Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Tyrannasorus rex

The article about the extinct beetle Tyrannasorus rex presents me with a dilemma. The authors who described the species say that its name is "a play of words on another famous, and much larger, species of extinct animal that has a similarsounding generic name". They are obviously referring to the dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. The problem is that neither the authors nor any other reliable sources that I could find say explicitly that the beetle's name is a play of words on the dinosaur. Is it original research for Wikipedia to say what is obvious and hinted but not explicitly said in sources? Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the play on words is obvious enough that it doesn't need to be cited. Any reasonable reader would make the connection and thus it is not WP:LIKELY to be challenged. Pinguinn 🐧 06:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

No, it is WP:SKYBLUE. jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Notification of content dispute at Talk:Third wave of autocratization

At Talk:Third wave of autocratization, there is an ongoing RfC and content dispute regarding whether the previous version of the page constitutes serious enough of an OR violation that it should be removed in the meantime, as opposed to preserved and improved in the meantime. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Saying someone is a "regular critic" cited to 3 tweets?

Alex Linder currently says Linder also operated a Twitter account, where he regularly criticized Christianity, deriding it as an offshoot of Judaism. This is cited entirely to three tweets made by the subject of the article; this is blatant WP:OR, three tweets is not "regular criticism". PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is obviously OR because it's the editors own opinion that three tweets means "regularly criticized". PositivelyUncertain (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, my removal has been reverted, as has my tagging it.

The other part of that section is an interview from a neo-Nazi podcast. Not great, especially since there is a lot of stuff on his views in scholarly sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

An RSA-896 solution

RSA numbers#RSA-896 says that it has been solved by someone. I am unconvinced that its sourcing satisfies WP:BLPSPS. I have not removed it though as I am unsure if it satisfies NOR's WP:CALC. Does it? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

It's sourced entirely to the person who claims to have found it. As a primary, non-independent source it's not reliable, and if it's true and noteworthy there will be secondary coverage soon enough. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I am still curious if CALC is satisfied. (For what the content was before removal: Special:Permalink/1381528674#RSA-896)

In theory, "check for primality" and "check if equal to RSA-896" are the only two steps, and that possibly falls under the "routine calculations" that CALC allows. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Checking primality for such large numbers isn't what Wikipedia means by 'routine', surely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess so? Thank you for the sanity check. I think I read "you can check yourself that the large numbers are prime" in a source and somehow thought "Wikipedia allows this as a calculation". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

There is some coverage. See and Asteramellus (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I always support a re-addition if sourced reputably. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 07:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks LightNightLights - not quite familiar with this topic area, but came across these two sources, which seems might be WP:RS on this topic. Asteramellus (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

How can we make it clear that bills in the US that pass the House but not the Senate did not become law?

For those who don't know, the current state of federal-level US politics means that it's relatively easy for a bill to pass the house (which requires only a simple majority), but nearly impossible for any non-budget bills to pass the senate, because the current interpretation of its filibuster rules means that that requires a supermajority to overcome an inevitable automatic filibuster from the opposition, which functionally applies to all nontrivial legislation. A bill must pass both to become a law. Coverage often doesn't dig into this. Instead, we will get breathless coverage of a bill being introduced, breathless coverage of it passing the house... and then nothing as it quietly dies in the senate.

This dynamic means that we have many articles on bills that an unfamiliar reader might believe actually are law in the US (because the article says nothing but "the bill was introduced on [date] and passed the house on [date]", with no mention of the senate at all.) There often isn't any sourcing talking about the Senate (or explicitly stating that the bill did not become law) anywhere. Bills expire automatically at the end of the current session of Congress, but, again, coverage explicitly stating that a bill expired rarely exists.

I'm asking here because of course the problem is "how can we make this context clear without delving into OR?" Sometimes there is sourcing explicitly stating "this died and went nowhere", but usually, for more obscure bills, there isn't - the only available sourcing, taken at face value and with no knowledge of how a bill becomes a law in the US, gives the inaccurate impression (in the worst case) that the bill became a law when passed by the House, and (even in the best case) that the bill is still being considered and may become a law soon, when in fact it quietly died years or decades ago. --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd say use this primary source. Put in the bill number or title where it has not passed the Senate, cite that search, and in-text put, "As of [current date], the bill has not passed the Senate.[congress.gov cite]". Or, to be extra cautious, an attributed statement of, "As of [current date], the US Congress website shows the bill as not yet having passed the Senate."

It flirts with SYNTH as congress.gov obviously doesn't state the negative, but I think one could argue that a straightforward reading of a comprehensive source (e.g., a database of economic statistics) that lacks a thing is enough to verify the thing isn't there. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree with EducatedRedneck - Also, for bills from a concluded Congress, it may be clearer to include that the bill passed the House but was never enacted. The Library of Congress faq confirms that bills not enacted expires at the end of a Congress - so seems a factual statement and not synth. Asteramellus (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this resolution. ꧁Mangroves꧂ 23:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Many such cases, and as you say, not a really straightforward way to resolve it. This is an issue for a lot of other stuff, too: there will be a big announcement that some movie is getting made, or some building being constructed, or some company making some product, and then a bunch of coverage about it that implies it's underway, and then crickets. I have often wished there were such a thing as an "oldspaper" to follow up on all of these things a few years afterwards; lacking one, the best approach I've been able to come up with is to give some general contextual overview in the article text. jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

User-generated audio files

There is a request for comment on user-generated audio files. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

AlphaChip

Hi. I am looking for help removing a significant amount of OR from AlphaChip. The editor (LouScheffer), who wrote most of the article's current content and has been enthusiastically defending it, has insisted on the talk page that there is no OR problem, but many of his claims are not found in any cited RS and appear to be the editor's personal scholarly opinion. When pressed to cite sources, he recently cited a primary peer review document from an academic journal with early-stage comments from anonymous peer reviewers that ostensibly support his position, as if this were a reliable source (and doubled down on the source's reliability when challenged).

He has also added a large amount of arcane technical information to the article, making it difficult for other editors to discern OR and other problems, and presumably deterring editors from joining the discussion.

I hope that some of you here will be able to take a look at the article and the talk page, and help resolve the dispute and clean up the article. Thank you, LovinLifer (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

"Novel Concept" in the Speech at Clermont

The following sentence in the Crusading movement article is disputed:

"Pope Urban II's call at Clermont introduced a novel concept for most listeners."

This has been discussed at Talk:Crusading movement#Crusades as "novel concept" reversion. It is worth noting that the original sentence objected to included the adjective "remarkably" which has been deleted by an editor not involved in the discussion.

I believe this is not supported by the passage cited, and the discussion has reached an impasse. I did not originally understand this to be an issue of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but in defending their reversions, @Borsoka initially cited a panoply of sources seemingly because the source text is not mirrored in the sentence.

Is this a fair summary of the source? Also, please let me know if there is a better avenue for resolving this dispute.

Thanks! --Dauntbares (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

• Just a side remark: the sentence in question is supported by the cited source. I referred to other sources only to demonstrate that the sentence does not make an extraordinary claim. Borsoka (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

While I withold the right to make further comment(s) on this matter (and really, have already stated my opinion via 3O): Is there are reason, @Dauntbares, you felt that you could not continue with the 30 process? A single editor asserting there is no consensus does not make for consensus - particularly where ONUS is concerned - and you and I could have forged-ahead, otherwise nothing could ever get done.  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

The "single editor" simply drew your attention to the fact that the article has already undergone several rounds of careful review by a number of editors, so it is not quite so straightforward to make assertions about where the onus lies. Nevertheless, a fourth editor has now proposed an alternative wording, which I have accepted, and I trust that the revised text will prove satisfactory to all concerned. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

The current alternate wording is a poor summary of the text and not encyclopedic. I don't think @Borsoka has demonstrated an understanding of the real issues I raised about the quote, and as a less experienced editor, I am wary of edit warring editors who seem to be perhaps unduly faithful to a version of the text they might have had a hand in writing. Dauntbares (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I do take your point that we could have forged ahead. I'm definitely slowing things down and probably making more work for all of us. I was just reverted twice by Borsoka, and I suspect that they would revert a change made on that consensus. Also, I may have misunderstood the disclaimer at the start of your third opinion. I thought you were suggesting that the third opinion process was not meant for issues of WP:SYNTH and it would make sense to seek another opinion from a better forum. Dauntbares (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Seeing that this is attributed to Tyerman, perhaps it would be fruitful to consider what he actually meant and intended on pages 22–23 of what is an excellent work.

Firstly, the work itself is historiographical in nature: it is concerned not simply with the history of crusading, but with how it has been written, interpreted and understood by historians. It is therefore perfectly appropriate to cite it in this article.

Secondly, Tyerman makes a number of distinct points:

1. Urban employed arguments that would have been recognisable to those attending the Council of Clermont.
2. He went further, however, introducing arguments that were new to his audience.
3. Following the Council, these ideas were rapidly reinterpreted in different ways, leading to a confusion and conflation of crusading and pilgrimage that went beyond, and was not necessarily consistent with, Urban's original intentions.

Accordingly, this sentence and the one that follows should reflect all three of the points outlined above, and nothing beyond them, insofar as they are supported by this citation. This would ensure that Tyerman's argument is accurately represented and that we do not attribute to him claims that he does not make. You may ask yourself (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

• I think we must remember that this article is intended to provide a general overview of the Crusading movement, rather than a detailed discussion of every aspect of it. It should therefore reflect the broad scholarly consensus and, where necessary, mention the main disagreements among historians. However, I do not think it is necessary or appropriate to include every scholarly debate on relatively minor issues. In this context, I must emphasize that we simply do not know exactly what Pope Urban II said at Clermont. The surviving accounts were written years later by authors who may or may not have attended the council. Any attempt to interpret or explain the arguments attributed to Urban is therefore likely to be challenged on the grounds of WP:NPOV. What seems to be generally accepted, however, is that at least some of Urban's listeners regarded his message as something new, as their own writings suggest. This is relevant to a general overview of the Crusading movement, and I see no good reason to make this point less clear by adding a detailed discussion of different interpretations of a speech whose exact content we do not know. The same section of the article also provides a summary of the subsequent theological and ideological development of the crusading idea. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Weaponization_of_antisemitism#Masada2000

There's a discussion at Talk:Weaponization_of_antisemitism#Masada2000 about whether it is synthetic to bring information about a list of alleged antisemites, criticized in one source as representing bad faith, from sources that do not mention bad faith, in an article about bad-faith accusations of antisemitism. ꧁Mangroves꧂ 22:27, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

All I'm proposing is that we add to the Masada2000 info on the article weaponization of antisemitism content cited to Wecker 2007 and Edwards 2008 stating that "People on the list were often described using insulting language, including the slur "kike". Persons on the list often had their photograph and personal information published on the site." Perhaps we could also mention a few people who were included on the list, which could also be cited to Wecker and/or Edwards.

I fail to see how the simple inclusion of this information would be synth or original research. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC) Edited 02:07, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

It is being discussed at the talk page. No need to relitigate it here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Uncut Femmes

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Uncut Femmes over whether or not WP:SYNTH is being correctly applied. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

forgot to sign - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 04:15, 10 November 2026 (UTC)