Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard
| Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
|
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
| To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
| ||||||||||
On the talk page of this article, I have raised specific concerns about content that fails WP:V, relies on improper WP:PRIMARY source extrapolations, or WP:SYNTH-esizes unrelated material. These policy concerns remain unaddressed, so discussion has stalled. To avoid edit warring, I'm bringing this here to get fresh eyes on whether these passages comply with WP:NOR. Similar issues exist in a few other parts of the article as well; I am trying to clean up the more pressing policy violations and stabilize the page for an eventual WP:GAR.
Thanks in advance! Paprikaiser (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for reporting, these seem to be valid concerns. I'll opine on article talk & may remove some of the blatant OR. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Wang Yaqiao and The Axe Gang
[edit]Hi everyone. I just stumbled across the article about Wang Yaqiao and tried to look into the cited sources, but I struggled to verify the information in it. At first I attributed it mainly to a lack of page references, but when I looked deeper, I found several of the sources don't appear to mention him at all; namely Wakeman's Policing Shanghai, Dirlik's Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution and Duus' The Abacus and the Sword. I tried searching for multiple possible variations on the Romanization, but still couldn't find any mention. The only book that I was able to verify included mentions of Wang Yaqiao was Wakeman's other book, Spymaster: Dai Li and the Chinese Secret Service, although I couldn't confirm the exact wording that "Scholarly accounts differ on whether the killing was ordered by the Nationalist Juntong or rival political actors"
.
I then found that the same user who had expanded the article in May 2026, Kawakenkuni (talk · contribs), also expanded an article about The Axe Gang a few months earlier. I attempted to verify the sources here too, but ran into similar issues; I couldn't verify the mention of an "Axe Gang" in Feng 2013, Martin 1996, Wakeman 2003 or Teo 2017. Furthermore, Feng 2013 uses an entirely different title than the one provided in the citation in this article, and attempting to search for the cited title in the article brings up no results other than recent Wikipedia mirrors.
Given all this, I'm now worried that all the content in these articles is either citing the wrong sources, or worse, is the result of an LLM hallucination. I put the text into Pangram, which gave differing results, saying the Wang Yaqiao article was 100% human written, while the Axe Gang article was 50/50 human/AI written. Would someone else be able to take a look at this? Apologies if this is the incorrect noticeboard for this case, I wasn't sure where else to report it. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
- You might try the AI noticeboard (WP:AINB), this sounds like the kind of thing they deal with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:04, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at the sources when I have a moment tomorrow to see if there's anything I can do to help validate. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Annie Stein
[edit]Trying to avoid 3RR/edit warring, but an anon acocunt keeps inserting commentary over in Annie Stein and could use some fresh eyes. --ZimZalaBimtalk 03:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Eqab bin Mohaya - Use of a hand-drawn photo in a biography
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eqab_bin_Mohaya
I've hypothesized that in the 31st of August 2022, the photo currently used in the Arabic Wikipedia article was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Gdh6, before being deleted by Wikimedia Commons admin FitIndia in a purge of multiple unlicensed photos. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Gdh6
As a result, the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D9%81%D9%87%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85 uploaded a hand-drawn replica of this portrait in the 8th of July 2025, which is a violation of the no original research rule of Wikipedia.
Ever since, this user has reverted all removals of the photo from the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eqab_bin_Mohaya&oldid=1304499680, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eqab_bin_Mohaya&oldid=1304500306, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eqab_bin_Mohaya&oldid=1374332454), despite all the reverts clearly stating the problem with the edit.
Additionally, while not in the scope of this noticeboard, the article as a whole is of poor quality with citations being "dumped" at the end of the page rather than pointing at specific subsets of the text, which severely damages the validity of the article and makes it hard to take it seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScorserBiggestFan570 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
- IMO, awful leadimage for a number of reasons including OR and WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I'm confused as to why the original photo got deleted - wouldn't it have been taken close to 100 years ago, or longer? And would it not therefore be in the public domain by now? Is the photo still recoverable, or did that deletion cause it to become lost to the abyss? HierophantOfOmens (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- OP is using "photo" for stuff like , which is more recent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
Authoritarianism Updated
[edit]I am submitting rewritten and resourced content to be reviewed for WP.OR and WP:SYNTH. Some editors have been casting aspersions about my intentions and my competence, such as that I think authoritarians are evil. I've also beheld a tendency to harshly judge the whole of my work without providing any evidence of either infraction. I do not think that authoritarians are evil. I believe that “authoritarian” is an accurate way to describe such people, and that this is supported by a large body of credible sources. The original page, “authoritarian playbook,” may have been overly reliant on The Authoritarian Playbook by Jennifer Dresden, Aaron Baird, and Ben Raderstorf, whose work isn't academical. This issue has been resolved. Another claim made regarding the original page and the subsequent page “authoritarian tactics” is that not all authors frame these practices as part of a playbook or as a tactic. That issue has also been resolved now that all content will be discussed on the authoritarianism article. The subsequent content may have WP:OVERCITE issues; this can be resolved by converting the citations to the harvp format, if required. Any continued claim of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH needs to be specified now - with evidence - or not at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thalorin/ThalorinDemoPage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thalorin/ThalorinAdditions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalorin (talk • contribs) 13:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
I believe that “authoritarian” is an accurate way to describe such people
is very much WP:OR. Evidence has bene provided in in the past. There is no need to relitigate it here. Citation format is orthogonal to number of citations; OVERCITE applies regardless of citation style. If you have behavioral concerns, you should bring them up at WP:ANI rather than hand-waving accusations here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- Only statements that are on either page can qualify for WP:OR. This is typical of you, to misunderstand important things, distort the facts, and then find some way to harass me in the process of doing those things. It is YOU who has, always, been hand-waving accusations. Thalorin (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. Nonetheless, I have yet to see any other editor support the inclusion of your mass of material. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- You need to look more closely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Authoritarian_tactics Thalorin (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- I believe that link proves my point that consensus is clearly against you on this. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- You need to look more closely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Authoritarian_tactics Thalorin (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. Nonetheless, I have yet to see any other editor support the inclusion of your mass of material. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Lolicon has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Daylamites
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylamites#
Hello, I would like to submit a notice of possible original research or synthesis in the article “Daylamites”. While the article uses a variety of sources, these seem to be grouped together to form conclusions not found in scientific research otherwise.
The article makes bold statements about “the Daylamite expansion”, which seems to imply that large-scale migrations of Daylamites existed. Whereas sources describe wars, raids and battles, primarily by the Buyids, this seem to be interpreted as general ethnic “expansion events”, which seems to imply migrations, such as in the quote:
“Through a major offensive during the Battle of Baghdad (946), the Buyids expelled the Hamdanids and secured control of the city.[18] Consequently, the Daylamite expansion extended into Iraq as well. The enduring consolidation of the Buyids catalyzed a large-scale migration of Daylamite populations into newly annexed territories.[16]”
Ref 16 mentions Felix Wolfgang & Madelung Wilferd (1995) “Deylamites” in Encyclopedia Iranica ("DEYLAMITES" ) but as I understand it, the article specifies massive migrations to only a number of territories, not newly annexed territories in general.
The Wiki article says: “Daylamite military engagement stretched well into Mesopotamia, the Armenian Highlands and the periphery Anatolia.” but listed sources generally specify the occupation of Jazira region of Mesopotamia and peripherical regions, and the wiki later states: “Along the Southeastern Anatolia direction, the Daylamite expansion reached as far as the northern Diyar Bakr-Harpoot region.” The Daylamite “expansion” again seems to imply a migration event into Anatolia, which the articles don’t describe. They describe Buyid conqeusts specifically, not a general Daylamite expansion.
The article also says:
“During this period, the Daylamites organized raids particularly targeting the areas in and in the vicinity of the Armenian Highlands, the Lake Van basin, Dvin, Kars, Ağrı and the Erzurum line.[24][16][25][26] Thus, the Daylamite expansion reached Anatolia from the directions of Northeast and East Anatolia. “
The final sentence is unsourced, and exaggerates the points made by sources. Again it seems to imply that there is an attested migration event into Anatolia, which is not supported by the sources themselves.
I don’t have access to the sources about Talysh people under legacy, I believe it should be established whether the sources mostly hypothesize or definitively establish Talysh people’s relationship with Daylamites. Kurdanparez (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like you haven't started a discussion on the article talk page, or (if I'm reading the page history right) made an attempt at fixing it. I think that would be a good place to start; remove what you see as SYNTH, referring to the talk page in your edit summary, and at the same time post on the talk page describing in detail what you did and why. If someone there disagrees, they can use the talk page to say why. If they don't use the talk page, then a post here would be very useful to get more eyes on the article. For now, it seems like you're familiar with the subject and your arguments sound well-founded to me; I'd encourage you to be WP:Bold if you have the inclination. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. I’ll definitely try to research the sources much more in detail so we can get a definitive direction of the article page. It immediately seems to me like a large part of the article is devoted to a “Daylamite expansion” which is simply a reinterpretation of what’s already present in Wikipedia about Buyid conquests etc. Kurdanparez (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
The disputed text is:
Studies have found no evidence that pornography causes erectile dysfunction, delayed ejaculation, and/or anorgasmia in men, though quality of available evidence is poor.[1] It has been proposed that pornography may contribute to sexual dysfunction, however there is little causal evidence of such an effect.[1] Another issue is delayed ejaculation, an issue where men may experience a large disconnected sensation between their orgasm and ejaculation. Some may experience difficulty achieving ejaculation altogether. Overarching research shows little evidence of pornography having any effect on delayed ejaculation.[1] In women, there is little evidence for pornography-induced sexual dysfunction. The most commonly observed effect is increased anxiety or distress, which may then lead to issues of overall sexual function. The most commonly reported issue for women is arousal dysfunction, indicating a difficulty in achieving or maintaining arousal during sexual activity.[1]
The dispute is at: Talk:Effects of pornography#Erectile dysfunction. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
References
- 1 2 3 4 Dwulit, Aleksandra Diana; Rzymski, Piotr (26 June 2019). "The Potential Associations of Pornography Use with Sexual Dysfunctions: An Integrative Literature Review of Observational Studies". Journal of Clinical Medicine. 8 (7): 914. doi:10.3390/jcm8070914. ISSN 2077-0383. PMC 6679165. PMID 31247949.