Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Template:Empires

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

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

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

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

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

"Indian hegemony"

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

Mark Aldridge page additions

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

Matthias_Sention_Sr. biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Kilgore, Texas#Etymology of Kilgore, Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ellipsis of City of Kilgore, a city in Texas, United States. [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Etymology

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

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

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

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

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

 RESPONSE TO THIRD OPINION REQUEST

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did not cite wikitionary as a source to put in the article this was the citation [2], (the Oxford University Dictionary of American Family Names), falling directly in line with Constantine Kilgore's (a American) sur/last/family name. Meaning it is a verifiable direct Academic source, not a synthesis, made up conclusion, or etc. Luka Maglc (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

etymology = Scottish Gaelic: Kilgore (Scottish Gaelic surname)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to learn more about original research, need some perspective

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

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

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

In addition to what Kowal2701 mentioned, OR also means that we cannot draw conclusions or analysis that isn't explicitly stated in the sources. I glanced at the article and I noticed the editor who reviewed it noted that there's a sentence that failed verification, meaning that citation doesn't support what's written in the sentence. And on looking further the last section about "ethical and practical concerns" states Ethical and practical considerations have been highlighted regarding hte use of AI tools in supply chain activities. In particular, algorithmic bias, where AI systems produce systematically skewed outcomes due to historical data or design limitations, is identified in AI ethics literature as an ethical issue that can undermine fairness and equity in automated decision making cited to this [3] website which also doesn't support what's written (ethics isn't mentioned in article). So if this section is based on inferences or other personal conclusions/analysis then it's OR. EM (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Weaponization of antisemitism

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

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

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

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

Sources and quotes raised the discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leading to this exchange:

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

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

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

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

IOHANNVSVERVS: You know what, I think I will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there have been concerns expressed by myself, by Dauntbares, and by at least two other users in the past few days that there is certain content being "significantly overrepresented in this article already",[4] and "vastly overrepresented in this page".[5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@EducatedRedneck: I'll paste my answer here:

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

Hebrew Roots

Largely unsourced or very poorly sourced content gets reinstated. See [6]. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Primary sources used for home address

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

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

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

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

Talk:Yahweh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Tetragrammaton

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

— Jerusalem Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I were the only one saying that, I would give up. But I'm not, see [7]. You make claims based upon sheer ipse dixit.

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

— E. Ray Clendenen

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

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

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

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

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

References