Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Opinions needed on Nanjing Sister Hong incident

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)

Discussion on whether Huns are Turkic

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.

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)

References

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research § OR links

 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)

OR at Hamas#Allegations of antisemitism

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)

OR on the page for Copenhagen (play)

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)

Dispute on bloc ideologies at the infobox

Hello, it'd be appreciated for this discussion [1] the opinion of an uninvolved user on whether this primary source [2] 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 [3] [4]. 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)

Cat Chow regarded as playful and humorous?

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)

Repatriation and reburial of human remains

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 [5] 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)

Donald Trump, fascism and Jimmy Kimmel

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)

Beatles' Her Majesty

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)

Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!

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 ([6] [7]) to my removals ([8], [9], [10]). 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)

Origins of Judeo-Banderite meme

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. 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.

• 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)

Bible code

This is about [11] and [12]. 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)

Context in articles

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)