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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Southeast Asian BLP articles have lots and lots of unsourced "model" claims

Hello, I was encouraged by Athanelar to cross-post here. In short, Southeast Asian editors seem to believe that "model" refers to anyone who endorses a product, whether it's chewing gum or instant noodles. We've discussed it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Southeast_Asian_BLP_articles_have_lots_and_lots_of_unsourced_%22model%22_claims
Due to the sheer number of Thai and Filipino BLP pages spreading these unsourced modelling claims, we'd love to get more help in cleaning up. Thank you. Handsome Ellis (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this is an undocumented WP:ENGVAR regarding def. 2 of wikt:model. Still, any claims of model-ship under this definition will require a reliable source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the term "model" is sometimes used for celebs in SEAsia who endorse products/work as brand ambassadors, in addition to the narrower meaning of the word. The term may be used by local RS in the English language as a label without clarification, so good luck sorting that out. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The other editor and I (both of whom have Asian background, FWIW) both decided to remove "model" from BLP pages that only list product endorsements. Although I recognise the Southeast Asian colloquial meaning of the term, I think it's better to remove it because ALL celebrities have product endorsements at some point. Handsome Ellis (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, all celebs have product endorsements at some point, including many furry four-legged ones. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Merging WP:FTN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:NORN

Just so everyone knows, some people are discussing this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Merging WP:FTN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:NORN. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

"Allow Me" statue in Washington DC: would submitting a photograph I took recently of a statue location that "needs citation" be prohibited as "original research"?

The location of the copy of the statue "Allow Me" that is on Embassy Row in Washington, DC is listed in the "Allow Me" article as "needs citation." I recently went to the location and photographed the statue. I have seen that it is where the article says it is. Should I upload a photo? Is that considered "original research" and therefore prohibited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-32715-64 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Uploading a photo is not original research, see WP:IMAGEOR. It would be unusual to directly cite text to a particular image, however the image provides benefit in its own right. We don't seem to have a photo of that cast. CMD (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Better still if the exif data for the photo includes the location info. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Io (moon)

There seems to be an out-of-control debate at Talk:Io (moon) about which image to use for the infobox, and with regards to calibration of images by Wikipedia users. The crux of the dispute is that there is no spacecraft image of the moon that shows the full disk and is accurate to natural color: images by Galileo tend to be too yellow and use the near-infrared (I band) instead of the red band, while images by Juno tend to be half-illuminated and the original images are also too brown. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be an WP:OR issue, just editors trying to find a consensus. First, it's not in article space (which is where OR applies) and second, it doesn't seem to be asserting any facts, just deciding what rendition to use. Am I missing something? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Some editors are trying to calibrate the images by themselves. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the revision that brought me here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to refine images. See WP:PIFU. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Dispute about conversion of tesla to gauss

We appear to be in an edit war about a proposed change to the Gauss_(unit) page. The conversion from gauss to tesla depends on the relation between the biot and the ampere. Until the SI units were changed in 2019, the relationship was exactly a factor of 10. Now the ampere is defined differently, and that relationship is no longer guaranteed.

My claim is that what used to be true is no longer true, so there is nothing that can be qualified as research, new or other.

After there appeared to be a consensus that what I wrote was not original research, I changed a related page, but my changes were reverted. Before proceeding further, I would like someone here to weigh in from this noticeboard. Mgolden (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it's WP:OR, or at least premature. You have sources which present the base units as having a changed definition, and sources stating that the Tesla and Gauss are related according to a certain formula, but no source linking those two concepts. That makes it WP:SYNTH. I also note your sources are all NIST, which is the national institute for only one nation. Perhaps the relationship holds elsewhere, or the change is only for certain applications; that's not something we could know just from the presented sources. That's why we want RS that specifically state whatever conclusion we're making. I expect there will be publications in the future, if there aren't any now, that address this (e.g., in the "background" section of a paper in a journal) but what's there right now isn't enough. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is the page that was reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gauss_(unit)&oldid=1358250775 The previous version was here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gauss_(unit)&oldid=1343867909

As you can see, the equation linking the T to the G was already present on that page, and I did not change it. The only point that needs to be made is that the ampere, the unit of charge in the SI units (which appears intermediately in the formula), was redefined in a tiny way, so it no longer holds the old exact relationship to the biot, the Gaussian cgs unit. The ampere and the biot are now defined via different experiments, and so their ratio is not an exact value, but an experimental result (one which is, by construction, very close to the old value).

I am merely removing a statement about the pre 2019 units that no longer holds.

Regarding the references, in the actual change I did not refer to anything other than the BIPM, which is the international body that defines the units. My reference included two pages from their web site, one which gives the new definition and one that explains the change from the old definition.

It's probably better to have these discussion on the Talk:Tesla_(unit) page where the discussion is going on. Mgolden (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It might be clearer for discussion purposes to provide this diff showing your edits to Gauss (unit) today, and this showing the partial replacement with which you're not satisfied. NebY (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That the equation was already in the article is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you have two distinct ideas (1: SI definition for ampere changed, and 2: this formula contains the ampere) and are attempting to draw out a conclusion neither source states (the old relationship no longer holds). That is exactly what WP:SYNTH is. Put another way, find a source that says it changed and this invalidated the old relationship, and that can be put in no problem. I went through the talk page, and the conversions involve enough moving parts that it's not immediately apparent to a layperson, and thus fails WP:CALC.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we as editors know to be true. Wikipedia is not a collection of facts editors believe to be true. It is a summary of what reliable sources say. If reliable sources don't say it, we don't, either. It's that simple. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is a NIST source that says 1 Tesla = 10,000 Gauss.

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/pml/electromagnetics/magnetics/magnetic_units.pdf

However, see Centimetre–gram–second system of units#Derivation of CGS units in electromagnetism, which says

"Electromagnetic relationships to length, time and mass may be derived by several equally appealing methods"

and see Gauss_(unit)#cite_note-1, which says

"The electromagnetic Gaussian and SI quantities correspond (symbol '≘') rather than being equal (symbol '='). (This relationship was exact, prior to 2019.)"

and see 2019_revision_of_the_SI#cite_note-54, which says:

"A note should be added on the definition of magnetic field unit (tesla). When the ampere was defined as the current that when flows in two long parallel wires separated by 1 m causes a force of 2×10−7 N/m on each other, there was also another definition: the magnetic field at the location of each of the wires in this configuration was defined to be 2×10−7 T. Namely 1 T is the intensity of the magnetic field B that causes a force of 1 N/m on a wire carrying a current of 1 A. The number 2×10−7 was written also as μ0/2π. This arbitrary definition is what made μ0 to be exactly 4π×10−7 H/m. Accordingly, the magnetic field near a wire carrying current is given by B = μ0I/2πr. Now, with the new definition of the ampere, the definition of the tesla is also affected. More specifically, the definition relying on the force of a magnetic field on a wire carrying current is maintained (F = I⋅B⋅l) while, as mentioned above, μ0 can no longer be exactly 4π×10−7 H/m and has to be measured experimentally. The value of the vacuum permittivity ε0 = 1/(μ0c2) is also affected accordingly. The Maxwell equations will 'see to it' that the electrostatic force between two point charges will be F = 1/(4πε0)(q1q2)/r2."

Whatever we decide, the above pages should end up being consistent. Also, it appears that the NIST ref is wrong (or just old?).--Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking back, that 2019_revision_of_the_SI#cite_note-54 was added, unsourced, to the body of the article in 2020 as the only edit from an IP[1] and converted to a note with a little formatting and the remark that it could do with some copyediting,[2], but seems to have remained unsourced and pretty much untouched ever since. NebY (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That note is unsourced, but it refers to the old definition of the ampere, which has references here:

Ampere#Former_definition_in_the_SI. The statement that the ampere was changed is what is being discussed in the article itself, so that doesn't need another reference. The definition of the biot (aka abampere) is on the Centimetre–gram–second_system_of_units#Electromagnetic_units_(EMU) and there are references there.

The rest of it is just simple arithmetic, that is, if we have an equation that states that A/B = C/D, and one changes D, then the equation no longer holds. That is explicitly allowed under Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations (which, in fact, explicitly mentions converting units). Mgolden (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe I laid out the issues above. It's similar to how a tomato is a fruit... except according to the supreme court. Sometimes things aren't as straightforward as they seem, which is why editors aren't allowed to make connections like you are there. I believe I also explained above how WP:CALC does not apply. I went ahead and took 30 seconds to find a citation for the original equation and equivalence, and added it to the article. So now, unless you have a similarly reliable and more up-to-date citation, the question is whether to use sourced or unsourced statements, to which the answer is obvious. Honestly, I'm puzzled by why the current state of the article isn't acceptable to you; it notes the rough equivalence as inexact, and anyone needing the greater level of precision really shouldn't be consulting Wikipedia anyway. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There was no consensus concerning your addition, but rather several editors suggesting issues. You agree that the 2024 PDG source is reliable. We should report the value it gives, whether or not it is consistent with its own constants.

Rather than trying to come up with a story we should be expanding these article with more content from the sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

We agree that it is a reliable source. What we don't agree on is what it says, and, evidently what I said. In these discussions I have pointed this out several times and you haven't responded directly to it: the PDG said that 1 G ≘ 10^-4 G. The symbol ≘ was used for a reason, since these are incommensurate systems, and one cannot assume that units in incommensurate systems have a fixed relationship. I had precisely the same statement in the article you reverted. My article cannot be said to contradict the PDG on this point since we had literally the same equation.

You are stating that the PDG means to state that that their equation implies that the conversion is exact. You have no reference for that. Can you point me at something that says that's what the symbol means, or, failing that a place where the PDG states that's what they're using it to mean?

If you do that, would concede your point. Then, I'd write to them to ask how $\mu _{0}$ got the value they printed. Mgolden (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The PDG does not use that symbol. Anyone can read the source and see what it says. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I keep remembering that any change there's been is less than one part in a billion, and that Wikipedia's most valuable resource is the time and effort of its editors - including, @Mgolden, yours. Before you try to explain it again or as you've suggested obtain another book, another paper, that might or might not have the key statement you want, couldn't we say instead that the form of words currently in Gauss (unit) is sufficient for whatever encyclopedic significance this has, and that we only need a similar form in Tesla (unit)? It might be imperfect, but there are far greater wrongs in the world (obligatory xkcd), and even on Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I prefer to have the article be clear and correct. So far as I understand, no one is saying that the new tesla is exactly 10⁴ gauss, only that an RS is needed. I will look for another source, which I am sure to find in textbook somewhere. Searching on the web is fruitless, because one finds just junk websites that don't even explain the issue. Mgolden (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Gauss (unit) is accurate already. You've been calling for it to go deeper and be more precise.

Your struggles to find a source that confirms your position bring our WP:DUE policy to mind. If specialist sources don't think your point worth mentioning, should this encyclopedia? NebY (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

+1. I think the article on the unit of Gauss should be written for a general audience. For any but some extremely technically proficient readers working on highly precise applications, knowing an approximation out to one part in a billion (which, by my reading, is actually within the error bars of the experimental value is perfectly adequate. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, I finally found an appropriate reference that says precisely what people are requesting.

The Permeability of Vacuum and the Revised International System of Units

Ronald B Goldfarb

IEEE Magn Lett. 2017 Dec 29;8:1110003. doi: 10.1109/LMAG.2017.2777782

Note that this was published before the actual adoption of the new SI units.

Read it here:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5907514/

In the abstract he states:

The revised SI will include a redefinition of the ampere. One consequence is that the permeability of vacuum will not have a fixed numerical value but will become, in principle, a measurable quantity. The constitutive relation among magnetic flux density, magnetic field strength, and magnetization will not change. However, its expression in the centimeter-gram-second system of electromagnetic units (EMU), where the permeability of vacuum is unity, will no longer be ontologically equivalent, and quantities will not be exactly convertible to the SI.

Section 6 of the article says:

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

In the still popular EMU system, quantities are exactly convertible to the present SI by factors of 4π and powers of 10. The requirement that the permeability of vacuum have a value of unity precluded its actual experimental determination, just as it is a fixed constant in the present SI. However, the nature of electromagnetic reality will be very different in the revised SI. Compared to EMU, the permeability of vacuum not only will have dimensions (as it does in the present SI), but its value will also, in principle, be measurable. That is, the relationship between B and H will be ontologically different in the revised SI compared to the EMU system.

Magnetics has been one of the scientific disciplines most resistant to adoption of the SI. With the revised SI, the “peaceful coexistence” of two systems of units [Silsbee 1962] is no longer feasible.

The following recommendations warrant consideration.

1. Scholarly journals that publish articles in magnetics should require use of the SI and disallow EMU such as oersted, gauss, and emu per cubic centimeter. Authors who find the expression of magnetic field strength H in units of ampere per meter to be inconvenient could instead refer to μ0H in units of tesla (or milli-, micro-, nano-, or picotesla). Similarly, magnetization M could be expressed as μ0M or as magnetic polarization J in units of tesla or millitesla.

...

If anyone feels that this is not sufficient, please let me know. Otherwise I will consider the matter resolved and proceed with my edits. Mgolden (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is a useful source. However, as far as I can see it does not address the specific issue we are discussing. We should summarize this source in the relevant articles, not use it to justify claims which it cannot support. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Could one of you please give me a rough count as to how many editors agree with you? And could the other person check those numbers and correct them as appropriate? This is not a substitute for posting an RfC and getting an actual consensus, but is a start. And please post a rough draft of any RfC before going live with it! We have had way too may biased RfCs on Wikipedia lately. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Guy_Macon Based on my recent addition of an RS to this discussion, I won't presume to try to count votes here. I will point out that User:NebY, User:Ldm1954, User: Johnjbarton, and User:Srleffler had a discussion on the Talk:Tesla_(unit) page. Mgolden (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I haven't read the discussion, so I will interpret your "I won't presume to try to count votes here" as "The consensus is overwhelmingly against me" on that theory that if you had consensus you would have said so.

Simply supplying a RS is not sufficient to make a change to a Wikipedia page when at least one other editor opposes you. It could fail several other criteria, such as WP:DUE. It could be that you are using the source for WP:SYNTH. It might even be that you are wrong about it being a RS. (hint: "my recent addition of an RS" asks us to trust your judgement. "RS X supports edit Y" allows us to easily check, and possibly add to the consensus for the edit).

So, could someone else please give me a rough count as to how many editors agree with you? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think as of 6 June at Talk:Tesla (unit), one in agreement (Ldm1954), one roughly "do something but not as proposed" (Srleffler), and Johnjbarton and myself not in agreement with Mgolden - but the particulars varied so that's very very rough. NebY (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

To be specific, Sreiffler said not to give the conversion factor since that would be OR, and I agreed with him. Mgolden (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't want to presume to judge because the situation had changed since many of the comments were made. I was asked to provide and OR, and since this discussion started, I have found an article I claim is an RS. So far I have had only one editor state directly that there he has a problem with my proposed citation, and User:NebY has discussed some other points. So I really genuinely have no idea who thinks this is OR. Mgolden (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I should note that one other editor is concerned about whether the use of WILL (ie. future) in the article requires some additional proof that the article is discussing the SI as actually implemented. I continue to discuss this as well. Mgolden (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I have a name, and that is not an accurate summary. The article describes what the author thinks will happen. It does not describe what has already happened. Therefore, it is not a WP:RS for what is or has been, only for what the author thinks the future holds. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

These are the money quotes:

---

"However, [the revised SI's] expression in the centimeter-gram-second system of electromagnetic units (EMU), where the permeability of vacuum is unity, will no longer be ontologically equivalent, and quantities will not be exactly convertible to the SI."

---

"In the still popular EMU system, quantities are exactly convertible to the present SI by factors of 4π and powers of 10."

---

That is precisely the point that the pre-2019 SI had units that had exact factors connecting its units to the cgs EMU system. 1 G = 10^-4T is an example. In the new system the conversions are not exact. If you read the Sylsbee 1962 reference he gives you'll see what he means about "peaceful coexistence". He even names the exact affected units: "oersted, gauss, and 'emu per cubic centimeter.'" Mgolden (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This is close, but note the tense: "will". We want descriptions of what was or is, not WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions of what will be. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

As I noted, this article was published in the journal IEEE Magn Lett. in the 2017 Dec 29 issue. At that point the proposed new SI had been discussed for years. It was discussed in 2014 but postponed to the next meeting in 2019. 2019_revision_of_the_SI

The system the author is talking about is the one that was approved. The reason he used "will" was that the official implementation of the new SI, had not yet occurred. It has now, so there is nothing uncertain about it. What he is talking about is math, after all. Mgolden (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that in the second quote, he used the term "present SI". This referred to the SI in place in 2017, where $\mu _{0}$ was fixed. Mgolden (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. How would a reader know there weren't any other changes between this article in 2017 and the adoption in 2019? EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If people prefer, I can supply a reference (such as one from the 2019_revision_of_the_SI page) to clarify that point. I believe that this is overkill, but it's not something I object to. There is no dispute that he is talking about the system that was adopted.

More importantly, he describes at length exactly why the then-proposed system would have the effect of rendering the conversions between cgs-emu units an SI non-exact for the first time - namely that $\mu _{0}$ is no longer a fixed value. Even if the system he discussed were in some way different from the 2019 SI as adopted, the 2019 SI does have this property and his reasoning applies. Mgolden (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If such a reference that states, as you are asserting, that the relationship between the two units is no longer exact, yes, that's what everyone has been saying, use that reference. If the reference is instead only to the change of units with no mention about the Gauss-Tesla conversion, then no, that's still WP:SYNTH. Do you get why editors are concerned this is SYNTH?

There's also the WP:DUE question raised by NebY above. Why is this change so important? How do you know that most people AREN'T looking for the historical relationship, when that's what the bulk of the literature seems to cover? For instance, most people still say Twitter rather than X. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not merely asserting it, please see the quotes with which this thread started. The bolded words "exactly convertable" and "not exactly convertable" are directly from the article. These are the same concepts that were claimed to be OR on my part.

I have no idea whether people are looking for the historical or new relationship. In either case, they would get the answer they were looking for in what I wrote. I said that the relationship 1 G = $10^{-4}$ T was exact before 2019 and non-exact after. We already have a consensus (which I am a part of) that we do not need to give the best current value in this article because it's

I can cite that very same article as to the importance of this matter. The author of this paper recommends that journals no longer even accept papers that use these units, and the students no longer be taught E&M using them. This is very significant to the subject of metrology, if not to the lay reader.

At any rate, if we want to have a discussion of these other points, it doesn't belong on the NOR noticeboard. Mgolden (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

A cursory search on Google Scholar for papers from (arbitrarily) 2022 onwards shows quite a number of journals that haven't taken up that recommendation. Pubmed doesn't seem to show anyone but the author citing that article.[3] NebY (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

So are you still claiming that this is OR? Mgolden (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Goldfarb's article was originally published in IEEE Magnetic Letters, which shows a few more citations,[4] in particular 2020's From μ0 to e: A Survey of Major Impacts for Electrical Measurements in Recent SI Revision.[5] That tabulates the relationships between units following the redefinition, including T = 10⁴ G with an uncertainty of 0.08 x 10^-9. I see no other mention of the gauss in that Survey of Major Impacts. NebY (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I included the journal in the original quote. PubMed is an odd place for me to have found it, but that's where I got the text of it. The fact that it wasn't cited in lots of medical publications is not surprising, to me at least.

[Goldfarb is a scientist at NIST] with [84] publications to date. As you have found, this paper has several [citations], not a huge number but the paper wasn't ignored either.

So correct me if you disagree, but this establishes that this is a real paper by a real qualified expert published in a real academic journal. Unless there is some other objection to using this, my citing it will remove any possibility of OR. Mgolden (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, as I said, he expressly mentions that the gauss is affected, and that it and others can no longer be converted exactly to the SI units, which in the case of gauss would be the tesla, as you can see in my more extensive quote from the article above. Mgolden (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw the quote. You don't seem to understand that articles predicting what WILL happen are not the same as articles saying what DID happen. It seems consensus is against you on this one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's see if anyone else supports your point. No one else has chimed in on this. Mgolden (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, let me quote this from the introduction section of the article:

---

At its 106th meeting in October 2017, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) formally recommended a major redefinition of the International System of Units (SI). It is expected that it will be adopted at the 26th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) in November 2018 and that the revised SI would then come into practice on the following World Metrology Day, 20 May 2019. The revised SI will be the most significant change in units of measure since the meter-kilogram-second-ampere (MKSA) system was adopted by the CGPM in 1954.

---

This explains why he used WILL rather than MIGHT or COULD. It was broadly expected that the proposal on the table would be adopted in 2018 and come into effect in 2019, and his statements apply to that proposal. People can check that this is exactly what did happen as described on the 2019_revision_of_the_SI page. Mgolden (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Does not address the point. I know why they used will. But this isn't academic writing. EVERYTHING must be verifiable by the reader. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The same author published a chapter of a book in 2021, after the units had been put into effect. You can see the abstract here: https://www.nist.gov/publications/units-magnetic-quantities In the abstract, he reiterates the same point about the units that he made in the article I showed. I don't yet have access to the book itself, but perhaps you're satisfied with that? At any rate I am also looking for another reference. Mgolden (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If it says that the relationship is no longer exact, then sure, that could work, but you need to find the passage that says this. Assuming something exists is the opposite of WP:V. I also note in that abstract the line, The effect on magnetism and magnetic measurements is more philosophical than practical. Which seems to imply that, from an accuracy perspective, it doesn't matter. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I will try to get it and will post it. The abstract says "Some conversions from CGS electromagnetic units to SI units in an updated conversion table thus involve the redefined permeability of vacuum" which is the point he made in the earlier paper. Mgolden (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand, but we need a statement specific to this. If we try to combine this statement, with the one made in his previous paper, that's textbook WP:SYNTH. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If you read below, NebY has found a second source, dated after the new SI was adopted, that also shows that the conversion from Tesla to Gauss is not exact. Since it would be significant work for me to find this book, I will not bother, and cite the article I found and the one that NebY found. Mgolden (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The second source is adequate. I've added a statement on the uncertainty, but am a layperson regarding physics, so feel free to mess with the wording. Note that the source says only that the measure (and thus conversion) has uncertainty. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, what did you add the statement to? The article itself? Mgolden (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. See this edit. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This pretty much nothing to do with the content dispute being discussed, but as long as we are being accurate, our arguments should also be accurate. Re: the argument "any change there's been is less than one part in a billion", of course the difference is small. We put our thumb on the scale to make the difference small. For example the ampere is currently defined to be exactly 6.241509074 x 10^18 elementary charges moving past a point in a second, which is in turn is defined as 9192631770 unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transitions frequency of the Cs-133 atom. Why 9192631770 and not 9192631771? Why 6.241509074 and not 6.241509073? These numbers were carefully chosen so as to make the differences between systems as small as possible. So they picked numbers to make the answer as close as possible to the answer you get by defining the ampere as the current passing through two parallel wires 1 meter apart that produces a magnetic force of 2 x 10^−7 newtons per meter (compromising to keep as many of the other units as possible as close as possible to the answer you get from the old definitions).

OK, getting back to the actual content dispute, I see no reason not to put in a single footnote explaining why we use "≘" rather than "=" and pointing the interested reader to a place on Wikipedia where they can learn more, and then ignoring the difference (including not caring whether a reference uses "≘" or "=", "equals" or "approximately equals", etc. ). That and not including values taken out to ten decimal places seems to me to resolve the issue.

BTW, I also agree that this sort of thing isn't anywhere close to being a routine calculation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

We can leave the symbol out of the discussion if there's agreement that the reference I found is a RS for the statement that 1 T = 10^-4 is not exact. The symbol was already on the page and wasn't changed in my edits. The question was only about whether the was an RS for the claim I was making. Mgolden (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No longer exact, I mean! Mgolden (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (conversion of tesla to gauss)

For my part, I now see two RSs[6][[7] that say the SI redefinition renders the tesla/gauss relationship inexact. One was written when the substance of the redefinition was well-known but before the Conference had formally approved it in 2018, the other after. The first doesn't provide the relationship but approvingly quotes a statement that such conversion factors will no longer be strictly correct ('As noted by Davis [2017], “conversion factors to CGS systems, which presently make use of the exact relation {μ0/4π}≡10−7, will no longer be strictly correct after the revised SI takes effect.”'), the second provides the relationship as 10⁴ with an uncertainty. This looks like an adequate basis for amending Tesla (unit) and Gauss (unit) to say that the relationship is no longer exact and I get the impression that MGolden now accepts that we don't want the articles to say a lot about the matter. Still, I'll not pretend to be clear on what's now suggested, so I can't simply say go ahead and maybe others can't too. OTOH presenting a precise list of changes for discussion here might be arduous to do and to consider.

So how does this sound? MGolden, edit Tesla (unit) to say that the relationship is no longer exact and an edit summary like "demo for discussion - will self-revert at once", publish it, revert it, and come here to say it's ready for review. We can look at the diff and the outcome, and consider whether it has OR or other issues (let's keep the discussion here, it's jumped around enough already, but could be signposted from the other discussions).

But let's hear if this approach makes sense to other people first! NebY (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Support summarizing these sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to do this. I will wait until tomorrow before trying to see if anyone else wants to opine on this. Mgolden (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

User:NebY I can't follow the link under 18, since I evidently don't qualify for it (less than 500 edits, which surprises me). Can you quote the reference to the article and maybe post the relevant quote here? Also, was it published after 2018? Mgolden (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ooops - try https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9144278 (S. Li, Q. Wang, W. Zhao and S. Huang, "From μ0 to e: A Survey of Major Impacts for Electrical Measurements in Recent SI Revision," in IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5956-5965, Sept. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2020.3010351.)

They tabulate the relationships between units following the redefinition, including T = 10⁴ G with an uncertainty of 0.08 x 10^-9; it won't copy-and-paste easily. NebY (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't read it because that page also requires a sign in. Later today I'll see if I can get access through my wife's university account. Mgolden (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02473 ? NebY (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. (I just checked. I have 435 edits. I'll get on that.) Mgolden (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

After waiting a day, I was going to make the changes we have been discussing on the Tesla page. I noticed that the correspondence symbol has been replaced with an equal sign. Please go read my comment on that page, because I know this be technically incorrect (but need to find a source for that statement better than Google). Mgolden (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You should consider reading WP:EXPERT. I took a glance at the WP:WALLOFTEXT you wrote at Talk:Tesla (unit)#Meaning of correspondence symbol. While I suspect it's very much accurate within the field, Wikipedia is not a Physics journal. The correspondence symbol is not well known to Wikipedia's general readership. And you insisting that something is wrong without providing a source is a waste of your time and ours. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally know that it is considered wrong by metrologists. I provided the output from Google AI stating exactly that, and an example from NIST showing them deliberately avoiding the equals sign. The onus should be on the person making the change to justify it. Mgolden (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Nope. WP:ONUS specifically says that the onus is on those who wish to include disputed content. Plenty sources say equals, and I've made the readability argument above which remains unanswered. What you personally know is WP:OR and forbidden. What Google AI says is not a WP:RS and thus irrelevant. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have made my edit to the Tesla page. I have not reverted it as per our agreement above, because it doesn't seem to be the rules everyone else is playing by. In addition I have reverted the change to the Gauss_(unit) page talking about the uncertainty on the measurement because (a) it's out of date (used the 2017 CODATA numbers, most recent is 2022) and because it's giving an uncertainty on a number we don't provide. (I.e. the measured translation coefficient between T and G.) I also removed the corresponds to symbol where it appeared in the text.

I don't intend to make any further changes to the Tesla page, and I agree with NebY that I have spent enough time on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgolden (talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This has gone on far enough (conversion of tesla to gauss)

This is going nowhere. You need to post a WP:RfC on the article talk page so we can settle once and for all what the consensus of the Wikipedia community is here.

DO NOT under any circumstances, just write up an RfC and post it! The last thing we need is to end up arguing about another non-neutral and malformed RfC. Write up and post a DRAFT RfC (just like a normal one, but without the magic words that cause the robots to publicize it as a real RfC) and delete the inevitable attempts to !vote or comment on the question being asked. Focus on getting the wording so that everyone agrees that the right question is being asked, and only after everyone agrees, go live with it as an actual RfC.

Continuing the discussion here is a waste of time. You are never going to reach agreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure that the "you" in the sentence above is intended to refer to me, but in case it was - I agree this discussion is non-productive, so I am dropping out of it. I have no plans to edit these pages again. They still leave a lot to be desired, IMO, but there's nothing I am going to be able to do about it given how this has gone. Mgolden (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Fight the New Drug

[8]—is that right, or was I overzealous? tgeorgescu (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems like the statement is a quote and is sourced, so that really doesn't seem like WP:OR. It's even an attributed statement rather than wikivoice, which accounts for any biases a community health professor may have. Can you explain your reasoning? EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK the source does not mention FTND. Their website is included several times in the references of the book, but there is no overt discussion of FTND. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I see, so it's that its prominent placement suggests she's responding to FTND, when she doesn't explicitly reference them, and so is WP:SYNTH. Do I understand you right? Would it be acceptable if it was de-emphasized and moved farther down as a sort of background detail, sort of like now NASA finding the earth to be round usually doesn't directly address flat-earthers? EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know. I asked here because I don't know how to proceed.

See also Talk:National Center on Sexual Exploitation#The medical community. And this edit: [9]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I can see the WP:SYNTH concern. It'd be giving the impression that the medical community has criticized FTND, when that statement doesn't actually target FTND. I agree that keeping it out is the safer approach. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Does WP:PSCI trump WP:OR? It is a serious question, which requires a lot of thought. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Still thinking about that one.

BTW, has NASA ever actually published a finding that earth isn't flat? Lot's of pages assume it or discuss exactly how spherical it is, but as far as I know NASA has always ignored flat-earth theories.

We ran across this issue at Talk:Field propulsion/GA2. A huge number of fringe sources talk about UFOs using "field propulsion".[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] If someone runs into the phrase "field propulsion" somewhere on the Internet and comes to Wikipedia to read about it, the odds are very high that they ran across it on a site talking about UFOs. This is largely driven by Bob Lazar describing the field propulsion system he says UFOs use in the 2019 Netflix documentary Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers.

Alas, the Field propulsion page cannot even mention the widespread use by the UFO believers. Pretty much no reliable source cares about the technical details of the engines used by flying saucers. Which means that we can't even mention things that are widely spread by thousands of non-reliable sources. This does a disservice to the many readers who came to the page because they read something about UFOs using field propulsion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Authoritarian playbook

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$\lor$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$\lor$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$\lor$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[20]. 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)

This is 6700 words, far too long for any reasonable discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Grnrchst's accusations of my page being a “clobbered together" “mess” of “unrelated articles” are false! And what I experience to be a personal attack!

The images added by ArtemisiaGentileschiFan are inappropriate. The images of politicians quite content with themselves deviate from the nature of the subject. You wouldn't put a crying child on a page about happiness either.

The article is not a synthesis of other articles; it does not contain a novel synthesis; it does not include original research, it is well sourced through Protect Democracy as well as by the other 200 or so sources listed in references.

I can't appreciate what you did to that Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinianism page either.

EducatedRedneck (talk | contribs) (→Holocaust memory and historical parallels: rm section; entirely WP:SYNTH collection of individual views to give impression of cohesive movement)

What kind of a policy violation is that? Bet you think philosophy is a “WP:SYNTH collection of individual views to give impression of cohesive movement” as well. Not to mention “ collection of individual views to give impression of cohesive movement” is the hood you're trying to pull over my head on this page with your “consensus reached, three random people have a problem with it” attitude.

The "authoritarian playbook" refers to methods typically used by political figures with, at least some, authoritarian tendencies.

Based on the works of Sheri Berman, Larry Diamond, Timothy Snyder, Kim Lane Scheppele, Steven Levitsky, and Daniel Ziblatt, Protect Democracy writes that autocrats and would-be authoritarians often rely on the same seven fundamental tactics of scapegoating vulnerable communities, corrupting elections, stoking violence, politicising independent institutions, spreading disinformation, aggrandising executive power, and quashing dissent.

Since the 1990s, authoritarian takeovers have evolved from sudden military coup d'états to incremental takeovers, often under the guise of a democracy. This is what happened in countries like Russia, Venezuela, Hungary, the Philippines, Poland, Nicaragua, India, Turkey, and the United States.

== Politicising independent institutions ==

Healthy democracies are in need of institutions that operate independently from partisan politics: law enforcement, central banking, official statistics, schooling, national security, justice, and so forth. In the hands of autocrats, these institutions become weapons with which to persecute adversaries and engage in large-scale corruption and manipulation.

===== Case Study: Argentina =====

In the late 2000s, rising inflation had become a growing threat to authoritarian-leaning Argentinian President Nestor Kirchner. In response, Kirchner fired the official statistics agency's leadership and replaced them with biased actors. The change in leadership bought Kirchner much-needed time, as official statistics put out rosy figures that were in large part fictitious. In 2021, the country's inflation exceeded 50 percent.

Protect Democracy links these sources: https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1740-9713.01423 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/27/argentina-inflation-strategy-tactics/

Do you want more sources?

===== Case Study: the United States =====

In the US, in late 2021, 262 bills were introduced, in 41 states, that would prevent neutral election oversight administration. In Michigan, in eight of the eleven largest counties in the state, Republican actors systematically filled in their appointees to election canvassing boards with election deniers who mongered conspiracy theories and disinformation with respect to the 2020 presidential election. Would-be-authoritarians frequently use loaded language to delegitimise neutral civil services, not sufficiently aligned with their goals, by labeling them as “anti-semitic”, “communist”, “deep state”, “infidel”, "terrorist”, or “woke” before disabling or hijacking those same services.

Protect Democracy links these sources: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election-infrastructure https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-october-2021 https://protectdemocracy.org/work/a-democracy-crisis-in-the-making/

I added: https://statesunited.org/resources/decupdate/ https://www.salon.com/2022/11/08/deniers-are-embedded-in-michigan-canvassing-boards-advocates-say-theyre-ready/ https://educatetheplanet.substack.com/p/the-weaponization-of-words-why-authoritarians https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/2026/01/trump-war-against-wokeness/685626/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponization_of_antisemitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_conspiracy_theory_in_the_United_States https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/5878308-southern-poverty-law-center-indictment/

Do you want more sources?

== Spreading disinformation ==

Deception is common in politics, but authoritarians disseminate and magnify lies intentionally. 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.

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. Repeated disinformation messages about the possibility of election fraud were introduced years before the actual election occurred, as early as 2016. 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. 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. Although the 2020 United States presidential election results were upheld, some people still believe the "big lie."

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Disinformation attack. It fits this page perfectly.

Adrian Chen observed a pattern in December 2015 where pro-Russian accounts became supportive of 2016 U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump. Andrew Weisburd and Foreign Policy Research Institute fellow and senior fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University, Clint Watts, wrote for The Daily Beast in August 2016 that Russian propaganda fabricated articles were popularized by social media. Weisburd and Watts documented how disinformation spread from Russia Today and Sputnik News, "the two biggest Russian state-controlled media organizations publishing in English," to pro-Russian accounts on Twitter. Citing research by Chen, Weisburd and Watts compared Russian tactics during the 2016 U.S. election to Soviet Union Cold War strategies. They referenced the 1992 United States Information Agency report to Congress, which warned about Russian propaganda called active measures. They concluded social media made active measures easier. Institute of International Relations Prague senior fellow and scholar on Russian intelligence, Mark Galeotti, agreed the Kremlin operations were a form of active measures. The most strident Internet promoters of Trump were not U.S. citizens but paid Russian propagandists. The Guardian estimated their number to be in the "low thousands" in November 2016.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Fake news website. It fits this page perfectly.

The Russian state and government interfered in the 2024 United States elections through disinformation and propaganda campaigns aimed at damaging Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and other Democrats while boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump and other candidates who support isolationism and undercutting support for Ukraine aid and NATO. Russia's efforts represented the most active threat of foreign interference in the 2024 United States elections and follow Russia's previous pattern of spreading disinformation through fake social-media accounts and right-wing YouTube channels in order to divide American society and foster anti-Americanism.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Russian interference in the 2024 United States elections. It fits this page perfectly.

The Russian government's goals in 2016 were to sabotage the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, boost the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, and increase political and social discord in the United States. According to the US intelligence community, the operation—code-named Project Lakhta—was ordered directly by Russian president Vladimir Putin. The "hacking and disinformation campaign" to damage Clinton and help Trump became the "core of the scandal known as Russiagate." The 448-page Mueller report, made public in April 2019, examined over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring specific "conspiracy" or "coordination" charges against Trump or his associates.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Russian interference in the 2024 United States elections. It fits this page perfectly.

In November 2016 the Foreign Policy Research Institute stated Russian propaganda exacerbated criticism of Clinton and support for Trump. The strategy involved social media, paid Internet trolls, botnets, and websites in order to denigrate Clinton.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Fake news website. It fits this page perfectly.

Russian propaganda and fake news stories have attacked Ukraine's nationhood and accused it of being a neo-Nazi state, committing genocide against Russian speakers, developing nuclear and biological weapons, and being influenced by Satanism. Russian propaganda falsely accuses NATO of controlling Ukraine and of threatening and provoking Russia. These claims have been widely rejected as untrue and crafted to justify the invasion and even to justify genocidal acts against Ukrainians. The Russian state has denied carrying out war crimes in Ukraine; Russian media and internet activists give false alibis for Russian forces, or falsely blame attacks on Ukrainian forces instead. Some of the disinformation seeks to undermine international support for Ukraine and to provoke hostility against Ukrainian refugees.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It fits this page perfectly.

In the United States, authoritarian actors have harnessed strong First Amendment traditions, a fragmented online information ecosystem, and numerous channels through which to normalise extremist beliefs. As a result, around one third of Americans, as of May 2026, believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, in spite of a severe lack of evidence to support that claim.

Protect Democracy links these sources: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/15/politics/cnn-poll-most-americans-democracy-under-attack/index.html https://abcnews.com/politics

I added: https://www.reuters.com/world/trumps-election-fraud-claims-spread-distrust-before-midterms-reutersipsos-poll-2026-04-23/

Do you want more sources?

A 2016 paper describes social media-driven political disinformation tactics as a "firehose of falsehood" that "entertains, confuses, and overwhelms the audience." Four characteristics were illustrated with respect to Russian propaganda. Disinformation is used in a way that is 1) high-volume and multichannel 2) continuous and repetitive 3) ignores objective reality and 4) ignores consistency. It becomes effective by creating confusion and obscuring, disrupting, and diminishing the truth. When one falsehood is exposed, "the propagandists will discard it and move on to a new (though not necessarily more plausible) explanation." The purpose is not to convince people of a specific narrative but to "Deny, deflect, distract."

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Disinformation attack. It fits this page perfectly.

Conspiracy theories are a fundamental component of a wide range of radicalized and extremist groups, where they may play an important role in reinforcing the ideology and psychology of their members as well as further radicalizing their beliefs. These conspiracy theories often share common themes, even among groups that would otherwise be fundamentally opposed, such as the antisemitic conspiracy theories found among political extremists on both the far right and far left. More generally, belief in conspiracy theories is associated with holding extreme and uncompromising viewpoints and may help people in maintaining those viewpoints. While conspiracy theories are not always present in extremist groups and do not always lead to violence when they are, they can make the group more extreme, provide an enemy to direct hatred towards, and isolate members from the rest of society. Conspiracy theories are most likely to inspire violence when they call for urgent action, appeal to prejudices, or demonize and scapegoat enemies.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Conspiracy theory. It fits this page perfectly.

This list of tactics was compiled from famous cover-ups such as the Watergate Scandal, Iran-Contra Affair, My Lai Massacre, Pentagon Papers, the cover-up of corruption in New York City under Boss Tweed (William M. Tweed and Tammany Hall) in the late 19th century, and the tobacco industry's cover-up of the health hazards of smoking.

Initial response to allegation

1. Flat denial
2. Convince the media to bury the story
3. Preemptively distribute false information
4. Claim that the "problem" is minimal
5. Claim faulty memory
6. Claim the accusations are half-truths
7. Claim the critic has no proof
8. Attack the critic's motive
9. Attack the critic's character

Withhold or tamper with evidence

1. Prevent the discovery of evidence
2. Destroy or alter the evidence
3. Make discovery of evidence difficult
4. Create misleading names of individuals and companies to hide funding
5. Lie or commit perjury
6. Block or delay investigations
7. Issue restraining orders
8. Claim executive privilege

Delayed response to allegation

1. Deny a restricted definition of wrongdoing (e.g., torture)
2. Limited hang out(i.e., confess to minor charges)
3. Use biased evidence as a defense
4. Claim that the critic's evidence is biased
5. Select a biased blue-ribbon commission or "independent" inquiry

Intimidate participants, witnesses, or whistleblowers

1. Bribe or buy out the critic
2. Generally intimidate the critic by following him or her, killing pets, etc.
3. Blackmail: hire private investigators and threaten to reveal past wrongdoing ("dirt")
4. Death threats of the critic or his or her family
5. Threaten the critic with loss of job or future employment in the industry
6. Transfer the critic to an inferior job or location
7. Intimidate the critic with lawsuits or SLAPP suits
8. Murder; assassination

Publicity management

1. Bribe the press
2. Secretly plant stories in the press
3. Retaliate against hostile media
4. Threaten the press with loss of access
5. Attack the motives of the press
6. Place defensive advertisements
7. Buy out the news source

Damage control

1. Claim no knowledge of wrongdoing
2. Scapegoats: blame an underling for unauthorized action
3. Fire the person(s) in charge

Win court cases

1. Hire the best lawyers
2. Hire scientists and expert witnesses who will support your story
3. Delay with legal maneuvers
4. Influence or control the judges

Reward cover-up participants

1. Hush money
2. Little or no punishment
3. Pardon or commute sentences
4. Promote employees as a reward for cover-up
5. Re-employ the employee after dust clears

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Cover-up. It fits this page perfectly.

Authoritarians work to eliminate checks and balances on their behavior. Frequently, they glorify extreme actions in the name of a cause and deprecate being slowed down by perceived opponents and non-equals. Authoritarians often rally behind a charismatic leader who commonly enjoys a cult of personality. The expansion of executive power is often accompanied by greater social status and money flowing to the authoritarian leader and his adherents.

This could use some extra sources.

After Viktor Orbán was re-elected in 2010, he immediately rewrote the Hungarian constitution. The new document was covertly rushed through a declawed system. He would go on to amend the constitution twelve times in his first year in office. Among other changes, the amendments included controversial election reforms and constitutional support for nationalism and an ethnically Christian Hungary. In concert with other legislation, Orbán gained control of civic institutions such as courts, universities, the central bank, and the electoral voting system. Extensive research has been conducted to describe the idea of a "national, sovereign, bourgeois Hungary," stated as the goal of Orbán's rule, as in fact a "political product" of a post-communist mafia state serving to obscure massive corruption and transfers of wealth to those with the right connections.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Viktor Orbán. It fits this page perfectly.

Ferdinand Marcos developed a cult of personality as a key of remaining his role as President of the Philippines for 20 years under dictatorship, marked by political corruption and human rights violations. His administration’s personalist ideology and policies, combining veneration and idolization of Marcos himself with extreme populism and ultranationalism, have been compared to those of other totalitarian and authoritarian leaders such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, as well as to those of more recent dictators and autocrats such as Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and North Korea’s Kim dynasty.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Cult of personality (excerpt) and Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality. It fits this page perfectly.

These propaganda narratives and techniques include: using red scare tactics such as red-tagging to portray activists as communists and to exaggerate the threat represented by the Communist Party of the Philippines; using martial law to take control of mass media and silence criticism; the use of foreign-funded government development projects and construction projects as propaganda tools; creating an entire propaganda framework around a "new society" in which he would rule under a system of "constitutional authoritarianism"; the perpetuation of hagiographical books and films; the perpetuation of propaganda narratives about Marcos's activities during World War II, which have since been proven false by historical documents; the creation of myths and stories around himself and his family; and portrayals of himself in coinage and even a Mount Rushmore type monument; among others."

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Cult of personality. It fits this page perfectly.

Autocrats maintain power through political repression of any opposition and co-optation of other influential or powerful members of society. The general public is controlled through indoctrination and propaganda, and an autocracy may attempt to legitimize itself in the eyes of the public through appeals to political ideology, religion, birthright, or foreign hostility. Some autocracies establish legislatures or unfair elections or show trials to further exercise control while presenting the appearance of democracy.

No WP:OR. Text originated from Autocracy. It could use some sources.

Historically, autocrats silenced dissent by employing violence to foster a culture of fear. A good example is former Philippines president Duterte who is awaiting trial for the murder of 20 journalists. “Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a son of a bitch,” Duterte exclaimed during his inauguration speech. Aside from overt force, authoritarians have relied on threats of legal prosecution to force journalists into self-censorship. Legal prosecution allows persecution to retain the semblance of the rule of law.

Protect Democracy links these sources: https://cpj.org/data/killed/asia/Philippines/murdered/?status=Killed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&typeOfDeath%5B%5D=Murder&cc_fips%5B%5D=RP&start_year=1992&end_year=2022&group_by=location https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/business/maria-ressa-verdict-philippines-rappler.html https://freedomhouse.org/country/philippines/freedom-net/2021

I added https://asiapacificreport.nz/2025/03/16/former-filipino-dutertes-arrest-by-the-icc-20-journalists-killed-during-his-presidency/

Do you want more sources?

On 4 March 2022, Putin signed into law a bill introducing prison sentences of up to 15 years for those who publish "knowingly false information" about the Russian military and its operations, with the Russian government deciding what is the truth, leading to some media outlets in Russia to stop reporting on Ukraine or shutting their media outlet. Although the 1993 Russian Constitution has an article expressly prohibiting censorship, the Russian censorship apparatus Roskomnadzor ordered the country's media to only use information from Russian state sources or face fines and blocks, and accused a number of independent media outlets of spreading "unreliable socially significant untrue information" about the shelling of Ukrainian cities by the Russian army and civilian deaths.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It fits this page perfectly.

The United States has enjoyed a long tradition of vibrant dissent in media. Donald Trump has since pointed the Department of Justice at media companies, used government review to financially punish at least one media company, threatened to revoke broadcast licenses, and tailored White House press access to meet his needs. He has intimidated and harassed key figures as well, such as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key witness involved in impeachment proceedings, from sharing his experiences regarding the Trump-Ukraine scandal.

Text is based on what Protect Democracy wrote. It could use some extra sources.

Protect Democracy links this page: https://protectdemocracy.org/work/lt-col-alexander-vindman-files-lawsuit-over-retaliation-by-close-aides-and-allies-of-former-president-trump/

As of 2026, a good number of states have introduced or passed new legislation, like Sen. Cruz's “anti-riot bill,” that increase potential criminal penalties for protestors and organisations that incite protest. The laws were decried as clear signs of democratic backsliding. In response to this and the Jan. 6 riots laws have been proposed that criminalise free speech if it is likely to incite lawlessness.

Protect Democracy links these sources: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/09/1035687247/florida-anti-riot-law-ron-desantis-george-floyd-black-lives-matter-protests https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/washingtons-election-misinformation-bill-demonstrates-dangers-compromising-first-amendment-values

I added: https://americanfaith.com/stop-fundrs-act-ted-cruz/

Do you want more sources?

Under authoritarian regimes, arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, and torture are common. People may be held in unidentified places called 'black sites' or 'black jails'. Torture may go by other names, such as 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment', 'cruel and unusual punishment', or all manner of euphemisms. Several clandestine detention centres operated in Argentina during the military dictatorship that ruled the country from 1976 to 1983. Prisoners, many of whom had been "disappeared", were tortured and murdered, including pregnant women who were killed after giving birth, and their babies given to military families. Black sites are used extensively by the Egyptian security services. During the Egyptian Crisis (2011–2014), hundreds of protesters alleged that torture occurred at these black sites.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Black site. It fits this page perfectly.

== Scapegoating vulnerable communities ==

Authoritarians often attack vulnerable communities: other nations, immigrants, minorities, detractors, and social outcasts. This helps them rally support and categorise dissenting views and interests as irrelevant. Authoritarians have ascended to power in Hungary and Poland with only a slim majority. By demonising migrants and claiming to represent the only legitimate Poles and Hungarians, they were ascribed more democratic authority than was otherwise due. As changing times force many people to struggle with questions of social identity, far-right populist parties have weaponised numerous easy targets across many backsliding democracies, including the United States.

Protect Democracy links these sources: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820/ https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/0406/As-Hungary-votes-memories-of-a-mythical-past-loom-large https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342659090_Whose_Poland_is_it_to_be_PiS_and_the_struggle_between_monism_and_pluralism

I added: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-56393944 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21567689.2025.2548399 https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/07/04/modi-pursues-authoritarian-policies-in-india-despite-harsh-criticism-from-own-camp_6676641_4.html

Do you want more sources?

Over the past two decades, the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have built and consolidated an authoritarian regime. Under which journalists have been intimidated, human rights groups have been suppressed, and people, particularly Muslims, have been attacked. Under Modi, various independent watchdogs state, India's democratic standing has tumbled. Modi has been likened to a deity by his followers but has faced harsh criticism from within his own party for his 'arrogance' and 'undignified' campaign.

Protect Democracy links these sources: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/06/world/asia/modi-gujarat-riots-timeline.html https://www.dw.com/en/one-year-of-indias-citizenship-amendment-act/a-55909013 https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/13/modi-india-hindutva-hindu-nationalism-autocracy/

I added: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-56393944 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21567689.2025.2548399 https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/07/04/modi-pursues-authoritarian-policies-in-india-despite-harsh-criticism-from-own-camp_6676641_4.html

Do you want more sources?

Culturicide involves the eradication and destruction of cultural artifacts, such as books, artworks, and structures. The issue is addressed in multiple international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, which define war crimes associated with the destruction of culture. Cultural genocide may also involve forced assimilation, as well as the suppression of a language or cultural activities that do not conform to the destroyer's notion of what is appropriate. Among many other potential reasons, cultural genocide may be committed for religious motives (e.g., iconoclasm which is based on aniconism); as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing in an attempt to remove the evidence of a people from a specific locale or history; as part of an effort to implement a Year Zero, in which the past and its associated culture is deleted and history is "reset". The drafters of the 1948 Genocide Convention initially considered using the term, but later dropped it from inclusion. The term "cultural genocide" has been considered in various draft United Nations declarations, but it is not used by the UN Genocide Convention.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Cultural genocide. It fits this page perfectly.

In United States politics, the terms "extreme right", "far-right", and "ultra-right" are labels used to describe "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism", according to The Public Eye. The terms are used for groups and movements such as Christian Identity, the Creativity Movement, the Ku Klux Klan, the National Socialist Movement, the National Alliance, the Joy of Satan Ministries, and the Order of Nine Angles. These far-right groups share conspiracist views of power which are overwhelmingly antisemitic and reject pluralist democracy in favor of an organic oligarchy that would unite the perceived homogeneously racial Völkish nation. The far-right in the United States is composed of various neo-fascist, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, and white supremacist organizations and networks who have been known to refer to an "acceleration" of racial conflict through violent means such as assassinations, murders, terrorist attacks, and societal collapse, in order to achieve the building of a white ethnostate.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Far-right politics. It fits this page perfectly.

Widely regarded as a military dictator by international observers, Suharto's 32-year presidency and legacy are highly divisive, and he remains a controversial figure among the Indonesian general public. He has been praised for making Indonesia into an economic success story, bringing stability to the region particularly during the Cold War period, and leading Indonesia when it played a significant role in international affairs. Others denounce his authoritarian rule, widespread corruption, and extensive human rights violations. His 31-year dictatorship is considered one of the most brutal and corrupt of the 20th century: he was central to the perpetration of mass killings against alleged communists and subsequent persecution of ethnic Chinese, Islamists, irreligious people, and trade unionists.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Suharto. It fits this page perfectly.

After his rise to power, Pinochet persecuted leftists, socialists, and political critics, resulting in the executions of 1,200 to 3,200 people, the internment of as many as 80,000 people, and the torture of tens of thousands. According to the Chilean government, the number of executions and forced disappearances was at least 3,095. Operation Condor, a U.S.-supported terror operation focusing on South America, was founded at the behest of the Pinochet regime in late November 1975.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Augusto Pinochet. It fits this page perfectly.

Autocrats often strongly reject the appeal of pluralistic, diverse societies. In the United States, which has a long tradition of marginalising Black Americans, language and rhetoric often point to an implicit superiority of the Caucasian ethnicity over the colored and the poor. The practice is about more than racist bravado. Authoritarians utilise state power to attack their handpicked targets and roll back human rights. Examples include the reversion of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing provision of the Fair Housing Act, the exemption of certain actors from reporting potentially concerning mortgage lending practices under the HMDA, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ limiting of civil weapons against police abuses, and laws intended to criminalise gender-affirming healthcare.

Protect Democracy links: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1109621/dl?inline= https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/23/greg-abbott-gender-affirming-care-child-abuse-directive/

I added: https://www.splcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/comment-hud-interim-rule-affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing-.pdf https://www.housingwire.com/articles/50093-consumer-groups-cfpb-clash-over-handling-of-hmda-data/ https://www.housingwire.com/articles/federal-court-tosses-relaxed-trump-era-mortgage-lender-transparency-rule/ https://www.wral.com/story/jeff-sessions-limited-consent-decrees-what-about-the-police-departments-already-under-reform-/17997830/ https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/greg-abbott-trans-health-care-kids-child-abuse_n_6216644ce4b0d1388f0e4273

Do you want more sources?

The manosphere overlaps with the far-right and alt-right communities. It has also been associated with online harassment and has been implicated in radicalizing men into misogynist beliefs and the glorification of violence against women. Some sources have associated manosphere-based radicalization with mass shootings motivated by misogyny. The manosphere received significant media coverage following the 2014 Isla Vista killings in California, the 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon, and the 2018 Toronto van attack, as well as the online harassment campaign against women in the video game industry known as GamerGate.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Manosphere. It fits this page perfectly.

Infowars, the media outlet of extremist Alex Jones, regularly published fake stories that have led to harassment of crime victims. In February 2018, Jones, the publisher, director, and owner of the site, was accused of discrimination and sexual harassment of employees. Infowars, and in particular Jones, have advocated numerous conspiracy theories, particularly around purported domestic false flag operations by the U.S. government, which they allege include the 9/11 attack and Sandy Hook shooting. At various times Infowars has issued retractions as a result of legal challenges. Jones has had contentious material removed and has also been suspended and banned from many platforms for violating their terms of service, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iTunes, and Roku. It is classified as a conspiracy propagandist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Infowars. It fits this page perfectly.

In 2018, US influencer Tucker Carlson described the effects of mass immigration on the United States using the terms dirtier, poorer, and more divided and said it "has badly hurt this country's natural landscape." On another 2018 episode, Carlson criticized multiculturalism in the United States, skeptically asking, "How, precisely, is diversity our strength?" and whether any other institutions benefitted from a lack of commonalities. Talking about Hazleton, Pennsylvania, where Hispanics had quickly become a majority of the population, Carlson said it was "more change than human beings are designed to digest." In May 2019 he said, "The flood of illegal workers into the United States has damaged our communities, ruined our schools, burdened our healthcare system, and fractured our national unity." In December 2019, he falsely claimed that immigrants were responsible for making the Potomac River "dirtier and dirtier".

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Tucker Carlson. It fits this page perfectly.

American white supremacist Nick Fuentes launched his livestream America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes in 2017. Fuentes has since made several inflammatory remarks. In an April 2017 episode, he said that "the First Amendment was not written for Muslims or immigrants," "globalists" controlled the media, and it was "time to kill" them and suggested that CNN executives should be "arrested and deported or hanged." The comments led to his departure from Right Side Broadcasting Network in August 2017, with CEO Joe Status saying that Fuentes "was just taking things a little too far into right field for us."

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Nick Fuentes. It fits this page perfectly.

Fuentes has expressed support for several authoritarian governments and movements that oppose US foreign policy. On March 10, 2022, he praised Vladimir Putin during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, referring to him as "czar Putin" and claiming the invasion was intended to "liberate Ukraine" from US influence, calling the US an "evil empire". At the 2022 AFPAC event, it was marked by support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Jared Holt, a domestic extremism researcher, stated that this support was rooted in the alleged belief that Western influence had contributed to cultural decline in Ukraine.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Nick Fuentes. It fits this page perfectly.

== Corrupting elections ==

In the 21st century, most autocrats prefer to camouflage their rule by holding crooked democratic elections. Behind this facade, they capture advantages, suppress votes, and reverse undesired outcomes. By using disinformation and seizing electoral processes, regimes may stay in power for decades, all the while profiting from the self-supporting veneer of popular support.

I added: https://www.newsweek.com/nine-ways-suppress-african-american-votes-republican-playbook-opinion-2100901 the other source is supposed to be https://budapestbeacon.com/viktor-orbans-son-in-law-awarded-billions-in-state-and-local-contracts/) from wiki/Viktor Orbán, but is instead https://philippinehistoryandrizal.webnod e.page/the-philippine-history2/the-marcos-regime/the-martial-law/presidential-election-of-1986/ my bad.

In 2017-2018, President Nicolás Maduro had successfully banned the most popular opposition leaders and parties from running. He had also created a new legislature called the National Constituent Assembly and had filled it with loyalists. The stratagem purged the government of checks and balances on President Maduro's power. With it, he organised abrupt elections that scrambled the hamstringed opposition's ability to reorganise and decide on a strong presidential candidate. Tarnished by boycott and ballot-tampering accusations and a low voter turnout, Maduro claimed a second term.

Text is based on what Protect Democracy wrote and the page '2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis' explains what happened using multiple sources. It could use additional sources on this page.

In 2020, Donald Trump and Rudy Guliani schemed to overturn Biden's victory by sending in illegitimate electors with false claims of Trump winning states that he in fact lost. The plan would have involved Vice President Mike Pence claiming unilateral authority to change the electors, but Pence refused. “Under state law, I think clearly you have forgery of a public record, which is a 14-year offense, and election law forgery, which is a five-year offense,” said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. “It is a completely different time that we are facing in 2020 and 2022. It really feels urgent. It is a battle of a completely different kind. It is massive; it is coordinated at a national level. It is much more threatening,” said Nancy Wang, executive director of Michigan-based pro-democracy organisation Voters Not Politicians.

I wrote this based on what CNN said: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html

I had a number of supportive sources as well: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/20/politics/trump-pence-election-memo/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/trump-overturn-2020-election-fake-electoral-college/index.html https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-october-2021 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-pences-full-letter-saying-he-cant-claim-unilateral-authority-to-reject-electoral-votes

Authoritarians normalise political violence in combination with hate-filled rhetoric, and across borders, they learn from one another. Far-right former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's partnership with the US far right has involved efforts to violently overturn free and fair elections. On Jan. 8, 2023, supporters of Bolsonaro rampaged through federal government buildings. The rioters called upon the military to overturn the election of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Just like his US counterpart, the former president had, for months, been disseminating stories of mass election fraud. He had also plotted with military commanders in order to secure his re-election.

I wrote this based on: https://www.justsecurity.org/87086/the-global-far-right-authoritarian-alliance-threatening-us-democracy-and-how-to-weaken-it/ https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/justica/noticia/2024-11/federal-police-coup-narrative-incited-january-8-attacks

Authoritarian checks on to free and fair elections may include:

• Control of the media by the authoritarian incumbents.
• Interference with opposition campaigning.
• Electoral fraud.
• Violence against opposition.
• Large-scale spending by the state in favor of the incumbents.
• Permitting of some parties, but not others.
• Prohibitions on opposition parties, but not independent candidates.
• Allowing competition between candidates within the incumbent party, but not those who are not in the incumbent party.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Electoral autocracy. It fits this page perfectly.

For example, in Chile, Augusto Pinochet immediately banned all the leftist parties that had constituted President Salvador Allende's UP coalition. All other parties were placed in "indefinite recess" and were later banned outright. The government's violence was directed not only against dissidents but also against their families and other civilians.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Augusto Pinochet. It fits this page perfectly.

In the Philippines, in 1986, investigative reporting on his family's extensive overseas financial holdings and false war records led President Ferdinand Marcos to call snap elections. Marcos used red scare tactics to portray activists as communists and to exaggerate the threat represented by the Communist Party of the Philippines. He was challenged by Aquino's widow, Corazon Aquino. Although the government's results declared Marcos the victor, allegations of having devised mass electoral fraud, political turmoil, and human rights abuses led to the People Power Revolution of February 1986, which culminated in his removal from power after a two-decade-long rule.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Ferdinand Marcos, Cult of personality (excerpt), and Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality. It fits this page perfectly.

An NPR/Ipsos poll conducted on January 3, 2022, found that 64% of Americans believe that American democracy is in crisis and at risk of failing. According to a 2021 Harvard youth poll, a mere 7% of young Americans view the United States as a “healthy” democracy. A 2020 Gallup and Knight Foundation survey found that 81% of Americans believe the news media to be “critical” (42%) or “very important” (39%) to democracy. Trump has often attacked mainstream news reporting publications, deeming them "fake news" and the "enemy of the people". Every few days, Trump would issue a threat against the press due to his claims of "fake news". There have been many instances in which norms that protect press freedom have been pushed or even upended during the Trump-era.

I wrote this based on: https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-authoritarian-playbook/ https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/seven-ten-americans-say-country-crisis-risk-failing https://fortune.com/2021/12/01/poll-majority-young-americans-democracy-trouble/

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/01/1060429939/young-americans-are-raising-alarms-about-the-state-of-u-s-democracy-in-a-new-pol https://legacy.knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/American-Views-2020-Trust-Media-and-Democracy.pdf https://protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/The-Authoritarian-Playbook-Updated.pdf and some from wiki/Fake news.

Dominion Voting Systems, which provided voting machines to many jurisdictions in the 2020 U.S. elections, filed four major lawsuits related to the big lie that Dominion fixed the election. From Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Dominion seeks $1.3 billion in damages, alleging that "he and his allies manufactured and disseminated the 'Big Lie', which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election." Separately, in Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network it sought $1.6 billion from Fox News. During discovery, Fox News' internal communications were released, indicating that prominent hosts and top executives were aware the network was reporting false statements but continued doing so to retain viewers for financial reasons. On April 18, 2023, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion a $788 million settlement, described by CNN as the "big price" of telling "the Big Lie". Dominion is also suing two other TV networks, Newsmax and One America News Network, for $1.6 billion each, as well as My Pillow and its CEO Mike Lindell for $1.2 billion.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Big lie. It fits this page perfectly.

Trump's grant of clemency to Jan. 6 rioters was described by counterterrorism researchers as encouraging future political violence, and Trump later suggested the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers may have a place in the political conversation. Employees in the Justice Department and legal scholars called the pardons an unprecedented and dangerous use of the pardon that created a mockery of federal law enforcement, their work, and the US justice system. An anonymous senior official in the Justice Department called the pardons an act of personal retribution that gave a "green light" to political violence and indicated approval of the January 6 attacks.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Pardon of January 6 United States Capitol attack defendants. It fits this page perfectly.

== Stoking violence ==

Autocrats often glorify or whitewash a particular brand of violence, sometimes psychological violence, or indirect violence like structural discrimination or stochastic terrorism. Key elements include fostering an in-group/out-group mentality and sowing fear so that violent actions and theft are justified in the context of fighting a malicious group of subhumans. Nazi German politician Hermann Göring explained how people can be made fearful and to support a war they would otherwise oppose:

The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

I wrote this based on: https://www.idea.int/news/when-words-become-weapons-how-hate-speech-threatens-democracy and a Göring quote from Wiki/Culture of fear

Misogyny and the manipulation of male frustration, which often includes support for laws and practices that augment state control over women’s bodies, are typical elements of the transnational far right. Found guilty of sexual abuse in 2023, Donald Trump once suggested that women should be punished for having abortions. Robert Morris, spiritual advisor to the president, pled guilty to five counts of lewd or indecent acts with a child in 2025. The former pastor was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but Morris was mysteriously released after six months in 2026. Under the leadership of Steve Bannon, the president's ex-advisor, Breitbart News, contemptuous of feminism, routinely compared abortion providers to Holocaust murderers.

I wrote this based on: https://www.justsecurity.org/87086/the-global-far-right-authoritarian-alliance-threatening-us-democracy-and-how-to-weaken-it/

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/steve-bannon-trump-misogyny-roe-v-wade-threat (Bannon Misogynist) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/31/robert-morris-jail-release-child-sexual-abuse-gateway-church https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/robert-morris-trump-spiritual-adviser-gateway-church-b2949437.html

It also link several important pages that explain matters in greater depth.

The incel subculture's online discourse has been characterized by social rejection, social isolation, resentment, hostile sexism, anti-feminism, sexual objectification and dehumanization of women, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, nihilism, rape culture, and the endorsement of sexual and non-sexual violence against women and the sexually active. Incels tend to blame women and feminism for their inability to find a partner; their romantic failures are often attributed to biological determinism, where women are said to have an innate and unchangeable preference for mating with high-status males (nicknamed "Chads"). Most incels identify with the "black pill", an ideology and a subsection of the Manosphere that argues female sexual selection is primarily based on external superficial qualities such as attractiveness in looks, money, and status; they also argue that these factors, especially looks, are biologically determined. This means that any man who lacks these qualities is fatalistically subjected to a life of loneliness, never being able to experience sex or relationships.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Incel. It fits this page perfectly. Numerous sources describe incels as at least potentially violent. Incels are prime targets for extremist rhetoric by, for instance, Steve Bannon: https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-targeted-incels-manipulate-cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-1468399 Nick Fuentes identified as a proud incel source: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/10/nick-fuentes-texas-meeting/ from wiki/Nick Fuentes, perhaps that connection to Bannon and Fuentes should have been clearer.

In the Philippines, the brutal kleptocrat Ferdinand Marcos lived a machismo dream, engaging in extravagance, and even creating whole cults in his honor. American economist James K. Boyce has referred to the Philippine economy under Marcos as an example of "immiserising growth," paradoxically worsening the economy through growth in which the rich get absolutely richer and the poor become absolutely poorer. United Nations Special Rapporteur from 2014 to 2020, Philip Alston, named two root causes for the extrajudicial killings of Marcos' dictatorship: (1) 'vilification,' 'labeling,’ or 'guilt by association'—"the characterisation of most groups on the left of the political spectrum as ‘front organisations’ for armed groups whose aim is to destroy democracy," making the groups "considered to be legitimate targets”; and (2) the government’s counter-insurgency strategy's extent of facilitating killings of activists and others.

No WP:OR. Text and sources originated from Ferdinand Marcos and Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines. It fits this page perfectly. Thalorin (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Notes

References

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)

• 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$\lor$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$\lor$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$\lor$investigateᛅ} 21:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Tuning

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)