Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)
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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Rfc about whether public domain list articles present OR concerns[edit]

Note: I am closing this RfC; however, it is effectively a continuation of both Discussion 1, Discussion 2, and Discussion 3.


The closing of this discussion could effect Template:Years in Public Domain and the 11 pages within it. Participants in Discussion 1, 2, and 3 would also be legitimately interested in the results of this RfC. However, this RfC was only posted in No original research/Noticeboard with the following tag: {{rfc|policy|media|rfcid=7058BF3}}.

It possibly could have received more promotion. Either way, the final participation of this RfC was rather low. On account of these facts, though...

The result was no consensus. ―MattLongCT -Talk- 22:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do the contents of a series of list articles including 2020 in public domain, 2019 in public domain, etc., back to 2011 in public domain present concerns over original research? Largoplazo (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I've set forth my analysis and the basis for my question above at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Lists of works by year of entry into the public domain. My thesis in summary: Contributions to these articles are mostly uncited and based on contributors' own application of arithmetic to data about the authors and their own understanding of public domain law in all the authors' respective countries. This falls squarely into the realm of synthesis as defined at Wikipedia:SYNTH and corroborated by my reading of WP:NOTSYNTH. It may even amount to Wikipedia issuing a legal opinion about the legal status of the works of each of these authors.

I created this Rfc because I received little feedback.

I believe responses can fall into three basic categories, though others may have answers that fall outside of that box:

  1. The content doesn't amount to impermissible original research or synthesis.
  2. The articles include WP:OR but it suffices to tag each of the articles with {{original research}}, possibly with the eventual removal of noncompliant content if the issue isn't remedied.
  3. The articles include WP:OR that should be removed immediately because Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:OR.

Largoplazo (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • 1: I'd say it counts as an exception under WP:CALC. While I would maybe split it up a bit more (e.g. into language, medium, etc) and come up with a reusable intro with a bit of background on common concepts like rule of the shorter term, I can definitely imagine this being helpful for someone, which is my main criteria. I myself, in fact, have thought about joining LibriVox, and wondered about where I could get a list of works which have recently entered the public domain and so won't have been covered yet. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 04:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It's that this isn't like saying "I've got 7, and I'm adding 12 to it, and I'm getting 19." It's more like "I've got 7, and I've got this source that claims it's as simple as 12, but as far as I know there are extenuating circumstances under which it's 9 or 11 or 15, or something else altogether apart from that formula, because laws can vary tremendously by country, and they can adopt international conventions with their own additional provisos, and because List of countries' copyright lengths isn't a reliable source, and, because Wikipedia isn't a lawyer, it isn't my place to have Wikipedia issue what is basically a legal opinion that the answer is 19." Largoplazo (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I take your point, but I think with an expanded disclaimer explaining both potential complications that may apply to specific works and that any given work's status depends both on the specifics of copyright law in the jurisdiction it was published and the one the reader is in would be enough to make sure that it can't be construed as legal advice. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. This is blatant OR with a touch of legal advice. EEng 12:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. WP:PROVEIT by citing a reliable source that directly supports the assertion. If you can't, it's OR and can be removed on sight. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 03:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Interpretation of WP:OR[edit]

My edit here was reverted by doomsdayer520 on the claim that the content that I removed was sourced and not original research. When I explained to them what the source is about and asked them what part of the content that they restored in the intro is supposed to be backed by it, they ignored my request and accused me of misusing the term "original research", because according to them Original research (on Wikipedia) is when a scientist tries to claim that his/her own research is notable.

Your views on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

M.Bitton, we have a precise but very minor disagreement that does not belong here. My original reversion of your edit was because you removed two different pieces of notable material and justified it with one reason (original research) that I found to be inaccurate in both cases. I actually took some of your words to heart and concluded that the source on the translation of the band's name could be considered unreliable -- a much different problem -- and I added a "better source needed" tag to that piece of information in the article. You seem to have missed this step. Meanwhile, disagreement about the band's hometown is not even close to a dispute over the meaning of original research. We have a minor disagreement between two good-faith editors who care about the accuracy of that article, and it can be discussed there even if I said something you don't like. Wait for other people to support you or disagree with you there. For everyone else on this board, M.Bitton's decision to bring the discussion here as an incident that needs to be investigated is an over-reaction at best. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Doomsdayer520: We're here because we disagree over the "interpretation of the OR policy". You think that the translation is not OR and I think that your interpretation of OR is erroneous, therefore, we need input from uninvolved editors familiar with the policy. M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Translating foreign languages to English is not original research Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions though it's reasonable to ask for sourcing to support difficult or questionable interpretations. Rhoark (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rhoark: Translating foreign languages to English is not original research, provided the source is relevant. In our case, what's being translated is the group's name using a dictionary that doesn't even mention the group in question. Let me illustrate by way of an analogy why this method is both OR and terribly flawed (regardless of the result). Imagine the Bee Gees article being created in the French Wikipedia. How wrong would the editors be if, in order to define the group's name, they decide to use an English to French dictionary to translate the words "Bee" and "Gee"?
The other issue is Doomsdayer520's interpretation of the OR policy (highlighted in green). What do you think of it? M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for input from an experienced editor. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yasmine Taeb[edit]

Requesting a third opinion on recent edits to Yasmine Taeb. I'm concerned that much of the material added in recent edits by User:VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck is either poorly sourced, original research or given undue weight. (I'm not quite sure which noticeboard to go to!)

Specifically, the YouTube video and Soundcloud podcast are dubious. Additionally, there are several instances of probable original research, such as the use of board minutes (it's unclear which) to claim Taeb isn't engaging with the board. Even the material supported by sources is undue; for example, an entire section has been assigned to the BDS issue despite no indication that any independent secondary source cares. I'm not saying these edits are necessarily false (I freely admit my lack of knowledge of AmPol), just that the current state of the sourcing is unacceptable. I reverted the addition once, but the material has been re-added mostly unchanged. – Teratix 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

IP repeatedly adding personal websites as citations[edit] (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added personal websites to Letter of intent and Affidavit. The sites are for Letter of intent and for Affidavit. All of the edits by this editor have been devoted to these sites. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Black-throated finch[edit]

Black-throated finch - reliable sources stating there are no reliable population estimates have been removed. this has been regarded as original research by an editor. they instead substitute their own obsolete references which misquote the deleted references. article tags are being repeatedly deleted without attempting to resolve the issue. Verify references (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Harry Lloyd, OR consistently added by same IP address[edit]

On the Harry Lloyd page, the same IP address,, keeps adding the same information about the actor's wife. The information is entirely speculation on a "fake marriage", when the actor has actually confirmed his marital status here [1] in an interview for UTP (Un-titled Project) magazine. They also keep stating that interviews given to reputable sources by the actor are "fake", with no sourcing of this theory, claims the actor is actively vandalising his own page to "troll". Other than perhaps a throw-away sentence in a life section of some sort I don't think his wife needs any mention at all, as she is not notable and a low-profile individual.

Myself and other users keep reverting the edits, but as this material continues to be added I thought it would be appropriate to raise the issue here (apologies if this isn't correct procedure, I'm new!). The material added also infringes POV and BLPs rules as the edits consistently paint the actor as a "troll", without sources. If this isn't the correct board for this, could someone point me in the right direction?

SillyRoundKatie (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


RfC: Should "right wing" be added to definition of fascism?[edit]

RfC is here in case anyone is interested in contributing. petrarchan47คุ 20:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research?[edit]

"Increasing populations are not necessary to maintain economic growth and social vitality because of advances in automation and workers living healthy lives much longer into old age. Declining populations require fewer scarce resources and pollute less. Fewer dependents mean that families, regions, and societies can achieve more productive uses of available resources and increase their quality of life.[1]"



Lower fertility rates are generally associated with dramatic increases in population health and longevity.[2] Widespread advances in the growth and potential of automation along with workers living healthier into their old age both suggest that countries do not need booming populations to maintain economic growth and vitality. Declining populations place less stress on scarce resources and result in less pollution including greenhouse gas emission.[1] Larger numbers of dependents take away resources from families, regions, and societies, which can instead be devoted to more productive uses increasing the quality of life per capita.[3] While there were in the past advantages to high fertility rates, that "demographic dividend" has now largely disappeared.[4]"


  1. ^ a b Davis, Nicola (26 December 2018). "Falling total fertility rate should be welcomed, population expert says". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
  2. ^ ESHRE Capri Workshop Group (1 October 2005). "Noncontraceptive health benefits of combined oral contraception". Human Reproduction Update. 11 (5): 513–525. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmi019. ISSN 1355-4786.
  3. ^ Lee, R; Mason, A (10 October 2014). "Is low fertility really a problem? Population aging, dependency, and consumption". Science (New York, N.Y.). 346 (6206): 229–34. doi:10.1126/science.1250542. PMID 25301626. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
  4. ^ Smeeding, TM (10 October 2014). "Economics. Adjusting to the fertility bust". Science (New York, N.Y.). 346 (6206): 163–4. doi:10.1126/science.1260504. PMID 25301602. Retrieved 16 March 2019.

None of the sources discuss the topic of the article. There's now an RfC to include it at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory and an NPOV tag has been added to the article as it doesn't include them. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As I asked at the RFC, if someone publishes an "Elephant overpopulation scourge" theory, would we be forbidden from including sources in its article saying that elephant populations are not growing simply because they don't have the words "overpopulation scourge" in them? The idea that low birth rates are harmful or otherwise bad is the central tenet of the white genocide conspiracy theory. Including WP:MEDRS sources debunking the idea is not only permitted, but required to neurally balance the extremist fringe article. EllenCT (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about white birth rates, it's an article about a conspiracy theory. And NOR says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Your sources aren't related to the conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pacific Islands - user citing a self-published book matching username[edit]

On February 27, I removed original research by User:SteveDehner in the articles Malden Island, Winslow Reef, Phoenix Islands, Baker Island, Kanton Island, and Carondelet Reff, where the user cites a self-published Scribd document. I also left a template on his talk page and he responded with a nonsense screed on mine that included calling me a neo-Nazi. Today this user reverted my removals on those articles. Mr. Dehner, you are welcome to cite reliable published sources containing this information, or in some clear cases primary sources, but do not add your WP:Original research and do not make personal attacks at me or you will be blocked from editing. Reywas92Talk 02:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • User has reverted me to re-add the OR with personal attacks in the edit summaries to boot [1][2]. Reywas92Talk 00:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Does The Turner Diaries explicitly mention white genocide conspiracy theories?[edit]

Regarding this discussion about The Turner Diaries, the NOR policy at WP:PRIMARY says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot." My question concerns whether these passages can be cited or need to be quoted:

But one thing which is quite clear is that much more than our freedom is at stake. If the Organization fails in its task now, everything will be lost-our history, our heritage, all the blood and sacrifices and upward striving of countless thousands of years. The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence. No excuse for our failure will have any meaning, for there will be only a swarming horde of indifferent, mulatto zombies to hear it. There will be no White men to remember us-either to blame us for our weakness or to forgive us for our folly. If we fail, God's great Experiment will come to an end, and this planet will once again, as it did millions of years ago, move through the ether devoid of higher man. [Chapter 5]
the majority of those who wanted a solution, who wanted to preserve a White America, were never able to screw up the courage to look the obvious solutions in the face. [Chapter 6]
By terrifying the White population they will make it more difficult for us to recruit, thus speeding our demise. [Chapter 10]
Each day we make decisions and carry out actions which result in the deaths of White persons, many of them innocent of any offense which we consider punishable. We are willing to take the lives of these innocent persons, because a much greater harm will ultimately befall our people if we fail to act now. [Chapter 14]
...the newscaster gloated, "The White vermin died like flies. We can only hope they realized in their last moments that many of the loyal soldiers who pressed the firing buttons for the missiles which killed them were Black or Chicano or Jewish. Yes, the Whites and their criminal racial pride have been wiped out in California, but now we must kill the racists everywhere else, so that racial harmony and brotherhood can be restored to America. We must kill them! Kill them! Kill! Kill!" [Chapter 26]

Could any educated person verify the statement that "The Turner Diaries presents a white genocide conspiracy theory" from those passages? EllenCT (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Find secondary sources that say either say that (1) TTD promotote WGCT, or (2) proponents of WGCT draw inspiration from TTD. Then let the wikipedia article article reflect what these secondary sources say. If the secondary sources cite particular passages of TTD, then those passages may be quotable. Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Here are the sources used to support the statement:
Since the 1990s, ideological white nationalism in the United States has declined. But since 2008, recruitment based on less-defined racial fear and hostility has risen to take its place, emphasizing ideologically neutral concepts such as “white genocide” and shifting toward less clearly delineated movements (such as the “alt right”). Users participating in these new movements on social media routinely and selectively highlight incidents of racial unrest and black crime as evidence that “The Turner Diaries are coming true” -- Berger, J.M. (September 2016). "The Turner Legacy: The Storied Origins and Enduring Impact of White Nationalism's Deadly Bible" (PDF). ICCT Research Paper Series. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism: 40. doi:10.19165/2016.1.11. ISSN 2468-0656. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
The recent manifestation of white genocide has its origins in the American neo-Nazi movement. The Turner Diaries, a very influential 1970s novel by William Luther Pierce, posited a dystopian world in which white Americans were oppressed by non-white minorities at the behest of Jewish politicians. -- Ross, Kaz (March 16, 2019). "How believers in 'white genocide' spread their hate campaign in Australia". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
Are those sufficient? EllenCT (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, those are the type of sources we need (see also this Atlantic article by the author of the ICCT paper). As long as we summarize their relevant content correctly, it should be ok. Abecedare (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the sources generally agree that the phrase "White Genocide Conspiracy Theory" comes from David Lane about 20 years after The Turner Diaries are published. It' s absolutely correct to say that Lane himself was heavily influenced by the Turner Diaries, and that the book inspired/parallels elements of WGCT, but it's a stretch to say that the Turner Diaries depict a "white genocide". current lead seems in line with sources. Nblund talk 13:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure Lane or anyone associated with him called it a "conspiracy theory"? The origin of the theories appear to be a 1925 book by an Austrian-Japanese author published in German. None of the proponents call them conspiracy theories, although they do talk about conspiracies. I'm convinced that the excerpts above would convince "any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" that The Turner Diaries were advancing a WGCT as the motivation of the main characters. While the genocide which occurs at the end of the book is by whites against others, there are actually about twice as many passages where the specter of genocide against whites is raised than just the excerpts above. EllenCT (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
EllenCT: that should say, the phrase "White genocide" is attributed to Lane. the general idea of a conspiracy to destroy "white civilization" is probably as old as the concept of whiteness itself. I agree that Praktischer Idealismus has some thematic similarities, so does The Camp of the Saints, so do the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but reliable sources usually attribute the current usage to David Lane. Lane's co-option of human rights terminology like "genocide" and his complaints about "racial integration" wouldn't have made much sense in the 1920s. There's a fairly broad cross-section of editors saying the same thing, and I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise unless you can find lots of high-quality reliable sources that explicitly say the things you're saying here. Nblund talk 15:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I have written an essay that may help. It it at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
EllenCT's primary source doesn't talk about any conspiracy. It talks about minorities outbreeding whites, which has been a white nationalist talking point for many years, but the idea that minorities outbreeding whites is a deliberate conspiracy by blacks, jews and liberals appears to have come later, when Lane popularized it. Assuming that any mention of minorities outbreeding whites is a mention of the later conspiracy theory that minorities outbreeding whites is a deliberate conspiracy by blacks, jews and liberals is a classic example of original research. The fact that the mention is in a primary source and that the secondary sources directly contradict the OR is icing on the cake.
This has been discussed to death at:
"Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".)" --WP:OTHERPARENT
--Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Novels are not usable reliable sources for claims of fact. No matter how one looks at it, novels are fiction. If something is a fact, policy requires that we use a source stating it as a fact, and that is not the purview of novels in the first place. This is basically why Wikipedia does not use novels in every article, as far as I can tell, except for articles specifically about that novel. Collect (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The article in question is the one about the novel, for which it is the primary source. The novel includes passages such as "The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence," and, "There will be no White men to remember us," and, "the Whites and their criminal racial pride have been wiped out in California, but now we must kill the racists everywhere else," which per WP:PRIMARY would lead any educated person without further specialized knowledge to conclude that it presents a white genocide conspiracy theory. EllenCT (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
And the novel is fiction - and thus its "theories" are also fiction. Does it say "This is a white genocide conspiracy theory" in it? Or is it an attempt to read into a fiction book something which is then linked' to a "current conspiracy theory"? Ergo, it is not properly used. Collect (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It should not be claimed that a novel depicts a conspiracy theory that developed long after it was written, and using a wikilink (even a piped one) to imply that connection is misleading. It might be fair to say it describes a "genocide which targets whites" as a more generic handling, but that would have to come from sources that interpret it as such. On basic reading, it sees more like its just referring to birth rates. This seems like a case where the article title includes "conspiracy theory" as part of it both limits the coverage and treads the POV/NPOV line. If the article were more simply "white genocide", it would cover more broadly and chronologically, and so this connection might not be such a stretch. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory started in 1916, see White genocide conspiracy theory#Origins and development. EllenCT (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Any sources that say the author of Turner Diaries read the 1916 or 1925 books, or at all was aware of their content? -- Netoholic @ 19:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
William Luther Pierce#Early political activities says he was the editor of the American Nazi Party's journal and spoke at the delegate's convention at the first National Socialist World Congress, so do you really doubt he would be familiar with the American book that Hitler called his Bible? EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Some scholars note even older precursors, but the term "genocide" didn't exist in 1916, and Grant's version doesn't really posit a conspiracy - it posits a more-or-less voluntary "race suicide". I'm all for citing Grant and others as important influences, but this source doesn't say that WGCT began with Grant in 1916, and even if it did, we would still need to do better than simply citing a single journalist to make that claim in wiki-voice. I'm puzzled as to why you aren't satisfied with being a little more conservative here - if you just dialed it back a little ("David Lane coined the term but here are several important precursors to the theory") it would be a really good contribution to the article. Nblund talk 20:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that essentially what the WGCT article says now? The broader policy question is whether an educated person without specialist knowledge would consider "destroy the racial basis of our existence," and, "There will be no White men," as within the definition of white genocide even if written before the term was coined. Editors here are saying they would not, without providing any reasons that they might not. I'm baffled, and I've stopped editing the Diaries' article until we can figure this out. EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Ellen, the problem here is that you are the one making the connections here. Yes, your connections are logical, but they are still originating from you. That’s what isn’t allowed. Instead, you have to report on the connections that others (sources external to Wikipedia) have made. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The WP:PRIMARY policy asks whether any educated person without specialist knowledge would make the connection. The very excellent source Nblund found says the term "white genocide" appeared in a 1972 issue of White Power, "the official newspaper of the National Socialist White People’s Party," which was six years before Pierce wrote The Turner Diaries and while he was a leader in that very organization. So the idea that the book predates the term is wrong. Is there any reason to think that any educated person would not make the logical connection? EllenCT (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Yet the term "white genocide" doesn't appear anywhere in The Turner Diaries, and there are no reliable sources that explicitly say that the Turner Diaries represent an instance of WGCT. You might not be satisfied with that explanation, but no one has to satisfy you, and at some point you probably have to accept what multiple editors are telling you. Nblund talk 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Ellen: A white genocide theory and the "white genocide conspiracy" are two related but different things. An educated person should know that.--TMCk (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm convinced I'm right, but on reflection, I can't think of any reason that the encyclopedia would be any better if The Turner Diaries was described as presenting a WGCT instead of just shaping their later development, so never mind, I don't care anymore. EllenCT (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas, that doesn't solve our problem. You have shown us that you are either unable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's policies. Just because you give up on one page because you don't think your original research improves the page, there will no doubt be other pages where you aren't willing to give up. The fact that you remain convinced that you are right no matter how many people tell you that you are wrong and no matter how carefully we explain the policies you violate is a problem. Your practice of opening discussions on multiple pages hoping that you will get the answer you want is a problem. My advice is to completely drop the stick. Just unwatch all pages related to race or white nationalism in any way. Those pages have a lot of good editors working on them, and your efforts are not helping. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── ...and, as usual, every fucking detail turns into a big fight and a wall of text, all of which could be avoided by this simple thought: "Gosh, everyone is against this. Should I go along with the consensus, or should I argue on and on, despite the fact that in every previous case where I argued on and on I failed to get my way? What to do? What to do?"

Related: The Most Important Thing Possible, Megalomaniacal point of view

I can't take this any longer. I will not be reading any further comments on this and I am unsubscribing from all related pages. I wish the rest of you the best of luck in dealing with this dumpster fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be very obvious here: If we have a conspiracy theory which we have a well-sourced date period where it began to be propagated, and we have a book that was published well before (decades) this conspiracy theory took hold, there is no way we can say the book promotes that theory. If and only if we have secondary RS sources that state the book shares several of the principles of the theory, then we can state, with appropriate attribution, that the book was seen to espouse some of the points that are now part of this theory. But that requires the sources; it is original research for an editor to make the leap of logic on a contentious topic, even if it seems obvious that the book is similar to the conspiracy theory. As soon as you get into contentious areas like a conspiracy theory you better have sources to back up all claims like that. Core principle of NOR. --Masem (t) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)