User talk:WhatamIdoing

Surely, anyone who is approved to use AWB on the wiki, should be approved to use AI on the Wiki. Alternatively, there could be a alternate list of users who are premitted to use AI on the Wiki.

Anyway, I think that some uses should have official approval to use AI on the Wiki, and this shouid be verifiable on a maintained list, like the list for AWB users. This might change in time, but I think it is right for now.

I guess the trouble is that unskilled use of AI has given AI a bad reputation on the Wiki. Few users are aware that some uses can use AI expertly. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Snowmanradio, it feels like it's been a while since I saw your name. I hope you're doing well.

@S Marshall and @Chaotic Enby have been developing a proposal around article translation in which the idea of a user right authorizing machine translation has come up. (Many machine translation tools use some form of LLM underneath the hood.) I remember another, more general proposal for a generic "trusted AI user" user right, but I can't find it right now.

Since you compare it to AWB, I suspect you're thinking about gnoming actions or changes that could be done via regex or bot (e.g., converting a list to a table), only it might be faster to do it with via an LLM, especially for those of us who can't really code. Those changes rarely irritate people, probably because they can't tell the difference between an LLM that rejiggers wikitext and an editor typing them by hand.

I believe the main concern about LLM use is about using LLMs to post new/different words, especially whole articles. You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Mass creation and User talk:Sarefo/Archive 1#AI content? and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive375#Revoking autopatrolled right from Sarefo for undisclosed LLM-generated articles as a case study for what can (and did) go wrong even within a fairly simple subject area. We finally got a simple, two-sentence guideline, Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models, adopted around article creation (basically: don't do it). As soon as it was adopted, multiple editors started proposals to replace those two sentences with very long sets of rules, explanations of why it's Very Bad™, and so forth. We don't have any similar rules (yet) about article expansion or copyediting.

We also have adopted rules against (over)using AI on talk pages (WP:AITALK) and against using it for most images (WP:AIIMAGE), though like the AWB-type edits, if people don't think you're using AI, they won't complain about AI (and even if you're not, they might – a particular problem for many English language learners and autistic people, as their normal/human writing style has more in common with LLM output than (e.g.) mine, leading to false accusations ). But that hasn't stopped editors from proposing lengthy expansions of these two rules. you can read one such proposal at User:Athanelar/Don't use LLMs to talk for you. It's 2400 words long right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Nice to meet you here agian. I have stayed away from the Wiki while I have have been busy, but I occassionaly inadvertantly get interested again. Most of AWB is code based; nevertheless, uses can make a lot of mistakes rapidly. My analagy between LLM and AWB is about trusting users to use these tools correctly. To be honest, I think that a lot of users do not have intuition of what an AI LLM can do, when used optimally. I have startred an interesting discussion about AI on the WB:Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I think editors agree with you that users (even users whom we would trust in other circumstances) don't have a good sense of what an AI tool can do. In particular, they seem to feel like most AI users are lacking a clear sense of how AI tools are most likely to screw up, and that makes it less likely that an otherwise competent user would identify and fix such problems before posting them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @WhatamIdoing, I’ll understand if you’re no longer interested in the old RfC data, but if you are, please do take a look: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#c-Dw31415-20260114025200-Dw31415-20260109144200. Thanks! Dw31415 (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi WhatAmIDoing, based on your discussion of “that” and “which” on your page, you might find this duscussion on the MOS Talk page of interest: “Should ‘that’ be deprecated on Wikipedia?” Title was a bit tongue in cheek, of course.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

glad you appreciated my addition to the BLP notice board. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm always interested in this point of grammar. Thanks for the note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I've initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements.

Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

There is an RfC that you may be interested in per your prior comments on the topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Merging merge discussions with AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

HI there - left a reply to your suggestion at Talk:Primerica#RfC To Include Research Products. Thanks! TermLifeOG (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

i removed 1 or your 2 periods here because i'm not sure why it was added. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! You wrote this.

Could I ask you to very very briefly lay out why you feel my suggested changes to RSPYT are dependent on the "RSP restructuring process" or at least when you expect this process to be done?

I am not opposed to waiting but would like to understand for myself why this would be beneficial. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I've been sadly neglecting the RSP restructuring recently, so @Mathglot could probably give you more precise information. All I will say is that I believe that the transition from the current table to the new subpages will happen in weeks rather than months.

The problems (←intentional plural) with the YouTube entry is what triggered the restructuring process. IMO the most significant problem is that it treats all YouTube content the same. We need space to explain the differences, from official channels of ordinary news media (e.g., BBC) vs official channels of individuals and organizations (e.g., NASA) to unofficial/personal channels (e.g., teenagers on skateboards and copies of favorite movies). Right now, editors glancing at it seem to think it says that if Joe Film says ____ on Facebook, that's okay, but if the same person says the same thing in the same way on YouTube, then it's not. This is wrong and needs to be fixed, but it will be much easier to fix when we have a whole subpage to explain about official vs unverified accounts, fake videos, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the RSPYT issue, but CapnZapp if you want to work on a rewrite of RSPYT using the new format, I think you can start in on it as long as you don't name it the same as the page the autoconversion process expects to create so there isn't a collision. That means, of course, that it won't be visible to users scanning the RSP table; would that be an issue? If you come up with a detailed page in the new format that you would like to expose before RSP restructuring, I suppose you could just link it from the table entry for a few weeks, if it's worth it. Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that the discussion and links in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 12#YouTube is not a source would be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I now understand the work is to restructure RSP into subpages. I still am not sure I understand why discussing/improving individual entries (such as the one for YouTube) is conditional upon that work's completion. Unless I misunderstand a process of restructuring is a purely technical rejigging, and will/should/ought to not change any actual guidance, just store and/or present it differently. So if we were to amend RSPYT, why or how shouldn't we expect the current or new phrasing to simply be carried across to the new infrastructure? Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You can still improve individual entries within the confines of the standard table structure. See the edit notice that appears when you edit one of the eight RSP table subpages. Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@CapnZapp, the problem is that RSPYT needs to be much longer and more complex, and "within the confines of the standard table structure" is not really convenient for long, complex explanations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You wrote nobody says that femicide or geronticide is a form of genocide, but even looking at the lead of Gaza genocide, you'll see that death itself (the "cide" part) is not even an essential element of genocide in some eyes. That's seemingly a large part of why things are getting so untethered from the legal definition. Coining (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that it's possible to destroy a culture without killing any individual members. In the words of the Tom Lehrer song, it's even possible to do so "by peaceful means", like education or transportation improvements.

But the fact is that some women are killed because they are women, and some elderly people are killed because they are elderly, and AFAICT this is not considered genocide by anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey WAID, I've long found the example you give on your userpage interesting and informative: "An article about an international trade dispute, for example, should explain the situation from the viewpoint of both countries – not just one or the other, and not just universally agreed-upon information." I find the idea of describing but not engaging disputes very compelling, even just as a writing exercise.

So this might be a silly question, but which disputes are we describing? In your international trade example, are we describing the dispute between the parties, or the dispute as presented in reputable sources (i.e. trying to convey the dispute between significant opinions of reputable sources)? The boundaries do get fuzzy, but I think a distinction can be drawn. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Imagine a trade dispute between Oceania and Eurasia.

• There are some agreed-upon facts: it started with a dispute over a farmer's pigs, Oceania imports more from Eurasia than it exports to Eurasia, Oceania's economy is smaller than Eurasia, Eurasia imposed import tariffs on Oceania's food exports, etc.
• There are some viewpoints (facts or opinions that depend on who's making the statement): This is going to make our residents feel better/worse, this isn't reasonable/unreasonable behavior, this is what you/we deserved, this is going to improve our economy at the expense of your economy, this is going to support/harm/have no effect on our traditional industry, President Politician said some appropriate/inflammatory things, etc.

We don't want anything that is not from a reputable source. But we also don't want either viewpoint to be presented as a universal, agreed-upon fact. So: "In Oceania, people felt that... In Eurasia, people felt that..." or "In Oceania, businesses responded by... In Eurasia, consumers responded by..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou. This is around where my head is at, although I'm ruminating on it in the background. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

One of the things that may be difficult for some editors is thinking of a two-way trade dispute as needing to have (at least) three sides represented: Oceania's side, Eurasia's side, and the consensus view among scholars. We don't have to present Oceania's or Eurasia's side as being correct, but a neutral article will acknowledge that those two views existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Mm. I have told an editor they are not editing neutrally before because whenever they described a matter I could understand the rationale of one side and the other was inscrutable. In other cases, I have been concerned that an article failed to describe rather than engage a dispute because it was reflecting the literature on a subjective question, my thoughts being that we ought to be describing the content of a dispute rather than strictly its demographics. Another case that may concern me is the lead of Elon Musk, which describes him as a polarizing figure and then lists off a dozen things he has been criticized for and nothing that explains why some may view him positively or what they view him positively for. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that sometimes the other side is inscrutable. I would expect that many of our FTN regulars would struggle to make sense of a religious POV, and for most adherents to a religion to struggle to make sense of a different religion's appeal. So perhaps if we encounter an inscrutable 'side', the answer is that we need more/different editors to help us.

In the case of the Musk BLP, are you looking for formal balance, like "He has been praised for _____ and criticized for ____"? Because another way of looking at it is that the first three paragraphs are all praise ("his leadership", "wealthiest person in the world", "led innovations", "a leader"...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

With the editor I was dealing with, the sources very clearly gave one side's perspective which they omitted. You can't include everything before going into overdetail, but when you are only explaining your side and leaving the other side's actions obscure you are to my mind POV-pushing.

The Elon matter may betray my own reading biases. It wasn't clear that I was meant to associate these achievements of his businesses with Elon personally, and being the richest person is not self evidently a good thing, especially when he is framed as the son of a wealthy family. Perhaps nothing has to be changed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

		The Constitutional Barnstar
		For sustained, patient, and excellent communication regarding the interplay between BURDEN and V Jclemens (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. The interplay between the various rules is complex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Could not possibly agree more!!! Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Should I post on technical or gadgets/scripts/technical asking whether it is possible?

It would be cool if it was, as I am running on the assumption for everything else I would like that scripts, gadgets, and off wiki tools are the way to go, rather than WMF dev.

(The preference profile idea is because I am still trying to work out ways to reduce conflict, and improve editor experience.

Someone told me the other day that it was negative to be concerned about it - but I really don't like bullies and I have read too many of the revert edit summaries, and user talk attacks.) Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 14:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you should ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) about whether a script could do all the things you want. It may not be possible, and if that's the case, then ruling out that option would be helpful. If it is possible, then it would probably be faster to take that approach than to wait for MediaWiki devs (paid or volunteer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate your advice. The idea is not generating much interest. I think it is important as it seems a major reason why some editors are against GUI change, and would allow us to have different gadgets for new editors that might reduce revert, and new article AfD rate.

What do you think of the idea? And what would have been a better approach? Am I too verbose? Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 02:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that the problem is that too few editors want to switch the appearance of the pages in between tasks. I can't see your idea working for me/my workflow. I often have a dozen Wikipedia tabs open, with multiple half-completed tasks. Finishing an "editing" task may require checking diffs, Special:Contributions, block logs, and more; doing a "communication" task might require editing an article. And no matter what I'm doing, I might be interrupted with a notification (most of which can wait, but some are easy to deal with at the time). I almost never sit down to a single task/single type of task to be performed without interruption, so I'd never want to have a specialized layout for that purpose. If more editors are like me, then that limits the potential "market" for your idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply. I have um a few lot more than 12 wikipedia tabs open, but I use tab groups to split them. (The best thing since sliced bread for me is connecting up a second screen - my partner works in digital archiving and they have 4 plus an Amiga screen open much to my envy.) But I always encourage new editors to be working on three things so they don't take reverts to much to heart.

The idea wasn't about screen layouts (although I would like an option to click on edit and bring up the article history and the talk page in sperate windows), but more about allowing editors to stay as they are (which was a major issue with Vector and I expect the same for hybrid search) and allowing new editors to have things to encourage different behaviour

• "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header"
• Check whether article is good enough to increase article quality
• An easier revert process (copy the revert to the article talk page and start a discussion)
• Possibly new gadget advising them of the risk dragon
• An easier template removal process

Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 12:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I like this image of a risk dragon.

Ultimately, I think that most editors, and especially those who can't do Javascript or CSS themselves, are better off sticking with the default skin and popular gadgets. Otherwise, one little thing will change, their setup will break, and they won't be able to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I am being an AI heretic on the admin noticeboard and suggesting we use AI to summarise long discussions. Popcorn is free! But here is the link to the summary , It's on meta in case an NPP has conniptions at the word GROK Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 16:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that it's happening some times, just without disclosure and without using the text of any summary directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your extremely diligent focus on improving clarity and understanding at WP:V. We need more editors like yourself. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You need MORE barnstars for what you do for Wikipedia! Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I see all the other barnstars above ... but you deserve yet another one:

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your work improving Wikipedia:Citing sources. I suggested an improvement to the guideline, and got some pushback in the Talk page. You came along and followed-up and boldly implemented the improvement. I don't know who you are, or what your background is ... but I know that Wikipedia needs a lot more editors like you. Noleander (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words.

I like barnstars. We should do more with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You have been a tireless contributor on WP:V. Wikipedia would be far worse off without you here. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. We seem to be agreeing with each other at WT:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

100%. An update of wording over there is absolutely necessary. Obviously.. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 02:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		For the baseball umpires example on your user page. A fine example of complementarity variables. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked reading it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

And fwiw I wrote 1 2 articles today during that. My family estimate I may be in the 98th %ile for intellectual energy. :D Valereee (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)ua

I checked the second out from the local library, but had to take it back before I could get very far. I've made her "Sunday night cake" in Classic Home Cooking by Richard Sax before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

That reminds me: Did we ever decide what to do after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fudge cake? It looks like there was a contested WP:BLAR in April 2024. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I've merged the content. It's a lot at Chocolate cake. I actually suspect someone could recreate the article. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd only taken it out for research before, but writing the article has made me want to go back and read The Taste through, maybe make some of the recipes, although it sounds like In Pursuit is more practical for that for home cooks. Valereee (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

In Pursuit was a good read. Most recently, I was looking at Salt Fat Acid Heat (book). I'm not sure that I'd want to have the book, but it feels like it would be a good one for a Baking with Julia-type project: Just start at the beginning and cook one dish after another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I have baked multiple times in response to a technical on The Great British Bakeoff. One of my favorites was the fig rolls. One of the tastiest was the Kouign amman, but man what a PITA. One of the most difficult was English muffins. Still haven't gotten those reliably to exactly where I want them. For Æbleskiver I actually bought a pan. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I attempted kouign amman once but need more practice. It tasted great – exactly what you'd expect for a recipe whose ingredients are butter, flour, butter, yeast, butter, salt, butter, water, butter, sugar, butter, and some more butter – but didn't look pretty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, as they say: expect the unexpected. I was amazed to receive a thank you note from you. Just amazed. I had no idea I was on you good guy list, given that we have hardly ever agreed on anything. My stupidity I guess. But thank you, thank you anyway. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wikipedia needs people who can disagree without being disagreeable about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, now let us see if we can agree on something. Do you think the person who sent the very first message on the internet deserves a Wiki page? He is Charley Kline, as in the BBC report. I think he us notable, but I used to know him, so I feel uncomfortable about starting a page on him. I have not talked to him for decades but I would still have to declare a conflict of interest. Can you help get it started? Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

There are six articles mentioning that name, though I wonder if one of them might be someone else. I don't usually write BLPs myself, but I think he might be notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, he is more than a name. He is a person who wrote a key piece of software for sending an immortal message. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Yesterday, all my dreams..., I had a Google, and I'm afraid I have to disagree. It doesn't appear that there's much more one can reliably source to write about Kline than a few sentences on that first message. He appears to have been "a 21-year old UCLA student" who sent a test message on a system that turned out to be notable. Compare Martin Cooper (inventor), who made the first cell phone call. -- Colin°^Talk 20:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The BBC report, in particular, is going to have some limitations because of Wikipedia:Interviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, being mentioned, in a positive way, five times on Wikipedia is pretty good going. And maybe without that glitch nobody would even have remembered it or who sent it. -- Colin°^Talk 09:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

He did not just send the message, he wrote the software for sending it. That was why he was at the keyboard. The glitch was on the server ar SRI. Kleinrock does not program, he is a network man. And with or without the glitch Kleirock woulld have saved everything. He knew he was onto something big. So the CSK in the image is C S Kline. He is notable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I just redirected his link to the history of internet. Good enough for now. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Endemic COVID-19, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endemic COVID-19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your comment here. Your position is incorrect. Leaving aside particular sportspeople individually, let me talk generally.

The gamete based definition is not something this editor made up. That is explicit in the rules in World Boxing. Definition 2.2: Sex is defined by the body system supporting these gametes... . If you want a rigorous definition, I suggest you read this journal article.

In particular XX-male syndrome people would be "male" in this taxonomy, because their bodies have internal testes (often not completely developed), not ovaries. The fact that somebody is unable to make a particular gamete doesn't affect what the body has the developmental pathway to do. So it does not follow that a person is neither "male" or "female". As an aside, the relevant DSD is not likely to be XX-male syndrome, by rather 5ARD. 5ARD people often have developed internal testicles which produce sperm.

I am not saying that these things are simple or unchallenged: they are not. The problem is that Wikipedia pretends that these are simple, and presents them as a morality play. Often in direct violation of the eligibilty rules which have been debated widely over more than a decade. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The boxer has repeatedly denied having an XY karotype and claimed once to be SRY+ (what World Boxing's Sex Eligibility Policy calls "Y chromosome genetic material"), which suggests something other than 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency.

More generally, if the gonad, rather than the gamete, is the definition of sex (which, you will note, World Boxing didn't do, and which is not usual in non-human biology, BTW), then it's impossible to classify someone with ovotestis gonads as being either male (testes) or female (ovaries) on the basis of gonads, i.e., on the basis of the freely chosen definition. In such a case, "the body has the developmental pathway" for both male and female. XX male syndrome, although rare, is one of the common causes of (the even rarer) ovotesticular development in SRY+ XX people.

Definition matters. For example, imagine a hypothetical person with XX chromosomes, SRY gene, high testosterone, bilateral ovotestes gonads, and absolutely sterile: that person is chromosomally female, genetically male (at least according to the definition of genetic male that prioritizes the SRY gene; there are SRY+ XX individuals with phenotypical female development), hormonally male, gonadally both (or I suppose you could say indeterminate), and sexless in terms of gametes. I don't care which definition you pick, as long as you're willing to accept the logical consequences of the definition. The logical consequence of choosing gonads as the definition is that you have to give up any pretension that there are exactly two sexes and that every single individual can be correctly assigned to exactly one of the two sexes. The logical consequence of choosing gametes is that some individuals (those with absolute sterility) are sexless. In my experience, outside of evolutionary biologists, people are generally squeamish about that last one, but that's how that definition works. It would be dishonest, though, to define female as any person who produces ova, but if one individual produces ova and also has the SRY gene, then that person is suddenly male. These things happen in the real world, though not very often.

I agree with you that many people pretend that these things are simple, and present them as a morality play. I think that seeing the complexity and the fact that one person could be "properly" categorized in different ways depending on the definition might help people understand why it is reasonable to say that calling the boxer in question simply "male" is "incorrect", or at least oversimplified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You misunderstood my point: I did not say gonads are the basis of sex. Sorry I wasn't clear. I was discussing the gamete based definition, and used gonads as an illustration. The gonads are just one manifestation of the developmental pathway leading to the production of gametes. For a rigorous definition, I pointed you to a journal article which discusses it in detail.

The key point here is that in this taxonomy, XX-male with SRY does not correspond to "neither male nor female" as you argued, but "male". 5ARD is also "male" in this taxonomy. Both of these cases would also count as "male" under World Boxing rules.

As for your last paragraph, there's a key asymmetry here. The article explicitly takes a position: that claims about "male" are "false" in wikivoice. If the matter is not simple, the article should not take a position of these claims being "false" as a general free-flowing statement. Rather the discussion should be framed around eligibility rules, which were the crux of the controversy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the saying that "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong".

I didn't find the article in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport to provide "a rigorous definition". It's a good explanation of their preferred definition and its consequences, but it's essentially an opinion: The authors of the first piece (to which this article is a reply) prefer definition A, and complain that people defined as women under definition are harmed if sports organizations adopt definition B; the authors of this "reply" prefer definition B, and say that the individuals excluded by definition B aren't women anyway. The article says things like "we think that the reasoning here is correct", which is an expression of opinion rather than fact. I didn't find anything about biology that couldn't have been found in biology textbooks from a few decades ago.

I thought this was the best line in the whole article:

"specifically, whatever it is that the challenges establish as socially constructed, it is not sex. To put it another way, we take biological sex to be pre-institutional, and the existence of two and only two sexes is a true fact about the world. The challenges routinely substitute what sex is, with how the sex of an individual is identified. That is, they substitute an ontological question for an epistemological one."

and it undercuts what you're saying. Let's stipulate that there are two and only two sexes. But the question for the sports organization isn't whether there is a third sex; the question for them is how to pigeonhole an individual into their two sex categories. If the gonads are a "manifestation of the developmental pathway leading to the production of gametes", but the gonads are mixed ovarian and testicular tissue, and no gametes get produced (because if they did, that would IMO answer the question – though the authors disagree with the traditional biological definition as "the ‘univariate fallacy’"), then how do you figure out which of the two mixed "developmental pathways" present in this one body is the relevant one? The sports organization can agree on "what sex is" and still have trouble with "how the sex of an individual is identified" – and identify the individual they must. There are some solutions to this problem (e.g., by declaring that everyone is male until proven female through tests X, Y, and Z), but they are not as clear and simple as they sound on paper.

A few other minor notes:

• This statement: "How one is raised – according to what gender norms – is irrelevant from the point of view of developmental biology" is false, but it's nice to think that there are lucky people in the world who don't know that gender norms affect which of the children in a poor household get to eat enough food. (I'm sure they know that going hungry has biological effects on development.)
• This statement: "some people (males) have a nest of unearned physiological advantages over other people (females)" and all the others claiming that males are always advantaged and never disadvantaged, indicates that the authors need to spend more time watching women's gymnastics.
• This statement: "Caster Semenya says that ‘being born with internal testicles, those don’t make me less of a woman’. We deny this claim" indicates that they do not believe that a trans woman is a woman. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees, I think this was not a sensible tangent to introduce into this paper.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course it's an opinion. What else would it be? An argument is an opinion. The point is that your objection to a gamete based definition can easily be overcome, if the definition is rigorous enough.

Here are the key issues:

• using the definition in the journal article, is the XX-male DSD with SRY, "male" or "neither male nor female"?
• using the definition in World Boxing rules, is XX-male DSD with SRY, "male" or "neither male nor female"?

It's very clear the answer is "male" in both cases. Same for the case of 5ARD instead of XX-male. If you disagree, then let me know.

Now, one does not need to agree with the opinion. Indeed, the authors are responding to other people, who disagree. They key point here is that there is disagreement on the definition. And this is very significant disagreement, given the sports body is following the same definition for its eligibility rules.

I will repeat again the point I made in the last paragraph. Should the article present the issue as settled one way, and state in wiki-voice that the "male" claim is "false"? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Using the definition in the journal article, which is about systems, then there is the possibility that it will be difficult to classify the person. Most individuals with that description would be classified as male in those two systems, but I don't know if everyone would. For example, if SRY is technically present but inactivated through mutations, would we even find out? You'd have a 46,XX individual with normal phenotypic female development. Why would anyone bother doing sex testing on this person?

Here is a question for you. There are two individuals in this study, who are 46,XX and SRY negative and who are described in the paper as having "complete masculinization".

• Using the definition in the journal article, are they "female" or "neither male nor female"?
• Using the definition in World Boxing rules, are they "female" or "neither male nor female"?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Why are we talking about SRY-negative individuals? That clearly does not apply here. In fact, the XX-male with SRY most likely does not apply; a better fit is 5ARD. But I even granted, for the sake of argument, that we're dealing with XX-male instead of 5ARD. As the journal article argues, and you posted the relevant paragraph, the fact that it is sometimes difficult to classify a person (ontology) doesn't mean that the classification system is wrong (epistemology). I am not an expert on the matter, but if I had to guess, I would classify the cases you mention as "male", because the alternate SOX9 duplication pathway leads to similar developments as SRY.

Let's be concrete: under World Boxing rules, SRY is a screening test. If it turns out to be positive, more tests are undertaken to definitively classify. But there are still only two categories, "male" and "female". One can agree or disagree with the definition of the journal article, and one can agree or disagree with World Boxing rules.

The point, for Wikipedia's purposes, is that the article flatly denies one opinion, even though it's the opinion of the body in charge of eligibility rules. The article imposes one particular definition (self gender id), never made clear explicitly. And it says that the disagreement is "false", and never makes clear that disagreement is due to definitions, and not the facts at issue. Also, for a very long time, any mention of DSD itself was verboten in the article, even though major media routinely went into great detail about DSD.

Do you feel that this kind of situation is intellectually honest, or indeed will help a casual reader understand the issues? In fact, almost nobody on Wikipedia understands the most basic issues, including admins commenting on the case and sanctioning people. I had to point out some relevant facts in the AE case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

All these attempts to parse some biological basis for a sex binary lead to me waving around a plucked chicken and shouting "behold! A man!" Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

"Biological sex" is just gender wearing a mad scientist costume from Spirit Halloween. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with that sweeping statement. In the context of evolutionary biology and sexual reproduction, biological sex has a meaning that is of obvious relevance and applies to species that cannot have any concept of gender. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Just because those species don't have biologists doesn't magically make their sex traits an inviolable binary. In fact, it takes a specifically human stupidity to divide every phenomenon into binary oppositions. Simonm223 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Sex ≠ sex traits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Whether this "meaning that is of obvious relevance" is prior to gender is precisely what, e.g. Judith Butler, contests. You might be aware of her infamous quote:

As a result, gender is not to culture as sex is to nature; gender is also the discursive/cultural means by which “sexed nature” or “a natural sex” is produced and established as “prediscursive,” prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts.

Katzrockso (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

One almost might wonder whether this line of thinking means sexual reproduction could not happen before the establishment of human culture. I suppose that could be compatible with a belief in literal six-day creationism, but I wouldn't have guessed Butler to subscribe to that. Perhaps it's more of a Schrödinger's cat idea, so sexual reproduction might or might not have happened, but nobody knows until a human observed it? For myself, if organisms were sexually reproducing before humans existed, then I'd say that the ordinary mechanics of sexual reproduction is indeed a "prediscursive" fact of life. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

No, the question isn't about whether or not sexual reproduction occurs prior to discourse, which isn't a particularly interesting question. It's about how discourse ends up organizing biological facts into discrete categories which are then posited as having existed all along. John Dupre makes a sort of similar argument in some of his older work from the 1990s, and so have some sociologists ( - interesting how this used to be open access, but isn't anymore...). Katzrockso (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm not interested in this digression. My last comment about the original topic of discussion is here, in case you didn't see it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• The point, for Wikipedia's purposes, is that the article flatly denies one opinion – No, it doesn't. The statement aligns with multiple views (e.g., legal sex, assigned sex at birth, gender of raising, [apparently] external anatomy) and not with multiple others (e.g., that sex can be determined by how hard a boxer can hit).
• even though it's the opinion of the body in charge of eligibility rules. The article imposes one particular definition (self gender id) – No, the body in charge of eligibility rules at the Olympics was using legal sex, and the Wikipedia article appears to be following its lead. "Self gender id" is not being preferred here.
• And it says that the disagreement is "false" – Relative to the body in charge of eligibility rules at the Olympics, this is indeed false.
• and never makes clear that disagreement is due to definitions, and not the facts at issue – This is unfortunate and an opportunity for improvement. But the problem is that some of the facts are not available to the general public. Even if we assume that the XY denial and SRY+ claim are both 100% accurate, that doesn't actually tell us what's going on at a level that would make it possible to categorize this person according to several of the available pigeonholes/definitions. We may never have enough information.

I feel sorry for anyone going through this kind of medical investigation under these circumstances. She must have been raised to believe that marriage and babies were in her future. Now what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The standard of "follow the lead of the body organizing the competition" is a strange one. Does the sex or gender of a person change depending on the body in charge of the eligibility rules? The article makes a general statement about sex/gender (not bothering to specify what exactly it means) and calls certain claims "false" both in the lead and in the text. These statements are not tied to any particular time period or relevant sports body.

For the sake of argument, let's use this standard. What does the article say about the 2023 events? The body which organized the competition was the International Boxing Association. If you read that section, do you get the impression that the article is upholding the IBA's standard, or criticizing it? If we look at post-2024: now that World Boxing is the body which is organizing the events, and it has been given provisional recognition for the Olympics by the IOC. Should we now change the text again?

In my opinion, such a standard makes no sense, and it is not the standard actually used by the article. The standard the article actually uses is self gender id. If you don't agree with my characterization, you can call the relevant standard "legal sex" or "gender indicated on passport". It doesn't ultimately matter, because all of these different standards give identical results in this case. The key point is that one of the protagonists in the dispute, namely the IOC, aligned with this standard. So the article takes the IOC's side: you will not find a single word of criticism of the IOC, while the IBA is maligned at every step. For a very long time, the article also flatly lied about the IBA, and tenaciously defended the lies on the talk page (not the only example, but the most egregious).

Here would be a consistent, rational and informative way to describe the situation. The focus should be on the eligibility dispute, and there should not be some free-flowing discussion of genetics and sex or the morality thereof. I agree that some facts are not available to the public, because of privacy reasons (among other reasons). In the absence of facts, the intellectually honest way to proceed would be to note the absence and the uncertainties involved. There was a dispute over eligibility rules; the IBA and IOC had different views. Article should describe how the rules differed, and the implications. Any relevant biological factors, like DSD, should be described in a brief and proportionate manner insofar as they are relevant to the eligibility issues. The post-Olympics debate, where World Boxing has decisively rejected the IOC's rules, should be described as more than an afterthought. The IOC itself faced a lot of criticism, both contemporaneously and afterward; as a result it has indicated that it has completely backtracked from its own rules. These things are obviously relevant, and should be described. Compare the article with the one on Caster Semenya, for instance (the latter article goes somewhat overboard, in my opinion).

Finally, I agree with you that the situation is not the boxer's fault: she did absolutely nothing wrong. But there's plenty of blame to go around, and the authorities should be the ones responsible. I put most of the blame on the IOC, and the rest on the IBA. One of the points of these new rules is that the SRY test (cheek swab) is simple, non-invasive and relatively cheap. Thus, these cases can be handled privately at a much earlier stage, well before the sportsperson is in the limelight. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Since I saw a lot of headlines criticizing the IBA, I think that the decision to align with the independent sources means maligning the IBA at some level. (I always assumed that the IOC rules were a temporary stopgap when they couldn't do anything else on short notice, though I don't follow sports, so there could have been a different reason that I'm just unaware of.)

I think that the history of eligibility rules might be better handled through a general article on the subject, e.g., Sex verification in boxing. Then the BLP articles could simplify down to statements directly about her and not about her as an example of eligibility rules: she competed under this rules, she was excluded under IBA rules, she was included under IOC rules, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh there were plenty of pieces criticizing the IOC; you just won't find them in the article. So, here's Barney Ronay, the chief sports writer for The Guardian, not known as a frothing right-wing rag: In the end the only obvious fault here lies with the IOC's malfunctioning boxing unit, which has managed this situation with a ham-fisted and weirdly aggressive sense of its own certainty.

As for your other suggestion, according to the editors on the page, because this boxer is primarily notable for the eligibility controversy, and not for the fact that she won an Olympic gold medal, attempts to strip the article of many of the details are resisted. That is not to say that people from that article don't go around to other articles and try to add or remove stuff. For instance, in the Sex verification in sports page, perhaps you can check if SRY testing is mentioned? You can check the talk page and page history to figure out why exactly it is not mentioned. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw plenty of headlines criticizing the IOC after the fights started, but once the IOC rejected the IBA, what realistic alternative was available? You can't just order a new international sports governing agency on Amazon and have it delivered overnight.

It looks like the discussion on that talk page proposed a large expansion of the article. It probably would have worked better to get a single sentence, or even a half-sentence (e.g., "using methods such as A and B" →"using methods such as A, B, and C") added first, and then to expand it slowly over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The alternative, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, would be to not treat the IOC as the "good guys" and the IBA as the "bad guys". The article insists on treating the matter as a morality play, and not as a complicated dispute. People trying to write an informative article for a general reader, whether neutral or leaning toward one party, would frame the situation as a dispute and lay out the main issues in dispute, rather than treating one side's position as self-evidently correct.

As for the other article, I have always been partial to WP:PRESERVE. Many things are imperfect at the start. The key point is that people just didn't want certain things mentioned, so they removed the text wholesale and stonewalled any attempt to rephrase (and the editor who brought up the issue was banned).

Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil: there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article treats the IOC as the "good guys". From what I remember of the past headlines, the IBA probably doesn't deserve to be presented as having equal validity.

One path around expected "stonewalling" is to boil the frog. If that editor had started with five words instead of 200, and then walked away for six months, he'd probably still be editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Suppose someone knows nothing at all about the topic. They are given this Wikipedia article to read. Would they, based on this text, get the impression that IOC are the "good guys" and the IBA are the "bad guys"? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Why? Is this text incorrect? --Altenmann >talk 00:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not? A WP:CHALLENGE specifically applies to uncited material; cited material can't technically be WP:CHALLENGED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

But that's exactly what the deleted blurb says: "Uncited material can be challenged" --Altenmann >talk 01:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, <facepalm>. Left/right-challenged. Reading too much Hebrew, I guess :-)--Altenmann >talk 01:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Congrats on learning a language with a different script. I've no such excuse and have still made the same mistake. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

		Thank you for your amazing work on therapy speak!
		Thank you so much for your work on the therapy speak article! This article very accurately describes what therapy speak is and the effects of it. Great job! ~2026-11730-93 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering if there's been any more progress on implementing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP since the RfC ended as a successful vote for option 2? I was quite excited to see this implemented, but couldn't find anymore progress on it. Maybe I'm missing something? If nothing else, thank you for the great idea and making the RfC to begin with. Cheers! Johnson524 04:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have posted this note here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe you can take a look at this discussion . It's the same discussion about infobox we had on Tesla page, so maybe you can share your opinion as you have closed Tesla discussion. Ip~2026-12728-47 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

No, thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

That's ok. We managed to come to agreement through civilised discussion when that disruptive admin stopped deleting comments and blocking people. Wikipedia is for everyone and we should be able to have a normal civilized discussion. People who are just looking how to "win" discussions by banning others are the worst. ~2026-13386-83 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Could use your brain over at User:Polygnotus/Signpost Opinion1. Never wrote in a human language before. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For helping to copyedit what turned out to be a pretty great issue (vol. 22 issue 4)!

☆ Bri (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd forgotten about that edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thoughts on Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/March 2026 proposal? There's some discussion on its talk and at WT:AIC#AI-bot on ANI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Idea for an explanatory essay on NPOV: User:Kowal2701/Due and undue (perhaps the target of WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE if/when in project space). Something we discussed a while back that’s been bugging me, is that people cite WP:DUE which points to WEIGHT, when really they mean WP:BALASP. Was thinking this’d clear up any confusion and make life easier for newbies Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Is the intended content something like "When editors say DUE, they don't always mean exactly that?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Sort of, but that premise wouldn't make sense if DUE pointed to it. I'm unsure what to actually put in the sections that doesn't just duplicate the policy (other than giving lots of examples). It could just serve as a disambiguation page for DUE and UNDUE (something like this) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The general direction that we're heading in at NPOV is to split "viewpoint" from "basic information" into separate concepts (DUE vs BALASP, basically). Getting there will take a couple of years, but we've made a start. The weak point in NPOV that we've been addressing during the last year or so is the bit I call "write an encyclopedia article". By this, I mean that there are certain basic facts about the subject that are conventionally presented in an encyclopedia article, and these should have a place even if the reliable sources spend relatively little time talking about them. The second (and fairly new) paragraph at WP:BALASP is an effort to address this gap in our advice. I think that as we build that section to be useful, and give editors enough time (years, not weeks) to discover it, then the BALASP shortcut might become better known. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, BALASP looks much better. It seems closely related to MOS. I would've thought a complete split would be best eventually, and then mention the overlap (like with WP:VERIFYOR). In the meantime I can add a {{Redirect}} hatnote to DUE Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your feedback on this RfC: Talk:Primerica#RfC To Include Research Products I’ve suggested the final language based on the discussion and wanted to run it past you for consensus. TermLifeOG (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This surprised me. I'm reading it to understand you aren't having a problem with calling someone accused of a crime a 'perp', which is very surprising to me. I am assuming I'm misunderstanding. Valereee (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't. When there is no question in anyone's mind about whether they did it, why would we pretend otherwise? Consider the Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest: they had to be un-glued from the wall, they publicly claimed that they did it, and their whole goal was to get media attention for doing it. Do you think there could be reasonable doubt about who did it? Having an innocent person get caught holding a bloody knife is a thing in whodunits, but that's not what we're dealing with in such cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but that falls under 'unless they've confessed or been convicted', I would think? I mean, we know OJ did it, too. Valereee (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be best to remember that an expression like perpetrator includes the connotation that what has been done is immoral or illegal. And for some crimes that's the actual "fact" to be determined. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the word carries a negative connotation.

I think that 'confessed, convicted, or caught red-handed' might be a more feasible standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd go with that. Although caught red-handed...there actually may be instances. Nothing I can think of off the top of my head lol... Valereee (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

We could probably make a list of fictional characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

List of fictional characters caught red-handed but innocent

• Sirius Black
• Andy Dufresne
• Richard Kimble
• Roger Thornhill

Valereee (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClearMyName has a long list. Also, AFAICT pretty much every cozy mystery written in the last couple of decades (because how else do you get the book-loving bakery owner to turn her attention to sleuthing?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, perpetrator probably isn't the best word. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if the concern over this policy is that saying something is Wikipedia:Original research seems much more forceful than saying that some of the statements in the article are not verified by the sources. Stating something is WP:OR seems to give the impression that the remedy is much more drastic than the remedy in the latter case. Katzrockso (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe? A few editors do seem to want the OR policy to be vague enough that they can claim that it means whatever they want. I have some sympathy for their desire, because sometimes you just want to be able to say WP:ITSBAD and move on, instead of trying to figure out which sub-section is the exact explanation for why it's bad.

See Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 63#"Anywhere in the world, in any language" and other matters with the new table and scroll down a bit to the table for (what I think is) a fairly clear explanation of the boundaries of the various connected policies.

Of course, this whole thing would be easier if the Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll had succeeded in merging WP:V and WP:NOR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, better here than elsewhere - V and OR, taken together implies omniscient decidability. Editors know every sources and can decide what's not a source. Too strong to my taste. Perhaps it's because I'm out of apple cider. No idea how y'all can muster the serenity. Thank you for making me realize that it's all about writing properly. Until later. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they do imply omniscience. In practice, we use a best guess.

The last time I had apple cider, it was in a glass bottle shaped like an apple from Martinelli's. It's a common California brand. Or did you mean hard apple cider? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I meant something a little less sweet than honey. Still works well for fruit flies.

An interpretation like "OR because I asked and asked and asked and looked and looked and others looked and looked and still nothing" would model better what happens in practice. Thought the proof simple enough. Things take time, I guess. Instead of wording OR so absolutely, perhaps we should recognize that we're just human beans trying our best, and that we can err. We're just looking for attribution. Ain't we all. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and this one is pretty great for salads, eggs, just about anything. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it from the viewpoint of someone actively and voluntarily searching for sources, that would be enough.

But we have to write the policy so that the content contributors can work on a somewhat level ground with the self-appointed article blankers. If we don't have a narrow definition, then they'll claim that anything they dislike or disagree with is a WP:NOR violation. So long as we have editors who say that everything WP:Glossary#uncited is "original research", we can't just say "do your best, and if you can't find anything, then it's OR". Some people's "best" is "I couldn't see a little blue clicky number at the end of the sentence, and looking further than that is Somebody else's problem". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NOR pointing at the same page, two related but different logical connectors. Don't know what to say. Will give essays a try. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Come to think of it, here could be one way to articulate the whole ordeal (sorry if it's too compact): TRIFECTA is NPOV, BOLD, and CIV (should have been COOP). CIV prepares CON; NPOV orients RS and ONUS. Both counterbalance BOLD, which leads to E. ONUS is between CON and NPOV.

V and OR underpin NPOV. They are just assumptions for the frame to work: nobody should ever ever ever need to appeal to them. Ever. Appeals to CIV often lead to manipulative behavior. Better to lead by example. None of these words are reasons, they're just shortcuts for asserting something confused.

BOLD, ONUS, RS, and CON ought to be enough as far as code-speak is concerned. Some parts of NPOV could be needed, like proportionality, but editorial discretion should be expressed more directly. Same for E: best practices from those who do all that for a living stood the test of time.

I can't believe it is I who has to tell people to speak more plainly. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is correct: "V and OR underpin NPOV".

WP:V has a goal of increasing readers' trust in the not-always-so-obvious idea that Wikipedia editors assemble information that they find elsewhere, rather than coming up with it on their own. You could write a completely NPOV-compliant article with zero citations, but the absence of citations would not meet WP:V's goal of showing readers that the information did not originate here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

"V and OR underpin NPOV"?

I saw this in passing. I think it is incorrect. V and OR are intertwined and should probably be merged, both for underlying logic and clarity of communication to new contributors. However, NPOV is independent of V and OR. Following quality sources might be a route to achieving NPOV, but not necessarily so, and NPOV can be following or violated both with a without reliable sourcing. For example, biased source selection can give an NPOV failure.

V and OR and NPOV underpin the intended purpose of Wikipedia. Some call them “core content policies”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Another way to follow the sources and end up with an NPOV problem is with tone: if most reliable sources use inflammatory or biased words to describe something, Wikipedia should Wikipedia:Use our own words instead of adopting the sources' biased word choices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I wrote my comment without seeing Joe's comment. Basically, V and OR means little without NPOV. I offered two reasons why.

First, the historical concepts. At the time of TRIFECTA, there was only NPOV besides "don't be a jerk" (which has turned into CIV, but should have been COOP) and "ignore all rules" (which may have turned into BOLD). If we consider that TRIFECTA was enough, then V and OR should come from it. This should not be taken as a truly historical account. I checked one page, and thought a little.

Second, the logical "underpinning". V and OR, although too powerful, are not enough by themselves: V and OR deal in specific claims while NPOV balances them out. Without the ability to weigh our sources as a whole and judge that our representation of the world (as a whole) does justice to it, omniscience may lead us to become a mindless list of everything.

In other words, I am suggesting that we could derive all our editorial judgment from NPOV. We could replace it with something less idealistic, e.g. "be reasonable". We could even beef up "don't be a jerk" and that could work. It at least did suffice for a whole historical line of thought.

To put it more pithily still: V and OR allows us to check on claims. NPOV affords us to check on articles. Articles come first. Not as editorial freedom, like ignore all rules. But as collective endeavor: we don't want all the facts, only those that matter to represent the current state of the world. To be able to do that, we still have to access them all, which is V and OR. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Why do you even care about WP:TRIFECTA, which was just one editor's personal POV and which WP:V predates by almost two years?

Wikipedia does not have a logical, top-down design. Nobody ever said "Here are the principles; now let us have policies, and the guidelines, and then detailed how-to pages, and none may contravene the higher authority". We just kind of did stuff by trial and error, and if it worked, we wrote it down so other people could have an easier time figuring out what to do. This is at best a common law system and nothing at all like an organized system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Questioning how NPOV implied V/OR (I agree with Joe that they should be unified) led me to try to explain how I see it, something I don't see without trying to explain. I stumbled upon fairness doing so, which seems to work: neutrality is more than tone. Civility should be collegiality, as good tone makes us treat one each other not as equals. (I wouldn't say peers: I really mean everyone.) The "no rules" clause could be seen as openness: to new content, new guidance, new policy, new everything. Trying to find a root for the three would be the way to go from here.

Conceptual analysis is required at every stage of article building: sections, paragraphs, even sentences. I care more about conceptual analysis than the ontological history of Wikipedia, which I leave to wiser editors than me. Consistency (of the conceptual kind, say) is toward what we should converge. Simplification ought to help. Pardon the trouble. In return, some notes on masonry, inspired by one of your citations, and recent events. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Let's put some direction on the concepts (easier with a diagram):

V says there's an arrow from a source to a claim we could make; support is possible, either in the sense that we currently have access to it (what is verified is verifiable), or that wherever it is, we can reach it from our state of affairs, i.e. our "world". We pretend to know that this arrow exists. OR says there's no arrow from our claim to any such source; support is impossible to reach from our world. We posit to know that too. That is, we looked at all our arrows, and none satisfy.

NPOV presupposes some kind of representation: our claims represent the facts, and all our facts represent a fair view on the current states of affairs. To be able to say so, we posit V and OR, and add: not only do we have access to all the arrows, but we can judge the whole set of them, and the quality of each of them. With only V and OR, the wiki would be like Google ranking, minus the monetary structure: instead of relying on editorial judgment, we would just count arrows. Which is not far from some masons are suggesting we should do. With NPOV, we can say not taking stance ourselves: we do justice to the world without saying anything ourselves. The NPOV article you envision would contain claims that come from nowhere. That's not neutrality, but pure fabrication. That's where the LLM threat comes from.

Let's return to SYNTH. It says there's a source, but support is not possible with it. Our claim (or our material) *would* misrepresent how things are. This is how SYNTH should be subsumed by OR. OR is currently implemented as misrepresentation anyway, i.e. relative to the arrows we currently have. That's what makes masons blank pages: anything unsupported becomes original to them. For that they exploit BURDEN, which is interpreted as: it's not my job to rove all over the possible worlds to check if a claim is true. Often they forget about PRESERVE, which asks them to check a little, flag, wait, perhaps even replace it with something we can support.

I'll end up here, and leave commentary to another time. Selbstporträt (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello WAID,

I do not enjoying disagreeing with you, as it painfully challenges me, but is always educational for me. I invite you to have a look at something expecting that with a good chance you will disagree, my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Platt. You might agree, I am not sure.

He was described as the most powerful unelected official of a large city. That sounds like a claim to Wikipedia-notability, and we had a stable biography for a long time. Then, the reported facts turned from glowing to negative.

There is an abundance of news coverage, before and after the turn. The news coverage provided more than enough material to write a Wikipedia article. However, I find that the news coverage sources are all, as I describe, “reporting of facts” and not “telling of any story”. That is, the reporting is bias free, free of comment or analysis, just facts, and so I would call all of the news reporting “primary source material”

What do you think?

Also, specifically, do you think Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria for a BLP is decidedly different depending on whether the biography is positive or negative for the person?

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the trust you have expressed here. Please remember that I don't ever wish to cause you pain.

I've only glanced at the article. At the moment, the visible version is rather glowy. It doesn't look like a fair description of an (American) city manager's job, either. (He launched all these projects by himself, did he?)

At the moment, what need to be glowing in my life is the oven, because Pi Day is nearly over, and my pie is not finished. But let me take a look another time. We might have an interesting conversation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Instead of looking at the cited sources in the various version of the article, I spent some time in Google News.

Have you seen this source? https://kansascitydefender.com/politics/kansas-city-corruption-brian-platt-expose/ I found it dissatisfying in some respects (e.g., they label him as "corrupt" as in abusing his position for illicit "personal gain", but I didn't see a single example of that in the source), but I think it qualifies as what you'd count as a secondary source because it draws connections between past and present events (e.g., same concerns about NJ and KC jobs), analyzes the results of actions (disproportionate impact on Black employees), and pronounces judgment on the facts (e.g., "The episode was extraordinary: Rarely have so many major civil rights groups in Kansas City united to so publicly rebuke a sitting official").

Overall, the coverage in Google News is focused on the whistleblower lawsuit about him encouraging city employees to lie to the media and then him getting fired. Based on that, the Wikipedia article is not currently (i.e., when I looked at it some hours ago) summarizing the sources fairly and without any editorial bias. But when I look at a more scandal-focused version in the page history, I find that it is also too extreme: It is too long, and half of it is a slam on the former assistant city manager. It doesn't even present the events in chronological order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

puts him in Wikipedia-notable for me. I had not seen it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that writing that article fairly is going to be difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it was a bad article, possibly even a UPE article, and that it then because a battleground (or COATRACK) for critics.

My question above was meant to specify the current (pre AfD) references in the article SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the version that was PRODded, the first is a dead link, but given the text it supported, I expect it to be primary.

The second source is probably secondary, because it compares what he did at his old job against what he hopes to do at his new job. It also describes him as "Kansas City’s youngest-ever city manager", which is secondary source material, even though it's just a couple of words.

The explanation of a 'no' vote in the third source could possibly be secondary source material, but I lean towards rating it as primary.

I also rate the fourth as primary, and the fifth is another dead link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)