Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Weaponization of antisemitism

There's a dispute at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism over whether the "particularly in left-wing anti-Zionist discourses" in the lead's The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized as antisemitic or rooted in antisemitic tropes, and as a rhetorical device employed across the political spectrum to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, particularly in left-wing anti-Zionist discourse. is supported or is original research. Pinging @IOHANNVSVERVS. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we could safely resolve this by saying "particularly in anti-Zionist discourse" and omitting "left-wing" altogether. That is clearly more prevalent in all the sources and would hardly be controversial at all. Since anti-Zionism is usually associated with the left, then that covers it anyway.

I have previously pointed out that "left-wing" can be a word to watch, as it's rarely a term used by subjects to describe themselves (though that varies), but I take the point that most critics of the subject focus on the left in this context. That's why Zanahary and I had previously agreed on the current wording, which I think was acceptable at the time (and probably still is).

Of course, bias is also a factor—some of these critics might be on the political right and attacking their opponents, as it were—so there's also attribution as an option. I suspect this will be one of those situations that could go either way, since it's true (trivially or otherwise) that most critics are talking about incidents on the left, even though most of them don't explicitly say words to the effect of "this is more a problem of the left than the right". Lewisguile (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources and quotes raised the discussion:

Here's a non-exhaustive selection of quotes I can conveniently access:

From The Peculiar Appeal of the "Jewish Question": The Case of Left Antisemitism by Lars Rensmann: Judith Butler and some (post-)Marxist fellow travelers do not recognize current antisemitism... but only detect 'the charge of antisemitism' with its allegedly 'chilling effects' on debates, as they charge those who raise it with bad faith and argue that they ought to be combatted politically."

From Antisemitism and the Left: Confronting an Invisible Racism by Sina Arnold and Blair Taylor: "Let us now turn to how the contemporary U.S. left addresses antisemitism ... we identify three common responses to attempts to discuss antisemitism on the left: denying, downplaying, and derailing ... Generally, such derailments redirect to Israel; indeed, this dynamic has been described by antisemitism scholar David Hirsh as “The Livingstone Formulation” (2016). As a result, antisemitism can never be addressed by the left as a social phenomenon on its own, but only in relation to Israel. ... This political context has created a “boy who cried wolf” situation, where many left activists instinctively distrust allegations of antisemitism or see them only as politically motivated smears. For many on the left, antisemitism has become an almost inherently right-wing issue used to weaken the left. ...

From From Occupation to Occupy: Antisemitism and the Contemporary American Left by Sina Arnold (tr. Jacob Blumenfeld): Whether hurled from inside or outside the Left, activists almost automatically reject any kind of accusation of antisemitism. ... It is characterized by two aspects: the automatic rejection of charges of antisemitism (as opposed to a rationally justified rejection that carefully argues why certain accusations may not be true) and the assumption that those who make them do so for purely strategic reasons, without concern for the truth. ... Instead of talking about antisemitism, activists almost exclusively talk about accusations of antisemitism and the “abuse” of antisemitism.

From Demonization Blueprints: Soviet Conspiracist Antizionism in Contemporary Left-Wing Discourse by Izabella Tabarovsky: It is a style of antizionism that was formulated and infused into the global hard-left discourse by the USSR through a massive inter-national propaganda campaign, which it ran between 1967 and approximately 1988. ... It claimed that Zionists ... complained about antisemitism in order to smear the left. ... The adoption of these troped by the left began in the 1970s.
From Contemporary Left Antisemitism by David Hirsh: The Livingstone Formulation is in fact a specific instance of a wider phenomenon. Preferring to define opponents as not belonging rather than seeking to win them over is an increasingly mainstream characteristic of left-wing culture. Opponents are constructed as being outside of the community of the good or the progressive. ... Hostility to Israel is becoming more and more a marker of belonging on the contemporary left. The Livingstone Formulation clears the way for this kind of hostility, and it inoculates the progressive movement: not against antisemitism itself, but against having to take the issue of antisemitism seriously.

From John Byford's chapter "Conspiracy Theories" in Key Concepts in the Study of Antisemitism: In the UK too, it has become commonplace for anyone on the Left called to book for an antisemitic remark to claim victimhood of “the Lobby’s” disingenuous smear campaign.

From Rifat N. Bali's chapter "The Banalization of Hate: Antisemitism in Contemporary Turkey" in Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives: What is more, for many of the leftist/liberal intellectuals, the Holocaust may have been a tragedy, but it was one that does not concern Turkey. ... In the end, this same group believes that the state of Israel exploits the charge of antisemitism by immediately labeling all critics and criticisms directed toward it as antisemitic, and by using the Holocaust as a “moral shield” against honest criticism. As a result, these groups’ sensitivity toward the phenomenon
of antisemitism tends to be quite low.

From Michael Shainkman's introduction to Antisemitism Today and Tomorrow: In fact, accusations of antisemitism directed at left-wing politicians or intellectuals are routinely met with the counteraccusation that the claim is made in bad faith in order to silence criticism of Israel.

Leading to this exchange:

IOHANNVSVERVS: None of these sources actually state the conclusion that this is something particularly prominent on the left. What you've provided proves nothing as there is plenty of content about the right doing the same thing. This would be a textbook case of original research if we were to state "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".

Zanahary: What? All of these sources describe a particular left-wing tendency to regard claims of antisemitism as weaponized to silence criticism of Israel or to smear the left.

IOHANNVSVERVS: I'm sorry but what do you not understand about it being original research if we were to state "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This is very basic policy Zanahary.
The sources you provide definintely show that this phenomonon happens on the left, but we also know that it happens on the right too. So if the sources don't say that it is something unique or particularly prominent on the left, then it is textbook original research for us to reach that conclusion.

Zanahary: I think you'd better take this to the original research noticeboard if you don't think these sources support that summary.

IOHANNVSVERVS: You know what, I think I will.

꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

First, this is clearly NOT WP:OR. The sources explicitly support the statement made. What may be being argued is whether its inclusion in the lead is WP:UNDUE. @IOHANNVSVERVS I'd like to hear you weigh in on this. There's a whole section in the article about the political left, but I don't see (at first glance) one for the political right. Can you point out where in the article it discusses, in depth, the political right? Given the relative size of the "Political Left" section, it does seem to warrant a summary in the lead. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck there is a shorter section discussing the European far-right ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I am more concerned about potential undue weight. A lot of these sources are from relatively fringe authors and institutions. Setting that aside in this discussion about original research, none of the sources identified speak to the weaponization being "rooted in antisemitic tropes." Dauntbares (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it clearly stating a conclusion not explicitly made by any of the sources?

And see Weaponization of antisemitism#Charges of weaponization by the far-right. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS What conclusion is it stating that you think is unsupported? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The bit about this occuring "particularly in left-wing anti-Zionist discourse".

Yes there are many sources to support that this is something done by the left, but there are a lot of sources that say this is something done by the right too, and no sources make the conclusion that this happens more or less often in the left than in the right. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

There are way more sources examining it as a left-wing phenomenon. It’s just an accurate summary of a major aspect of the article content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

But there have been concerns expressed by myself, by Dauntbares, and by at least two other users in the past few days that there is certain content being "significantly overrepresented in this article already",[1] and "vastly overrepresented in this page".[2]

Now imagine an article about antisemitism. Most of the sources in that article are about antisemitism in the United States. It would be textbook original research to state based on this that antisemitism occurs "particularly in the United States" if none of the sources themselves state this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims about overrepresentation don’t count for much, especially when the sources are academic books and journal articles by subject-matter experts. But that is irrelevant to the original research dispute at hand here, anyways.

I think we each understand the other’s position as to whether this lead prose is or is not in violation of the original research policy. The point of posting on this notice board is to solicit wider comment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this analogy and whether or not it applies here, @EducatedRedneck. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think I may have keyed onto the problem here. Is it the word "particularly" that you object to? The sources provided all very clearly identify and specify usage by the left, so I'm guessing it's the implication that it's something especially prominent among the left as opposed to center or right which you think is WP:SYNTH. If that's the case, I can see the WP:OR objection to the word "particularly". @Zanahary What would you think of rephrasing the passage to something like, ...delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, and has been repeatedly observed in left-wing anti-Zionist discourse. I feel that saying "repeatedly" accurately represents the distribution of sources on the matter, and falls within the aegis of summarizing the preponderance of sources. Would that work with either of you? EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

That would resolve the OR I am concerned about. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Your response @Zanahary? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The statement that charges of weaponization come primarily from left-wing anti-Zionist sources might be trivially true because (1) there are many more left-wing anti-Zionists than right-wing anti-Zionists, and (2) right-wing anti-Zionists are often blatantly antisemitic and don’t seem to care about being accused of antisemitism (or racism or misogeny). (Today’s NY Times reported that Trump’s MAGA movement has been sharply split over Israel, with many of the rightists openly antisemitic.) Left-wing opponents of Zionism, on the other hand, generally find the charge of antisemitism to be both false and insulting, and so speak of “weaponization”. Perhaps that’s the reason why it’s easy to find sources that attack left-wing anti-Zionists’ use of weaponization, but much harder to find a source that says that they’re talking particularly about the left wing. The phrase in dispute is not only WP:OR, but also WP:UNDUE (especially for the lead), and doesn’t belong in the article. NightHeron (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused by your conclusion. You state above that the passage is trivially true, which implies it's a practical certainty. Then you claim the passage is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, implying that none of the sources don't say this trivially true thing, and that something for which it is easy to find sources that attack left-wing anti-Zionists’ use of weaponization the statement is note in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources? I'm honestly confused here, as the the last sentence of your post seems to conclude the complete opposite of the rest of it. I must've misunderstood something. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry I was unclear. Let me back up and try again. The sources are basically pro-Israeli writers who want to refute the accusation that Zionists have been weaponizing antisemitism to use against anyone who opposes Israeli policies. The people who accuse the Zionists of weaponizing are anti-Zionists who are also strongly opposed to antisemitism and hence angry about their anti-Zionism being called antisemitism. They are likely to be people who are politically on the left or center-left and who support the Palestinian cause. None of this is surprising or worthy of note – that’s what I meant by “trivially true”. However, the wording of the quote in dispute is very problematic. The phrase “particularly in…left-wing discourse” is generally read as undermining credibility. It suggests that the common occurrence of the weaponization charge “in left-wing discourse” is a notable fact that casts some doubt on the validity of that charge. Thus, the quote takes a non-notable fact that none of the sources bother to mention (hence WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR) and presents it in wikivoice as if it lends support to the pro-Zionist POV (hence also violating WP:NPOV). NightHeron (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts on EducatedRedneck's proposed wording of: "to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, and has been repeatedly observed in left-wing anti-Zionist discourse."? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. Sort of a subtle combination of WP:SYNTH (from implying lack of validity not stated) and WP:NPOV from source cherry-picking. I could see the synth concern (per above), and don't know enough about the subject to have any idea about NPOV. Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate it! I also would like to hear, per IOHANNVSVERVS, if my proposed reword addresses these concerns. If not, I'd welcome further thoughts on how to fix it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

No comment on that from me. Thanks for asking. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you breaking it down. I've been glancing at the race card page to see how a similar issue is handled there. The equivalent sentence is:

"Critics of the term argue that it has been utilized to silence public discourse around racial disparities and undermine anti-racist initiatives."

I imagine the term pops up more in right-wing discourse, and I think the editors maintain neutrality in the lede by not characterizing where the accusations generally arise. Dauntbares (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

My only reservation about ER’s proposed wording is that the term left-wing (like the word socialist) generally has a negative connotation in the U.S. (but not necessarily in other countries). The result of a debate about whether or not to use that word in Ilhan Omar’s BLP was that the word “left” does not appear in the lead or infobox of that article. Per WP:NPOV it’s best to be very careful about using “left-wing” in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This makes no sense. If sources refer to the left, Wikipedia doesn’t have to censor itself in summarizing those sources because some people don’t like the left. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the distinction between wikivoice and an attributed quotation from a source. We can describe the strong POV of an RS with proper attribution, but it would violate WP:NPOV to give the POV in wikivoice. If the source contains loaded terminology having negative connotations, we can include it in quotations from the source, but not in what we write in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This is getting off the topic of original research. @NightHeron, we could use more editors participating at the weaponization article talk page discussions. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the phrase and carried my explanation of reasons for removal over to the talk-page. I should have done that earlier; you're right that it doesn't belong on WP:NORN. NightHeron (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm more swayed by the dueness and NPOV arguments. Which leads me back to removing "left-wing and" from the sentence. Lewisguile (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hebrew Roots

Largely unsourced or very poorly sourced content gets reinstated. See [3]. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Marincyclist self-reverted; I think we're good here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I got confused and quickly reverted my mistake. Marincyclist (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

And reinstated a few days later by an entirely new account. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources used for home address

I am doing the GA review for Adélaïde Ducluzeau. The article contains the statement "In the early 1830s, she lived at 18 rue Saint-Benoît, moving to 16 rue Jacob around 1833. A "Mlle Ducluzeau" living at nearby 8 ter rue Furstemberg, is likely her daughter", which I requested a quote verifying. The nominator (@CounterpointStitch) has replied:

"I did wonder if this is straying into OR/PRIMARY as no secondary sources state this explicitly. I added the line as she has the same address as Ducluzeau's daughter on her wedding certificate at around the same time - and has the same unusual surname (though spelled slightly differently). Is there a WP compliant way of saying this?"

Is there any way this can be used to verify her daughter was still living at the same address she had been at her wedding? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. Even if you cite the marriage certificate (which is iffy; we don't like citing legal documents like that) it would still be WP:SYNTH. Unless a reliable source says, "Her daughter was living at nearby 8 ter rue Furstemberg" or the like, we would be interpreting the data and reporting our conclusions , which is very much WP:OR. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Yahweh

At Talk:Yahweh#Requested move 8 January 2026 some editors claim that Yahweh would be the modern name of the God of Judaism and of the God of Christianity. That's WP:OR at best. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Is "Yahweh" the modern name of the god of Jehovah's Witnesses? Is "Yahweh" the modern name of the god of Rastafarians? What god do modern Samaritans believe in?

This discussion started after somebody wanted to split the page Yahweh between the current believers in the god and the ancient believers in the god. Guz13 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The claim is at best unsourced, at worst it's (Personal attack removed). WP:CITE WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Its not OR.See Brittanica. Tiamut (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Fails WP:V. See also Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 201#What is the standard (not ideal) to which DYK should hold itself?.

Hint: "Israelites" does not mean "modern Jews". See Shaye J. D. Cohen's free course at BAS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible. Look, I get that the Tetragramaton is the more faithful representation of the divine name, but there is lots of scholarship transliterating it as Yahweh too. Not that interested in this topic though, and it seems you are very dedicated to it, so am happy to leave it alone. My proposal was an attempt to mediate, not impose anything. Tiamut (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yup, mainly Bible scholars, apologists, and fringe sects use "Yahweh". Most Christians who want to mention God's name say "Jehovah", which is a different word. While Jews say "Ha-Shem".

This is disingenuous as Hashem means "the Name", and specifically refers to this name. Ogress 01:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

E.g., an evangelical scholar: Rhodes, Ron (1997). The Complete Book of Bible Answers: Answering the Tough Questions. Harvest House Publishers. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-56865-661-8. Retrieved 8 January 2026.

See also The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal. Virginia Allan Detloff Library of the C.G. Jung Institute. 1988. p. 69. Retrieved 8 January 2026. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)a

As a side note, HaShem means "the name" but that usage is more Orthodox. Jews may use the names Adonai, Eternal One, G-d, The Lord, Shaddai, etc., see Names of God in Judaism. When the actual Tetragrammaton is used, it is more commonly YHWH. Andre🚐 22:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait a second. Maybe it's true that Bible scholars, apologists, and "fringe" sects use "Yahweh," but it's also true that the name routinely comes up in thousands ordinary Bible studies all over the world—in which students are told that this is the name of their God. Given that, it is simply the case that it is sometimes used by ordinary believers. Hence the suggestion that it somehow "belongs" only to a speculative ancient polytheistic sect, long gone, is simply and obviously false. No one thinks so—no responsible Bible secular scholar would claim that. Larry Sanger (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

First, the Ancient polytheistic god had a name. That name was probably Yahweh.

Second, the traditional Christian term is Jehovah, Christians who use Yahweh are the new kids on the block. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"Jehovah" is not a separate term; according to biblical scholars, "Jehovah" is an alternate reading of "Yahweh" formed by putting the vowel marks for Adonai on the letters of the Tetragrammaton. It's the same name. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Jehovah and Yahweh are different articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

But it's still the same name because both are written with the same four Hebrew letters: יהוה. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

They're different articles not because they are different names, they're different articles because the alternate reading "Jehovah" is independently notable. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

These sources argue that Yahweh/Jehovah is not a name at all. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That isn't what either of those two cited sources are saying. Woodward and Armstrong are discussing the meaning of "I am who I am" from Exodus 3 (specifically arguing that the phrase is meant as a refusal of Moses' previous question) in contrast/relation to the idea of "I am who I am" as a etymology/folk etymology for the name "Yahweh", but neither author goes so far as to argue or conclude that "Yahweh is not a name at all". — Jamie Eilat (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=%22god+has+no+name%22 . You will find many sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not original research at all to say that "Yahweh" is one of the modern names f the God of Christians and Jews—considering the stunning assortment of sources of all sorts showing that "Yahweh" (and other transliterations of יהוה‎) are used by Christians and Jews in modern contexts. This much is not arguable; it's simple fact. Larry Sanger (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

though the vocalization Jehovah continues to have wide usage, especially in Christian traditions. In modernity, Christianity is the only Abrahamic religion in which the Tetragrammaton is freely and openly pronounced.

— Tetragrammaton

In 2008, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote to the presidents of all conferences of bishops at the behest of Pope Benedict XVI, stating that the use of the name Yahweh was to be dropped from Catholic Bibles in liturgical use, as well as from songs and prayers, since pronunciation of this name violates long-standing Jewish and Christian tradition.

— Jerusalem Bible

I have WP:CITED 7 WP:RS. The other side seeks to prevail through ipse dixit. The editors I have opposed at Talk:Yahwism and Talk:Yahweh are very vehement, but they never seem to be able to find any sources for the claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm busy at the moment, but I would be more than willing to look for and provide sources. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I tried to find sources. The results were not promising. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point out that tgeorgescu has made almost one-third of all edits to Talk:Yahweh. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Not surprised, I have communicated on there and have felt WP:EXHAUST. Guz13 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Because there is a problem (an unverifiable claim). Or like WP:FRINGE POV-pushing (it concerns previous discussions). Some people pretend that lack of WP:V and POV-pushing should not get answered. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

How is it POV-pushing to add a disambiguator to an article title? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not say that. It concerns past discussions. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Struck. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I support Guz's observation of WP:EXHAUST. The discussion dynamics here are characterized by Tudor contributing a disproportionate volume of replies, often pivoting to demands for sources on tangential points while dismissing the core policy argument for disambiguation (WP:DAB). This pattern makes constructive, good-faith consensus-building exceptionally difficult. The move request is a straightforward application of WP:DAB to a term with two well-documented major meanings, and I agree with Larry that the use of Yahweh to refer to the current Jewish/Christian God falls under WP:SKYBLUE. The opposition's reliance on assertions about modern religious practice and the sheer volume of their responses should not obscure this simple policy rationale. Félix An (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If I were the only one saying that, I would give up. But I'm not, see [4]. You make claims based upon sheer ipse dixit.

our objective is to introduce to the contemporary church what is the most likely pronunciation of the divine name YHWH in the Hebrew Bible. We did not render the majority of occurrences of YHWH as Yahweh because our goal is not only to be accurate but to use an English style that is most familiar to people. Since most Christians today probably do not commonly speak of “Yahweh,” but rather of “the Lord,” we felt it would be insensitive to use Yahweh for YHWH in every case and would make the Bible seem too uncomfortable for most people.

— E. Ray Clendenen

What does the quote say? Promoting Yahweh as the name of God is an agenda. And it is by and large not shared by most Christians.

It will tell you what is the WP:OR part: you use a priori reasoning for something that requires knowledge of empirical fact.

I'm not a misoneist, so I'm not opposed to Christians calling their God Yahweh. I just doubt that they are already there, as a matter of empirical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I have to say it very much is not a WP:SKYBLUE under Christians, as many denominations including multiple large ones where the name Yahweh is never invoked. While Yahweh is one of the names used for God within christianity, to claim it is the name of God in all of christianity (as statements here and on the article talk page claim) is incorrect on multiple fronts (theologically, sociologically, and linguistically). To show it is correct people should start providing sources instead of making claims of global prominence sans sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean, if you're Arab Christian, God is linguistically and liturgically Allah. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine

The artcle Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine has generated talk page debate relating to original research that would benefit from experienced editors' eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on Applying WP:OR to Site Classifications

There is a content dispute about whether a source’s passing comment on a specific article, describing it as “completely illegible” and “obviously AI-generated,” can be summarized as a site-wide “fake news” classification, even though the source did not explicitly label the site as such. I have a COI with the website and am not editing the article; I am only requesting guidance. I would appreciate advice from experienced editors on how original research normally applies in cases like this.

Source article: https://www.404media.co/why-404-media-needs-your-email-address/#:~:text=completely%20illegible%2C%20obviously%20AI%2Dgenerated%20article

Talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fake_news_websites#c-N2225Lba2-20260125184400-MjolnirPants-20260124024200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2225Lba2 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Dead Internet Theory has an RfC

Dead Internet Theory 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. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)