Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)			Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:ORN WP:OR/N WP:OR/N
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• "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  No offense, but this is an extremely ignorant take on what chosen people means. From a quick google search [1] Chosen people is not about supremacy, but about being chosen to receive and follow the commandments of the Torah. Slava570 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

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

  It appears to me that there is some confusion over what the word "Zionism" means? I find it disturbing that certain editors on this thread equate Zionism with racial superiority--and would consider that fringe bordering on original research. I will not comment on the slanted state of the Zionism page but it would help to have a strong understanding of Herzl and also the exodus of Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews from their countries of origins prior to assuming that the phrase is about racism or ethnic superiority. It is an extremely nuanced concept that requires a nuanced definition. [[2]] [[3]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

  See Slater 2020:

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

  And Khalidi 2006:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Here's some more support for the statement: "In 1896, Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl wrote in Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), considered one of the most important texts of modern Zionism, arguing that the creation of an independent Jewish state in historic Palestine would be the best way to avoid anti-Semitism in Europe. This Zionist claim to Palestine was premised on the belief that the Jewish people’s claim to historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arab Palestinians already living there".^[1] TarnishedPath ^talk 12:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here are more RS that support the statement:

Israeli historian Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin (1993, 1994), of Ben-Gurion University, described the Zionists' secularizing of the sacred agenda as follows: "God does not exist, but he promised us this land". In modern secular Zionist nationalism the religious language, theology, myths and fairy tales of the Hebrew Bible are transformed not only into ethno-centric nationalist myths, but also into positively corroborated legal rights and a "title deed" to the land underpinned by sacred documents and a "divine mandate" – a supremacist mandate towering above both indigenous rights and international law.^[2]

While European nationalism is intertwined with the concepts of popular sovereignty and self-determination, the theocratic principle of Judaism helped legitimize the Jewish claim to Palestine as a land promised to Jews by God. Furthermore, religious Jews refer to themselves as God’s chosen people, which indicates religious and national exceptionalism and superiority of Jews over other non-Jewish peoples (Roshwald, 2003,). Thus, the Zionist Jewish nationalism is not only informed by European nationalist models, but also Judaism affects and guides exclusivist ethnocentric Jewish nationalism (Roshwald, 2003). The ideas of promised land and chosenness have been used to justify the slaughter and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The promised land must be purified from non-Jews so that God’s chosen people could establish a national home.^[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

Referring you (without endorsement) to statements you make at times like these: [4] NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

Back to substance: these authors have only 40 citations combined [5] [6]. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

(削除) Might be worth bringing up in his ongoing WP:AE report for administrators to evaluate (削除ここまで) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Prof. Anita Shapira: Zionists regarded the denial of an Arab exclusive right to Palestine as a matter of negligible importance.^[4]
2. Prof. Chaim Gans: The Zionist movement aspired to realize Jews’ interests in adhering to their culture and in realizing their right to self-determination in the Land of Israel rather than in places where the Jews were currently residing, or in any other territory without a special significance in the history of the Jewish people.3 This aspiration was based on what has often been called the historical right of the Jews to the Land of Israel.^[5]
   
3. Prof. Tamar Meisels: The justification of Jewish settlement rests on historical arguments^[6]
4. Prof. Roger Frieland & Prof. Richard D. Hecht: religions anchored in these sacred centers have been essential to the formation of modern nationalist movements and the modern nations hold these sites sacred as nationalist - not just religious - centers. Jerusalem is, of course, the sovereign capital of Israel, and the Zionist claim to Palestine is rooted here. After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Jews adapted to their exile by holding tightly to their map of history, to the repeated and promised cycle of exile and redemption. The Jews survived as a people, Eli Wiesel is fond of saying, because they remembered. As Saul Friedlander and Adam Seligman have recently shown, the Israelis placed the Shoah, the Nazi destruction of European Jewry, into this classic narrative form, the singular evilness of exile followed by national redemption. This sequence could be read both as a "secular" statement of historical cause and reason for nationhood, and as a "religious" statement of God's direction of history.^[7]
5. Prof. Yosef Gorny: One cannot attempt to answer these questions without clarifying some of the Zionist tenets which determined the nature of the Arab-Jewish problem. Zionism has always adhered to four social and political tenets, without which its existence would have been pointless and its efforts doomed to failure. All these principles had a powerful influence, direct or indirect, on its policy towards the Arabs. The first principle was the desire for the territorial concentration of the Jewish people in Palestine, their historic homeland, Eretz Yisrael-The Land of Israel. This claim for a homeland, in the name of an historical right by a people not residing within it, implied, a priori, a denial, whether moderate or extreme, of the exclusive rights of the Arab residents.^[8] (key word: implied; not "was based on" nor anything of the sort. This was a consequence)
6. Prof. Moshe Maoz: Both movements have claimed full legitimate rights over the entire land: Eretz Israel or Falastin. The Zionists, by recounting historical rights and divine promises derived from the Bible, and the Palestinians, by citing historical continuity and religious bonds, as well as their demographic majority cum the right of self-determination.^[9]
7. Assoc. Prof. Aaron Berman: He then went on to challenge the very basis of the Jewish claim to Palestine, claiming: ["]Palestine does not belong to the Jews. It does not belong to them on historical grounds. They had full possession of it for less than five hundred years. The Arabs have had it for thirteen hundred years. The Jews were not driven out of Palestine by the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus. Their dispersion for several hundred years had been a voluntary diaspora.["].^[10]
8. Prof. Ronald Allen Goldberg: The Jewish claim to Palestine dates back to biblical times, when the Jews ruled their own nation. Dispersed by the Romans, they became a minority in the area. Many years later, following the rise of Islam, the Arabs began to populate the area and eventually became the majority. A small Jewish population remained in the area, augmented greatly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. After the horrors of World War II, the Jewish community pressured for the revival of a Jewish state in their ancient homeland.^[11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe neither of us have been making the same argument over and over. Conversely, someone here has been copying and pasting the same sentence in multiple places [7] [8]. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

Hello. I think the article on Human mating strategies contains a lot of original research. I've attempted to flag it to readers and other editors with a "synthesis" tag, but the tag gets removed (four times so far). The editor who removes the tag has stopped discussing on the talk page - and, I believe, didn't engaged with the points about original research when they were discussing. At the moment, simply getting more opinions on whether an original research tag would/wouldn't be appropriate would be helpful. Here are some examples from the article of what I believe are original research:

• Within the Parental investment section it says, Women tend to appreciate men who are chivalrous despite their sexist attitudes towards them. Because such men are more likely to invest in these women and their children, it makes evolutionary sense for women to be drawn towards them. They are likely to be more dependent on such men, to limit their own ambitions, and to submit to them.^{[1] [2]}

However, the sources quoted don't say this. The information has been synthesised from paragraphs within the sources in a way they don't intend. My attempt at improving this would be, "women tend to be attracted to men are who are benevolently sexist - giving a coat; offering to carry heavy boxes - despite such sexism being harmful to them. Gül and Kupfer suggest this is because women's evolutionary history shaped them to prefer mates whose characteristics suggest they are able to invest in the relationship and as a parent".

• The Platonic relationships and friendships section, is entirely original research in the context of this Wikipedia article - the source isn't about human mating strategies.
• In the Sensational journalism and gossip section it says, Furthermore, much gossip concerns social affairs.^[1]

The quoted article mentions gossip and evolution but not in the context of human mating strategies.

• Later in the same section it says, Nevertheless, as Bertrand Russell observed, "No one gossips about other people's secret virtues, but only about their secret vices." - Russell's words, from "The Aims of Education", were not in a context of human mating strategies.

I think the list could go on. As I said at the start, at the moment simply getting more opinions on whether an original research tag would/wouldn't be appropriate would be helpful. Thanks. Woofboy (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The article is a total mess, cobbled together out of a whole heap of sources, many of which are entirely inappropriate. OR/synthesis is obvious, as is a whole slew of dubious assumptions and a ridiculous bias towards contemporary Western 'mating strategies' as some sort of norm (they are clearly nothing of the sort). A clueless dog's breakfast concoction of pop-culture 'evolutionary psychology', absurd generalisations, and outright misrepresentation of material cited AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the reply, @AndyTheGrump. While it still needs work, I think Mate choice in humans does a much better, more succinct job of covering the same topic. Woofboy (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

We shouldn't have two articles on the same topic. Anything salvageable from the 'Human mating strategies' article should probably be merged with 'Mate choice in humans'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Should we start a formal AfD to merge and redirect? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human mating strategies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

ChiWriter is a 1980s-era DOS word processor. Until yesterday, the article identified the programming language used to implement ChiWriter as "C and C++". To support the claim, it included a note with the following text:

The programming languages used for Chiwriter are easily determined from strings embedded by the compilers into the executables. But compilers aren't obligated to identify themselves. So, other languages may have been used too. 8088 assembly is likely to have been used in some places. This would be a fair guess for the miniscule executable marked "unknown" below.

$ wget https://horstmann.com/ChiWriter/cw4.zip
$ unzip cw4.zip # the last version still on Horstmann's site; file dated 2015年12月04日.
...
$ ls -l *.EXE
-rw------- 1 bw bw 67702 Oct 19 2007 324.EXE
-rw------- 1 bw bw 683152 Oct 19 2007 CW.EXE
-rw------- 1 bw bw 50034 Oct 19 2007 DOCUMENT.EXE
-rw------- 1 bw bw 16684 Oct 19 2007 FCS.EXE
-rw------- 1 bw bw 85156 Oct 19 2007 FD.EXE
-rw------- 1 bw bw 41876 Oct 19 2007 MAINT.EXE
-rw------- 1 bw bw 941 Oct 19 2007 PALETTE.EXE
-rw------- 1 bw bw 17032 Oct 19 2007 PINSTALL.EXE
-rw------- 1 bw bw 62430 Oct 19 2007 TESTSCR.EXE

$ file *.EXE
324.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS
CW.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS
DOCUMENT.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS, ZIP self-extracting archive
FCS.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS
FD.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS
MAINT.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS
PALETTE.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS
PINSTALL.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS Self-extracting PKZIP archive
TESTSCR.EXE: MS-DOS executable, MZ for MS-DOS

$ L=`file *.EXE |sed '/archive/d; s/:.*//'`
$ for j in $L; do
> echo $j:
> strings $j |egrep -m1 'Borland|Turbo|Zortech' || echo unknown
> done |
> sed '/:$/ ! s/^/ /'

324.EXE:
Borland C++ - Copyright 1991 Borland Intl.
CW.EXE:
Borland C++ - Copyright 1991 Borland Intl.
FCS.EXE:
Turbo C++ - Copyright 1990 Borland Intl.
FD.EXE:
Borland C++ - Copyright 1991 Borland Intl.
MAINT.EXE:
Turbo-C - Copyright (c) 1988 Borland Intl.
PALETTE.EXE:
unknown
TESTSCR.EXE:
Zortech C 3.0r1 library, Copyright (C) 1988-1991 S, written by Walter Bright

I believe that this is clearly original research, as extensive analysis of the primary source (the program's binaries) is required, so I removed the note and the identification of the languages. (It's also potentially inaccurate, since it's only searching for a handful of known patterns from some popular compilers around that period, and doesn't consider the possibility of multiple languages or transpilers. And to be pedantic, these strings aren't actually from the compilers, but from their associated runtime libraries.) However, Black Walnut believes that this is akin to transcribing the credits from a film, and thus not OR. I'd appreciate other opinions. pburka (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd agree that it's OR, although "extensive analysis" is overstating it; it's pretty straightforward to figure this out by inspection of the executable. However, Computer Shopper 1986-06 p118 (the review starts on p106) says that ChiWriter 1.31 was written in C, so you could cite that instead? Adam Sampson (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Fair enough: strings + grep isn't all that extensive. I will restore the information with the citation that you suggested. Thank you! pburka (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is moot since you have the citation, but "inspection of the executable" seems to miss the point of WP:V; a wikipedia reader must be able to verify what we say in an article, and despite having done a fair bit of programming, the above steps are not something that I'd understand what I'm doing. This is neither the "faithfully reproducing or translating" of credits nor routine calculations mentioned at WP:TRANSCRIPTION and WP:CALC respectively. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @EducatedRedneck: not contesting the topic; I am very pleased that we found a secondary source.

Reading your response above, I thought you may be curious about how to look up information embedded in an executable. You need one command: "strings". Given an executable as its argument, it extracts and displays any textual material. It works on any type of file; on a text file, it ends up displaying the entire file. The command is part of the standard toolset for system-level development in unix, Linux, and MacOS. I don't know about MS-Windows. What operating system(s) do you use?
— Black Walnut ^talk 13:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I use MS Windows, which does have the Strings command, though I don't usually do system-level development, and I doubt the majority of our readers do, either, per WP:AUDIENCE. Thanks for the tip, though; I'll be adding that command to my toolbox! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for the info on MS-Windows, EducatedRedneck! Do you happen to know whether the command is part of the basic OS? Or is it in an extra package, like Visual Studio, which might be excluded in a basic Windows installation?
— Black Walnut ^talk 13:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It looks like it's an external package; it's not on my machine natively, but it seems to be part of the sysinternals package and can be downloaded individually from the Microsoft website here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you!
— Black Walnut ^talk 13:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Not otherwise involved with these topics, but last month I stumbled upon a block of original research at Liberty Fund, basically providing an argument against the book The Assault on Reason, citing things that don't actually talk about the book (apart from the book itself). Noticed the same block of text was added to the article about the book and removed both ([9] [10]). They've now been reinstated. To my eyes, this is rather classic POV-based OR, but I could use another opinion as I'd rather not just get into a back-and-forth with this person myself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• I agree that there is a lot of OR there but some of this might be recoverable. The big OR wall-of-text paragraph you removed seems to have been put there to respond to the immediately preceding paragraph. That paragraph details a criticism that Al Gore made in a 2007 (now, nineteen years old) book about Liberty Fund seminars for judges. Evidently, two pundits (Jonathan Adler and Thomas Schelling) defended either the judges or Liberty Fund from the line of criticism in the Gore book, in a form in which that criticism had previously appeared. This line of criticism about Liberty Fund and their judge seminars -- if it is notable enough to be in this article, it is a line of criticism that exists independently of Gore's book. Being mentioned in Gore's book is part of what makes the line of critique actually notable. I wouldn't mind if the whole section were rewritten not to emphasize the fact that Gore wrote about it in this book, but to note that particular (notable) criticism of Liberty Fund and, perhaps, some of the responses. Not sure how notable those reponses are, but if the critique gets put in, I guess it seems fair to include why some pundits don't take the criticism all that seriously. All of this said, I'm not 100% sure that any of this is notable enough to be in the article. Novellasyes (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  I took at look at both articles. I think the material could reasonably be removed from both. It's not clear why the only content AOR discusses is this particular section from page 234. What about the rest of the book? So in context of the AOR book I would removed not just the paragraph but the whole section as UNDUE. It appears to have been added by an IP editor just in January.

  For the LF article, again, I don't think it would hurt to remove the whole thing. However, if the single page of mention within AOR is DUE within LF, I would say a reply based on the National Review article is DUE. The current reply does appear to contain some OR. If the material is going to be retained both the claim and counter claims should be trimmed. Springee (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  I think the issue is that there's also a fair bit of POV SYNTH here. Like some of those statements are sourced and some of those sources are even reliable but the end result is synthetic. It's an essay, not an excerpt of an encyclopedia article. Simonm223 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Noting the OR is still in Liberty Fund, and a minor edit war began at The Assault on Reason (though it is currently removed). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, this is in regards to: talk:International Association of Genocide Scholars#Concealing membership requirements?

I wanted to add a description of the organization, which says that membership is open to anyone who pays the dues, and you don't have to have a legal or scholarly credential to join the organization.

The full quote from the IAGS website is: "IAGS members are academic scholars, human rights activists, students, museum and memorial professionals, policymakers, educators, anthropologists, independent scholars, sociologists, artists, political scientists, economists, historians, international law scholars, psychologists, and literature and film scholars. IAGS was formed in 1994 and currently represents 600 members from all continents. We encourage anyone dealing with genocide in a scholarly or professional capacity to join." @Bluethricecreamman: says this is SYNTH. Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The source is WP:PRIMARY, so I'd want to attribute any statement to the organization and not use Wikivoice. The quote you supplied doesn't say that it's open to anyone who pays the dues; to the contrary, it only encourages dealing with genocide in a scholarly or professional capacity to join, and even then, encouraging and accepting are not the same. I'd suggest rephrasing to something like, "The IAGS encourages scholars and professionals whose work touches on genocide to join." That way it's a bald paraphrasing of what they've said, and attributed directly to them. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yup. The source doesn't say 'open to anyone who pays the dues'. Honestly that reads more like spin than an attempt to paraphrase anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed. This is, at the very least, dangerously close to WP:SYNTH and is clearly not a neutral summary. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm fine with attribution. Also, here's another quote from the About us page: "A central aim of the Association is to draw academics, activists, artists, genocide survivors, journalists, jurists, public policy makers, and other colleagues into the interdisciplinary study of genocide, with the goal of prevention."

What if it said "According to the IAGS website, membership is open to scholars, activists, artists, and others."

I think it's spin to not include this information because the organization is trying to promote itself as something it isn't. Shouldn't readers know who this organization is made up of? Slava570 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The bit about dealing with genocide in a scholarly or professional capacity is not something appropriate to leave out if you are trying to describe how this group solicits membership. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I concur. If you're relying on their website as the source, you have to say what the website says, not spin it yourself. If the organization really is open to anyone who pays dues, it should be trivial to find a reliable secondary source that says so. If not source can be found, how do you know (and how could our reader verify) the claim? EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

They encourage anyone dealing with genocide in a scholarly or legal capacity, they don't require it. If I put that part in too, would it be ok? Slava570 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You cannot write "they dont require it". Synth. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think you need to avoid paraphrasing the source here. However, I guess a follow-up question would be, do any secondary sources think the IAGS selection criteria is relevant? Because it's also WP:OR adjacent to pull out a random factoid from their website and say look at this. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I thought "Rewriting source material in one's own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." But fine, I'll try to find seconary sources later... I just hope if I find something, it won't be reverted for procedural reasons. Slava570 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If those "procedural reasons" are either source reliability or disputes over what constitutes a revert (per discussions elsewhere) I would strongly recommend you discuss at talk before implementation and make sure you have consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

it does sound you are searching for a foregone conclusion and hoping policy will bend for it User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You're right, I've made a conclusion based on the facts I read from the website, but I'm being prevented from using those facts based on technicalities, so I have to find a workaround. A fact is a fact is a fact, and I think I should be allowed to state facts without any extra work, but you won't let me. Now you're trying to paint this as something sinister.... Slava570 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Apologies for any untoward implication. If there is room for compromise, im happy to think of a way to phrase the IAGS website in a way that would be ok with all. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

My concern Salva is that what you are interpreting is not a fact. "We encourage X-type people to apply" COULD be interpreted to mean, "We'll accept anyone, but want X-type people." It could also be interpreted to mean "We only recruit X-type people, so they should apply." It could also be unrelated; maybe they usually only accept folks with PhDs in political science, but are trying to branch out, and so encourage it.

I'll also point out, even if your interpretation is correct, you're taking their word for it. It's also entirely possible that they are not presenting facts, in which case trying to do tea reading through their PR is a fool's errand. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Which is precisely why we use reliable secondary sources to determine what elements of an organization have bearing on their reputation rather than asserting it based on our opinions of what that reputation should be. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There are strict rules with primary sourcing in general. You might be better off with secondary (as long as reliable and due) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If you proceed with "According to" then, in my opinion, "According to the IAGS website," is unnecessarily long. "According to IAGS," suffices. An equivalent wording you could try is "The IAGS states that ...". I do think attribution is appropriate in this case.

Also, the wording "anyone who pays the dues" may indeed be factual but it isn't how they put it and, depending on the person reading, may carry a whiff of derision. That judgement may or may not be deserved but it is not an encylopedia's place to make it. Also, keep in mind, that most constitutions have clauses for expelling members. It is likely that IAGS will take anyone's money, then expel anyone who makes them look bad by publishing in a non-scholarly manner or in any way attracts their ire.
— Black Walnut ^talk 12:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Essentially I wanted to mention someone’s usage of a particular word (specifically a racial slur) on their biography page. This edit got removed because I cited an example of them using the word directly from X.

I am a bit confused as to whether this is considered original research. It does seem to comply with the requirements for primary sources, you can simply click the link in the citation and see an example of the person using this word.

I don’t mind being proven wrong, the user who removed the edit has been around far longer than me, but I would like clarification and an opportunity to learn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miles_Routledge&diff=prev&oldid=1355358426 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12786-16 (talk)

Yes, that is original research. If it was due for inclusion a secondary source would cover it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

+1 From the edit you made "[he] has been known to [use this slur]", while I understand you mean it to mean "He did use this slur", what was written is about reputation, whether his using the slur is one of the things commonly associated with him, which requires particularly stringent evidence. A secondary concern is WP:UNDUE per ScottishFinnishRadish; there are many true statements about people, (e.g., "Person X has ten toes." or "Person X drove a Hummer which has a poor fuel economy"), but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of all true things. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the perspective. Is there any way to include this information? I do feel that is is important to get an idea of his online persona to the extent possible. Would it suffice to provide several more examples and then say "he has used this slur several times" or something to that extent? This is in a "political views" section and I feel that it is important to include his use of racist language in some way. Maybe I need to add a paragraph about his views on African Americans, perhaps including his usage of this slur as more than just a tidbit?

Thanks again for the input, I am new so I am just spitballing here before I go make an in appropriate edit. ~2026-12786-16 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@~2026-12786-16, the article should include his online persona and views to the same extent that independent reliable sources have made note of it. If none of them have covered his "racist language", then it doesn't belong in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Part of the problem with marginally notable racists is that the specific forms of racism they express that get enough coverage to go into a BLP articles is often a small sub-set of the overall picture. There isn't really a good way around this other than either leaning on the "non-notable" side of marginal notability and going with AfD or accepting the incompleteness of the picture and keeping an eye out for new sources. We shouldn't be loosening BLP rules just to mention that a man known for anti-Indian and anti-immigrant views is also an anti-Black racist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It is very good that you're discussing before editing; that's exactly what you should be doing, so props for that! I agree with Schazjmd that if no independent reliable sources have discussed it, we shouldn't, either. Wikipedia doesn't try to present truth or facts, it only tries to summarize what reliable sources say. In other words, if no news articles or scholarly sources think his use of language is worth discussing, that information is best presented in a different venue, such as a newsletter or political blog. Who know, if it catches on, it could be picked up by CNN and we could summarize their report here! EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• I feel doing so is never acceptable. I started a discussion on this [11], and you can see my reasoning there - I don't think it resulted in an actual change to BLP, but people seemed to broadly agree that it's already implied by existing policies. --Aquillion (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I was encouraged by Athanelar to cross-post here. In short, Southeast Asian editors seem to believe that "model" refers to anyone who endorses a product, whether it's chewing gum or instant noodles. We've discussed it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Southeast_Asian_BLP_articles_have_lots_and_lots_of_unsourced_%22model%22_claims
Due to the sheer number of Thai and Filipino BLP pages spreading these unsourced modelling claims, we'd love to get more help in cleaning up. Thank you. Handsome Ellis (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Maybe this is an undocumented WP:ENGVAR regarding def. 2 of wikt:model. Still, any claims of model-ship under this definition will require a reliable source. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, the term "model" is sometimes used for celebs in SEAsia who endorse products/work as brand ambassadors, in addition to the narrower meaning of the word. The term may be used by local RS in the English language as a label without clarification, so good luck sorting that out. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The other editor and I (both of whom have Asian background, FWIW) both decided to remove "model" from BLP pages that only list product endorsements. Although I recognise the Southeast Asian colloquial meaning of the term, I think it's better to remove it because ALL celebrities have product endorsements at some point. Handsome Ellis (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, agreed, all celebs have product endorsements at some point, including many furry four-legged ones. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Just so everyone knows, some people are discussing this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Merging WP:FTN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:NORN. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The location of the copy of the statue "Allow Me" that is on Embassy Row in Washington, DC is listed in the "Allow Me" article as "needs citation." I recently went to the location and photographed the statue. I have seen that it is where the article says it is. Should I upload a photo? Is that considered "original research" and therefore prohibited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-32715-64 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Uploading a photo is not original research, see WP:IMAGEOR. It would be unusual to directly cite text to a particular image, however the image provides benefit in its own right. We don't seem to have a photo of that cast. CMD (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Better still if the exif data for the photo includes the location info. JMF (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There seems to be an out-of-control debate at Talk:Io (moon) about which image to use for the infobox, and with regards to calibration of images by Wikipedia users. The crux of the dispute is that there is no spacecraft image of the moon that shows the full disk and is accurate to natural color: images by Galileo tend to be too yellow and use the near-infrared (I band) instead of the red band, while images by Juno tend to be half-illuminated and the original images are also too brown. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That doesn't seem to be an WP:OR issue, just editors trying to find a consensus. First, it's not in article space (which is where OR applies) and second, it doesn't seem to be asserting any facts, just deciding what rendition to use. Am I missing something? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Some editors are trying to calibrate the images by themselves. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is the revision that brought me here. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Editors are allowed to refine images. See WP:PIFU. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

We appear to be in an edit war about a proposed change to the Gauss_(unit) page. The conversion from gauss to tesla depends on the relation between the biot and the ampere. Until the SI units were changed in 2019, the relationship was exactly a factor of 10. Now the ampere is defined differently, and that relationship is no longer guaranteed.

My claim is that what used to be true is no longer true, so there is nothing that can be qualified as research, new or other.

After there appeared to be a consensus that what I wrote was not original research, I changed a related page, but my changes were reverted. Before proceeding further, I would like someone here to weigh in from this noticeboard. Mgolden (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm inclined to agree that it's WP:OR, or at least premature. You have sources which present the base units as having a changed definition, and sources stating that the Tesla and Gauss are related according to a certain formula, but no source linking those two concepts. That makes it WP:SYNTH. I also note your sources are all NIST, which is the national institute for only one nation. Perhaps the relationship holds elsewhere, or the change is only for certain applications; that's not something we could know just from the presented sources. That's why we want RS that specifically state whatever conclusion we're making. I expect there will be publications in the future, if there aren't any now, that address this (e.g., in the "background" section of a paper in a journal) but what's there right now isn't enough. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Here is the page that was reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gauss_(unit)&oldid=1358250775 The previous version was here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gauss_(unit)&oldid=1343867909

As you can see, the equation linking the T to the G was already present on that page, and I did not change it. The only point that needs to be made is that the ampere, the unit of charge in the SI units (which appears intermediately in the formula), was redefined in a tiny way, so it no longer holds the old exact relationship to the biot, the Gaussian cgs unit. The ampere and the biot are now defined via different experiments, and so their ratio is not an exact value, but an experimental result (one which is, by construction, very close to the old value).

I am merely removing a statement about the pre 2019 units that no longer holds.

Regarding the references, in the actual change I did not refer to anything other than the BIPM, which is the international body that defines the units. My reference included two pages from their web site, one which gives the new definition and one that explains the change from the old definition.

It's probably better to have these discussion on the Talk:Tesla_(unit) page where the discussion is going on. Mgolden (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It might be clearer for discussion purposes to provide this diff showing your edits to Gauss (unit) today, and this showing the partial replacement with which you're not satisfied. NebY (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That the equation was already in the article is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you have two distinct ideas (1: SI definition for ampere changed, and 2: this formula contains the ampere) and are attempting to draw out a conclusion neither source states (the old relationship no longer holds). That is exactly what WP:SYNTH is. Put another way, find a source that says it changed and this invalidated the old relationship, and that can be put in no problem. I went through the talk page, and the conversions involve enough moving parts that it's not immediately apparent to a layperson, and thus fails WP:CALC.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we as editors know to be true. Wikipedia is not a collection of facts editors believe to be true. It is a summary of what reliable sources say. If reliable sources don't say it, we don't, either. It's that simple. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(edit conflict) Here is a NIST source that says 1 Tesla = 10,000 Gauss.

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/pml/electromagnetics/magnetics/magnetic_units.pdf

However, see Centimetre–gram–second system of units#Derivation of CGS units in electromagnetism, which says

"Electromagnetic relationships to length, time and mass may be derived by several equally appealing methods"

and see Gauss_(unit)#cite_note-1, which says

"The electromagnetic Gaussian and SI quantities correspond (symbol '≘') rather than being equal (symbol '='). (This relationship was exact, prior to 2019.)"

and see 2019_revision_of_the_SI#cite_note-54, which says:

"A note should be added on the definition of magnetic field unit (tesla). When the ampere was defined as the current that when flows in two long parallel wires separated by 1 m causes a force of ×ばつ10−7 N/m on each other, there was also another definition: the magnetic field at the location of each of the wires in this configuration was defined to be ×ばつ10−7 T. Namely 1 T is the intensity of the magnetic field B that causes a force of 1 N/m on a wire carrying a current of 1 A. The number ×ばつ10−7 was written also as μ0/2π. This arbitrary definition is what made μ0 to be exactly ×ばつ10−7 H/m. Accordingly, the magnetic field near a wire carrying current is given by B = μ0I/2πr. Now, with the new definition of the ampere, the definition of the tesla is also affected. More specifically, the definition relying on the force of a magnetic field on a wire carrying current is maintained (F = I⋅B⋅l) while, as mentioned above, μ0 can no longer be exactly ×ばつ10−7 H/m and has to be measured experimentally. The value of the vacuum permittivity ε0 = 1/(μ0c2) is also affected accordingly. The Maxwell equations will 'see to it' that the electrostatic force between two point charges will be F = 1/(4πε0)(q1q2)/r2."

Whatever we decide, the above pages should end up being consistent. Also, it appears that the NIST ref is wrong (or just old?).--Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Looking back, that 2019_revision_of_the_SI#cite_note-54 was added, unsourced, to the body of the article in 2020 as the only edit from an IP[12] and converted to a note with a little formatting and the remark that it could do with some copyediting,[13], but seems to have remained unsourced and pretty much untouched ever since. NebY (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That note is unsourced, but it refers to the old definition of the ampere, which has references here:

Ampere#Former_definition_in_the_SI. The statement that the ampere was changed is what is being discussed in the article itself, so that doesn't need another reference. The definition of the biot (aka abampere) is on the Centimetre–gram–second_system_of_units#Electromagnetic_units_(EMU) and there are references there.

The rest of it is just simple arithmetic, that is, if we have an equation that states that A/B = C/D, and one changes D, then the equation no longer holds. That is explicitly allowed under Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations (which, in fact, explicitly mentions converting units). Mgolden (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I believe I laid out the issues above. It's similar to how a tomato is a fruit... except according to the supreme court. Sometimes things aren't as straightforward as they seem, which is why editors aren't allowed to make connections like you are there. I believe I also explained above how WP:CALC does not apply. I went ahead and took 30 seconds to find a citation for the original equation and equivalence, and added it to the article. So now, unless you have a similarly reliable and more up-to-date citation, the question is whether to use sourced or unsourced statements, to which the answer is obvious. Honestly, I'm puzzled by why the current state of the article isn't acceptable to you; it notes the rough equivalence as inexact, and anyone needing the greater level of precision really shouldn't be consulting Wikipedia anyway. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There was no consensus concerning your addition, but rather several editors suggesting issues. You agree that the 2024 PDG source is reliable. We should report the value it gives, whether or not it is consistent with its own constants.

Rather than trying to come up with a story we should be expanding these article with more content from the sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

We agree that it is a reliable source. What we don't agree on is what it says, and, evidently what I said. In these discussions I have pointed this out several times and you haven't responded directly to it: the PDG said that 1 G ≘ 10^-4 G. The symbol ≘ was used for a reason, since these are incommensurate systems, and one cannot assume that units in incommensurate systems have a fixed relationship. I had precisely the same statement in the article you reverted. My article cannot be said to contradict the PDG on this point since we had literally the same equation.

You are stating that the PDG means to state that that their equation implies that the conversion is exact. You have no reference for that. Can you point me at something that says that's what the symbol means, or, failing that a place where the PDG states that's what they're using it to mean?

If you do that, would concede your point. Then, I'd write to them to ask how ${\displaystyle \mu _{0}}${\displaystyle \mu _{0}} got the value they printed. Mgolden (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The PDG does not use that symbol. Anyone can read the source and see what it says. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I keep remembering that any change there's been is less than one part in a billion, and that Wikipedia's most valuable resource is the time and effort of its editors - including, @Mgolden, yours. Before you try to explain it again or as you've suggested obtain another book, another paper, that might or might not have the key statement you want, couldn't we say instead that the form of words currently in Gauss (unit) is sufficient for whatever encyclopedic significance this has, and that we only need a similar form in Tesla (unit)? It might be imperfect, but there are far greater wrongs in the world (obligatory xkcd), and even on Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I prefer to have the article be clear and correct. So far as I understand, no one is saying that the new tesla is exactly 10⁴ gauss, only that an RS is needed. I will look for another source, which I am sure to find in textbook somewhere. Searching on the web is fruitless, because one finds just junk websites that don't even explain the issue. Mgolden (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Gauss (unit) is accurate already. You've been calling for it to go deeper and be more precise.

Your struggles to find a source that confirms your position bring our WP:DUE policy to mind. If specialist sources don't think your point worth mentioning, should this encyclopedia? NebY (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

+1. I think the article on the unit of Gauss should be written for a general audience. For any but some extremely technically proficient readers working on highly precise applications, knowing an approximation out to one part in a billion (which, by my reading, is actually within the error bars of the experimental value is perfectly adequate. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

OK, I finally found an appropriate reference that says precisely what people are requesting.

The Permeability of Vacuum and the Revised International System of Units

Ronald B Goldfarb

IEEE Magn Lett. 2017 Dec 29;8:1110003. doi: 10.1109/LMAG.2017.2777782

Note that this was published before the actual adoption of the new SI units.

Read it here:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5907514/

In the abstract he states:

The revised SI will include a redefinition of the ampere. One consequence is that the permeability of vacuum will not have a fixed numerical value but will become, in principle, a measurable quantity. The constitutive relation among magnetic flux density, magnetic field strength, and magnetization will not change. However, its expression in the centimeter-gram-second system of electromagnetic units (EMU), where the permeability of vacuum is unity, will no longer be ontologically equivalent, and quantities will not be exactly convertible to the SI.

Section 6 of the article says:

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

In the still popular EMU system, quantities are exactly convertible to the present SI by factors of 4π and powers of 10. The requirement that the permeability of vacuum have a value of unity precluded its actual experimental determination, just as it is a fixed constant in the present SI. However, the nature of electromagnetic reality will be very different in the revised SI. Compared to EMU, the permeability of vacuum not only will have dimensions (as it does in the present SI), but its value will also, in principle, be measurable. That is, the relationship between B and H will be ontologically different in the revised SI compared to the EMU system.

Magnetics has been one of the scientific disciplines most resistant to adoption of the SI. With the revised SI, the "peaceful coexistence" of two systems of units [Silsbee 1962] is no longer feasible.

The following recommendations warrant consideration.

1. Scholarly journals that publish articles in magnetics should require use of the SI and disallow EMU such as oersted, gauss, and emu per cubic centimeter. Authors who find the expression of magnetic field strength H in units of ampere per meter to be inconvenient could instead refer to μ0H in units of tesla (or milli-, micro-, nano-, or picotesla). Similarly, magnetization M could be expressed as μ0M or as magnetic polarization J in units of tesla or millitesla.

...

If anyone feels that this is not sufficient, please let me know. Otherwise I will consider the matter resolved and proceed with my edits. Mgolden (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, I think this is a useful source. However, as far as I can see it does not address the specific issue we are discussing. We should summarize this source in the relevant articles, not use it to justify claims which it cannot support. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Could one of you please give me a rough count as to how many editors agree with you? And could the other person check those numbers and correct them as appropriate? This is not a substitute for posting an RfC and getting an actual consensus, but is a start. And please post a rough draft of any RfC before going live with it! We have had way too may biased RfCs on Wikipedia lately. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

User:Guy_Macon Based on my recent addition of an RS to this discussion, I won't presume to try to count votes here. I will point out that User:NebY, User:Ldm1954, User: Johnjbarton, and User:Srleffler had a discussion on the Talk:Tesla_(unit) page. Mgolden (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I haven't read the discussion, so I will interpret your "I won't presume to try to count votes here" as "The consensus is overwhelmingly against me" on that theory that if you had consensus you would have said so.

Simply supplying a RS is not sufficient to make a change to a Wikipedia page when at least one other editor opposes you. It could fail several other criteria, such as WP:DUE. It could be that you are using the source for WP:SYNTH. It might even be that you are wrong about it being a RS. (hint: "my recent addition of an RS" asks us to trust your judgement. "RS X supports edit Y" allows us to easily check, and possibly add to the consensus for the edit).

So, could someone else please give me a rough count as to how many editors agree with you? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think as of 6 June at Talk:Tesla (unit), one in agreement (Ldm1954), one roughly "do something but not as proposed" (Srleffler), and Johnjbarton and myself not in agreement with Mgolden - but the particulars varied so that's very very rough. NebY (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

To be specific, Sreiffler said not to give the conversion factor since that would be OR, and I agreed with him. Mgolden (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I didn't want to presume to judge because the situation had changed since many of the comments were made. I was asked to provide and OR, and since this discussion started, I have found an article I claim is an RS. So far I have had only one editor state directly that there he has a problem with my proposed citation, and User:NebY has discussed some other points. So I really genuinely have no idea who thinks this is OR. Mgolden (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, I should note that one other editor is concerned about whether the use of WILL (ie. future) in the article requires some additional proof that the article is discussing the SI as actually implemented. I continue to discuss this as well. Mgolden (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have a name, and that is not an accurate summary. The article describes what the author thinks will happen. It does not describe what has already happened. Therefore, it is not a WP:RS for what is or has been, only for what the author thinks the future holds. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

These are the money quotes:

---

"However, [the revised SI's] expression in the centimeter-gram-second system of electromagnetic units (EMU), where the permeability of vacuum is unity, will no longer be ontologically equivalent, and quantities will not be exactly convertible to the SI."

---

"In the still popular EMU system, quantities are exactly convertible to the present SI by factors of 4π and powers of 10."

---

That is precisely the point that the pre-2019 SI had units that had exact factors connecting its units to the cgs EMU system. 1 G = 10^-4T is an example. In the new system the conversions are not exact. If you read the Sylsbee 1962 reference he gives you'll see what he means about "peaceful coexistence". He even names the exact affected units: "oersted, gauss, and 'emu per cubic centimeter.'" Mgolden (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is close, but note the tense: "will". We want descriptions of what was or is, not WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions of what will be. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

As I noted, this article was published in the journal IEEE Magn Lett. in the 2017 Dec 29 issue. At that point the proposed new SI had been discussed for years. It was discussed in 2014 but postponed to the next meeting in 2019. 2019_revision_of_the_SI

The system the author is talking about is the one that was approved. The reason he used "will" was that the official implementation of the new SI, had not yet occurred. It has now, so there is nothing uncertain about it. What he is talking about is math, after all. Mgolden (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Note that in the second quote, he used the term "present SI". This referred to the SI in place in 2017, where ${\displaystyle \mu _{0}}${\displaystyle \mu _{0}} was fixed. Mgolden (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That is exactly my point. How would a reader know there weren't any other changes between this article in 2017 and the adoption in 2019? EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If people prefer, I can supply a reference (such as one from the 2019_revision_of_the_SI page) to clarify that point. I believe that this is overkill, but it's not something I object to. There is no dispute that he is talking about the system that was adopted.

More importantly, he describes at length exactly why the then-proposed system would have the effect of rendering the conversions between cgs-emu units an SI non-exact for the first time - namely that ${\displaystyle \mu _{0}}${\displaystyle \mu _{0}} is no longer a fixed value. Even if the system he discussed were in some way different from the 2019 SI as adopted, the 2019 SI does have this property and his reasoning applies. Mgolden (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If such a reference that states, as you are asserting, that the relationship between the two units is no longer exact, yes, that's what everyone has been saying, use that reference. If the reference is instead only to the change of units with no mention about the Gauss-Tesla conversion, then no, that's still WP:SYNTH. Do you get why editors are concerned this is SYNTH?

There's also the WP:DUE question raised by NebY above. Why is this change so important? How do you know that most people AREN'T looking for the historical relationship, when that's what the bulk of the literature seems to cover? For instance, most people still say Twitter rather than X. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am not merely asserting it, please see the quotes with which this thread started. The bolded words "exactly convertable" and "not exactly convertable" are directly from the article. These are the same concepts that were claimed to be OR on my part.

I have no idea whether people are looking for the historical or new relationship. In either case, they would get the answer they were looking for in what I wrote. I said that the relationship 1 G = ${\displaystyle 10^{-4}}${\displaystyle 10^{-4}} T was exact before 2019 and non-exact after. We already have a consensus (which I am a part of) that we do not need to give the best current value in this article because it's

I can cite that very same article as to the importance of this matter. The author of this paper recommends that journals no longer even accept papers that use these units, and the students no longer be taught E&M using them. This is very significant to the subject of metrology, if not to the lay reader.

At any rate, if we want to have a discussion of these other points, it doesn't belong on the NOR noticeboard. Mgolden (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A cursory search on Google Scholar for papers from (arbitrarily) 2022 onwards shows quite a number of journals that haven't taken up that recommendation. Pubmed doesn't seem to show anyone but the author citing that article.[14] NebY (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So are you still claiming that this is OR? Mgolden (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Goldfarb's article was originally published in IEEE Magnetic Letters, which shows a few more citations,[15] in particular 2020's From μ0 to e: A Survey of Major Impacts for Electrical Measurements in Recent SI Revision.[16] That tabulates the relationships between units following the redefinition, including T = 10⁴ G with an uncertainty of 0.08 x 10^-9. I see no other mention of the gauss in that Survey of Major Impacts. NebY (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, I included the journal in the original quote. PubMed is an odd place for me to have found it, but that's where I got the text of it. The fact that it wasn't cited in lots of medical publications is not surprising, to me at least.

[Goldfarb is a scientist at NIST] with [84] publications to date. As you have found, this paper has several [citations], not a huge number but the paper wasn't ignored either.

So correct me if you disagree, but this establishes that this is a real paper by a real qualified expert published in a real academic journal. Unless there is some other objection to using this, my citing it will remove any possibility of OR. Mgolden (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, and yes, as I said, he expressly mentions that the gauss is affected, and that it and others can no longer be converted exactly to the SI units, which in the case of gauss would be the tesla, as you can see in my more extensive quote from the article above. Mgolden (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I saw the quote. You don't seem to understand that articles predicting what WILL happen are not the same as articles saying what DID happen. It seems consensus is against you on this one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's see if anyone else supports your point. No one else has chimed in on this. Mgolden (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Actually, let me quote this from the introduction section of the article:

---

At its 106th meeting in October 2017, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) formally recommended a major redefinition of the International System of Units (SI). It is expected that it will be adopted at the 26th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) in November 2018 and that the revised SI would then come into practice on the following World Metrology 2019年5月20日. The revised SI will be the most significant change in units of measure since the meter-kilogram-second-ampere (MKSA) system was adopted by the CGPM in 1954.

---

This explains why he used WILL rather than MIGHT or COULD. It was broadly expected that the proposal on the table would be adopted in 2018 and come into effect in 2019, and his statements apply to that proposal. People can check that this is exactly what did happen as described on the 2019_revision_of_the_SI page. Mgolden (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Does not address the point. I know why they used will. But this isn't academic writing. EVERYTHING must be verifiable by the reader. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The same author published a chapter of a book in 2021, after the units had been put into effect. You can see the abstract here: https://www.nist.gov/publications/units-magnetic-quantities In the abstract, he reiterates the same point about the units that he made in the article I showed. I don't yet have access to the book itself, but perhaps you're satisfied with that? At any rate I am also looking for another reference. Mgolden (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If it says that the relationship is no longer exact, then sure, that could work, but you need to find the passage that says this. Assuming something exists is the opposite of WP:V. I also note in that abstract the line, The effect on magnetism and magnetic measurements is more philosophical than practical. Which seems to imply that, from an accuracy perspective, it doesn't matter. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I will try to get it and will post it. The abstract says "Some conversions from CGS electromagnetic units to SI units in an updated conversion table thus involve the redefined permeability of vacuum" which is the point he made in the earlier paper. Mgolden (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand, but we need a statement specific to this. If we try to combine this statement, with the one made in his previous paper, that's textbook WP:SYNTH. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If you read below, NebY has found a second source, dated after the new SI was adopted, that also shows that the conversion from Tesla to Gauss is not exact. Since it would be significant work for me to find this book, I will not bother, and cite the article I found and the one that NebY found. Mgolden (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The second source is adequate. I've added a statement on the uncertainty, but am a layperson regarding physics, so feel free to mess with the wording. Note that the source says only that the measure (and thus conversion) has uncertainty. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, what did you add the statement to? The article itself? Mgolden (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. See this edit. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This pretty much nothing to do with the content dispute being discussed, but as long as we are being accurate, our arguments should also be accurate. Re: the argument "any change there's been is less than one part in a billion", of course the difference is small. We put our thumb on the scale to make the difference small. For example the ampere is currently defined to be exactly 6.241509074 x 10^18 elementary charges moving past a point in a second, which is in turn is defined as 9192631770 unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transitions frequency of the Cs-133 atom. Why 9192631770 and not 9192631771? Why 6.241509074 and not 6.241509073? These numbers were carefully chosen so as to make the differences between systems as small as possible. So they picked numbers to make the answer as close as possible to the answer you get by defining the ampere as the current passing through two parallel wires 1 meter apart that produces a magnetic force of 2 x 10^−7 newtons per meter (compromising to keep as many of the other units as possible as close as possible to the answer you get from the old definitions).

OK, getting back to the actual content dispute, I see no reason not to put in a single footnote explaining why we use "≘" rather than "=" and pointing the interested reader to a place on Wikipedia where they can learn more, and then ignoring the difference (including not caring whether a reference uses "≘" or "=", "equals" or "approximately equals", etc. ). That and not including values taken out to ten decimal places seems to me to resolve the issue.

BTW, I also agree that this sort of thing isn't anywhere close to being a routine calculation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

We can leave the symbol out of the discussion if there's agreement that the reference I found is a RS for the statement that 1 T = 10^-4 is not exact. The symbol was already on the page and wasn't changed in my edits. The question was only about whether the was an RS for the claim I was making. Mgolden (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No longer exact, I mean! Mgolden (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

For my part, I now see two RSs[17][[18] that say the SI redefinition renders the tesla/gauss relationship inexact. One was written when the substance of the redefinition was well-known but before the Conference had formally approved it in 2018, the other after. The first doesn't provide the relationship but approvingly quotes a statement that such conversion factors will no longer be strictly correct ('As noted by Davis [2017], "conversion factors to CGS systems, which presently make use of the exact relation {μ0/4π}≡10−7, will no longer be strictly correct after the revised SI takes effect."'), the second provides the relationship as 10⁴ with an uncertainty. This looks like an adequate basis for amending Tesla (unit) and Gauss (unit) to say that the relationship is no longer exact and I get the impression that MGolden now accepts that we don't want the articles to say a lot about the matter. Still, I'll not pretend to be clear on what's now suggested, so I can't simply say go ahead and maybe others can't too. OTOH presenting a precise list of changes for discussion here might be arduous to do and to consider.

So how does this sound? MGolden, edit Tesla (unit) to say that the relationship is no longer exact and an edit summary like "demo for discussion - will self-revert at once", publish it, revert it, and come here to say it's ready for review. We can look at the diff and the outcome, and consider whether it has OR or other issues (let's keep the discussion here, it's jumped around enough already, but could be signposted from the other discussions).

But let's hear if this approach makes sense to other people first! NebY (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Support summarizing these sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am happy to do this. I will wait until tomorrow before trying to see if anyone else wants to opine on this. Mgolden (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

User:NebY I can't follow the link under 18, since I evidently don't qualify for it (less than 500 edits, which surprises me). Can you quote the reference to the article and maybe post the relevant quote here? Also, was it published after 2018? Mgolden (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ooops - try https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9144278 (S. Li, Q. Wang, W. Zhao and S. Huang, "From μ0 to e: A Survey of Major Impacts for Electrical Measurements in Recent SI Revision," in IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5956-5965, Sept. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2020.3010351.)

They tabulate the relationships between units following the redefinition, including T = 10⁴ G with an uncertainty of 0.08 x 10^-9; it won't copy-and-paste easily. NebY (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Unfortunately, I can't read it because that page also requires a sign in. Later today I'll see if I can get access through my wife's university account. Mgolden (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02473 ? NebY (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wow, thanks. (I just checked. I have 435 edits. I'll get on that.) Mgolden (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

After waiting a day, I was going to make the changes we have been discussing on the Tesla page. I noticed that the correspondence symbol has been replaced with an equal sign. Please go read my comment on that page, because I know this be technically incorrect (but need to find a source for that statement better than Google). Mgolden (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You should consider reading WP:EXPERT. I took a glance at the WP:WALLOFTEXT you wrote at Talk:Tesla (unit)#Meaning of correspondence symbol. While I suspect it's very much accurate within the field, Wikipedia is not a Physics journal. The correspondence symbol is not well known to Wikipedia's general readership. And you insisting that something is wrong without providing a source is a waste of your time and ours. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I personally know that it is considered wrong by metrologists. I provided the output from Google AI stating exactly that, and an example from NIST showing them deliberately avoiding the equals sign. The onus should be on the person making the change to justify it. Mgolden (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Nope. WP:ONUS specifically says that the onus is on those who wish to include disputed content. Plenty sources say equals, and I've made the readability argument above which remains unanswered. What you personally know is WP:OR and forbidden. What Google AI says is not a WP:RS and thus irrelevant. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have made my edit to the Tesla page. I have not reverted it as per our agreement above, because it doesn't seem to be the rules everyone else is playing by. In addition I have reverted the change to the Gauss_(unit) page talking about the uncertainty on the measurement because (a) it's out of date (used the 2017 CODATA numbers, most recent is 2022) and because it's giving an uncertainty on a number we don't provide. (I.e. the measured translation coefficient between T and G.) I also removed the corresponds to symbol where it appeared in the text.

I don't intend to make any further changes to the Tesla page, and I agree with NebY that I have spent enough time on this subject.

This is going nowhere. You need to post a WP:RfC on the article talk page so we can settle once and for all what the consensus of the Wikipedia community is here.

DO NOT under any circumstances, just write up an RfC and post it! The last thing we need is to end up arguing about another non-neutral and malformed RfC. Write up and post a DRAFT RfC (just like a normal one, but without the magic words that cause the robots to publicize it as a real RfC) and delete the inevitable attempts to !vote or comment on the question being asked. Focus on getting the wording so that everyone agrees that the right question is being asked, and only after everyone agrees, go live with it as an actual RfC.

Continuing the discussion here is a waste of time. You are never going to reach agreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am not sure that the "you" in the sentence above is intended to refer to me, but in case it was - I agree this discussion is non-productive, so I am dropping out of it. I have no plans to edit these pages again. They still leave a lot to be desired, IMO, but there's nothing I am going to be able to do about it given how this has gone. Mgolden (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

[19] —is that right, or was I overzealous? tgeorgescu (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems like the statement is a quote and is sourced, so that really doesn't seem like WP:OR. It's even an attributed statement rather than wikivoice, which accounts for any biases a community health professor may have. Can you explain your reasoning? EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

AFAIK the source does not mention FTND. Their website is included several times in the references of the book, but there is no overt discussion of FTND. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I see, so it's that its prominent placement suggests she's responding to FTND, when she doesn't explicitly reference them, and so is WP:SYNTH. Do I understand you right? Would it be acceptable if it was de-emphasized and moved farther down as a sort of background detail, sort of like now NASA finding the earth to be round usually doesn't directly address flat-earthers? EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know. I asked here because I don't know how to proceed.

See also Talk:National Center on Sexual Exploitation#The medical community. And this edit: [20] . tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, I can see the WP:SYNTH concern. It'd be giving the impression that the medical community has criticized FTND, when that statement doesn't actually target FTND. I agree that keeping it out is the safer approach. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Does WP:PSCI trump WP:OR? It is a serious question, which requires a lot of thought. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Still thinking about that one.

BTW, has NASA ever actually published a finding that earth isn't flat? Lot's of pages assume it or discuss exactly how spherical it is, but as far as I know NASA has always ignored flat-earth theories.

We ran across this issue at Talk:Field propulsion/GA2. A huge number of fringe sources talk about UFOs using "field propulsion".[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] If someone runs into the phrase "field propulsion" somewhere on the Internet and comes to Wikipedia to read about it, the odds are very high that they ran across it on a site talking about UFOs. This is largely driven by Bob Lazar describing the field propulsion system he says UFOs use in the 2019 Netflix documentary Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers.

Alas, the Field propulsion page cannot even mention the widespread use by the UFO believers. Pretty much no reliable source cares about the technical details of the engines used by flying saucers. Which means that we can't even mention things that are widely spread by thousands of non-reliable sources. This does a disservice to the many readers who came to the page because they read something about UFOs using field propulsion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=1358748779"

Categories:

• Wikipedia noticeboards
• Wikipedia dispute resolution

Hidden category:

• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed