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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

HQ-11

@Universe01. Universe01 (talk · contribs), for the article, HQ-11, using a Weibo post as a reference is not allowed, especially since you are making a conclusion based on reading the picture. This is a blatant case of original research. Provide reliable primary and secondary sources before reverting, and read Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. If you do not properly discuss the reason why you've done these edits repeatedly, I will consider it vandalism.-Loned (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Loned Is there a reason you posted this here at NORN rather than the editor's talk page? EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve discussed with this editor on his and my talk page regarding this issue before (multiple times). He has been ignoring all comments and reinstating his original research without any source backing it up. I sought to escalate the issue here and ask for admin actions/attention.-Loned (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard is usually more about establishing whether something is original research rather than looking for sanctions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag because of evidence that Universe01, who added the tag, is the only one who is doing original research. Nor did they specify which content was allegedly erroneous. Unfortunately, it is possible that their judgment that all the current sources are unreliable is correct — it looks like mostly Chinese propaganda outlets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history and WikiProject China have both been notified of this discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

These edits are not immediately actionable offense, but getting them recognized as OR is good and I will keep tracking the article. I appreciate your input and your help for noticing the relevant discussions.-Loned (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: The product nameplate (yellow label on launch tube, picture 2 of ) shows that the manufacturer of HQ-11 is 上海航天技术研究院 (Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology, a research institute affiliated with the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation). It's very strange that Loned insists HQ-11 is a product of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation. By the way, the source provided by Loned is not reliable. We cannot even verify key information such as the author and editor of the article from 《兵工科技》. Universe01 (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Your reading of the text in the picture seems correct, but I'm not sure I'd consider it a reliable source. I can understand why Loned has a different interpretation: both China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation and China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation are called 中国航天 for short, as seen in the photos of their buildings on their respective articles, and their English names are only one word apart. The link currently cited in the article for its manufacturer is dead, but the source is archived here: . The text has obvious grammatical issues and it may have been machine-translated, so I don't completely trust that the program or human writing it correctly determined which English name corresponds to the 中国航天 in question. Ultimately this means we don't have a lot to go off of. Toadspike [Talk] 00:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike Thanks for your reply. I think exhibition photos are much reliable. Both 兵工科技 and 国防教育周刊 lack credibility and reputation. Loned cited unreliable sources in HQ-11 article and also refused to verify whether the information from these sources was correct. Even after being reminded several times, he continued to do as he pleased, which is very unreasonable and impolite. Universe01 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

No, extrapolating info from an exhibition photo is not considered a reliable source. A photo cannot be used as a singular source for verifiability. Wikipedia:Reliable sources clearly states verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace. articles, lists, and sections of articles. The source must be from a scholarship and news organization. You called 兵工科技 and 国防教育周刊 magazine for lacking "credibility and reputation", yet you chose to use a social media post as your reliable source, which is simply ironic. Moreover, the social media post itself doesn't even mention the name of the launcher. Your source says :

【近程防空利器-HQ-11防空导弹系统】

🔻红旗-11通用末端防御武器系统是我国自主研制的新一代三军通用弹炮结合防空武器系统，主要用于拦截空地导弹、制导炸弹及固定翼作战飞机、直升机等空袭兵器，为高价值目标提供中低空、近程末端防御。

要地近程防空系统主要经历过三代发展，第一代的HQ-6Ⅰ防空导弹系统、红旗-6A弹炮结合防空武器系统以及最新一代的HQ-11通用末端防御武器系统。

🔻HQ-11是一种导弹和火炮相结合的末端防御系统，其主要由两部分组成，一台8×8特车搭载的8联装垂发发射系统的雷达、导弹发射一体车（TELAR），以及一台8×8特车搭载1130“万发炮”的火炮防空系统，

在雷达、导弹发射一体车上有一部可以升降的多功能相控阵雷达，可以独立的进行目标搜索、识别以及跟踪，为导弹及火炮分配目标，根据威胁等级及距离制定打击方案。

当诸如固定翼飞机或者直升机等目标距离较远时，可以通过其搭载的防空导弹进行打击，而当诸如巡航导弹从超低空逼近时，11管“万发炮”可以在较短的距离内精确的打击目标，不放过任何一个来犯之敌。

该系统不止能打击快速飞行的目标，诸如空地导弹、制导炸弹等硬杀伤目标，也可以通过11管“万发炮”进行硬拦截，为诸如机场、交通枢纽等高价值目标，提供极强的末端防御能力，保护我方重要目标。

🔻该系统虽定位末端防御，但与其他中程、远程防空导弹系统进行组网，对敌方空中目标进行梯次防御，组成一套密不透风的防空网络

The whole quote contains no mentions of "China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation" or "Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology". You only get this information because you personally checked the photo and saw "上海航天技术研究院" printed on the launcher itself. This whole process of "opening a photo of a missile, reading the characters on the missile, then making a conclusion and publishing your finding on Wikipedia" is an example of Original research. You are essentially using Wikipedia as a military blog because you personally found out the manufacturer of the missile by reading an exhibition photo. Personally speaking, I am well aware that HQ-11 is a product of the CASC, but this knowledge came from military OSINT forums I read, instead of any reputable sources online. However, I will not break Wikipedia rules, like you, simply because I know something in my head. The process of editing Wikipedia is equally important as presenting the knowledge. And you need to respect this process. -Loned (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I did not insist that HQ-11 is a product of CASIC. The article before you edited only said FM-3000 is a product of CASIC, without claiming anything about HQ-11. You are reading a picture on a Weibo post and using it as a source. This is a prime example of the original research. When lacking a reliable resource, the best course of action is to remove the statement. Your current revision also very obvious issue on verification. You call HQ-11 "AKD11" with this Netease News source . The article doesn't even contain anything about "AKD11" inside. None of your edits passed the threshold that even remotely considered reliable. -Loned (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

You did not insist that HQ-11 is a product of CASIC, huh? See what you have done. . Go and figure out what's original reseach before criticizing me. Universe01 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Reverting an unsourced addition back to a stable version is not claiming the statement is true. I have a concern about the article, but I think it's safe to say that the consensus here is that reading the nameplate in the image constitutes WP:OR. That should conclude the business at this noticeboard. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  See Slater 2020:

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

  And Khalidi 2006:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here are more RS that support the statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Might be worth bringing up in his ongoing WP:AE report for administrators to evaluate NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Past in the future situations

Blanchet House There was an announcement of expected opening, however sources out there do not confirm the fact after the opening. So, to say "it has opened" would be technically be original research as I can confirm it's opened already locally, but there's reliable source to verify it. This sort of thing actually happens fairly often. How should we approach it? https://katu.com/news/local/blanchet-house-opens-bethanies-room-in-nw-portland-with-75-overnight-beds-for-women-shelter-homelessness-support-services

Voodoo Doughnuts for example, used to have contents about Taiwan presence and the opening can be verified at https://www.vice.com/en/article/taipei-is-finally-weird-enough-for-its-own-voodoo-doughnut/ but closure was not discussed in a reliable source. Only bloggy sources like https://www.instagram.com/p/BPG31-fjuiv/ Graywalls (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If there's no WP:RS to say it opened, I agree that claiming it is WP:OR. I recommend using the {{asof}} template to state, "As of May 2026, the opening was projected to have been $date." If no RS ever emerges that identifies the opening, it's probably not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Human mating stratedies

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

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

References

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we start a formal AfD to merge and redirect? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human mating strategies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Identification of programming language in ChiWriter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting additional eyes at The Assault on Reason and Liberty Fund

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content from an organizations's website

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using X to provide an example of someone using a particular word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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