Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Lolicon has an RfC

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

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)

Effects of pornography

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. It has been proposed that pornography may contribute to sexual dysfunction, however there is little causal evidence of such an effect. 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. 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.

The dispute is at: Talk:Effects of pornography#Erectile dysfunction. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Bluesky on Halloween

Is the claim Elements of the autumn season, such as pumpkins, corn husks, autumn leaves, and scarecrows, are also prevalent. On Halloween bluesky? I would think no since a reader unfamiliar with Halloween would not see why this is obvious. Czarking0 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Someone with no knowledge of Halloween would not know these things, people who know about Halloween would. This is the difference between something being actually BLUESKY, and something being obvious for certain people from a socio-culture group (I think it's obvious, people like me think it's obvious, but neither of those statements make it BLUESKY for everyone). However these shouldn't be difficult to source, so best to mark it as needing a reference if you can't find one yourself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

Brain matures at 25 myth

I've noticed several instances of original research in this article. It seems that, throughout the article, there are several citations to sources genuinely making the claim that the brain matures at 25 used to support sections of the article noting examples of the topic. It's clear this article has very serious sourcing problems, as there are not only several primary sources used for original research, but also sources such as WP:MEDIUM and WP:KYM.

I'm not an experienced editor and this is not a topic I'm knowledgeable about. I also don't have access to some of the sources so I wouldn't be able to really fairly fix this article even if I did have the expertise. I think it's an important topic since it relates to pop psychology and pseudoscience, so the potential for harm here from misinformation is higher than usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-44359-85 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Brain matures at 25 myth — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-44359-85 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the article talk page, which is the first place to go for article-specific issues. If you could kindly reply there and detail what parts, exactly, you believe are OR, it would be useful. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Bomena

Stumbled into this article, and it is very poorly sourced. Per the talk page: "This article reads like someone’s anecdotal quora explanation. It needs to be revised and changed drastically." There are huge sections of completely unsourced text, and the content seems sensitive enough that it could be prejudice against either people from Bhutan, or some groups there. I don't know enough about the topic to begin research, and am not interested in doing so, however I wanted other eyes on it before I deleted the large swaths of unsourced content. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:46, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Daniel Batman & John Batman

There's been a dispute on these pages about whether each should say that Daniel (an athlete) is directly descended from John (a colonist). There are several contemporary news articles which state this as fact; on the other hand, it's unclear how thoroughly they fact-checked this statement, and the Australian Dictionary of Biography states that John's only son died in childhood, making it unclear how his last name was passed down (the ADB doesn't mention Daniel at all, hence why I think this is relevant to the original research noticeboard). The talk page discussion has died down, and I don't want to engage in slow-motion edit warring any more that I already have, so I'm bringing this here. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 06:30, 15 October 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)