflict with Hasan Ingamo) or (b) remove until a source explicitly supports the “captured under Hadiya/Enjamo” claim? I can supply exact page lines from Dilebo on request.

— Jpduke (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

From what I can gather some editors are saying the title is not consistent with what the incident is called on Chinese social networks. There was a talk page discussion: Talk:Nanjing Sister Hong incident#Uncle, not sister, but it did not get a lot of input. Now another editor wishes to make the same change. It'd be good if editors could take a look. Thank you. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research § OR links. South of the Tongass (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Pan-Turkism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reverted (twice) an editor who removed long-standing, sourced content and based it on what I think is OR. Of course, I could be wrong. It'd be good if more editors took a look. I have no intention of edit warring, so I won't be making any further reverts. There is a talk page thread on it. Thank you. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It is deeply concerning to see yet another manipulative and obstructive response to well-sourced contributions. The archaeogenetic evidence from excavated graves and tombs has been clear and consistent, showing that the dominant paternal lineages in these populations are Y-DNA haplogroups Q and R1b. These results are not speculative interpretations but the outcome of peer-reviewed genetic studies published in respected scientific journals. They provide direct and verifiable insight into the ancestry of these groups and therefore must be treated with the same weight as any other academic source. Unfortunately, contributions based on this body of evidence are being reverted, not due to any methodological weakness or lack of reliability, but seemingly because they do not conform to certain entrenched editorial preferences. This practice is widely recognized within the Wikipedia community and is incompatible with the platform’s stated principles of neutrality and verifiability. To disregard established genetic data in favor of subjective narratives undermines the credibility of the article, misinforms readers, and erodes trust in Wikipedia as a neutral resource. I respectfully urge administrators to take notice of this ongoing issue. The scientific record is transparent, reproducible, and unambiguous; to dismiss or obscure it because of personal agendas or ideological motives sets a harmful precedent for the treatment of all scholarly research on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to remain a reliable and trustworthy source of knowledge, neutrality and respect for peer-reviewed academic work must be upheld without exception.

^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} AsianTiele (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Since your account was made today, I suppose "see yet another" means you have edited WP under other usernames? Or have you just been unlucky since earlier today? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yes, somewhat unlucky. I looked through a few contributions and talk pages on various topics (not just this one) and noticed a lot of fights and unnecessary confrontations, even when someone provided beneficial research. AsianTiele (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Is the issue here essentially the back-and-forth over this inclusion of "Huns" in the sentence Non-Turkic peoples typically classified as Turkic, Turkish, Proto-Turkish or Turanian include the Huns...? Looking at the sources attached to the sentence, I'm not entirely sure they support the inclusion of the Huns there, AsianTiele's arguments aside. The only excerpt that mentions the Huns is Simonian 2007 stating Thus, ethnic groups or populations of the past (Huns, Scythians, Sakas, Cimmerians, Parthians, Hittites, Avars and others) who have disappeared long ago, as well as non-Turkic ethnic groups living in present-day Turkey, have come to be labeled Turkish, Proto-Turkish or Turanian--while describing a general phenomenon of less-than-rigorous pan-national identification of groups as "Turkic" in Turkey, it doesn't directly assert that it's wrong to describe Huns as Turkic, and the source's focus is on Hemshin people; the Huns do not appear to be referred to at any other point in the work. Quickly searching for more authoritative sources, I came across "The Identity of the Huns" but do not have access to its text at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosguill, for looking into this. The genealogy and genetic evidence from burials associated with the Huns is openly available, and it clearly shows connections to groups that are also linked with early Turkic populations, even though they lived alongside and incorporated other peoples as well. Of course, the Huns were not a single homogeneous group (later on), but to act as if they had no connection at all to Turkic-related populations seems absurd when the evidence is right there. If what is meant in the article is only the modern Turkish nationalist tendency to claim the Huns as exclusively “Turkish only,” then I understand that point and have no issue clarifying it. My main concern is that the presentation should acknowledge the actual connections shown by the data, not erase them. AsianTiele (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Since nobody replied back, I want to add some extra context. Multiple lines of evidence from archaeology, linguistics, and especially archaeogenetics point toward a strong connection between the Huns/Xiongnu and early Turkic populations. Recent genetic studies (for example Damgaard et al. 2018 in Nature and Jeong et al. 2020 in Science) analyzing remains from Xiongnu and related steppe confederations reveal Y-DNA haplogroups such as Q and R1b, both of which are found among later Turkic groups. These findings are not isolated but part of a broader picture showing that the populations of the Xiongnu/Hunnic confederations shared ancestry and genetic signatures with groups historically and geographically associated with the early Turks.

Beyond genetics, historical sources from Chinese chronicles frequently record linguistic and cultural overlaps between the Xiongnu and later Turkic peoples, including terminology, political structures, and even titles that reappear in early Turkic states. Scholars have long debated the degree of continuity, but a growing number of studies support that the Xiongnu/Huns were not entirely separate from Turkic ethnogenesis; rather, they were central to the steppe interaction zone from which the first identifiable Turkic states arose.

To be clear, this does not mean that the Huns/Xiongnu were exclusively Turkic, as their confederations included many diverse peoples. However, to classify them as entirely “non-Turkic” ignores the mounting archaeogenetic and historical evidence of close ties. The professional consensus is increasingly that they played a significant role in the emergence of Turkic groups, and that their connections cannot be dismissed.

I wanna also add these sources for the research: Savelyev & Jeong (2020), who argue that the predominant part of the Xiongnu population was likely Late Proto-Turkic (Cambridge link); and the observations of historians such as Otto Maenchen-Helfen and Hyun Jin Kim, who noted that many Hunnic tribal and personal names have clear Turkic parallels (Wiki summary on Hunnic language).

I would also appreciate any extra help on how I can improve texts like this. I have watched a few tutorials and read the introduction, and I always try my best.

AsianTiele (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

You mentioned on the ANI discussion that you felt that other users weren't willing to engage with you on the issues, especially with respect to genetics, so I'll try to do so. You say here that Savelyev and Jeong show that the Huns/Xiongnu were Turkic. However, that article says, in the abstract, that their lines of research "suggest a mixed origin of the Xiongnu population, consisting of eastern and western Eurasian substrata, and emphasize the lack of unambiguous evidence for a continuity between the Xiongnu and the European Huns" (emphasis mine). In the conclusion, they say that this is "largely because of the overall scarcity of an eastern Eurasian component in the interdisciplinary profile of the Huns. Furthermore, they say that "The titles of the Huns are broadly related to the steppe nomadic world, but no specific connection with the early Turkic speakers of eastern steppe (respectively the Xiongnu as their historical and archaeological counterpart) can be firmly established on this basis." Based on all of this, doesn't your source show that genetic evidence is, in fact, inconclusive regarding a relationship between the Huns and Turkic people? Truthnope (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

First things first, please read the Wikipedia policy WP:OR and in particular, the section WP:SYNTH.

What you need to show here is one source (just one is sufficient) that states that the Huns are or may be Turkic. Please just show us that source and identify the part of that source that verifies your claim.

What you need to avoid is improper synthesis, that is, combining two sources to create new information. That is considered a form of original research, and so, should be avoided. An example of improper synthesis could be, for example, source A says that the Huns belong to haplogroup Q, and source B says that later Turkic people also belong to haplogroup Q, and concluding that this means that the Huns are Turkic, but neither of the sources make this claim. Wikipedia is not a journal that publishes original research, it is an encyclopedia that uses reliable sources for all information. If a reliable source does make this claim, e.g. source C uses haplogroups to conclude that the Huns were Turkic, then that would be fine.

For that same reason, please don't share a large number of sources and claim that these sources form a larger body that proves your claims. That is again synthesis. One source is sufficient.

Truthnope (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, Truthnope. I understand the concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and I want to make it clear that my intention is NOT to combine unrelated sources to push a conclusion. Some of the studies and references I have mentioned are already used within Wikipedia itself, and I only brought them up because they directly discuss the genealogy and cultural background of the Huns/Xiongnu. These studies do not contradict themselves or require me to “synthesize” in the improper sense. Rather, they present clear standpoints about ancestry, haplogroups, and linguistic affiliations that have already been published by specialists. The genealogical research in particular does not “mix things up” or leave room for speculation... It directly shows the results and the authors themselves interpret what they mean. My goal was to highlight these sources to strengthen the existing article with verifiable scholarship, not to reinterpret them in a way that would create new claims. That being said, I do understand your point about avoiding any impression of combining multiple separate sources to reach a conclusion that none of them explicitly state. I will focus on identifying and presenting individual sources where the authors themselves explicitly mention the Turkic connections of the Huns, and I agree this is the correct approach to take in line with Wikipedia’s policies. I am not here to overwhelm the discussion with a large number of references, but simply to ensure that well-supported scholarship is represented fairly. I also appreciate the reminder and guidance, as I am still learning the best way to frame contributions so that they follow policy exactly, since I'm new here. AsianTiele (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, then the question here is, can you present one reliable, secondary source that states that the Huns were Turkic? Truthnope (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This has already been addressed multiple times and is a duplicate question, as reliable secondary sources have been provided that discuss the Turkic hypothesis for the Huns (see, for example, Peter B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, 1992), yet the genealogical and genetic evidence continues to be ignored... Modern and ancient population genetics clearly shows significant East Asian components within the Hunnic confederation, fully consistent with Turkic and proto-Turkic steppe nomads, and dismissing this while insisting on a single “proof text” is cherry-picking. By the same logic I could claim Scythians were not Indo-Aryan because the eastern groups were genetically East Asian, but that would be absurd, since their Indo-Iranic language and customs defined them, and in the same way the Huns exhibited Turkic genealogic and linguistic traits that cannot be brushed aside, so at this point it is unrealistic to keep repeating the same demand when the sources and data have already been presented. AsianTiele (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm just asking you to provide a source that verifies your claim. That is needed per WP:V, another Wikipedia policy which you should also read. If Golden's work shows that the Huns were Turkic, you could point to a specific part of the book that states this.

That said, looking at Rosguill's comment, I agree that Simonian 2007 doesn't explicitly say that the Huns were not Turkic, only that they, and some non-Turkic ethnic groups, have been labeled as Turkish. That source isn't focused on the Huns and doesn't seem to explicitly confirm or deny the Huns as Turkic.

I'd be fine with removing the groups mentioned by Simonian (Huns, Scythians, Sakas, Cimmerians, Parthians, Hittites, Avars) that don't have another source explicitly rejecting their Turkic origin. That said, I don't see evidence supporting the Huns as Turkic either; it seems like it has been theorized, but there is not academic consensus.

Truthnope (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must note that this line of questioning has been addressed numerous times already, and reintroducing it as if no prior answers have been given does not advance the discussion. The scholarly record is not as simplistic as claiming that there is “no evidence” for the Huns’ Turkic connections. Rather, the picture is nuanced, involving a confederation of diverse elements but with demonstrably strong affinities to early Turkic groups. Peter Golden himself, whose work is frequently cited on these matters, makes it clear that while the Huns were not a homogenous “nation” in the modern sense, their cultural, linguistic, and political elements cannot be divorced from the steppe environment that later produced the Göktürks and other clearly Turkic entities (see Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, 1992, pp. 88–93, 120–125). He emphasizes that the personal names, titles, and ethnonyms attributed to the Huns (as transmitted in Chinese and other sources) are most plausibly explained through Turkic etymologies, more so than through Iranian or Mongolic ones, and that even when acknowledging their multi-ethnic composition, Turkic remains a core explanatory framework for their elite stratum. Other scholars, such as Maenchen-Helfen (The World of the Huns, 1973, pp. 370–385), highlight that despite acknowledging non-Turkic components, the religious practices, funerary customs, and socio-political organization of the Huns align far more closely with the later Turkic nomads than with Indo-European sedentary societies. Modern genetic studies (see Damgaard et al., Nature, 2018) further reinforce that populations associated with the Huns show continuity with the broader Inner Asian steppe gene pool that is also ancestral to later Turkic and Mongolic groups, thus corroborating the idea that they were not outsiders but participants in the same cultural-biological continuum. Furthermore, you yourself have acknowledged in earlier discussion that the Huns were a “mixed” confederation. That admission is important, because if one applies the same standard consistently, then the same logic must extend to the Scythians and Saka as well. It is inaccurate to present them as purely Indo-Aryan groups, since archaeology, burial practices, genealogical traditions, and local customs all point to a complex mixture of steppe nomads who cannot be reduced to one linguistic or ethnic category. In fact, the socio-political structures and religious orientations of the Scythians and Saka often anticipate what we see later in Turkic-Mongolic formations rather than resembling sedentary Indo-European models. To argue otherwise is to impose an anachronistic purity that the sources themselves do not support. The problem with this debate, however, is that it continually circles back to the same point... A demand for “explicit wording” in a single source stating unambiguously that “the Huns were Turkic.” But this is not how responsible historiography works. Academic consensus does not hinge on a single declarative sentence, it emerges from the accumulation of evidence across disciplines, linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and cultural. Wikipedia’s policies under WP:V and WP:NPOV require us to reflect the balance of views in reliable sources, not to dismiss one body of evidence because it does not match the rhetorical format preferred in discussion. The fact remains that there are sources that acknowledge Turkic elements among the Huns (Golden, Maenchen-Helfen, Sinor), as well as sources that emphasize their composite nature. Both perspectives exist in scholarship and must be represented fairly. Reducing the matter to a binary of “Turkic vs not Turkic” flattens a much more complex reality and does not align with how the historiography actually treats these groups. For this reason, I believe there is little purpose in extending this debate further. The evidence for affinities between the Huns and early Turkic peoples is there and has been pointed out multiple times. The counter-claim that there is “no evidence” does not withstand scrutiny when one actually engages with the relevant scholarship. At this point, the discussion seems to be more about repetition than about evaluating sources in good faith. AsianTiele (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

1) "Furthermore, you yourself have acknowledged in earlier discussion that the Huns were a “mixed” confederation."

When did I say this? I'm not disputing this, but I didn't say that here.

2) "[Golden] emphasizes that the personal names, titles, and ethnonyms attributed to the Huns (as transmitted in Chinese and other sources) are most plausibly explained through Turkic etymologies, more so than through Iranian or Mongolic ones, and that even when acknowledging their multi-ethnic composition, Turkic remains a core explanatory framework for their elite stratum"

Can you provide a quote where Golden says this? Some of the pages you provided (120-125) don't even talk about the Huns, but about the A-Shih-Na (Gokturks) so I'm confused why you included this.

3) "Academic consensus does not hinge on a single declarative sentence, it emerges from the accumulation of evidence across disciplines, linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and cultural."

Sure, but then a source should eventually use the accumulation of evidence to present a claim such as "the Huns were Turkic". Wikipedia is not the place to present that accumulation of evidence and conclude that the Huns were Turkic; again, that is WP:SYNTH. You have implied multiple times that you have read and understood that and WP:OR, but those policies tell you that you cannot synthesize an accumulation of evidence into a statement not made by those sources. The question here is not "Were the Huns Turkic?" but "Can we provide a reliable, secondary source that says that the Huns were Turkic, per Wikipedia policy?". I'm also not debating that there was Turkic influence on the Huns, but that is different from explicitly stating the Huns were Turkic.

4) I agree with your edit removing the Huns from a list of groups that are explicitly not Turkic, due to Rosguill's comment, so I'm confused why you're debating this. I only added that I don't see a source that could be used to say that the Huns were Turkic.

Truthnope (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I only added that I don't see a source that could be used to say that the Huns were Turkic.

I suspeect that "Huns are not non-Turkic" will eventually become "Huns are Turkic". I disagree with the removal of Huns from the list because it is long-standing content and I think this is an attempt to WP:RGW. If long-standing content is to be removed, then consensus should be sought on the talk page, especially when it is being removed without citing a WP:RS, based on OR. I think we should assume that things are not something until we get a source saying that they are. The article Origin of the Huns makes no mention that Huns may be Turkic. There is debate among scholars whether some Huns may have spoken a Turkic language. Same thing at the Huns article.

Searching a bit on the topic online, it seems it is a popular theory among Turkish historians that Huns were Turkic, but nowehere else. So this makes me wonder if this is an attempt to WP:POVPUSH. I will also note that GPT Zero and Zero GPT are confident that AsianTiele's comments are mostly LLM-generated, WP:LLMTALK. The comments could also be translations, in which case it is a WP:CIR issue.

AGF is not a suicide pact. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 02:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ Once again you accuse me, even though you have already been warned by an admin for this behavior. Instead of engaging with the sources and research I have provided in a respectful way, you dismiss everything outright and focus on questioning my motives or how I write. I have explained several times that English is not my first language and that I only use translation or spelling tools to make my comments clearer, not any automated text generation. Repeating this accusation is unfair and unhelpful. As for the content, I have presented research from genetics, linguistics, and history that points to connections between the Huns and Turkic groups. You may disagree, but simply dismissing every piece of evidence without engaging with it is not constructive. At this point, I see no value in continuing when every contribution is met only with denial and accusations, so I will step back from this discussion.

@Oshwah I'm being accused again by the same person. Sorry if I tagged you in the wrong place, still learning man! :D AsianTiele (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

AsianTiele - I don't see where TurboSuperA+ has been disrespectful nor where they've outright accused you of anything in bad faith or while completely lacking evidence. TurboSuperA+ has referenced relevant policies and guidelines in their responses, and has even stated that they've been taking effort to perform research online as well. Let's not jump to conclusions; we should assume good faith in situations where the intent isn't completely clear, and give others the benefit of the doubt. In the end, the ultimate goal is to provide articles and content that is of the highest quality possible to the reader, which means that content is verifiable, neutral, and references reliable sources. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Truthnope I think there may be some misunderstanding. I never claimed you personally said the Huns were a “mixed” confederation from the start, only that this is a widely acknowledged fact in scholarship on later years. Regarding Golden, I referred to the sections where he discusses names and titles with Turkic explanations, but I understand if my page references created confusion, that was not my intention. On your third point, I recognize WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but I want to stress that none of the sources I provided were meant to be combined to “prove” something outside their own claims. I only shared them again in good faith because they each point toward Turkic connections in their own way anyways. It is sad to see this reduced to cherry-picking certain lines while dismissing the broader evidence, since I tried to provide everything respectfully and in a scholarly manner. In the end, I see no changes will come of this, but for me the genetic record and cultural evidence are already more than enough. That alone makes me smile, so I will step back and dismiss the matter myself. AsianTiele (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are you using AI to write your comments? 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

As stated above, you can see that I already explained... I do not use AI to write my comments. Accusing editors of that without evidence is not only unhelpful but also considered an offense here. Since when is writing in a clear and scholarly manner a problem? Perhaps the real issue is not that I try to write carefully, but rather a lack of willingness, education, or motivation from some to engage in a proper and respectful debate. AsianTiele (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

No, the issue is that you post word salad full of inaccuracies and bias. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Large sections of the page for Copenhagen (play) appear to consist of original research, particularly the sections on "style", "images and motifs", and "language" — should these be removed? Icil34 (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Icil34

It's ultimately up to you, but consider WP:PRESERVE:

Instead of removing content, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing, or tagging as appropriate.

Presumably, one who is familiar with the subject matter would be better equipped to judge whether a particular claim has a plausible chance of existing in sources. If one is confident that sourcing can't be found, WP:BURDEN supports removal. Good luck. Left guide (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide 2001:8F8:1425:416E:B00F:A274:1E78:AFF5 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Icil34@ 2001:8F8:1425:416E:B00F:A274:1E78:AFF5 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, it'd be appreciated for this discussion [12] the opinion of an uninvolved user on whether this primary source [13] verifies this political coalition in Moldova being "pro-Romanian, pro-Ukrainian, pro-Chinese and pro-European" or whether it is OR as two users at the discussion have argued. Important to note that secondary sources verifying the first three do not seem to exist and two secondary sources suggest the bloc is opposed to the EU [14] [15]. Super Ψ Dro 18:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Note This dispute is also being discussed at RSN. Xan747 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi I'd be interested to hear opinions about Repatriation and reburial of human remains.

It seems to me that the page is written like a university essay (including non-standard referencing such as "Halcrow et al. proposes that the repatriation is the bare minimum request to have one's remains treated the same as others")

Maybe the page could be salvaged with some work, but do you think it is by definition OR? JMWt (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like an OR problem to me, but I might be missing your point. From the references, it appears that there is a school of thought/theory/set of beliefs that have to do with the repatriation and reburial of human remains. It is not OR to observe that this is a concept/area of thought and to have an article about it. Then the article also lists out a variety of events that have occurred where the theory was brought home to specific instances where (say) a museum was asked to, or did, repatriated some human remains. That's not OR either (because the references indicate that these events occur, and that the reason they occurred revolve around the theories surrounding repatriation). The article could use a good thorough edit, but not because of OR reasons, as far as I can tell. Am I missing something? Novellasyes (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Some parts of the page do appear to be written like an essay but that don't think that necessarily mean it's OR like Novellasyes mentioned. Think checking some of the content with the cited sources would be helpful to see if there are opinions/conclusions that can't be verified by the sources. I looked at the sentence above about Halcrow et al. cited to this source [16] and article states this "We unequivocally disagree with Weiss and Springer that NAGPRA is a tool to “hinder scientific research through the loss of collections, the inhibition of freedom of inquiry, and censorship.” Rather, NAGPRA is a law and set of procedures with a limited scope that seeks to affirm tribal sovereignty and to ensure that the ancestors of Native people are treated with the same level of care and protection under the law that has historically been afforded to other human remains in the United States". EM (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

In the article Cat Chow (artist), it claims that Cat Chow infuses her art with playfulness and humor, but none of the sources cited in the aforementioned article seem to note that detail.

Am I missing something, or is this a violation of WP:SYNTH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinningIodize (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Rather than WP:SYNTH, that just seems to me like a case of MOS:PEACOCK. It might indicate that someone is copying language from a press release, and becoming WP:SUBJECTIVE. Blepbob (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: I forgot to sign my comment above, and I apologize. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I've removed all of the puffery and reduced the content down to what the sources actually say. Woodroar (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The user @Rangooner believes it is correct to use the Jimmy Kimmel case as an example of Trumps fascism, without providing sources making this specific claim (see edits here). I'm looking for people to chime in in the discussion on Talk:List_of_fascist_movements#US, because so far we have not been able to reach a consensus (although the discussion right now is mostly limited to edit summaries). Dajasj (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Working with @Dajasj and others to ensure the page is verifiable with ample citations. Rangooner (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Raskolnikov.Rev and I have had a discussion about the applicability of WP:OR to this content. I removed it as the source (this JPost article) does not mention antisemitism or Holocaust denial and thus it's irrelevant to the section in question. I can understand the logic of (Hamas compares Gaza to Auschwitz) therefore (they believe that something bad happened there) therefore (they don't deny Holocaust) therefore (it's important to mention it in the section on antisemitism) but it sounds like analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. The inference is also not obvious as Hamas's use of Holocaust analogies could alternatively be explained as strategic messaging aimed at Western audiences not necessarily reflecting their real beliefs. Alaexis_¿question? 19:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

To add some more context that @Alaexis has left out: The section in question where that was added is specifically about allegations of antisemitism and Holocaust denialism. There is an entire paragraph devoted to these allegations. In line with NPOV, there is then a paragraph where these allegations are rebutted per RS, introduced as: "On the other hand, Hamas has also condemned the Holocaust, antisemitism, and the persecution of Jews."

The content in question, "In 2025, Hamas stated that what it calls the Gaza genocide is "the Auschwitz of the 21st century".", is directly relevant as it explicitly recognizes the Holocaust. It is not OR to read and cite statements in their plain meaning. On the contrary, the person doing OR here is @Alaexis, who is attributing speculative motivations to argue that we should remove directly relevant RS content. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s not OR to include a comment on Auschwitz in a section relating to the Holocaust. It is OR to say that, because they compare something to part of the Holocaust, they condemn the Holocaust they’ve previously desired. But we don’t say that, so it’s fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley, right, but it's a section on antisemitism, not on Holocaust. Alaexis_¿question? 07:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The section includes allegations of Holocaust denialism because that is definitionally part of antisemitism. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I don’t think it’s controversial or OR to see both the Holocaust and Holocaust denial as part of antisemitism. I guess if there’s any doubt could retitle section, eg ”Attitudes to antisemitism and ge Holocaustl? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no objections to changing the section title to "Attitudes to antisemitism and the Holocaust". Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I see that you've removed some content from the section sourced to a book about antisemitism. It would be good to have feedback from uninvolved editors. Alaexis_¿question? 12:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Bobfrombrockley. What does a sentence from a book that's:

• not focused on Hamas
• not written by subject-matter experts
• only generally notes Hamas' supposed policy in the early 1990s
• not corroborated by the second source or any other RS
• time-and-context-dependent even if it were accurate

... have to do with allegations of antisemitism? It doesn't. It also doesn't belong in the section as it's needlessly repetitive of the point we already include regarding Hamas' early position on the destruction of Israel and establishing a Palestinian state in its place. I have no idea why that sentence was there in the first place. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Long story short but I am involved in a dispute with another user over the article Her Majesty (song). At present, I would like to add the words "criticizing British royalty", (or something to that effect, such as "criticizing Queen Elizabeth II") to the end of the sentence, "Chumbawamba (who extended it into a full length version adding three new verses and two bridges)", so it reads "Chumbawamba (who extended it into a full length version adding three new verses and two bridges criticizing British royalty)". Presently, my best source is an archival version of Chumbawamba's own website, where they released the cover in question; https://web.archive.org/web/20020609144951/http://chumba.com/_download.htm. Obviously I would prefer a secondary over a primary source, but this can be challenging with more "obscure" 2000s media, where many of the secondary sources are depreciated. To me this seems like a common-sense edit, but the other user disagrees, and is accusing me of "personal analysis" and "extrapolated interpretation". For more details of the dispute please see User talk:Shama From MySpace#Her Majesty (song). In general, Wikipedia original research annoys me, and I would like to avoid it if I am inadvertently engaging in it. I also don't like edit warring so I would like to step back and have a broader discussion of this. I am not by any means married to this edit but I sincerely think it improves the quality of the article. Thank you, Shama From MySpace (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

What makes something like this worth mentioning is coverage by reliable, secondary sources. See MOS:CULTURALREFS. Woodroar (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on that criterion, wouldn't that call into question the notability of the Chumbawamba cover's existence itself? Presently it does not meet that criterion, as the only sources that verify its very existence are a Genius.com article and a uDiscoverMusic article. (For the record I don't think removing the existence of the Chumbawamba cover would improve the article.) Shama From MySpace (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources can establish existence… but for analysis we need secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Far Out Magazine has an article about Pearl Jam's cover of the song for Queen Elizabeth II's death that describes the Chumbawamba cover as "notorious", but I'm not sure if they are a prominent enough publication to pass muster (they appear to have a Spanish Wikipedia page but not an English one)...https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/watch-pearl-jam-pay-tribute-to-the-queen-by-covering-the-beatles/ Shama From MySpace (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

uDiscoverMusic is questionably secondary source. It's run by Universal Music Group, though as far as I can tell, Chumbawamba hasn't released any albums on Universal. Still, the whole point of uDiscoverMusic is to promote music. That being said, the source in question only mentions Chumbawamba once. That's rather trivial, and not what I would consider enough to warrant mentioning in the article.
I suggest giving MOS:TRIVIA a read, because it's relevant here. Trivia sections tend to attract junk, and Her Majesty (song)#Live performances and covers is a prime example. There are two reliable, secondary sources in that section, and now it's attracting trivia sourced to Genius, Discogs, and a promotional UMG site. In my opinion, those should be removed. Woodroar (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, trivial junk accumulating at the bottom of pop culture Wikipedia pages is actually a pet peeve of mine. My rationale in this case is a very famous band made a song praising a significant historical figure and another, moderately famous band made a cover criticizing her, (for her Golden Jubilee, a historically significant event where McCartney performed the original song) and the article already mentioned the cover, as well as a cover by a third moderately famous band praising her upon her death. Without being WP:FRINGE I found it weird that the article mentioned the Chumbawamba cover but not its straight-forward political context. It seemed like a straight-forward edit when I made it at the time. But if there's no notable secondary sources, there's no notable secondary sources, and I'm more than happy to move on. Shama From MySpace (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like Chumbawamba—or at least their early albums and EPs—and it would be nice to see them mentioned more on Wikipedia. But yeah, it really needs to start with better and more significant coverage in secondary sources. Maybe someday! Woodroar (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Jaja if it's not notable, it's not notable! Thanks for your input! Shama From MySpace (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! is filled with WP:SYN with long sections discussing Charlie Kirk, the shooter, Trump's comments, etc. that are from sources that don't mention the suspension at all and/or precede the suspension. I started taking it out--based on my understanding of WP:OR that sources must discuss the subject of the article--and am getting quite a bit of push-back and reverts ([17] [18]) to my removals ([19], [20], [21]). Would appreciate some eyes on it. Discussion is here:

• Talk:Suspension_of_Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!#Original_Research_/_Synthesis (permalnk)

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This is concerning the page Banderite and specifically the origins of the ironic term Judeo-Banderite (which is a subsection). What I'm suggesting in the second sentence is certainly sub-ideal but is it original research that should be excluded?

Yaroslav Hrytsak traced the usage of the term back to 2009, concluding that it likely predated this instance.^[1] There is a mention of the term as far back as 2006 in a comment under a post by online satirist Professor Ivan Denikin [ukr] in the Ukrainian internet community Fofudja.^[2][3]

• This is the accepted origin of the term on the Ukrainian page. It's a popular meme post-2014.

• The usage of the primary source appears valid under WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, however to provide context for who Professor Ivan Denikin and his "Magazine" blog is I've had to reach for an academic source that analyses Ukrainian internet memes. This source specifically covers the usage of Judeo-Banderite and Denikin, supporting the assertions made, but it doesn't offer a date.

• I think this is a statement of verifiable fact and notable given Hrytsak's research (Ukraina Moderna operates a scholarly journal by the way). I've used Gemini's Deep Research tool to search for a secondary source covering this and Hrytsak (a Ukrainian historian) was all I could find.

• This doesn't pretend to be the origin of the term and is used to illustrate that there are mentions that predate Hrytsak's findings.

• If this isn't immediately shot down, would it be appropriate to invoke an RfC on the matter and attain a consensus on its inclusion?

Joko2468 (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This is about [22] and [23]. Is this allowed? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Also discussed at User talk:Pineapple Storage#Learning. See also fr:Sans garantie du gouvernement. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I had a non-OR objection, commented on the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether something is due inclusion is shown by secondary sources, a patent being issued is not notable unless it's reported on. The embedded link in the second diff should be removed per WP:CS:EMBED, "Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there an essay that talks about what is allowed in a "Context" section (or previous history for the topic) of a wiki-article and what sources are permissible?

I often see WP:OR in "Context" sections. It has been my belief that:

(1) Statements of "context" in that section must be found in reliable sources that discuss the specific subject ("S") of the wiki-article.

(2) Reliable sources that do not discuss "S" of the wiki-article should not be used.

(3) Even if one source meets the requirements of (1) in discussing some related subject ("B"), it is still not appropriate to add sources discussing "B", unless those sources also discuss "S".

I have always wondered about (3).

So, for example, in the Hitler article, editors should not include material about WWI or places he lived as "context" or "history"--unless it is in a source talking about the subject, Hitler. That article does seem to follow the three rules above. This issue doesn't seem to be spelled out at WP:OR.

Is my understanding correct?

If this is better at Wikipedia talk:No original research, please let me know and I will move it.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If the article about Hitler used a source discussing his antisemitism to support a particular aspect of his believes, would it then be wrong to use a more generalised source about the history of antisemitism to put that in context? I don't think it would. You example about where he lived would be more an argument about whether the content was due, if works on Hitler rarely mention a place that he lived then the history of that place wouldn't be due for inclusion in the article about Hitler. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I got a similar response here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Some basic amount of synthesis is necessary for the basic act of writing an article. To pick an arbitrary example, in George A. Mitchell, we say he was born in New York. We do not require a source to specifically say "It is notable that George A. Mitchell was born in New York"; we can infer this by common sense. It would be possible, using an unbelievably strict interpretation of WP:OR, to say it's original research for us to decide on our own that his birthplace is notable. In practice, however, this is not done.

In general, I am pretty firmly in favor of "background" sections, so long as they are good. (it is of course possible to write one that's a giant pile of shit, as for anything).

This may indeed warrant an essay. Many things that seem like common sense end up being challenged on the basis of a fixation on policy (e.g. "there's no policy that says that you're allowed to cite a source saying 'he spoke english and spanish' to say 'he spoke spanish'"). jp×g🗯️ 06:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Would asserting that some plural people visualize a headspace when sources say that Tulpamancy is under plurality as a umbrella term. A final source does not mention plurality in any way but mentions that Tulpamancers visualise a wonderland (synonyms w/ headspace).

Some of the sources that include Tulpamancy in plurality say "when Tulpamancy is successful, it is seen as a form of plurality."

Specifically, these sources are:

• Eve, Zarah (28 May 2024). Exploring emerging multiplicity and psychosocial functioning: a constructivist grounded theory study (doctoral thesis). Manchester Metropolitan University.
• Christensen, Emily M. (1 June 2022). "The online community: DID and plurality". European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 6 (2) 100257. doi:10.1016/j.ejtd.2021.100257. ISSN 2468-7499.
• Pierre, Joe (13 February 2023). "Enacted Identities: Multiplicity, Plurality, and Tulpamancy". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 June 2023.
• Riesman, Abraham (29 March 2019). "The Best Cartoonist You've Never Read Is Eight Different People". Vulture. Retrieved 28 June 2023.
• Telfer, Tori (11 May 2015). "Are Multiple Personalities Always a Disorder?". Vice. Retrieved 15 June 2020.

The one that says Tulpamancers visualize is:

• Hale, Elizabeth (28 May 2024). "The Inner Vehicle: Prayer, Tulpamancy, and the Magic of the Mind". NEXT. 7. (final source)

-Flower (she/her) 24.155.147.109 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Here are the relevant quotations from sources I can access (most of those)

Schechter, Elizabeth (March 2024). "Introducing Plurals" (PDF). Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics. 9 (2): 95–141:

Some systems are intentionally created through so‐called tulpamancy. Tulpamancy is a practice or set of practices undertaken with the intention of creating an autonomous sentient being “inside” (and of course using) one’s brain

Nonetheless, when tulpamancy is successful, the tulpamancer experiences their tulpa or tulpas as being autonomous beings, just as occurs in traumagenic systems: so, although the tulpamancer will be aware of their tulpa’s (say) actions, they will feel as though they (the tulpamancer) are not the agent of those actions. Phenomenologically, then, all plu‐rals seem to share something.

the term “system” is slightly different, referring instead to the collection of headmates all associated with one particular plural.

Christensen, Emily M. (1 June 2022). "The online community: DID and plurality". European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 6 (2) 100257. doi:10.1016/j.ejtd.2021.100257. ISSN 2468-7499:

This group often has a very elaborately developed inner world with relationships rich in detail where all parts of the system seem to have knowledge and access, as well as awareness to where they do not have access and why

, there is a higher population with relational trauma due to neglect and some of these children create imaginary inner worlds to deal with the lack of presence of attachment figures (S� andor et al., 2021). In this way, fictives are, in part, at times, substitute introjects, and then the related rich inner worlds are further developed through maladaptive daydreaming (Somer, 2002, 2015, 2016a, 2016b).

24.155.147.109 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Your posts are unclear: what article is this in regards to and what content do you want to add to that article that is supported by those sources? And have you already tried discussing this on the talk page for that article? Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

yes, it has been talked about, but @ජපස has been a bit inactive. This is about Plurality (identity). 24.155.147.109 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It's only been 2 days since ජපස edited so I suggest waiting until they continue the discussion since they appear to grasp whatever you're trying to do with that article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@24.155.147.109: Please try to maintain patience with article writing and improvement. I have made some stylistic edits along with removing at least one bit of prose that stretches the sources beyond the limit of what I think it appropriate. Please continue discussion there. jps (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Under the "Criticism" section of the article the sentence "The Gantt chart is also poorly aligned with modern user interface (UI) design principles" appears, attributing it to this article: https://www.figma.com/resource-library/ui-design-principles/. This article never mentions Gantt charts by name and so I think its fair to say this is Original Research.

(apologies if this is not the right place for this notice: I am fairly inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTXEDCMRZV (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

KTXEDCMRZV (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You're correct! I've removed the sentence and citation. Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

National Iranian American Council has been consistently subject to vandalism, and over the last two years, politically charged/biased editors have sought to maintain the highly biased/not neutral lede intro to "lobbying group widely viewed as the de facto "Iran Lobby" in Washington, D.C. due to its history of lobbying for stances on behalf of, and aligned with, the Islamic Republic of Iran."

The lede is currently adopting rhetoric of critics and presenting a controversial label as fact. None of the articles cited to source/justify actually make, substantiate or even suggest this claim. The sources cited consist of politically motivated commentary, reports on calls for investigation, or litigation coverage, none establishing that the statement they are trying to assert is fact. They are combining unrelated material to create a new, defamatory conclusion not present in the cited works.

Here is some overview of each of the sources cited for this statement and how they are drawing a new, defamatory conclusion from unrelated sources:

1. Josh Gerstein (13 September 2012). "Iranian-American group, leader lose libel case against writer". Politico. Retrieved 13 September 2012. https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/09/iranian-american-group-leader-lose-libel-case-against-writer-135502 This source is a factual court-reporting piece describing the outcome of NIAC’s defamation lawsuit against critic Hassan Dai who claimed that NIAC was an agent of the Iranian Regime. The article reports that a U.S. court dismissed NIAC’s lawsuit but does not assert or verify that the critic’s claims were true. Defamation suits are often dismissed on procedural or evidentiary grounds, not on factual determination. WP:RS and WP:BLP, court reporting cannot be used as evidence that the allegations are true unless the judgment explicitly states such findings, which this case did not.

2. Eli Lake (13 November 2009). "Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules". The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/exclusive-did-iranian-advocacy-group-violate-laws//print/ This article speculates that NIAC might have engaged in lobbying-like activities without registration but provides no evidence of violations, official findings, or independent verification. This source is from a politically conservative outlet with a known editorial bias. The piece uses conditional language (“said to,” “may have”) and anonymous sourcing. According to WP:RS/NEWSORG, publications that mix opinion and reporting or use unnamed sources require careful attribution. This piece cannot serve as a factual foundation for defining the organization’s purpose or ideology.

3. Jerusalem Post (15 January 2020). "Senators call to investigate pro-Iran group - report". Retrieved 15 January 2020. https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Senators-call-to-investigate-pro-Iran-group-report-614191 This source is secondary coverage reporting that a small group of senators called for an investigation into NIAC. This article merely documents that a call for an investigation occurred. It provides no evidence, findings, or independent confirmation of the underlying accusations. Under WP:NEWSORG and WP:BLP, reporting that politicians called for an investigation is not equivalent to substantiating wrongdoing. Treating it as such misrepresents the source and constitutes synthesis.

4. Lake, Eli (13 November 2009). "Exclusive: Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules". The Washington Times. Retrieved 15 November 2024. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/exclusive-did-iranian-advocacy-group-violate-laws/ A republication of the same 2009 article.Duplicate citation of an identical piece creates the false impression of multiple corroborating sources. This practice violates WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE by inflating the appearance of sourcing for a disputed claim.

5. Johnston, Susannah (24 May 2023). "Did the Voice of America Cave to Iran's 'Lobby'?". Middle East Forum. Retrieved 9 January 2024. https://www.meforum.org/64452/did-the-voice-of-america-cave-to-iran-lobby This source is an opinion essay published by Middle East Forum, an advocacy organization known for ideological commentary. The article is explicitly editorial, contains unverified accusations, and provides no independent corroboration. NIAC is mentioned only tangentially as part of a political argument, not in a factual investigative capacity. Under WP:RS and WP:OPED, advocacy essays are not acceptable as factual sources. Quoting such material as proof of organizational behavior violates neutrality and verifiability.

6. Dai, Hassan (29 June 2017). "How Trita Parsi and NIAC Used the White House to Advance Iran's Agenda". Tablet. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/parsi-niac-advance-irans-agenda This source is an opinion essay authored by Hassan Dai, a long-time activist and litigant against NIAC. Tablet itself publishes a mix of essays, interviews, and editorials that often blur lines between reporting and commentary. The author’s involvement as a direct party in NIAC’s defamation case disqualifies him as an independent or neutral source. His claims represent his personal interpretation, not verified evidence. Under WP:RS and WP:BLP, self-interested or partisan material cannot be used to establish facts about living persons or their organizations. Relying on this article as proof of NIAC’s alignment with Iran constitutes a serious neutrality and BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawrami (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to say WP:BLP would only normally only apply to very small groups, not large organisations like NIAC. See WP:BLPGROUP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia prohibits No Original Research (NOR). Separate from that, however, the Neutral Point of View policy—and the issue of FALSEBALANCE must also be upheld. There is a potential conflict between these two guidelines.

An issue arises when a 'specific source' either aligns with or contradicts the mainstream view, but there is no explicitly stated material confirming whether that 'specific source' is mainstream or not. In such a situation, can one violate NOR in order to uphold NPOV? --Otyuso23 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOR applies to article content only. Original research - i.e. figuring out for ourselves if a particular Wikipedia policy applies or not - is a necessary part of the article talk page editorial process. You aren't going to find sources outside Wikipedia discussing such arcane matters. We have to look at the sources available, and decide for ourselves where 'balance' lies. This, as a matter of routine, requires deciding, collectively, but for ourselves, whether a source is 'reliable' for something or not, whether it is mainstream or fringe, and much else besides. If there were rules for everything, and such editorial judgement wasn't needed, we could program the rules into a bot, leave it to write articles itself, and spend our newly-freed-up time watching YouTube videos of cats, or posing memes about graphic cards melting on Reddit. AndyTheGrump (talk)

The viewpoints of academic circles and social movement groups often diverge. My question concerns the selection of sources when documenting what a social movement is claiming. If the rationale for choosing a specific source is its high Amazon sales rank, would this be considered Original Research? I must emphasize that I am not intending to argue for or against the claims of any particular social movement; my sole objective is to summarize their arguments neutrally. --Otyuso23 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:RS that suggests that how often a publication sells is any indicator of reliability whatsoever, and Amazon sales rank would be desperately poor measure of sales for academic publications, which tend largely to be purchased by institutions, likely direct from the publisher. So not only would it be WP:OR, but more or less irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Academic sources are preferred, sales rank is irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested @AndyTheGrump Thank you for your reply. I will now change the focus of my question. If that is the case, then conversely, would removing such a statement be considered justified? Otyuso23 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Clearly. If anyone disputes this, direct them to this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Neurodiversity

While researching neurodiversity organizations, I came across some information. These articles, by any measure, seem to indicate that neurodiversity groups oppose disability-selective abortion.

Neurodiversity organizations acknowledge that abortion is a pregnant person's right. However, they argue that unlike non-selective abortion, disability-selective abortion constitutes discrimination. I included this point in an Article, but it was deleted by another user who cited 'original research' as the reason. Yet, the material below, in my opinion, clearly shows opposition to disability-selective abortion from any perspective. and the organizations themselves seem to have made their position known without concealing it.

Evans, M. (2020). The Autistic Genocide Clock. In: Kapp, S. (eds) Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.

The Autistic Genocide Clock was created by Autistic activist Meg Evans in 2005. The Clock was a ten-year countdown in the image of a clock in response to researcher Dr. Joseph Buxbaum’s public pronouncement that genetic research on autism could lead to a prenatal genetic test within 10 years. Evans’ point was that a prenatal genetic test for autism could lead to abortions of fetuses that test positive for autism: a form of genocide in her view. The Autistic Genocide Clock warned about the risk of genocide to the autistic population that drew parallels to historic attempts to eliminate minority groups. Evans took the clock down in 2011 after the prenatal test seemed unlikely and the culture had moved much further towards acceptance.

John Pring on 4th November 2021, Autistic campaigners’ anger over Spectrum 10K protest lock-out and ‘scare tactics’, disabilitynewsservice.

Nicky Vere-Compton warned that the research could eventually be used to encourage parents to abort unborn babies that had a genetic link to autism.

She said: “We have already seen what happened when they found a DNA link for Down’s.

“They used that as an opportunity to have conversations with the parents of unborn Down’s babies, saying, ‘Would you like to abort your child?’

“And as a consequence, less Down’s babies are being born now.

“If they find the DNA link for autism, which they won’t, because I don’t believe it exists, but if I’m wrong and they do, what will happen is that every doctor will be speaking to the parent of an unborn autistic and saying, ‘Would you like to abort your baby?’

“The level of ignorance about the autistic neurotype means that more parents than not will say, ‘Oh no, I don’t want an autistic child’ and there will be less of us being born.

David Gray-Hammond, who read out the statement, added: “On a personal note, I think most of us were lost for words when we saw this research come out… it’s yet another attack on the autistic community.

“Yet again, people are trying to find out what causes autism, rather than actually support the ones that are already here.

“Because we are here, we are human beings, we exist and we deserve support, and instead £3 million is being poured into research which could potentially be used to eradicate us.

“We have a right to exist.”

Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Letter to ACLU on Wrongful Birth and Life Statements, May 25, 2012

We are writing as members of the disability community to express disappointment with your action alert this past March defending wrongful birth and wrongful life lawsuits. As civil rights advocates, we are grateful for the ACLU’s tireless work. However, we strongly feel that your defense of these suits fails to address issues that reach beyond reproductive choice and that profoundly affect people with disabilities. We would like to schedule a meeting with you to begin a dialogue between our organizations. People with disabilities see these lawsuits as involving distinct issues unrelated to abortion, namely the harm to society when courts make decisions about the value of the lives of individuals with disabilities who have already been born. We are disappointed that an organization committed to and with a long history of protecting civil liberties and human rights, particularly the rights of traditionally marginalized or underrepresented communities, would support a policy that dehumanizes people with disabilities and devalues their lives. Wrongful birth and wrongful life lawsuits have as their basis the assumption that life with a disability is not worth living, which goes against the principles of the disability rights movement and the Americans with Disabilities Act. These actions require parents to publicly reject their child because of a disability. Only parents who convince the court that their child should never have been born are eligible to win a wrongful birth or wrongful life lawsuit. Similarly, because not every disability will be considered significant enough to win a wrongful birth or life lawsuit, courts are required to make decisions about which types of disabilities are “so bad” that parents should be compensated for having the child.

Autistic Self Advocacy Network of Australia and New Zealand, "History of Autistic Advocacy: How we got here"

Meanwhile, Meg Evans’ Genocide Clock warns of the dangers of prenatal autism screening, raising concerns about the erasure of autistic lives.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otyuso23 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a bigger WP:DUE concern than OR, but I'd agree with the revert of the addition on the basis that it seems unwarranted to add an entire level-two section on autism advocacy groups' views on selective abortion to an article whose topic is Neurodiversity. There's also a bit of OR to take statements that are largely (although not exclusively) WP:PRIMARY statements by autism advocacy groups and then assert in wikivoice that neurodiversity groups acknowledge that abortion is a pregnant person's right. However, they argue that disability-selective abortion, as opposed to non-selective abortion, constitutes discrimination. To make such a sweeping statement in wikivoice, you should be relying on coverage of neurodiversity advocacy groups in non-advocacy publications (e.g. peer-reviewed literature, mainstream news press) that frame their perspectives in such terms. Generalizing primary statements to make wikivoice claims about a broad category of groups purported to be similar to those making the statements is OR. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

May I interpret this text as specifically stating that 'neurodiversity' opposes 'selective abortion'?

Steve Silberman, NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity, Avery Publishing, ISBN 978-1-58333-467-6, pp.470.

“Neurodiversity advocates propose that instead of viewing this gift as an error of nature—a puzzle to be solved and eliminated with techniques like prenatal testing and selective abortion—society should regard it as a valuable part of humanity’s genetic legacy while ameliorating aspects of autism that can be profoundly disabling without adequate forms of support.”

Otyuso23 (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill Otyuso23 (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The independent sources would probably justify a sentence or two in the section about neurodiversity in the disability rights movement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The original dispute appears to have been putting a short section on disability selective abortion into Neurodiversity. It was reverted as WP:OR which seems a bit of a stretch unless there's a bunch of sources disputing the claim. It's a tiny bit WP:SYNTH but certainly not the worst I've ever seen from someone trying to make a summary of a view that seems widely held. I am a bit on the fence about whether the material is WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

NZDF response: With its narrow focus on harm reduction, the NZDF has been unable to exert any influence over what has been described as "a serious and rapidly escalating public health crisis." Executive Director of the Foundation, Sarah Helm, suggests "a much larger investment in addiction treatment" is needed and "an extension of Te Ara Oranga", the methamphetamine harm reduction initiative that was trialled in Northland.^[1] However, in December 2024, Northland had the highest consumption of methamphetamine in the entire country.^[2]

Note the second reference does not mention the programme nor does it ascribe any fault towards the NZDF for this increase. The article in quesiton is New Zealand Drug Foundation Traumnovelle (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to give a neutral notice, but making sense of the issue or the rambling discussion at Talk:New Zealand Drug Foundation is difficult. Is there a diff that sums up the claimed problem? That is, exactly what text do some editors want to add and which others want to remove and/or change? You can comment at article talk with a link to here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The specific issue is this diff [24] Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I was recently trying to add stock charts to an article.

They come from the commercial and financial chronicle, a business newspaper and as such a secondary source.

I was told that this is a case of original research, unless i find other sources that discuss the stock price, i cannot quote it in the article. Is that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2455:8423:4800:60C6:3C72:764A:3D45 (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The details of what article you where editing, or a link to the edit itself wpd be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sylvania Electric Products

Nothing special about the company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylvania_Electric_Products&oldid=1318284754 includes collapsible tables that were deemed inappropriate. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:D3E6:5C4B:F95:F7A3 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the disagreement is about whether the tables are too long/overly detailed, rather than whether it’s OR (doesn’t seem to be). I’ve made a suggestion to try and resolve this disagreement on the talk page. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I added a way to find the optimal a_max, I just want to say is that original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltypestar2 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and even if it weren't, the derivation is much too long for the article. I think you should revert your addition. Perhaps you could write a blog post with your findings instead. Elestrophe (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the new section from the article. Elestrophe (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on secondary sourcing, rather than a place to just include something. Unless this is something already published elsewhere it doesn't belong here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to add this section to the article on SpaceX Starship: In a update on their website in late October 2025,^[1] SpaceX stated that Starship is "SpaceX is self-funding representing over 90% of system costs" [sic], which combined with known public contracts (like the one for Starship HLS ^[2]) representing the remaining 10 or less percent would put the cost of the "core Starship system and supporting infrastructure" at the moment of the release at no less than $27 billion. But I'm not sure if that would be synthesis, or merely arithmetically combining two different sources (we know from one that it is 90% self-funded, and we know from the other what the remaining 10% translates to at the minimum). Thoughts? Hal Nordmann (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It's OR because you don't know on what basis each of the sources computed their numbers. One number is from 2021 and one is from 2025, and you don't rule out that NASA or other agencies made additional contracts. There is a lot of uncertainty involved and your estimate could be quite silly and therefore IMO leans towards not legit even as a clearly stated estimate. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:4A09:B9E2:5AE8:60AE (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The intent was to estabilish a lower bound for the costs (and clearly state so), as the SpaceX estimate is too vague for anything more. But if you say so... Hal Nordmann (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't even know if the 90% claimed by SpaceX was not a bullshit PR claim. It's not in any kind of official document. Uncertainty upon uncertainty. I would not be comfortable at all relying on such an estimate.

I am not strict about OR if the wording makes clear that it is, but in this case it is a stretch. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:4A09:B9E2:5AE8:60AE (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that this goes beyond simple arithmetic because we aren't really sure if these figures are apples to apples or apples to oranges. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

"James I & VI" is a name used for the person who was both King James I of England and King James VI of Scotland. It is easy to find reliable sources with the name. The man known as Pedro I of Brazil was also known as Pedro IV of Portugal. Editors at his article wish to add the name "Pedro I & IV" to the infobox. I have asked for sources for the name on the talk page but none have been provided (in any language). I believe it is contrary to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Alternative names to use a name that is not found in reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)