Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

I saw this article on the authoritarian playbook had been created yesterday, and was intrigued to read it, but what I found was unfortunately a mess. Judging by the article history, it seems the author created the article around a distinct concept (which I'll note has been covered extensively in scholarly literature), but then went on to pull together apparently unrelated text from a bunch of different - often entirely unrelated - articles from around Wikipedia. This has resulted in an unreadable mess, which bounces from one topic to another seemingly at random, with an unclear scope tying it all together, and largely based on sources that do not mention an "authoritarian playbook" being involved. I came to this noticeboard because I'm not sure what to do about this, the article is far too long and complicated for me to try tackling it by myself. Should this be dynamited? How would we go about separating the wheat from the chaff? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Something similar happened at Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism, where an editor added tons of attributed statements about Palestine by holocaust survivors and descendants to make the case that there was a pattern. My approach, which did take time, was to go through and remove all personal statements by individuals about Palestine, leaving only sources which described the movement as a whole. I think something similar could work here; much of the "Scapegoating vulnerable communities" section appears to do something similar, presenting sourced statements which don't actually mention an authoritarian playbook.

I expect that, once that is done, the article will have many fewer references. Most of the statements I saw that would pass muster are sourced to Ref #1. I think that adding more afterwards, from reliable sources on the topic, will be easier once the clutter is removed. I also think you can be a bit liberal in removing content; some of it might count as background, but I'd say remove it for now, and it can be added back in piecemeal later. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup, unquestionably synthesis. WP:TNT would seem entirely justified, since starting from scratch looks quicker than disentangling what little might be legitimately kept. I'd advise the article creator to read up on relevant policy before attempting such an ambitious project again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ugh, I will go and try to clean it up to the best of my abilities. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I've had to remove the vast majority of it as it was unrelated to the topic. The extent of synthesis was honestly a bit staggering; there was even a part about GamerGate in there. A side effect of removing the stuff cited to sources that don't discuss the concept of the authoritarian playbook is that a significant part of the article is now about Trump, as the main source actually relevant to the topic that was used in the article is discussing the authoritarian playbook in the context of contemporary America, and the article is still written in a way that has many other issues, but at least the article isn't packed with synth anymore. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian: Amazing work, thanks so much for taking this on. It's so much more readable now. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 Bravo, Maltazarian. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Note. Maltazarian's edits have all been reverted by the article creator, User:Thalorin, complete with an entirely improper accusation of 'vandalism'. I have twice asked them to participate in this discussion, and will raise the matter at WP:ANI if they continue to ignore the advice given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, vandalism, the act of voluntarily spending over an hour trudging through a complete mess of an article and its sources in order to salvage at least some of the misguided effort that went into writing it. You know, we should consider adding this novel definition of the word to its Wiktionary entry. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Has anyone stopped to tactfully explain to Thalorin what the issue is, why Wikipedia articles can't collect their own hodgepodge of arguments and examples to form a conclusion, or any WP:ALTERNATIVEOUTLETS they could use to publish their examples if they wished? I'd probably react the same way if I was new to editing and was met with reverts and walls of policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of MOS:EASTEREGG linking to Authoritarian playbook in various articles on 13 and 15 June (at least) which, among other things, is somewhat OR, e.g the six (!) piped links to Authoritarian playbook at Disinformation attack. NebY (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Would it help if I changed the name? There appears to be some confusion about the scope of the authoritarian playbook. Some editors seem to think it's something very narrow in scope. It's a synonym for "authoritarian techniques." That's a concept that must exist, because there are authoritarians, and there are techniques, and these concepts converge to some degree. It's also been covered in scholarly literature. Thalorin (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

So part of the problem is that you seem to fail to understand that a statement made by an encyclopedia must be directly supported by a citation rather than inferring from a partial category fit. The other problem is that The Authoritarian Playbook is not demonstrated to be a broad concept widely used by academia. It's the name of a report published by Protect Democracy that seeks to provide guidance to journalists in covering the actions of authoritarian governments. I spend the majority of my time on Wikipedia editing articles about political extremism and am very well versed in the literature surrounding post-democratic states. There are many associated articles so, to answer your statement that it's a "concept that must exist" I would respond that the concept that there is a catalog of tactics common to authoritarian governments is effectively WP:SKYBLUE. What we cannot do is correlate the idea that authoritarian regimes have shared tactics to this one specific report. That's what led to my original WP:PROMO concerns. Yeah, authoritarian governments have tactics in common. But we can't generalize this to one report you were persuaded by. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed: I've made some little changes to the order of the article in order to improve the flow, but the arguments and details themselves are all stated as fact from the same text, produced by Protect Democracy, which would definitely counts as WP:SYNTH. There's also a potential issue about the unusually high assessment grade of the article (originally B-vital, later changed to C by me), which seems to have been put into place very early on, by quite a new editor, and without the article having been patrolled.I would suggest marking it to unassessed, at least until it can be patrolled and the issues dealt with.) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I was not persuaded by one report. I used Protect Democracy's Authoritarian playbook page as the skeleton for this page. I'll add as many supportive sources as you want. Here are a few I might use:

Authoritarian playbook

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/forging-bending-and-breaking-enacting-the-illiberal-playbook-in-hungary-and-poland/3DD83EDB9BA4D3DA72DC4F77A8F0686A

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13530194.2025.2479515

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40803-022-00184-8?error=cookies_not_supported&code=d1f8d5b4-4874-4af3-ad64-9e670a4ab920

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0163660X.2021.1970902

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14782804.2026.2680071

Authoritarian techniques

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510347.2019.1704266

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MimgEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=authoritarian+practices&ots=ZxaWF7aFEG&sig=RfuYhJ5PFjIuu4v0x6dOhoMywas#v=onepage&q=authoritarian%20practices&f=false

Authoritarian practices

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Diego-Fossati/publication/342990871_Authoritarian_innovations/links/5f17cae0299bf1720d58dc2d/Authoritarian-innovations.pdf?__cf_chl_tk=svK4bZoIXiw91OxQ6p5k54V2ddNithMXpCtH.EaHyks-1781885116-1.0.1.1-uMpkwYdVj6yfrIUa8cvPux5on0j6f3Yv6sthzKnZuLg

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2017.1403781#d1e137 Thalorin (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Authoritarian techniques, Autocratic political tactics, Authoritarian political tactics, Authoritarian means of control, or a better one still. I need the most intuitive, neutral-sounding one. Linking claims to scholarly work discussing authoritarianism is pretty easy. Linking claims to scholarly work discussing only “authoritarian tactics,” depending on the choice of name but not a synonym, is quite difficult. In scholarly work, there is quite a bit of consensus on what tactics authoritarians use: oppression, propaganda, and electoral manipulation, but there's no real consensus on how to categorise them. To avoid WP:COPYVIO, I will find new names for “scapegoating vulnerable communities,” “corrupting elections,” “stoking violence,” “politicising independent institutions,” “spreading disinformation,” “aggrandising executive power,” and “quashing dissent.” Texts identified as “close paraphrasing“ will be rewritten or removed.

Removed text:

In the case of the 2020 United States presidential election, disinformation was used in an attempt to convince people to believe something that was not true and change the outcome of the election.^[1][2] Repeated disinformation messages about the possibility of election fraud were introduced years before the actual election occurred, as early as 2016.^[3][4] Researchers found that much of the fake news originated in domestic right-wing groups. The nonpartisan Election Integrity Partnership reported prior to the election that "What we're seeing right now are essentially seeds being planted, dozens of seeds each day, of false stories... They're all being planted such that they could be cited and reactivated... after the election.^[5] Groundwork was laid through multiple and repeated disinformation attacks for claims that voting was unfair and to delegitimise the results of the election once it occurred.^[6] Although the 2020 United States presidential election results were upheld, some people still believe the "big lie."^[7]

Editors have called the Cover-up text WP:SYNTH; don't have much that can go against that. The above text is not WP:SYNTH; this does not fail WP:V. I did attribute it; editors apparently didn't read that. So I can put this back up, right? And others like it? I'll be using “Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution." ”Hell, I'll put in an extra source if you have trouble seeing the PBS show: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-55009950 Thalorin (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the argument is that, by even using the categories of "scapegoating vulnerable communities" etc., you are effectively basing the article off the Protect Democracy article. After all, if scholarly work doesn't consistently use those categories, why would they be included in an article summarizing the scholarly work?

As for the text you're asking for, it still could be SYNTH. It would help if you used the "quote=" parameter in the cites to provide a quote where it specifically talked about "authoritarian techniques" or similar.

I'd also suggest starting any discussion on improving the article on the article talk page; the consensus was unanimous that, as the article was previous, it was SYNTH. That was the purpose of this noticeboard. Issues on how to improve the article are better placed on the article talk page. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

So far, only Simon has produced an actual example of SYNTH. You Mr. Redneck have been SYNTHING conclusions to this discussion that no not logically follow, since it began. Not to mention the tedious requests I make this easier for you, but you don't make it easier for me, and the audacious attitude that I have to prove my innocence, but you don't have to produce any actual SYNTH evidence. Thalorin (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a few small notes:

1. @EducatedRedneck has not indicated their preferred pronouns in the "about me" section of their userpage. Unless they have disclosed they prefer "he / him / Mr." elsewhere, you should avoid calling them "Mr. Redneck".
2. You can't choose your interlocutors here. You've repeatedly told EducatedRedneck you would prefer they didn't engage with you. The best way to avoid this would be for you to avoid pages they are editing. Otherwise, provided both of you are following policy, you kind of have to learn to live with each other.
3. If I have demonstrated an example of WP:SYNTH to you, other editors don't need to provide additional novel examples to point out that you are engaging in WP:SYNTH. They may simply refer back to the example I gave. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

But I said that the Cover-up text is gone. Thalorin (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The use of your above paragraph about the 2020 election in an article titled "Authoritarian tactics", or "Authoritarian playbook" or anything of the sort, would breach WP:SYNTH. Baldly put, you describe something and would list it as an authoritarian tactic on the basis that whoever did it is authoritarian and this is what they did. That is woefully inadequate reasoning and inadmissible on Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

It might also save you some time and effort if you read the brief sketch at WP:BADTHINGS. Also, as far as I can see no-one in this discussion's suggested you read WP:RGW, but at the very least its mention of wanting to "Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue" is apposite. Do read the whole, it's helpful for many of us, as are the links in that section's hatnote. NebY (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I can list it because Donald Trump did it and because that was a very authoritarian thing to do. From the Donald Trump page (sources not traveling with me):

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/is-trump-authoritarian-3a7059

So is Donald Trump an authoritarian? Ya, at least sometimes he is. Some people refer to a borderline form of authoritarianism called “competitive authoritarianism.” Competitive authoritarianism means they do authoritarian things when it helps them gain something. I think Donald Trump is at least that kind of authoritarian. I don't need him to be a competitive authoritarian all the time, just sometimes, and then when there are enough reliable sources agreeing with that, I can list those things on Wikipedia. It's not some kind of moral insanity.

“Baldly put, you describe something and would list it as an authoritarian tactic on the basis that whoever did it is authoritarian and this is what they did.” If you hardlined against me in spite of evidence that you are wrong, that would be authoritarian of you. There's also something called an "authoritarian personality," and there are authoritarian teaching methods. They are not evil things, but they are authoritarian things. Also see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian Thalorin (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are squeamish about reading, you have no right being part of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalorin (talk • contribs)

User:Thalorin, can you restate your argument in 500 words or less? The above is very much WP:TLDR. And no, refusing to spend the time to read 6.7 k words when a couple hundred should do does not disqualify anyone from this discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The accusations of WP:OR are mostly horseshit. With maybe a faint glimmer of truth in the case of their being a tipping point around the 1990's from military dictatorships to elective autocracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalorin (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your comments. Also, the accusations have been substantiated, so I'd encourage you to do more than bald contradiction so we can get to the heart of the matter. There really isn't much to do with The accusations... are mostly horseshit other than say "Nuh-uh!" The page made several claims, which were sourced, but used them to imply a connection to an Authoritarian Playbook which the sources themselves did not seem to do. This is WP:SYNTH, a form of WP:OR. If any of the sources DO mention the authoritarian playbook, consider providing a quote to show it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That is absurd! The presence of the words "authoritarian playbook," or any of its synonyms, like "authoritarian tactics," or not, does not disqualify any source on Wikipedia, Mr Redneck. Thalorin (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Quoting directly from WP:SYNTH since your words don't reflect that you read it, If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. Infowars may have some of the hallmarks of the Authoritarian playbook, and you may have a source identifying those hallmarks, but you explicitly cannot then conclude that Infowars uses the authoritarian playbook without a source that does so. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

... it uses the same tactics. The Wikipedia article, Infowars, states that Infowars publishes false stories, that Alex Jones discriminates, that he sexually harasses women, that he advocates conspiracy theories, with sources! But it doesn't "scapegoat vulnerable communities?" That is absurd. Thalorin (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

We require a secondary source to make that connection for us. We can't establish a framework and then say "this counts because it fits parts of that framework" independent of sourcing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia has different standards than you're used to, but if you're to edit here, you must abide by those standards. Wikipedia is not concerned with WP:THETRUTH. Our ONLY job here is to summarize what reliable sources say. Not what we think they mean or imply, only what they say. If you haven't, I strongly suggest reading WP:HERE and WP:SYNTH. I believe it's clear that nobody seems to agree with you, and if you continue to insist on doing things your way, I expect you'll be shown the door. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this why you are here? Thalorin (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

To accurately summarize what reliable sources say? Yes. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I figure you have an issue with the 200 or so sources that were used. Please be more specific, rather than engaging all these editors with vague accusations of WP:SYNTH. Which of all these sources are so incredibly unreliable?

Thalorin (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

That isn't what WP:SYNTH means. Can you confirm you have read and understand WP:SYNTH? EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Ya, I put two things together, and then a new conclusion logically follows. Something new needs to be concluded, which is why WP:SYNTH is on WP:OR. Thalorin (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

And then a new conclusion logically follows is the problem. That's the WP:OR - that's the WP:SYNTH. Do you understand? Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Ya. Thalorin (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked at the article this morning, one thing that concerns me is how much of it is attributed in wikivoice to a single individual working at a single advocacy group. There should be secondary sources to establish notability of concepts and more care to attributing material from advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Although I will note that the prior version advocated by @Thalorin was not an improvement in this regard. It introduced WP:SYNTH quite obviously and was overly verbose for an encyclopedia article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  The current version is a farce, three authoritarian figures looking real smug, and a short text on politicising independent institutions, and spreading disinformation. It's clearly been redacted with a POV bent on suppressing information that shows no sign of the policy violations that those editors are invoked. I don't think EducatedRedneck even understands what WP:OR actually means. These are not my conclusions, these are not just Protect Democracy views, these are widely held views! Thalorin (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Thalorin I have read your preferred version of the page and concur that much of it was WP:SYNTH. In addition I would strongly recommend you develop your skills for writing with brevity. Many parts of that page, much like the collapsed essay above, were significantly over-written. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  A list of Authoritarian playbook SYNTH ideas would really help me out here. Then I can source them or cut them from the article. Also see other comment: “So if I cite a source and it cites other sources, the other sources do not back up its claims unless I link them individually?” Thalorin (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  As I've already stated, Protect Democracy links to multiple sources, I have no problem including them if that solves the matter. Thalorin (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  If you stated it in the 6.7 k monolith above, I suggest restating it briefly here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  If the "Protect Democracy" source is, in fact, many different sources then please update to the correct citations for the information cited. Because, as it stands, this looks very close to WP:PROMO and AFD would possibly be an appropriate venue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  You're PROMO. Thalorin (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would suggest that some WP:CIV would be appropriate here. I doubt anybody familiar with my edit history would see me as carrying water for Trump or Orban. I am, however, concerned with making good encyclopedia pages free from WP:OR and with strong secondary citations. This isn't your blog - it is an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I will give you an example of WP:SYNTH in the collapsed material:

  Initial response to allegation
  Flat denial
  Convince the media to bury the story
  Preemptively distribute false information
  Claim that the "problem" is minimal
  Claim faulty memory
  Claim the accusations are half-truths
  Claim the critic has no proof
  Attack the critic's motive
  Attack the critic's character
  Withhold or tamper with evidence
  Prevent the discovery of evidence
  Destroy or alter the evidence
  Make discovery of evidence difficult
  Create misleading names of individuals and companies to hide funding
  Lie or commit perjury
  Block or delay investigations
  Issue restraining orders
  Claim executive privilege
  Delayed response to allegation
  Deny a restricted definition of wrongdoing (e.g., torture)
  Limited hang out(i.e., confess to minor charges)
  Use biased evidence as a defense
  Claim that the critic's evidence is biased
  Select a biased blue-ribbon commission or "independent" inquiry
  Intimidate participants, witnesses, or whistleblowers
  Bribe or buy out the critic
  Generally intimidate the critic by following him or her, killing pets, etc.
  Blackmail: hire private investigators and threaten to reveal past wrongdoing ("dirt")
  Death threats of the critic or his or her family
  Threaten the critic with loss of job or future employment in the industry
  Transfer the critic to an inferior job or location
  Intimidate the critic with lawsuits or SLAPP suits
  Murder; assassination
  Publicity management
  Bribe the press
  Secretly plant stories in the press
  Retaliate against hostile media
  Threaten the press with loss of access
  Attack the motives of the press
  Place defensive advertisements
  Buy out the news source
  Damage control
  Claim no knowledge of wrongdoing
  Scapegoats: blame an underling for unauthorized action
  Fire the person(s) in charge
  Win court cases
  Hire the best lawyers
  Hire scientists and expert witnesses who will support your story
  Delay with legal maneuvers
  Influence or control the judges
  Reward cover-up participants
  Hush money
  Little or no punishment
  Pardon or commute sentences
  Promote employees as a reward for cover-up
  Re-employ the employee after dust clears

  This entire section is pretty much pure WP:SYNTH. Please note this is an example and not the only example. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  It describes the steps taken in many cover-ups. What comes up multiple times is an attempt at dis-informing individuals, so yes it does belong. Thalorin (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  According to whom? This is the key problem. We are writing an encyclopedia; case studies that aggregate data are rarely going to be appropriate content for this venue. You would need a secondary source that established that this long list of tactics was an example of the authoritarian playbook. And, even then, this is also an example of what I meant by it being over-written. Using a source you could condense this to say (source) referred to the Trump Administration as having executed 58 discrete tactics seen as part of the Authoritarian playbook. To do this, of course, the source needs to be the case study rather than the article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is not how categories work. I can talk about some form of military rocket on a page named “War,” and the word “war” need never appear in the sources, which just describe the rocket. It is implied that a military rocket may be used in the context of war. The authoritarian playbook is a group, like 'existentialism.' Now an author may not identify as an existentialist, but his writing shows key commonalities with other existentialists. Consequently, an author may be referred to as an existentialist posthumously, in an encyclopedic article, because the concept of existentialism exists independently of one author. Same thing with Alex Jones; he need not identify as such. Independently of him, the concept of an authoritarian playbook already exists and refers to practices like those of Alex Jones. Thalorin (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  So here's the thing: in order for us to say "Jean-Paul Sartre was an existentialist," we need a source saying "Jean-Paul Sartre was an existentialist." If we were to use a source saying "Existentialism is a philosophy that discusses the problem of meaning in a world without God. It addresses the question of despair and alienation in the face of the unknowable. It is concerned with the question of human freedom within material conditions," and a second source said "Jean-Paul Sartre was concerned with the question of human freedom within material conditions," then we could not use that source to assert that Sartre was an existentialist. That would be WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Look, there are plenty of sources that state that Alex Jones is an authoritarian. There are plenty of sources that state Maduro is an authoritarian. If one vilifies a minority, I don't need to prove that that is also a tactic. And if they're both authoritarians, an independent source states that those are typical authoritarian tactics. They can be on the page. That's not SYNTH, because it is not OR. Thalorin (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  We're going in circles here. At this point you can either accept that you have engaged in WP:SYNTH and try to avoid it in the future or you can continue engaging in WP:SYNTH editing and it's highly likely an editor will report that conduct as disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  SYNTH requires a new idea actually appearing, what are these new ideas Simon? Thalorin (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Asked and answered. If you do not understand how what you wrote is WP:SYNTH, your options are: 1) Accept that what every other editor has told you is true, 2) Disagree but refrain from editing on that topic, or 3) Disagree and edit on the topic anyway because you believe you're right, and subsequently be blocked. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is not the thread where I talk to you. Please stay in your own thread. Thalorin (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is a public noticeboard. Anyone can participate. Please remain WP:CIVIL. Decreeing where others may edit is not civil. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can talk about some form of military rocket on a page named “War,” and the word “war” need never appear in the sources, which just describe the rocket. This isn't necessarily the case. We as editors don't get to decide that the war article should cover rockets if the sources about warfare don't cover rockets. That's the metric for inclusion. Likewise, we as editors don't get to decide that the authoritarian playbook article should cover Orban, for example, if the sources about the authoritarian playbook don't cover Orban. You might also want to skim WP:NPOVHOW since the weight and inclusion aspects of NPOV intersect heavily with OR and SYNTH. A few people have given different explanations, so I hope one of the explanations makes sense in a way that's intuitive to you. If this stays hostile, there's a risk your account ends up getting blocked for incivility, and I want to avoid that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  But if the sources about warfare do cover rockets and the article mentions a Vulcan rocket, I may link to https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-launch-alliances-new-vulcan-rocket-blasts-off-on-first-space-force-sanctioned-flight/ without the word “war” explicitly having to show up. Thalorin (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  In that case it might warrant a mention of rockets in the article, but there would be no reason to describe Vulcan rockets specifically unless an editor was trying to push their own opinions on what's important. An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject (WP:BALASP). We as editors do not get to decide something is part of the authoritarian playbook just because it seems like it is, or because we can construct our own argument that it surely must be. We let reliable sources come to all of the conclusions, and then we just summarize those conclusions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Me too. Thalorin (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• It's not just the material in the Authoritarian playbook article. This edit to Disinformation attack (edit summary "included Authoritarian playbook") piped "adversarial narrative campaign", "undermining", "discredit electoral monitors", "Foreign manipulation campaigns", "Russian narratives and agendas" and "deceptive practices" (that last one inside a quotation) to Authoritarian playbook, as if each of them, even "deceptive practices", is undertaken according to the great playbook; n Wikipedia is saying that the concept of an Authoritarian Playbook is the proper analytic structure and context for considering all those actions. No sources were added. Such piped links were also added to Voter suppression, Russian web brigades, Propaganda (piping "extensively", "suborned to party and personal ends", "cyber-strategy", "politically motivated rumors and false news stories" and "promotion") and about 10 other articles (other additions - rather more - were to See-also sections). I haven't reverted most of those yet, pending this discussion, or reviewed the 20 redirects to Authoritarian playbook that have been created. NebY (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  At this point it might be wise to ask @Thalorin to voluntarily disclose if they have any personal connection to Protect Democracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I do not! Thalorin (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  It may not have been obvious, but I've created redirects stating that the “authoritarian playbook” is synonymous with authoritarian tactics, authoritarian practices, authoritarian subterfuge, authoritarian programs, authoritarian schemes, authoritarian machinations, authoritarian game plans, authoritarian techniques, authoritarian stratagem, and authoritarian maneuvers. I've also created redirects that end the same way, but with 'autocratic' replacing 'authoritarian.' Thalorin (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  This seems like a dramatic overreach. Authoritarian subterfuge could just as easily go to Secret police, authoritarian programs to Propaganda, and so on. Unless there's evidence that those phrases' use has been dominantly referring to Authoritarian Playbook, those are bad redirects and should go to WP:RfD. Do you have any such evidence? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think those pages are big enough already. The bigger they get, the greater the utility of more pages that are more specific. Thalorin (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is not the point of a redirect. See WP:REDIRECT. The purpose is to allow people to find the thing they are most likely searching for, not to direct them towards things they are less likely intending to see. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  That was nonetheless the point. As I stated above, I'm now concerned about “the authoritarian playbook” being misinterpreted as something like “the authoritarian bible” or “the authoritarian pamphlet.” Thalorin (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  That was nonetheless the point. I don't understand. Are you saying you deliberately made redirects against the purpose of redirects? I also don't understand the misinterpretation comment. I don't think anyone was saying the article should be renamed "authoritarian bible" or the like. If I had to guess, you're saying the article scope is broader than you feel other editors are interpreting it, and is about all authoritarian tactics. That's an argument to make on the article talk page, as that's where things like article scope are changed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, this is about the MOS:EASTEREGG concern. Thalorin (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please elaborate. I can guess on what I think you're saying, but that doesn't seem to help either of us. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

   Done at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Authoritarian tactics. NebY (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

   Done Reverted many, if not all, of the MOS:EGG piped links to Authoritarian playbook such as those in Propaganda ("extensively", "suborned to party and personal ends", "cyber-strategy", "politically motivated rumors and false news stories" and "promotion"). NebY (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Woah woah woah hold on, some of the stuff in that 6,700 word leviathan of a comment caught my eye.

• No WP:OR. No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Far-right politics. It fits this page perfectly. It fits this page perfectly.
• No WP:OR. Text originated from Autocracy. It could use some sources.
• No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Cover-up. It fits this page perfectly.

@Thalorin let's ignore the whole WP:OR dispute for a moment here, because this is more serious. I ask of you to please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. When you copied and and pasted text from other Wikipedia articles to Authoritarian playbook you did not clearly state that was what you were doing in the edit summaries. You must clearly state where you have copied a significant chunk of text from a Wikipedia article and pasted it to another. To not do so violates the rights that other editors reserve under the CC-BY-SA license that their contributions to Wikipedia published under. Do you know if you've done similar copying and pasting with other articles? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Also WP:COPYVIO by extensive very close paraphrasing of https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-authoritarian-playbook/ , now awaiting revdel. Here's a quick sample:

Protect Democreacy:

These lies have two purposes: First, they are political weapons aimed at crippling opponents and shoring up key constituencies through false grievances. And second, they are smokescreens for power grabs and abuses, insulating authoritarians against accountability by sowing doubt and confusion. The goal is not always to sell a lie, but instead to undermine the notion that anything in particular is true.

In Authoritarian playbook:

These lies are weapons intended to handicap political opponents and increase support for authoritarian causes. They are smokescreens that allow authoritarians to hide abuses and gain control. At times, the goal is not to spread any particular myth but to sow doubt and confusion and undermine the idea that any particular report is true.

NebY (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thalorin, can you confirm you have read Wikipedia:Copyrights and the related Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and understand how your editing has been in violation of copyrights, even if it was inadvertent? Can you guarantee you will do your best to make sure your future editing does not violate copyrights? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. WP:OR does tie my hands in regard to how freely I can write this. I do not see how some paraphrasing can constitute plagiarism in this context. I very strongly doubt that Protect Democracy minds the use of its intellectual property in this way. I do not see how it may constitute a financial loss for them. As I said, I referenced the 'copying within Wikipedia' bits in the first edit summaries of the page. Thalorin (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

That's kind of beside the point. Wikipedia's copyright obligations cannot be based on assumptions of how a copyright holder might respond. And, based on your answer, I think I need to reiterate my question from above: Do you have any personal affiliation to Protect Democracy? Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, I see you replied above. Sorry I missed it. Still the copyright concerns stand. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

And just how would that copyright infringement lawsuit claim sound exactly? Thalorin (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Our copyright policies are preventative. If anything ever reached the point of a lawsuit then something would have gone severely wrong. Don't feel too bad. It's possible for experienced editors to inadvertently over-cite. I've done that before myself. In those cases the right reaction is "whoops, ok, let me fix that." Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I figure the prospect of any lawsuit makes people very nervous. The revdel has erased some useful fixes that I would have liked to copy, as well as the history of what each individual editor took issue with. Thalorin (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Such speculation is not relevant to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on copyright violation. I've placed the standard advisory/warning for new editors (i.e. the gentler one) on your talk page. NebY (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about those paragraphs. Thalorin (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Rewriting paragraphs to avoid paraphrasing Protect Democracy's material so closely will still have many of the same problems. Standard advice to editors creating a Wikipedia article is to study multiple reliable sources, then summarise them in your own words. Instead you seem to have copy-edited one source (not itself a WP:RS) paragraph by paragraph and identified works that might be cited to provide evidence for its claims. That meant the article didn't summarise the cited sources and was contrary to WP:SYNTH. Extra copy-editing of that material will still fail Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core policy.

What's more, presenting only Protect Democracy's view of what the authoritarian playbook is or might be is contrary to another core policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and to WP:PROMOTION too. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy of any sort. NebY (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

“That meant the article didn't summarise the cited sources and was contrary to WP:SYNTH.” So if I cite a source and it cites other sources, the other sources do not back up its claims unless I link them individually? Thalorin (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I asked above, but want to make sure you see it. Can you confirm you have read and understand WP:SYNTH? I'm trying to narrow down where the gap in understanding is. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Ya. Thalorin (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, good. Then you understand what it means when it says, If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources.? Because your above question is not about SYNTH at all; if source A says X explicitly, and cites source B for it, and source B says X explicitly, then both A and B are valid citations. (We'd generally use just B; there's no point in multiple citations for the same thing.)

Above, the issue wasn't with citing multiple sources. The issue was that Source A was not a WP:RS, and should not be cited, and sources B, C, and D say X, Y, and "if X and Y then Z" respectively. Source A concludes Z, but is not reliable. You then cited sources B, C, and D for claim Z, which is synth.

Put another way, it'd be like saying, "Jeff Bezos gained $21 B in net worth in 2025. cite. The highest tax bracket is 37% for incomes over $626,000. cite Jeff Bezos owed $7.7 B (37% of $21 B) in taxes in 2025." The cites are both true. Except the problem is, he didn't. He paid less than 1%. cite. This is why we require sources to explicitly state the claim we're using them to support. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to make a leap in understanding in order to create and edit Wikipedia articles. We've tried to explain this to you in various ways, but you keep pushing back and picking at details. I'll try once more by putting it a little differently: a Wikipedia article is not a campaigner's report, an academic paper or a student's essay. It must be more than a series of propositions with supporting evidence. NebY (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

To add to the above, an article entitled 'Authoritarian playbook' shouldn't be written as a general article on 'what authoritarians do'. We already have an article on that: Authoritarianism. Instead, to avoid original research, it should be citing two types of sources only: sources directly and explicitly discussing Protect Democracy's 2022 report, and the report itself. It must not become a repository for general discussion on things that contributors think meet the definition in the report. That is original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Authoritarianism is also 55 pages long.

'Authoritarian playbook' shouldn't be written as a general article on 'what authoritarians do'.

Fair request. It has to at least be a tactic of some kind, with sources recognising that as typically authoritarian.

"It should be citing two types of sources only: sources directly and explicitly discussing Protect Democracy's 2022 report, and the report itself."

No, as I stated, this isn't about Protect Democracy; this is about typical authoritarian techniques. So that request makes no sense. Thalorin (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not making a 'request'. I'm explaining basic Wikipedia policy. Content on 'typical authoritarian techniques' belongs in an article on authoritarianism. Not in an article about a report. If the article isn't about a report, it shouldn't use a title taken from that report, and not in general use elsewhere, and nor should it use the report's 'set of tactics' as its basis. Certainly, a general discussion of authoritarian tactics can cite the report, but it can't use it to define the topic. People have been writing about authoritarian tactics long before the report came out (and no doubt even before the word 'authoritarian' was coined) and a single report doesn't make this a new topic. Wikipedia doesn't fork general topics every time someone writes a new article on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want an article on authoritarian tactics, perhaps make an article at Authoritarian tactics (that isn't a redirect). The way the article was written, it appeared to be precisely about the Protect Democracy's conception of it, mirroring its structure and content. A discussion of broader tactics by authoritarians would, presumably, reflect the broader mainstream view. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Re it appeared to be precisely about the Protect Democracy's conception of it: Indeed, and that conception doesn't have clear notability. NebY (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I know that. Thalorin (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not true; if you look at the edit summaries at the origin of the page, I clearly state where the texts are from! Thalorin (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, it's good that you're trying, but you should be clearer than you are. "included text based, in part, on Wikipedia: Viktor Orbán" is likely fine, but "included text based on text from Infowars" and "included text based on text from Fake news website" is not nearly clear enough for the attribution purposes of unambiguously letting people know they have to go to other page histories history to find attribution. There is a good templated message at WP:PATT that you can use in the edit summary. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Will do that. Thalorin (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Much of Wikipedia's article content on musical tuning is WP:OR, as first noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular temperament in March. We are currently cleaning up Varieties of equal temperament and Equal temperament; I recently condensed a section of Great Highland bagpipe that is related to that instrument's unusual tuning system and also the same information in Concert pitch. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this, LaundryPizza03. The bulk of these articles are from Wikipedia's early days, and they were written by enthusiastic and knowledgeable editors who were sharing their passion with the project. On close inspection in 2026, these articles consistently violate Wikipedia policies. They are overrun with unsupported statements. It's quite common for the only cited sources to be other wikis and websites.

Template:Musical_tuning is a cabinet of curiosities for those who are interested. Pretty much any link in that template will take you to an article with the flaws we've described. I have been trying to build some momentum towards cleaning these up, while doing what I can to bring these articles up to snuff. So, I'm very grateful for LaundryPizza03's attention to the issue.

Examples of some of the pages I've overhauled:

• Bohlen–Pierce scale used to look like this
• Just intonation used to look like this.
• Wendy Carlos scales originally were spread over 5 different articles before they were consolidated and cleaned up: alpha, beta, delta, gamma, and harmonic.

Hallmarks of these articles are excessive jargon, original charts with no sources, and user-generated audio files with no sources. The problem of these audio files is currently being discussed elsewhere. The basic notion that our target audience is the general reader was ignored in these articles. On their talk pages, it's quite common for other editors, some of whom are professional musicians, to be confused by the articles.

Anyone interested in tidying up original research will find Wikipedia's tuning articles a target-rich environment. All help would be appreciated! Trumpetrep (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Richter tuning could also use some loving care. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

What about Richter scale? EEng 12:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Richter Scale: Seismologist Charles Richter (1935)

Richter Tuning: Musical instrument maker Joseph Richter (1825)

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Amen. It cites two sources: learntheharmonica.com & theharmonicacompany.com (which is defunct). There's not even an attempt to make this article comply with Wikipedia policy. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be easier to just delete the entire article and start over, since it consists solely of opaque jargon and OR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, in search, I find nothing but Wikipedia mirrors and sources similar to Trumpetrep's, which are newer than this article and are possibly circular references. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Book sources exist, but I'm not convinced it should be covered separately from Harmonica. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richter tuning. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

What happened to the audio files and the tables at Bohlen-Pierce scale? The version you have linked seems to omit a lot of information. jp×g🗯️ 21:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I note that a lot of this was deleted for being "unsourced" or "user-generated", but WP:CALC explicitly provides that sourcing is not required for arithmetic (multiplication, subtraction, addition, division). That is to say, if we establish from a source that the ratio between the florpus and the glabbo of a frock is 4.00, and we establish that some famous frock has a florpus of 9, we do not need a citation to say that its glabbo is 36. Such a requirement would be pointlessly bureaucratic and indeed make it impossible to write any substantial articles. jp×g🗯️ 21:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, we have to cut it off somewhere, since there are infinitely many rational numbers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS policy can be used to cut the calculations themselves, plus any analysis is likely to be OR or SYNTH. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed what I believe are major issues with the Elite overproduction article. I don't have a lot of experience as a Wikipedia editor, so I could use some help with this.

First, much of the article appears to be the product of original research, mostly by User:Nerd271. Specifically, there seems to be lots of WP:SYNTH going on. For example, this paragraph in the United States section:

Similarly, the election of Zohran Mamdani, a self-styled "democratic socialist" in 2025 as Mayor of New York City, a hub of global finance and capitalism, was made possible by a large number of upper middle-class residents who were ostensibly doing well financially, but who complained of the financial pressure of living in a city they have gentrified for decades.[52] Political commentator David Brooks identified this "cognitive dissonance" as "the contradiction of the educated class. Virtue is defined by being anti-elite. But today's educated class constitutes the elite, or at least a big part of it."[46]

The first link does not appear to talk about elite overproduction at all. The second link is an Opinion article by David Brooks of the New York Times that mentions the concept. WP:NEWSOPED states that opinions in such pieces may be attributed to an author but not cited as fact. The article does label this as Brooks's opinion but the opinion is used to support an argument made by article itself.

An even clearer example is the article's entire China section, which cites several high quality sources. However, none of the sources talk about the concept of elite overproduction at all. The Wikipedia article is the one making the case. I could not find any sources in the Canada section that mentioned the concept either.

I don't seem to be the only one who has noticed this issue. This revision was an editor's attempt to clean up a sentence in the article that stated as a matter of fact that Australian universities have grown more left-wing and conformist. The source for that statement is an article in Spectator Australia, which appears to be more of a discussion than a reliable source. The Spectator is also listed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources with a note that the magazine consists primarily of opinion sources, and this article appears to be one. However, Nerd271 reversed the change, justifying it by calling the previous edit "ideological".

Yesterday, another editor made several changes removing not-reliably-sourced statements about Harvard students and about Donald Trump and the Republican Party. I think this is a step in the right direction, but I am concerned that Nerd271 will reverse the changes once they are noticed, as they are a frequent editor of the page and they have already reversed an edit to that section without rewriting the wording to be more encyclopedic or reliably sourcing the claim.

I am also concerned because I myself tried to bring attention to the articles issues by tagging it with a Template:Original Research notice, which was quickly reversed by Nerd271 with the odd summary "Redundant". I tried to work it out in the talk page but Nerd271 did not address my comments and dismissed them with "I read your comment here. I disagree. That's it.", along with some comments about pleasing people that I'm not sure are relevant to the issue.

I've been dealing with a medical issue, which is why it's taken me a couple months to raise the original research issue of the article here. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help out. PacificPhoebe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a good edit that fixed a quite SYNTHous passage. I am in support of fixing the article to be more in line with paggies, although (very unscientific comment) I do note that the article is pretty well-written, even if it may not be fully policy-compliant, so it would be sad if it just got stubbed down. jp×g🗯️ 20:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that edit was summarily reverted by @Nerd271 without reason. @Nerd271 now seems to be engaged in an edit war over the article with @AllHaleHannah. I also think there's also an issue of Wikipedia:Ownership of content at stake now. This article could really use some attention by another senior editor. @Qcne do you know anyone who could help? PacificPhoebe (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for bringing this up— it’s been bonkers. I think a senior editor review would be quite helpful. AllHaleHannah (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed this dicussion as well, but I had posted over at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Elite_overproduction about it. jps (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist but haven't been able to do much with it. Thank you for your work highlighting this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok so I'm looking at the first ten refs in the article right now and it seems like every single one of them are either about Peter Turchin or

by Turchin. I'm half-tempted to propose merging the article. Will look at more refs before deciding. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The first article that wasn't either by Turchin or about Turchin I found failed verification. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this seems a correct approach. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elite_overproduction. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Replying here just to add further assessment of the overall qualities of the article and situation: the article seems to cover an essentially fringe theory of history and institutions that has attracted a decent number of academic citations and mentions in reliable sources. Perhaps worth noting that the reliably sourced coverage of the theory seems mainly to consist of book reviews, opinion pieces, and author interviews—the sort of stuff that might justify moving this material into a section of the Peter Turchin article. The lack of balance, the overwhelming amount of tendentious synthesis and original research (all especially evident in that "by country" section). The evidence of ownership and edit war behavior is more troubling as @Nerd271 appears to be resisting good faith attempts to bring the content into compliance with content policies and guidelines. Aaron (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Lord Petrus Steele (talk · contribs) recently modified the page A Girl Like Me (Rihanna album) citing WP:EXPLICITGENRE. To avoid many quotes, the link is this one . Summarized it goes from "pop/reggae" to "pop/dancehall/R&B". Reggae is equally questionable, it appears to have been added in 2009. The key review is Rolling Stone, who said: Like her filler-packed debut album, this similar but superior follow-up doesn't deliver anything else as ingenious as its lead single: Lightweight dancehall and R&B; jams lack the single's ear-bending boldness. In my view, this review doesn't characterizes the album as "dancehall and R&B", and describing it as "Lightweight" implies it softly sound like it, more like an influence, instead of the main genre. I'm opening this thread to evaluate if there is an incorrect interpretation from any side. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that these descriptors shouldn't be stated as plain facts in the lead. I didn't see in the body of the article that there are multiple sources making an established common claim about the genre. A middle-ground may be to keep the Rolling Stone as attributed in the body. Besides, that review seems to actually be contrasting Rihanna's lead single with other lightweight dancehall and R&B jams (the article does not have a semicolon between "R&B" and "jams") Swirlymarigold (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

In three recent edits to the President of China article, I added edits that state that, although China's domestic constitutional law does not consider the president of China to be China's head of state, international diplomatic custom does (edit 1, edit 2, edit 3). These later edits were reverted on account of being original research. I obviously disagree (and reverted it back) for that reason, but I do want to get some clarity about this beyond just "my word versus the reverter's word". Glide08 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Which source states that "international law views the president as China's singular head of state ... because international diplomatic custom defines the role of a head of state purely on the basis of representing the state in diplomatic relations"? NebY (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• "international law views the president as China's singular head of state" - the UN's list of heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers, which puts the Chinese president under "head of state".
• "because international diplomatic custom defines the role of a head of state purely on the basis of representing the state in diplomatic relations" - Oppenheim's International Law: Volume 1 Peace (9th Edition), §§ 445-446.

Glide08 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's WP:SYNTH: "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources.". Also, the list from the UN's Protocol and Liaison Services doesn't have the force of law or make any statement about international law's view of China's officials, international diplomatic custom is not international law, and Oppenheim writes of "within and without its borders, in the totality of its relations", not "purely on the basis of representing the state in diplomatic relations" - errors which would have been avoided either by using a source which explicitly stated that ""international law views the president as China's singular head of state" and why, or by not attempting to reach your own conclusion and argue it in breach of Wikipedia:No original research. NebY (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Glide08 (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It wouldn't be OR if you were just stating that the UN lists him as such- but I think that would be content for the body of the article Swirlymarigold (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Jet Lag: The Game 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. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)