This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis.
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"Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:
Latest comment: 17 days ago54 comments8 people in discussion
I have been involved in an content dispute with Floooty at Atra-Hasis. The dispute centers around the following paragraph in the article, especially around the underlined sentence:
Archaeologist and prehistorian Klaus Schmidt, among others, researched the founding of Mesopotamian civilisation by ancient nomadic communities. According to his interdisciplinary view, the cultivation of large agricultural areas and the erection of monumental structures such as those at mount Göbekli Tepe could hardly have been accomplished by single groups of hunter-gatherers, but rather presupposes the formation of first cross-group organisations. Small communities, which had previously lived self-sufficiently and in competition with one another, must have decided to settle their conflicts in order to cooperate in what would henceforth be a shared territory. This achievement may be described "quite well" by the alliance between the three god parties in Atrahasis – a cross-group organisation that's founding has been dated to 9,700 BP (through its cognitive archaeologically assumed association with G. Tepe) and thus "much earlier than previously believed."
I think that the sentence is not sourced properly. The source does not explicitly mention Atra-Hasis. It mentions one group of deities (the Annunaki), not three god parties. It does not draw an analogy between an alliance of multiple human groups and an alliance of multiple deity groups.
While the Annunaki are mentioned in the epic, they may not be identical to the Annunaki the cited source refers to, given that the term's meaning isn't consistent (e.g. see Britannica). Basing an argument on this mention is ill-advised.
In my view, Janhrach's questions (whether Annuna or Annunaki; whether three or only two groups) are of secondary importance. True is: Schmidt does not explicitly mention the epic of Athra-Hasis, but he generally holds the view that “the cultural memory of the Ancient Orient may have preserved a recollection of its Neolithic beginnings.” To this end, the oldest Sumerian myths attribute responsibility to groups of gods such as, among others, the Annuna (alternatively: Annunaki). Schmidt himself, in turn, refers to "cross group organizations" of hunter-gatherer (= at least two or three groups) in connection with the situation at Göbekli Tepe. Furthermore, he explicitly points out that belief in gods arose much later. It is therefore clear that, from Schmidt’s perspective, the Sumerian gods who introduced agricultural culture and other Neolithic achievements point to humans, a croos group organization of hunter gatherers, in so far relatet to Göbekli Tepe. The Epic of Athrahasis itself also begins with the words: “When the gods were human.” And it's central theme is how at least three different groups of gods manage agriculture of the Mesopotamian steppe (building irrigation systems, growing grain).
So you are extrapolating what Schmidt's position is on a matter which he does not explicitly state in the cited sources? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No. In the source cited, Schmidt refers to the gods in the 'cultural memory of the Ancient Near East’, and thus implicitly to the Athrahasis epic, in which serveral groups of gods are acting. The fact that this narrative forms part of the cultural memory in question (rather than that of Northern Europe) is generally accepted in the relevant field of research, not a extrapolating of myself. Floooty (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why is it not enough for Schmidt to refer to the Annuna gods in the cultural memory of the Ancient Near East in order to express his thesis that their deeds preserved a memory of key achievements of the Neolithic Revolution? The Annuna appear in a number of different myths, including the epic of Atrahasis (they all are part of the cultaral memory). In Athrahasis, they act in the context of large-scale agricultural culture AND as a leading group of at least two other groups of gods – in other words, exactly what Schmidt means by ‘cross-group organisation’ and that ‘this fits with the situation at Göbekli Tepe’. Floooty (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The reason is WP:AUDIENCE. I am a layperson, and struggle to parse what you said. If I am not guaranteed to draw the conclusion you state by looking at the source you state, it fails WP:V. That's why WP:SYNTH states, very clearly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source. Your conclusion may be true, but Wikipedia is not a collection of true facts, it is a summary of what reliable sources have explicitly stated. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK. In the interview, I read Schmidt’s own clear statement that Göbekli Tepe provides evidence of an alliance of several groups of hunter-gatherers who also began practising agriculture, and that the narrativ of the Annuna gods may have preserved a recollection of the Neolithic beginnings of the cultural memory of ancient Orient. What makes you think I drew this conclusion? Which two different parts of the source do you think I combined? Floooty (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I assume you synthesized because you said above, Schmidt does not explicitly mention the epic of Athra-Hasis of your addition to Atra-Hasis. If you are not asserting that Schmit is talking about Atra-Hasis, why are you adding it to that article?
As for what two pieces you combined, I couldn't speculate how you arrived at the conclusion that wasn't stated explicitly. Can you provide the quote where he explicitly discusses Atra-Hasis? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. I might be missing it because German is not one of the languages I speak but I'm seeing no mention of Athra-Hasis in the cited article. This does, in fact, appear to be synth. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no mention of Atra-Hasis in the article. Even Mesopotamian mythology is a tangential topic there; I see only a short paragraph that is of relevance:
Interessant ist in diesem Zusammenhang eine Überlieferung der Sumerer, die glaubten, von dem heiligen Berg Du-ku seien Ackerbau, Viehzucht und Webkunst zu den Menschen gekommen. Dort sollen die Anuna- Götter gelebt haben, Götter ohne individuelle Namen aus einer sehr alten Zeit. Das passt recht gut zur Situation am Göbekli Tepe. Es ist zumindest eine schöne Idee, dass dieser Mythos im kulturellen Gedächtnis des Alten Orients eine Erinnerung an seine neolithischen Anfänge bewahrt hatte.
Machine translation:
In this context, it is interesting to note a tradition of the Sumerians, who believed that agriculture, animal husbandry, and the art of weaving had come to humankind from the sacred mountain Du-ku. The Anuna gods—gods from a very ancient time who had no individual names—are said to have lived there. This fits quite well with the situation at Göbekli Tepe. It is, at the very least, a lovely idea that this myth preserved a memory of the ancient Near East’s Neolithic beginnings in its cultural memory.
If you are not asserting that Schmit is talking about Atra-Hasis, why are you adding it to that article?
Note that this is similar to my other content dispute with Floooty over the same article, specifically over the second (update: now third) lead paragraph. Similar to the this dispute, that one also involved a source that discussed mythology only briefly and tangentially, and made no specific reference to the Atra-Hasis epic.
Well, I don’t think I’ve drawn any conclusions of my own here, because Schmidt is talking about the cultural memory of the Ancient Near East, specifically the Annuna gods. They play a central role in the epic. In the context of several groups of gods (all ‘human beings’, according to the epic), who also explicitly practise agriculture. All of this is information that Schmidt himself cites. In my view, therefor the problem lies in the title of the article; it is by no means solely about the priest (Atrahasis). It deals primarily with several groups of deities (the Annuna, Anu, Enlil, Enki and the goddesses), who are among the oldest in the cultural memory of the Ancient Near East. Floooty (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It should therefore be stated in the introduction that the deeds of the gods described in the cultural memory of the Ancient Near East (including the cross-group organisation led by the Annuna) are discussed in anthropology as mythical memories preserved from the Neolithic period. Floooty (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you want to change the scope of the article, that's something to get consensus for on the article talk page. For now, the consensus is clear, even though you disagree, that the Schmidt passage is WP:OR should be omitted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Given the strong consensus that Schmidt's article can't be used to source statements specifically about the Atra-Hasis epic, I have removed the explicit comparison between it and Schmidt's theory. I didn't remove the whole paragraph, though.
Like EducatedRedneck, I also suspect that Schmidt's theory (per se, without regard to the original research) is off-topic in the article. Do you agree?
You’ve all got a problem. Right at the top of the article is the tablet featuring the "Seven gods who decree". And now you’re labelling a respected archaeologist and palaeoanthropologist – who writes about the probable Neolithic origins of the Annuna amongst these groups of gods – as ‘off-topic’. Is there a higher authority to which one can complain? Floooty (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, I think you've got a problem understanding what Wikipedia is. It is not a collection of true facts. It is a summary of what reliable sources say on the matter, which can be verified by the end reader. See WP:VNT. It is also a collaborative project; nobody labeled Schmidt off topic, only the passages which do not explicitly refer to the subject of the article. When it comes to article content, it is determined by WP:CONSENSUS. There is no higher authority.
Consider that you, is fairly new in terms of edits, are arguing with myself, Janhrach, and two other editors who have more than 40,000 edits each. I understand that you feel this is self-evident, but two very experienced editors have looked at it and agreed it is not. If you see a scientist stand up in conference and present a hypothesis, and have everyone else in the room disagree, it's very much worth considering if the speaker is wrong rather than everyone else. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
nobody labeled Schmidt off topic, only the passages which do not explicitly refer to the subject of the article – To be fair, in none of the sources we have discussed Schmidt refers explicitly to Atra-Hasis. Janhrach (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Right at the top of the article is the tablet featuring the "Seven gods who decree" – Which article? Schmidt's article? I don't see anything like that there.
now you’re labelling a respected archaeologist and palaeoanthropologist [...] as ‘off-topic’. – I don't understand what are you trying to say. Do you understand what off-topic means? Whether something is off-topic doesn't depend on the quality of sources. We don't put Einstein into every physics article because of his reputation. Scope is important.
Is there a higher authority to which one can complain? – Contentious content is often handled by opening RfCs. Disruptive or incompetent editing can be reported to WP:ANI. However, I don't think either of them would result in an outcome you would be happy with.
"Right at the top of the article is the tablet featuring the "Seven gods who decree"" – Which article? Schmidt's article? I don't see anything like that there.
In the Wiki article; the information panel ‘Part of a series on Religion in Mesopotamia’. This means that the epic forms part of the ‘cultural memory of the Ancient Near East’, and a few representatives of the Annuna appear, about whom Schmidt speaks. This is explicitly in reference to the construction of Göbekli Tepe, which, in his view, proves the existence of an organisation comprising several hunter-gatherer groups as early as the Neolithic period.
"Do you understand what off-topic means?
Do you understand why Schmidt cannot mention the Annuna gods in context of the Atrahasis epic? This story was written down relatively close to the present day (shortly before or at the very beginning of the Bronze Age; it tells the whole story, as seen through the poet’s eyes looking back: from before the great flood to the time after this event, which has been preserved in myth); the Annuna, however, who introduced agriculture and other achievements, represent an very ancient myth. Dating back to the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution during or shortly after the end of the last Ice Age – the great flood which, according to J. Rose, caused the heartland of this cultural development to sink into the sea beneath what is now the Strait of Hormuz. Writing was still a long way off at that point. However, there is evidence of the art of erecting monuments such as Göbekli Tepe, of commencing agriculture and (according to Schmidt) of establishing cross-group organisations.
Whether something is off-topic doesn't depend on the quality of sources. We don't put Einstein into every physics article because of his reputation. Scope is important."
Well, the Annuna, as described in the epic of Atrahasis, lead an organisation of several groups of gods, do they not? And they also organise agriculture, do they not?
"Is there a higher authority to which one can complain?" – Contentious content is often handled by opening RfCs. Disruptive or incompetent editing can be reported to WP:ANI. However, I don't think either of them would result in an outcome you would be happy with.
Perhaps we can manage to sort this out amongst ourselves; your point about what’s ‘off-topic’ might be helpful. By ‘off-topic’, I currently mean the argument that Schmidt should be left out of the article on Atrahasis simply because he doesn’t mention this priest of the Enki gods by name. Floooty (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
the information panel ‘Part of a series on Religion in Mesopotamia’. This means that the epic forms part of the ‘cultural memory of the Ancient Near East’, – Do you realize that the same navbar is also present in ~80 other articles. To suggest including Schmidt's "nice idea" in every of them is absurd.
Do you understand why Schmidt cannot mention the Annuna gods in context of the Atrahasis epic? – I don't, because your argument doesn't make sense. This story was written down relatively close to the present day – This also applies to the Sumerian Anunnaki narrative (Überlieferung der Sumerer), yet Schmidt mentions it. If Schmidt couldn't mention post-Neolithic-Revolution culture, he obviously couldn't have mentioned Sumerians.
Well, the Annuna, as described in the epic of Atrahasis, lead an organisation of several groups of gods, do they not? And they also organise agriculture, do they not? – The epic surely mentions a myriad of important mythological and geographic entities that are also mentioned in other myths. Including digressions about each of them is absurd.
"Do you realize that the same navbar is also present in ~80 other articles. To suggest including Schmidt's "nice idea" in every of them is absurd."
Well, which of these 80 articles actually deals with the Annunaki as a group acting in alliance with other groups of gods, whilst, amongst other things, running a joint agricultural project? As I see it, there are likely to be very few such articles — at best, the article on the Eridu Genesis might be a possibility, if any at all… At the moment, I regard your comment as pure polemic. Or as an expression of your failure to understand why not every article dealing with the cultural memory of the Ancient Near East is entitled to refer to an interpretation such as that of K. Schmidt. Do you see what I mean? Do you have any criticism? Floooty (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You may regard it how you wish. Nobody is obligated to convince you per WP:SATISFY. Per WP:ONUS, an existing consensus stands, without further justification, unless a dissenting editor convinces the others to form a new consensus. Consensus here is clear. There is no support for your position that editor impressions of what Schmidt meant can substitute for an explicit statement. Editing contrary to this consensus can result in sanctions. Continuing to argue it will appear to be WP:IDHT, which is disruptive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, it is not my "impression" of what Schmidt might have meant, but clear that he says in the source: “It is at least a nice idea that this myth” (the Annuna gods) “in the cultural memory of the ancient Near East preserved a memory of its Neolithic origins.” Of course, Janhrach is not obliged to convince me. But as can be seen in his post from 10:31, he clearly did not understand that the Epic of Atra-Hasis, due to the Annuna at work within it, forms part of the cultural memory to which Schmidt refers. Perhaps I am misreading it; in any case, Jangrach can voluntarily continue to comment on the questions I have put to him… from which one could also infer whether he discusses honestly — possibly by indicating his willingness to revoke his consent to the consensus. Floooty (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
And yet, Schmidt chose not to mention the Atra-Hasis explicitly. So it does not matter how many times you say that Schmidt was "clearly referring to the Atra-Hasis", it simply is not. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
which of these 80 articles actually deals with the Annunaki as a group acting in alliance with other groups of gods, whilst, amongst other things, running a joint agricultural project – That was not your argument. You argument was:
This means that the epic forms part of the ‘cultural memory of the Ancient Near East’, and a few representatives of the Annuna appear,
I think that I rightfully refuted that argument as applying to an exceedingly large number of articles.
deals with the Annunaki as a group acting in alliance with other groups of gods, whilst, amongst other things, running a joint agricultural project – Apart from this comparison (between Schmidt's article and Atra-Hasis) being borderline original research, let's dissect it in detail. Let's compare what Schmidt says with a translation of Atra-Hasis:
Schmidt mentions animal husbandry, and the art of weaving and sacred mountain Du-ku, yet I see no such things in the translation of Atra-Hasis. Schmidt mentions that the Anunnaki had no names, but the translation mentions the seven great Anunna-gods, probably referring to the seven named gods who are listed at Anunnaki#Sumerian.
The translation does not mention the Anunnaki inventing agriculture, only that they were burdening the Igigi-gods with forced labor.
You mention a joint agricultural project, and Schmidt likens the (unspecified) Sumerian tradition to cooperation of multiple tribes. Yet the epic paints a very different picture:
They counted years of drudgery,
... and forty years, too much!
... forced labor they bore night and day.
They were complaining, denouncing,
--
I seriously doubt that Schmidt was refering to Atra-Hasis. If Schmidt meant his "schöne Idee" as a serious scientific hypothesis, he surely has written a detailed academic paper on this topic.
If you find such a paper, and the paper would explicitly mention Atra-Hasis, only then I will be convinced.
As I see it Schmitd speaks about the annua in cultural memory of ancient mesopotamia, therefor from my view there is no good reason to cite him not in atrahasis. This epos deals central with the annuna. I agree fully with Flooty. Caro9Line (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
"I seriously doubt that Schmidt was refering to Atra-Hasis. If Schmidt meant his "schöne Idee" as a serious scientific hypothesis, he surely has written a detailed academic paper on this topic."
Schmidt refers to the Annuna in the “cultural memory of the ancient Orient” – they therefore appear in several myths. To my knowledge, however, this group of gods only acts in the Epic of Atrahasis in conjunction with other divine groups, and in a collaborative project that also builds irrigation systems... Furthermore: that Schmidt calls it merely a “nice idea” to see the Annuna in connection with Göbekli Tepe (as mentioned, he treats the monument as evidence of a political organisation) instead of speaking of a “scientific hypothesis” has very good reasons. A serious scholar knows that such a connection cannot be proven factually. Among other things, because there was no writing in the early Neolithic. The myths would have had to be transmitted orally for a very long time before they were written down… By the way: The same problem applies to Jeffrey Rose with his assumption that the flood catastrophe at the end of the last Ice Age must have left a massive impression on the affected groups, and thus contributed to the stories of the Great Flood. To bolster this widely shared assumption among many researchers—though it cannot be proven by concrete artefacts—he lets Douglas Adams speak: “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands” (Adams 1987).” Page 875 in “New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis” https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/New-Light-on-Human-Prehistory-in-the-Arabo-Persian-Rose/822b09eeace38168f3da5cdf7441a3d15cf76e10Floooty (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
P.S to "You mention a "joint agricultural project", and Schmidt likens the (unspecified) Sumerian tradition to cooperation of multiple tribes. Yet the epic paints a very different picture"
What is the point of the “labour” you have isolated from the surrounding context? As far as I can tell, an irrigation system is being built. Mythically, the lower gods must dig the river beds of Mesopotamia, for it is their task to supply the land with cultivated grain. The upper gods apparently had the idea for it—at least, according to the epic it was their job to control the lower gods, dealing with revolts by their workers. Floooty (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Goddammit! That is original research!You are just writing all kinds of stuff about stuff but this is irrelevant pettifoggery. The guideline is simple and it doesn't matter if Flinders Petrie in a bowler hat personally appears on my desk to tell us that this Annunaki business is obviously referring to Atra-Hasis. The Wikipedia article about Atra-Hasis can only use this source if it explicitly uses the name Atra-Hasis or a synonym of Atra-Hasis that is unambiguously referring to Atra-Hasis and no reasonable person could conclude otherwise. If you need a Master's in Assyriology to understand what the hell the source means and how it applies to Atra-Hasis, it can't be used on the article at all. Does that make sense? BTW, I also advise you to read our guidelines regarding WP:LLMUSE and WP:LLMTALK (based on your curly quotes and dashes) Andre🚐20:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No need to raise your voice, my dear; such a thing at best helps Janhbrach to stop the discussion about his untenable arguments. Schmidt writes about the cultural memory of the Ancient Orient with his assertion that the myth of the Anunna gods fits very well with the situation of the Neolithic monuments at Göbekli Tepe; no one needs an academic degree to see that Athrahasi (according to the Navbar the epic belongs to the cultural memory of Ancient Orient) is centrally about the mythical Anunna. By the way: these are Sumerian gods (from the Early Neolithic), not gods of Assyrian origin. Floooty (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
On its own, certainly not. However, the fact that the Annuna in the epic not only appear, but also do precisely what Schmidt writes about (namely organising agriculture and leading several groups of gods) clearly justifies the inclusion of this source. Your view that this constitutes original research is absurd. I can also tell this from the fact that Janhrach apparently does not dare to continue the discussion about his arguments. Floooty (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
clearly justifies the inclusion of this source, no, your linking the of the Annuna in the Atra-Hasis to the research of Schmidt does not justify including Schmidt's work in an article that Schmidt does not discuss. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no reason for the prehistorian (!) Schmidt to mention *Atrahasis*, as this epic was written down a thousand or more years after the myth of the Sumerian Annuna, which it draws upon. When Schmidt says that the mythically transmitted deeds of the Annuna ‘fit quite well with the archaeological situation at Göbekli Tepe’, he is explicitly referring to the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution: the establishment of agricultural culture and political cross-group organisations. The Annuna gods take part in this in the epic of Atrahasis. And it is undoubtedly part of the cultural memory of the Ancient Near East. That is why the claim that I am conducting original research is simply not true. I would certainly agree with you if I were to quote Schmidt in an article about Old Europe, with no word about the Annuna. Floooty (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If there is no reason for the prehistorian (!) Schmidt to mention *Atrahasis*, then there is no reason to cite his work for an article on the Atra-Hasis. I am glad to see you now realise what everyone has been telling for weeks now. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Schmidt does not need to refer explicitly to the Akkadian epic *Atrahasis*, because it features the Sumerian Annuna throughout. In the context of an agriculture and a cross-group organisation, which he attributes to the cultural memory of the Ancient Orient and, moreover, presents as the background to the monuments at Göbekli Tepe. That ‘everyone’ here is trying to convince themselves that this is original research I have concocted does not alter the fact that you are all collectively on the wrong track. Floooty (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Schmidt does not need to refer explicitly to the Akkadian epic *Atrahasis*, if you want to include it in the article, he does. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Janhrach apparently does not dare to continue the discussion about his arguments – I don't need to continue the discussion. The consensus is clear. The fact that you don't understand WP:OR is one thing, but the fact that you can't constructively put up with disagreeing with the consensus is a bigger problem.
I told you to find an article where Schmidt explicitly refers to Atra-Hasis. And your reaction... Well, you should look at your user talk page, because you have got a very big problem.
Of course, you don’t need to argue any further; however, it shows honesty and good will to take steps to ensure, just to be absolutely certain, that you aren’t on the wrong track after all.
"I told you to find an article where Schmidt explicitly refers to Atra-Hasis." -- That’s right, you did. Because, for some reason unknown to me, you believe that the agricultural project of the group of Annuna and of the group of ‘lower’ gods is not what Schmidt is talking about. And this despite the fact that he explicitly states that the Annuna Myth belongs to the cultural memory of the Ancient Near East. Could you please explain the reason behind your remarkable opinion?
"you should look at your user talk page" Later, if you like. It probably won’t have anything to do with the substance of our discussion; otherwise, you’d certainly have mentioned it here. Floooty (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but I've been following this discussion for several days and I feel compelled to reply. Floooty, when you make statements like he is explicitly referring to the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, you couldn't be more wrong. Schmidt is making an implied reference, according to you. That means he is implicitly referring to the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, again, according to you. An explicit reference would be if Schmidt actually wrote the words "Atra-Hasis".
For challenged material, like we're dealing with here, WP:V specifically requires a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material. And if that weren't clear enough, the [b] links to a footnote that reads A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
you make statements like he is explicitly referring to the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution
You probably wrote "Neolithic Revolution" instead of "Atra-Hasis". (Schmidt does explicitly refer to the Neolithic Revolution.)
When Schmidt says that the mythically transmitted deeds of the Annuna ‘fit quite well with the archaeological situation at Göbekli Tepe’, he is explicitly referring to the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution: the establishment of agricultural culture and political cross-group organisations.
I don't take any issue with this whatsoever.
Schmidt is making an implied reference – This is not true. The whole article is (explicitly) about the theory that the Neolithic Revolution began at Göbekli Tepe. In this specific context, it is justified to equate the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution and the archaeological situation at Göbekli Tepe.
The issue that is being debated in this thread is entirely distinct – whether Schmidt can be used to cite claims relating to the Atra-Hasis epic.
The issue that is being debated in this thread is entirely distinct – whether Schmidt can be used to cite claims relating to the Atra-Hasis epic. That's what I'm talking about. I agree with you. Woodroar (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
You said:
when you make statements like he is explicitly referring to the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, you couldn't be more wrong
I voiced my disagreement with that statement of yours, because it is not only incorrect, but also confusing.
"That's what I'm talking about. I agree with you." Exactly, I also. And since Schmidt comments on the Annuna of the Ancient Near East – who are undoubtedly the subject of the epic (which, in my view, requires no further proof, just as the fact that it is regarded by all specialist researchers as part of the cultural memory of the Ancient Near East requires no further proof) – I would like to know the actual argument as to why Schmidt should not be cited as a source here. I realy did not understand the problem. Floooty (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
He must explicitly use the name Atra-Hasis, it is not enough to refer to the gods and characters in it. He must refer to it with its explicit name Andre🚐17:45, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is, in my opinion, a misguided demand, because it is clear from the interview that Schmidt is talking about the Annuna. Imlicitly as a group of hunter-gatherers right at the very beginning of the mythical tradition who must have been active in a “very ancient time” -- even “without individual names” --, yet who were nevertheless immortalised in the cultural memory of the ancient Near East. And indeed as the originators and/or leading group of achievements (agriculture; cross-group organisation) which Schmidt dates to the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, which is precisely why, in his view, the Annuna myth “fits the situation at Göbekli Tepe rather well.”
Perhaps the difficulty that exercises us lies chiefly in the fact that Schmidt, with this statement — put forward in his professional capacity as a palaeoanthropologist — cannot possibly have been concerned with referring to a spezific document, be it the Eridu Genesis or our epic or any other one? In my view, we should also bear in mind the meaning of the rule that one must not engage in original research. Original research would arise if the Schmidt interview were invoked as a source for, say, the cultural memory of northern Europe. That is not the case here. Floooty (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 26 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article National Political Committee has seen a flurry of editing due to high-traffic from some tweets, and the talkpage is filled with discussions from new editors that march confidently into OR. So any help would be appreciated. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For at least over a month by now, I've tried to get strings of false information about particular relevant subject in a WP:CURRENT-sensitive and already semi-protected article removed from an article across 4 edit requests in 2 TP discussions but mere days after their removal, it keeps getting copy-pasted and re-added by multiple random approved editors from edit histories. This is very frustrating for me because it's such a simple matter and I'm being frustrated over being made to play whack-a-mole by expending my resources on it. Therefore, I've started a moratorium talk over addition of that information following its impending removal with context concisely described there in my subjective voice and why I believe it can be done without an RfC in support required. DO NOT REPLY HERE as the sub-discussion is where I expect this to be addressed and have tagged the editors I've noticed in question (apart from the archived-because-dormant original discussion linked there). Regards —~2026-44633-54 (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The article EFILism, created by Kpop777, is currently at AfD, where the central dispute is whether the topic meets WP:GNG. Separately from that discussion, the article relies mostly on sources that appear to be original research and self-published material.
Kpop777 cited zerocontradictions.net as support for the claim that Adam Lanza "engaged with EFILism," but this is a self-published personal website run by a now community-banned editor User:Zero Contradictions and obviously does not meet WP:RS or WP:SPS; Using it for a claim like this also raises WP:OR concerns. The underlying claim itself traces back to a YouTube channel named CulturalPhilistine whose attribution to Lanza originated on Reddit and was only later repeated by some journalists (Katherine Dee being the most notable), not confirmed by any official investigation. The talk page archives and FAQ (Q10) at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting reflect a long-standing consensus on this point, which Kpop777 has continued to set aside in arguing at the EFILism AfD that Lanza "engaged with EFILism."
you told me about User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism on the AfD discussion, so I thought why not copy stuff from his draft. I created a page on EFILism, I didn't know there was an old draft so I copied not knowing it was a WP:COPYWITHIN violation and I said I won't do it again because I had no idea. Why are you being dishonest saying I did original research when you saw what went down. I violated something completely different without knowing, you told me, I got a warning by you, but I didn't do original research myself I copied a few things from his draft. Are you trying to get me temporarily blocked or banned because I had more votes to keep the EFILism article. Some guy just voted of deleting the article, so know it's 3 people (including myself) for keeping the article and 2 (including you) for delete. Bringing this up to the administrator board isn't necessary. I never cited Reddit on the Wikipedia article and I don't know if I cited zerocontradictions.net I just copied from the draft, if I cited any unreliable source on account since the list on what sources are allowed and not allowed are long, please remove them. I think me getting banned is harsh, I didn't know I violated WP:COPYWITHIN, I'm arguing now also based on policy and I'm researching Wikipedia rules more and more Kpop777 (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, "some guy" here. Remember: WP:AGF is a guideline, and statements like Are you trying to get me temporarily blocked or banned because I had more votes to keep the EFILism article. do not assume good faith and come off as WP:BATTLEGROUND.
Responding to the substance of your post, I initially wasn't too concerned about WP:OR, but a statement you made is VERY concerning. You wrote, you told me about User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism on the AfD discussion, so I thought why not copy stuff from his draft. which is a WP:COPYWITHIN violation. Your next edit should be to make a null edit on the article with an edit summary something like Note: the original edit creating this page (Special:Diff/1371572126) copied content from User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism. See that page for attribution.
Aside from that, you wrote, I don't know if I cited zerocontradictions.net I just copied from the draft... You are responsible for all the content of any edit you make. If you copied references without checking them, that's not verified material. It also raises the question: if you didn't vet everything in the draft before you copied it, how are you so sure there's no WP:OR in there from the original author, or that the article meets WP:GNG? EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
i had no idea what WP:COPYWITHIN was. I'm sorry. I'll try to read all the rules, I started recently. Also I was trying to assume good faith, in the AfD discussion I said "good luck to you if I win" after I asked if he was trying to get me banned, I was just asking if he was trying to get me banned because I wasn't sure why he would bring the AfD discussion here, but I wasn't confident if he was trying to get me banned or not. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, and i saw numerous sources covering EFILism Kpop777 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's fair; I've made my position in the AfD clear, I think, that if multiple mainstream academic sources talk about it in depth, it meets GNG. And everyone makes mistakes; I think the important thing is to learn from it going forward. You've identified what you could improve on; that's more than many people do, and puts you well on the right track!
To respond to Indiana's original complaint, I agree there are some source reliability issues (citing blogs and the like) which can be corrected if the article is kept. I disagree that citing a journalist describing something after the fact is on par with claiming a youTube channel belongs to Lanza. If the source is reliable, it doesn't matter where they got their info. After all, a Wikipedia editor can't publish that some guy stood in front of a tank because they say it, but if a journalist witnesses and reports on that same thing, their report is still credible. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
ok so I did cite zerocontradictions.net, sorry. I removed that source and I added more reliable sources and academic sources, you're free to check them out:) I won't make that mistake again Kpop777 (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm quite confident that observing a website being down over a period isn't good justification for adding that the site is dead in the article (see the history of Professor Watchlist for the present example), and was fairly sure that specific example was mentioned somewhere in some guideline, but now I'm not finding it. Pointer? —Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:DEADLINK says, In general, avoid removing citations (or cited material) simply because a URL no longer works, especially if the citation is formatted with other information (like a title, author, date and publication name) that could alternatively be used to find the source. is sort of relevant, though I think a better one would simply be WP:V; it doesn't matter what we see ourselves, it matters what WP:RS say. I can look out my window and see that it's raining, but that's not enough for me to modify Weather to say that it's raining right now. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Just before I begin: I have not notified any editor from the discussion inspiring this discussion, because my question is more general, and not about their conduct or that of any particular editor. I don't want to bother anyone in particular about this or imply they did anything wrong. If I should inform people even when not questioning their behaviour, then I will do so. I was also not sure if I should ask this question at the NPOV or OR noticeboard, so I just chose one.
My question regards the practice of using, on political party infoboxes, colours as accents (using the colorcode= parameter), when the party does not have an official colour as far as can be established, and there is no (as far as editors are aware) consensus among media to use certain colours with certain parties. The template {{Party color}} is often used for this.
In the case prompting this question, Together (Israel) has a logo. From that logo, editors have derived a party colour to use for the accents. However, most political parties in Israel use blue in their branding, as this is the main colour used in the Israeli flag and other national emblems. The issue I see arises in part because these colours are all so similar, and the editors wish to differentiate them. In doing so, a (in my view) arbitrary choice is made to make one blue different from another, between two pages, or to refrain from using blue and seeking a secondary colour in a party's branding to use instead, to avoid confusion.
An additional issue I see with the practice is that the underlying data for the Party color template is in module:political party. Changes to the party colour, as agreed on the talk page for the political party article itself, affect more than just the article's styling, but the colour used across the project to represent the party, and even beyond the project, as codes outside of this website, and outside the control of our P&G make use of this data for visualisations.
My question:
Is this practice arbitrary, (I would say yes) and does that arbitrary editorial process constitute a violation of WP:OR? Does the arbitrary nature of such a process prejudice off-wiki formation of media consensus in a way that Wikipedia is meant to avoid, and is this a violation of NPOV or adjacent principles?
My answer to all of these is "maybe" and I tend to prefer the Precautionary principle when it comes to this stuff, so I tried, unsuccessfully mostly, to convince editors to refrain from this styling. In part, it was somewhat fruitful in that the editor I spoke to said they understood my arguments when it came to adding the color= parameter (which adds a party colour) to the infobox without a source. I did not recieve a clear answer on a more fundamental part of my concern, however, which was about changing the colour in the module.
My understanding is that WP:OR applies to claims in articles. Color-coding parties seems more like an editorial decision to make navigation and quick identification easier, similar to infoboxes themselves and categories. Unless the infobox is claiming that the party's official color is the one presented (which seems ridiculous, as most have, at best, a color pallet for their branding, not a single shade) then it's not OR any more than putting Together (Israel) in the Category: Political parties of Israel category "Political opposition alliances" is OR. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, the infobox was claiming a set of colours as the party's official colours, (as this is the description of the color= param) but I removed that shortly after I posted my question here.
Thanks for your imput.
How do you feel about my concern about wider effects as a result of using module:political party?
I suppose I'm less concerned with that; it's nice to have automated consistency across pages, and if other people use Wikipedia's data for something, they assume the risk inherent in a project governed by committee. I'm not well-versed in that side of things, however, so take my opinion as that of an uneducated layman. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
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
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
