Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Is this OR by synthesis?

Is this sentence original research by synthesis or not?

"The association between mice and eating cheese appears as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca.”

My position is that it’s NOT original research:

1. The text of Seneca clearly makes an association between mice and eating cheese. This is just describing what the text says. That is not OR. Similar examples of using primary sources can be found in good articles such as Pigs in culture:

One of the earliest literary references comes from Heraclitus, who speaks of the preference pigs have for mud over clean water in the Fragments. Plato in the Republic discusses a "healthy state" of simplicity as "a city for pigs" (Greek: huōn polis).

2. The source also notes that Seneca lived in the Roman period. Since Seneca makes this association in the Roman period then concluding that the association appears in the Roman period is an immediate undisputed logical step, akin to 1+1=2. This is not forbidden synthesis.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, an issue is that the ancient sources are often considered primary for our purposes, so transparent interpretation of them not citing a secondary source is often considered original research, yes.

The comparison you gave is not wholly comparable, because it directly quotes Plato, rather than simply stating an uncited interpretation of him in wikivoice, which is more comparable to what you've done. Remsense诉 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

1. And what about the Heraclitus reference? The sentence in wikipedia says that Heraclitus "speaks of the preference pigs have for mud over clean water". It doesn't directly quote him. What the Heraclitus fragment says is actually this: "Swine wash in the mire".
2. I don't interpret Seneca. I just mention the fact that he makes an association between mice and eating cheese. Can anyone dispute that he makes such an association?

Vegan416 (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that quote seems a bit fishy too. I would be much more comfortable with a secondary attestation in any case: not for OR reasons, but for WP:DUE reasons. Remsense诉 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

I don't understand how WP:DUE is relevant here. There is no dispute about the facts here. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here on your side. This sentence about Seneca is not put forward in order to support the idea that mice eat cheese. In fact it appears in the context of a paragraph that describes (based on other sources) that this belief is a myth and mice actually don't eat cheese (unless they have no choice). The sentence about Seneca just gives it an historical background.

The sentence about Seneca is also careful not to claim that Seneca himself believed that mice eat cheese, or that it was a common belief in his time. Though these conclusions seem reasonable they indeed do not necessarily logically follow from the source. I was very careful to frame it just as a description of what Seneca makes in his text, which is associating between mice and eating cheese. Vegan416 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think if you just stated the quote it would feel less like OR. The connective clauses may imply that this may be the earliest time such an association was made, or something else other than the plain existence of the historical statement itself. This editorial stuff is murky, which is why we like to lean on secondary sources. Remsense诉 20:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

1. I can of course also give it up. I have no stakes in this fact being mentioned in wikipedia. But I'm trying to understand the definition of "original research".
2. What do you think about the following option: "The association between mice and eating cheese appears at least as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca.”? [that BTW was the original version, I changed it because it sounded too cumbersome]
3. Your suggestion is something like this: "Seneca in the first century AD mentions that 'a mouse nibbles cheese'"?

Vegan416 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

1. You can never give up, I won't allow it.
2. That reads significantly better, but I would still be more comfortable with
3. This, yes.

Remsense诉 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

Ok. So the full paragraph might be something like that:

In the first century AD, Seneca mentioned that "a mouse eats cheese". Today many people believe that mice are particularly fond of cheese. But in fact most mice do not have a special appetite for cheese. They will only eat cheese when lacking better options.

BTW, all the other sentences are already supported by other sources without dispute. The dispute was only about the first one. Vegan416 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There'd be no OR claims that I can see, but it'd still help to have a secondary source establish DUEness. Remsense诉 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

I don't understand how DUEness is relevant here. There are no conflicting opinions whether Seneca said that or not. There is unanimous agreement that this source is authentic. You can read the preface written for this prestigious edition of Loeb Classic Library. Vegan416 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's say (to be symmetrical with your comparison above) that the article is Mice in culture. That's "in culture", not List of mice traits by earliest mention. So, there's a cultural provenance aspect that has an element of WP:DUEness. Remsense诉 22:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

I still do not understand. In my understanding DUE means giving the due weight to different views according to their prominence in case there are different views on a question. Such as the example given there - not to give equal weight (or any weight) to flat earth theory as a "scientific" theory opposed to spherical earth view. What are the conflicting views in this case? What is the minority view and the majority view that I don't give the right weight to? Vegan416 (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's about prominence of ideas in general, not just opposing ones in a debate. Remsense诉 13:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

Isn't Seneca prominent enough?

So according to you without secondary sources the Heraclitus reference in Pigs in culture is also UNDUE? Vegan416 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources cannot generally attest their own importance. Plenty of important works contain unimportant statements. That's why we, as a tertiary source, use secondary sources. Remsense诉 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

OK.

Would you think that this is a reliable secondary source for this info?

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/09/mice-dont-like-cheese/

They do seem to get a high rating here:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/today-i-found-out/ Vegan416 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't generally consider TodayIFoundOut a reliable source, see this discussion. I also really dislike those bias fact-checking outlets, I think they largely do more harm than good for peoples' media literacy. Remsense诉 15:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

Here is an interesting twist. This pseudo syllogism of Seneca involving mice and eating cheese is actually prominent in the sense that it had been mentioned and discussed in several scholarly articles. For example here

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44029555

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44079814

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2251454

But all these articles discuss it in the context of logics and humor, and not in the context of the feeding habits of mice. So I suppose this is not good enough for you? Vegan416 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 it’s a DUE issue because a citation to a primary source gives no indication as to why it matters this source talked about mice and cheese. Mach61 21:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61

I don't understand you point. But maybe it will be clearer if you see the full context. It's something like this:

“Today it is very common to associate mice with eating cheese. This association appears at least as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca. But in fact most mice do not have a special appetite for cheese. They will only eat cheese when lacking better options.” Vegan416 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources can be reliable. Is someone saying they can’t? Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar@Remsense

Actually all primary sources are OK as sources for simple claims about their content that can be verified by a non-expert by simply reading the source. This is official wikipedia policy here "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". In my opinion this is clearly the case here. Vegan416 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

DUE does not mean that something can be sourced, it is about determining what sourced information belongs in the article. IOW do any reliable sources note that Seneca wrote about mice and cheese? If not then inclusion is UNDUE. You will appreciate that articles are not an accumulation of every fact available, but need to focus on what is most important which is determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• While primary sources have their uses, in this case, you went beyond what the primary source says. The author is not creating an association between mice and eating cheese, all they are doing is giving an example of how one can play games with words. I'm not saying that there was no such association back then, but the text does not allow us to reach any conclusion in this regard (one way or the other). M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton

  I disagree. When Seneca says "a mouse eats cheese" he most definitely makes an association between mice and eating cheese. Of course he was not writing here an essay about the feeding habits of mice, but rather he demonstrates some sort of logical fallacy, and his use of the mice feeding habits was as a random example for his demonstration. But that doesn't stop it from being a testimony to the existence of an association between mice and eating cheese, at least in Seneca's mind, and I didn't claim anything more than that. Vegan416 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  He said it and that's all we can say. He didn't make any association, in fact, he could have said "dances in the prairie" instead of "eats cheese" and it wouldn't have changed anything to his example. M.Bitton (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton

  First of all when anyone says that a mouse eats cheese he associates mouse and eating cheese, even in the most technical sense. That's obvious. Second your argument actually proves that Seneca had a preconceived association in his mind between mice and eating cheese. Like you said, for his example he could attribute any other random action to mice and it would have worked just as well, so why did he choose this behavior if not because it was his association? Vegan416 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  so why did he choose this behavior I don't know and nor do you. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton

  But I do know. People choose this kind of things based on their preconceived associations. Vegan416 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's WP:OR (unless you can prove, using RS, that his choice was based on a preconceived association). M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton

  Nope. That's tautology. Anything a person says is based on what's in his brain/mind. How can you seriously deny that? Vegan416 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't intend on repeating what I said. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• It definitely is not original research to note that Seneca said this (we have multiple sources noting that he did so). As to the Due weight/relevance issue (ie: should a specific article mention that Seneca said this)… that is a different question and should be decided by consensus at the article level. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Synthesis of published material

A discussion is taking place here about whether or not the use of this source to claim the Libertarian Party (Australia) follows the ideology of conservatism is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Further input would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

At issue is the interpretation of an ABC article. For reference the Libertarian Party (Australia) were previously called Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). In the newspaper article they're referred to simply as Liberal Democrats.

From the article are two key paragraphs which read:

"It comes after One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties to form a powerful five-member bloc in WA's Upper House, giving it huge power in a chamber where the McGowan Government will have to rely on external support to pass legislation.

One Nation's three successful candidates will be sworn in as MPs next week, after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse."

I find it clear that the first paragraph I quote directly leads directly into the second. Thus when it is talked about in the first paragraph that "One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties", that leads to it talking about who those parties are in the second paragraph when it states "... after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse". I find this to be explicit. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

OR redirect page titles

What should be done about redirects whose titles (or rather, association between the title and the redirect target) constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? What concrete policies exist for this situation, if any?

For example, suppose an article is created for a valid topic (one that meets notability guidelines and all other relevant Wikipedia policies for existence), but under a title that is OR, i.e. no one actually refers to the topic of the article under the given title; the page author just made it up. The page is subsequently moved to its WP:COMMONNAME title. By default, in this case, a redirect would be created from the old page name to the new one. Should the redirect be deleted, or kept, and what specific policies, if any, can be used to support either decision? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it really depends on the nature of the connection, but usually leaning on the side of 'keep'—given that redirects are meant to be navigation aids primarily. As you know, WP:RFD is full of cases where the usefulness or harmfulness of redirects are discussed in this terms. Remsense诉 09:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization of antisemitism

The Weaponization of antisemitism article seems to me to be heavily based on original research, but maybe I'm wrong. There is a stiff argument on the talk page, but a very small number of editors participating. Would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. This is one of those articles where the sources are likely to mostly be opinion pieces, isn't it? Truthfully a better title might help; the current one is non-neutral and while it might reasonably pass WP:COMMONNAME if we want an article consisting of nothing but a bunch of quotes from opinion pieces, we could probably fold the topic into a more neutral descriptor that would allow for more academic coverage - verbage like "weaponization" isn't something you'd see much in academia. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a change of title is needed and could result in a more neutral article. Even the first source currently cited in the article applies scare quotes in two of its three instances of using the words "weaponization" or "weaponized", and the source's third use of the words also does not endorse the idea. Llll5032 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is one of those articles where the neutrality and the quality of the sourcing will always be disputed by someone. I'm not criticizing you for bringing it up here, mind, but I think it will always be troublesome. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Cite 1 on the page is Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell, ed. (1 March 2023). The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. p. 170. ISBN 9781000850321. In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups. How's that OR? Editors asked for cites, they were provided and promptly tagged as OR/failed verification, smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since it is clear that the topic exists. What else would you call the leveling of false charges of antisemitism?.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, the source you cited is a paragraph within Consonni's section in the Routledge handbook that includes the phrase and some other descriptors. Although she appears to only use the phrase once, I don't believe that any editor has tagged that source for problems. Perhaps her usage of it should be described within the article, instead of only cited in the first sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion about renaming the article to gather options for a new name. Llll5032 (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References

2004 European Parliament election

On the 2004 European Parliament election article, there seems to be a mess with OR when it comes two tables, one for the 2004 estimated results, and one for the 2007 notional results.

The 2007 notional results by EU party section, which was created due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, doesn't seem to have a source of where the number of votes come from and according to one of the footnotes, it incorporate the results of the latest parliamentary election of both countries before their accession, which are not related to EU Parliament elections. I was unable to find the source of the 2004 estimated results either.

I'm curious of editors' input of this as these two sections takes up a decent portion of the page with seemly no source to back them up. WebKit2 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Debate on the monarchy in Canada

This seems to be full of syth and making generalizations from random articles and quotes, i'm not really sure how what the best way to deal with it is—blindlynx 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting opinions on an RfC relating to proposal of addition of new section to LiveJasmin page

Please comment on whether the proposed section here Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community should be included in the page. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Polling at Republicanism in Canada

A dispute has been ongoing for nearly a month at Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling regarding the insertion into the article of information regarding polls on the Canadian monarchy. There seems to be agreement that no one should engage in WP:SYNTH. However, there's either unawareness or misinterpretation of what "no synthesis" means. An appeal for more editors to get involved was made at WP:CANADA; however, few have jumped in. Input from those who're active here would be appreciated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CALC, realistic verifiability, and large sets of data

I have tagged "Overview / Statewide" section of 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California because I don't think it is verifiable. The tag was removed, citing WP:CALC.

The table includes several columns. One is "votes", which totals the number of votes for all candidates of each party. While this totaling is "basic arithmetic ... such as adding numbers" (from WP:CALC) from referenced sources, my argument is that the verifiability requirement is still not met. No reference is offered that verifies these numbers.

Instead, verification must proceed by examining the votes receive by each candidate for each of 50 districts. There are three to five candidates, or so, for each of those districts -- so something like 240 numbers must be found and summed to verify the totals here.

Additional columns count candidates from each district, then break those down by the number of contested seats and number of candidates advancing. These require more counts and comparisons spread again over the 52 districts.

This is far more converting from one unit to another, or summing even a couple dozen values from the same source in the same table. Here, the values are spread across a giant article, all from different specific sources, and are aggregated into different categories.

Is such a lengthy and tedious process in this state "verifiable"? Does it still qualify as a "basic arithmetic"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Although long-winded it does seem to be covered by WP:CALC. If they are the totals of the data from the separate districts (and the separate districts are sourced) then a+b+c+d+e+f+.... is a tedious but not complex calculation. So the information isn't OR, but I'd agree verification is a pain (but verification doesn't have to be easy). This might not be the case if the figures where coming from different sources but ultimately these all come from the same source.
If all the candidates where in a single table then the sum of votes and count of candidates (and candidates that advanced) would be simple. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the question comes down to two things: the reliability of the source that the original numbers come from, and the transparency of the method. If the original numbers are legitimate and it's clear how to check the accuracy of the person's work, I think it's OK, even if checking it is a tedious job.

I also think that the fact you're asking about this might mean that it could have been done by an easier-to-understand method. However, sometimes there is no such other method. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Original research in biography

In general, when editing a biography of a person who died many years ago, should I ruthlessly delete all material marked as personal research, even if that material does not appear controversial? TooManyFingers (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers No, you should use your editorial judgement depending on the context. See WP:PRESERVE. WP-best is to make an effort to find WP:RS, cite those and possibly rewrite depending on what you find, and, if you can't find anything, content removal or tagging may be the thing to do. Other editors may object to whatever you decide, but that's part of life here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Absurd demand?

This is about [1]. IMHO, the demand that "quite conservative" and "mainstream" should be found verbatim in the WP:RS is absurd. We render the meaning of the WP:RS, we don't closely paraphrase it. The deletion is taking WP:OR to absurd extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should wait more than 15 minutes for a reply on the relevant talk page before launching a noticeboard discussion. This is unproductive and raises questions of intention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is that part of the WP:RULES? Could you provide a verbatim quote that it is a broadly accepted behavioral standard at en.wiki? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Your reply there was:

For someone who is very vocal about their understanding of the rules, you seem to have neglected to review WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Additionally, starting a noticeboard discussion immediately invites questions of forum-shopping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Which in no way addressed taking WP:OR to absurd extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:TPG: No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace. This is not a meta-discussion: you inserted content not in the source. You could have weakly argued it was appropriate per WP:BLUESKY (if this wasn't a contestable claim about a living person). ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

you inserted content not in the source is a disputed claim, namely that you take WP:OR to absurd extent.

You argue about particular words, I argue about meaning. Apples and oranges. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, TG. How does the source support the meaning of "quite conservative" and "mainstream"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not defending a particular wording, but the WP:RS makes the following points:

• Dever is a conservative archaeologist;
• archaeologists more conservative than Dever do apologetics, not historiography.

In other words: Dever is a conservative archaeologist who can be taken seriously, there are archaeologists more conservative than him, but they cannot be taken seriously. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

How does the RS make the point that Dever is a conservative archaeologist? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing in the source about "mainstream" but it does characterize Dever as one of the more conservative historians of ancient Israel. Does that help? Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks ok to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Muqatta'at original contribution

The article on Muqatta'at, the disconnected letters at the beginnings of several chapters of the Qur'an, has received a large addition connecting these letters with the Tarot and ancient Egypt. At first there were no references, and the addition was therefore deleted. It was restored with footnotes referring in every case to other Wikipedia articles. The material was therefore deleted again, with the explanation that Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources. The material was again restored, with the statement that the references must be accepted. To complicate matters, the contributor seems to believe himself to be the Mahdi (his name is a form of that word). The contributor has now reverted three deletes, and seems determined to persevere. Can anyone calm this situation, or must we freeze the article? J S Ayer (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense, Sir: Thank you! J S Ayer (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source only gives one out of three examples

I was discussing some edits in the Min Hee-Jin talk page after various reversion. Specifically the first controversies section. Please note that we reached a consensus after I took the time to talk to everybody and rewrite it but I am still curious about the proper procedure.

The first reliable source of the section is refering to twitter users commenting on instagram posts (since deleted) of Min Hee-Jin where you would be able to see her apartement. She was accused of being inspired by sexual media with minors. The Reliable source only mention one of the movies you could see on her walls. I added all of them to the section. They were reverted as "unsourced". Even if those posts are fabricated, they are archived on archive.org but I think on a static page only, how is the one explicitely mentioned in the article different in status from the others? The article is referring to a twitter discussion and picking one movie just for space or editorial reasons. Is adding the other movies referenced by the twitter users screenshots of instagram an "original research"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Is mere observation original research?

If a scientist conducts scientific research by experiment about something he should not include the results in a WP article unless possibly he publishes it in a learned periodical first especially if that magazine article is reviewed by other scientists. That I can understand. If a historian researches a subject he cannot include his own conclusions in a WP article unless they agree with earlier research. If for instance the research is into the causes of the Second World War, if he agrees with say AJP Taylor's conclusions he can cite Taylor's works in the same way as he can cite facts included in Taylor's books. However he cannot cite something he finds in an unpublished diary letter or speech of Adolf Hitler or Neville Chamberlain. If the speech, letter or diary is published as a complete document-perhaps in a book of collected correspondence or a single web published page on say a University website. That I can understand. If a WP page mentions a particular building with which I am familiar and perhaps see every week and that building is demolished or changes its use can I change the WP article or is it called "original research." .There is a published source about the building but saying it exists or has a particular use, but this has not been updated. A sourced WP article says e.g."there is a post office at Smallville" but there is no source to say the Smallville Post Office has been demolished or has been turned into a private house. Can a resident of Smallville .correct the article to say so or simply delete the sentence about it? This can be verified by anybody that visits Smallville. This is mere observation rather than research. No special scientific or historian's skill involved. I have encountered this sort of situation on a number of occasions and it has been difficult to find sources and sometimes the information has been indirect such as a directory that does not include any mention of the building.. . Spinney Hill (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As a matter of frank practicality, stuff like this is occasionally necessary, although of course nobody likes it. It is nearly always possible to find something serving as proof that the thing is or isn't the case, so in most cases that can be done. Generally, this is meant to be encompassed within the concept of notability (e.g. if there are no sources reporting on the fact that a person who has died, were they that notable in the first place?) but edge cases do happen sometimes. jp×g🗯️ 06:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. Long answer: its a grey area but something would have to be published... But even a demolition or construction notice nailed to a light post would count. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

In most cases, I would have no problem with an editor adding such mundane observations… BUT… if some other editor objects and says we need a source, we should leave it out until the required source is found. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Its not just a question of notability. In my scenario the district or town is the notable thing. Its the subject of the article but the building that is demolished or changes its use is not of itself notable but was quite properly included in the article as part of the description of the town. If its not there it shouldn't be included.. I'll give another example. This time it is specific.

The village of Cogenhoe, Northamptonshire has a wp article. There is a gravel quarry there which has been dug in the last 5 years. I have found no printed or internet source for this but I have seen it. Any sighted person who walks along a particular road or a number of footpaths can do the same and verify this. There will be a planning permission at the local authority offices which can be inspected by the public (I think) but it won't necessarily be printed in the local paper. I have searched the paper's website. I have searched the gravel company's website. In any case the permission will not state that the quarrying has actually been started, only that permission to quarry has been given.. . Spinney Hill (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly that seems to be getting more into WP:DUE and WP:NOT than a question about OR. Why does the article need to mention the quarry? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a major part of the landscape, an important part of the geography of the place in all senses and will in time be part of the local history. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Then in time it will be included on the wikipedia page. There is no rush and no reason to include it today. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I edit in areas like this (on English places) and I have used planning applications as a reference in some instances where I have found absolutely nothing else. I admit that this is a "last resort" option. Most council planning websites have dynamic URLs (not sure if that's the right technical term!) which mean individual documents (decision notices, officers' reports etc.: stuff that would confirm demolitions etc.) can't be cited directly; so I tend to create a simple reference consisting of the planning application reference, date, address and then the title of the planning application as a quote. In terms of verifiability, somebody checking the reference could then go to the local authority's planning website and search for the application reference. No ref template used: it just goes between ref tags. See reference number 235 here for an example. I always intend such references to be placeholders until I can find something more useful. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this about the correct quarry? Seems like a viable ref for the planning of it. DMacks (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the volatility of the URL, you can archive the current page at archive.org then include the archive address as part of the citation. Zero^talk 01:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Significant unreferenced additions by one user

In September and October 2022, CinemaKnight100 added sections to several dozen articles about the composition and redistricting of different congressional districts. These sections include population information without any citation for the numbers given, and no timestamp information for when the observation might have been made. Further, they don't contain any references for the definition of the district boundaries, so the towns and cities claimed for the districts are also not verifiable.

How can this material best be corrected? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think in such a case (dozens of articles about a political topic) it's important to first try to figure out whether that editor was (a) working in good faith but not finishing the job correctly, (b) inserting garbage to disrupt Wikipedia (i.e. vandalism), or (c) systematically lying to advance some agenda.

If it is possible to look these things up somewhere reliable, and if it turns out that the editor was telling the truth, then cleaning up the editor's work and providing the missing references is enough. (Along with putting a note on their user talk page, if appropriate.) TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd advise you check out this [2], if you want to verify his work. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Anna Panagiotopoulou original research

In the article Anna Panagiotopoulou the User:KNIM123 insists - contrary to all reliable secondary sources - on putting as the year of birth of the actress, his own information, as he clearly states on his talk page . The conversation was made in greek but and here is the translation. I know it personally. His name is not Damoulakos, but Damoulakis. And as a source there is an article about her funeral that mentions the name Dimitris Damoulakis as her son. Also, she was born in 1945, not 1947, the electoral registers verify this, citing the following information on the Ministry of Interior's "Find out where you vote" platform: DAMOULAKI ANNA ANDREAS ANDREAS 1945. Please restore my edition D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Original research and fringe at Safa Khulusi

Two years ago I removed a large amount (~74,000 bytes) of original research and fringe views (I will notify WP:FTN of this thread) from Safa Khulusi. A somewhat longish (sorry!) explanation and diffs of the removals at Talk:Safa Khulusi#Removal of originally researched analysis of Khulusi's works. Basically, the article was using Khulusi's own writings to present his (fringe) views as facts, and more generally providing an evaluation of Khulusi's work without any secondary sources.

Recently, a new single-purpose account StopTheV4dals has repeatedly reinstated [3][4] the last revision before my removals two year ago (cf. [5]). They refuse to discuss at the article talk.

Which revision should the article feature, StopTheV4dals's reinstatement of the old one [6] or my pruned revision of the last two years [7]? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that the attempt to restore blatant WP:OR to the article is ongoing. [8] AndyTheGrump (talk)

I have warned the user that I will block if they revert again. (That's assuming that I'm awake for it. If not, I expect somebody else will.) Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC).

Original research at Mulatto

User @MonsenorNouel is including the unsourced claim that "Brazil has the largest mulatto population in the world". None of the "sources" he provided explicitly state the claim. He is doing WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and therefore the claim must be removed. Some of the sources include blog posts, a link to a book store, and book titles with no page given whatsoever. Torimem (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Creating a truth table from law

As mentioned at Talk:Ages of consent in the United States#Washington: non-prosecute part, I have derived a truth table from the law regarding age of consent in the state of Washington. The source of this table can either be the actual laws 9A.44.073 - 093 or the Bill analysis. Would this truth table be origional research?

table showing ages of permissible sexual contact

Age 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ 9 Y Y ? N N N N N N N N N 10 Y Y Y ? N N N N N N N N 11 ? Y Y Y ? N N N N N N N 12 N ? Y Y Y Y ? N N N N N 13 N N ? Y Y Y Y ? N N N N 14 N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y ? N N 15 N N N ? Y Y Y Y Y Y ? N 16 N N N N ? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17 N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 N N N N N ? Y Y Y Y Y Y 19 N N N N N N ? Y Y Y Y Y 20+ N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Legend Y Permissible N Not permissible ? Permissible when the younger person's birth day and month is before the older person's

Subanark (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• I’m not sure if your chart violates our WP:Original research policy… but I would be concerned that the chart over-simplifies a topic that is usually FAR more nuanced than any simple chart could convey. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  The section of the law that covers the actual age is usually pretty simple; Washington state is unusual in that it is mildly complex. The choice right now is either to have the complex rules as is, replace the section with a "It is complicated" or similar language, remove the section or provide an alternate way of representing the data (e.g. a chart). A decision was recently made to remove the section on the grounds that it is better to error on the side of saying something is illegal than not.

  The chart is only covering this section (from the analysis):

  "A person commits a first degree offense if the victim is younger than 12 years old and, for Rape of a Child, the perpetrator is at least 24 months older than the victim, or, for Child Molestation, is at least 36 months older; a second degree offense if the victim is 12 or 13 years old and the perpetrator is at least 36 months older than the victim; and a third degree offense if the victim is 14 or 15 years old and the perpetrator is at least 48 months older than the victim." Subanark (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think this is original research, given that it can be extremely easily checked against the text of the law, but it does seem like kind of a gigantic table that may not be warranted in the article. jp×g🗯️ 08:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

easily checked against the text of the law isn't good enough. Lots of laws appear to say something obvious, but what if there is another law that interacts with it in some way in some scenarios? It's dangerous territory. If we're going to put a big green tick against something and label it permissible (particularly something controversial, and particularly something that would be highly illegal in nearby similar jurisdictions), I'd want to see a reliable secondary source state unambiguously and explicitly that this is the correct interpretation of the law. I'm also more than a little skeptical that "will not prosecute" equates to "A-OK, go right ahead" (which is what a big green tick usually signifies), if the language of the law still refers to one party as a victim. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess having the boxes be red and green is probably bad. Oh well. I have to admit I have not really given this issue a whole lot of thought; it sounds kind of complicated. jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea... I've been waiting on a response from the Washington Department of Health for a while now. Previously they laid out the law pretty concisely in the simplest case, but have taken down the page that had this information around the beginning of 2024. It was unclear is this information was removed due to being a mistake, or as a casualty of some other information on that page that wasn't appropriate. I am considering just using "it's not clear" or similar verbiage. Subanark (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Deriving a truth table" is blatant OR, and beyond that I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the entire Ages of consent in the United States article and many of the sources it uses.
  • better to error on the side of saying something is illegal than not – WHAT??? No, if you don't have a first-class source laying out exactly the answer, then it's better to say nothing at all.
  • The table's entry for Alaska is sourced ([9] [10]) to a website hosted (weirdly enough, given the topic) as "touchandgo.com" and describing itself thus:

  Welcome to the Alaska Legal Resource Center, which is dedicated to providing free access to public legal resources, such as case law, court rules, statutes and regulations. Provided by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc, your computer consultant and Bright Solutions, Computer Forensic Experts. This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business. Last Modified 12/10/2007.

  The Last Modified 12/10/2007 bit might explain why that same page also provides handy links to Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Congressman Don Young, two of whom are dead (Stevens since 2010). The entire site is a zombie trapped in a time warp from twenty years ago, and that's what you're drawing on to tell our readers who the can have sex with and still stay out of prison? Are you kidding? And to be clear, such a source wouldn't be a reliable one even if it were nominally up to date.

• The Rhode Island entry is sourced (in part) to Humphrey Law Offices ... Rhode Island Statutory Rape Defense Attorney ... Have you been accused of statutory rape? [11] – once again: are you kidding?

What has obviously happened is that the desire to have a complete table for all fifty states has led to scraping the bottom of the sources barrel in some cases. I'm sorry, but I think a complete review of all the sources is needed, and many of the table entries need to be changed to "Uncertain" or something. Or maybe even something more radical is needed -- something close to WP:TNT. EEng 19:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider putting your concerns in the talk page for the article?

I find it unfortunate that we might need to remain vague on such topic, since if Wikipedia does not have a good answer the next best search engine hits are frequently out of date.

As far as the "better to error on the side of saying something is illegal than not" statement goes. In Washington state, if you say the age of consent is 16, it is mostly true, but there are exceptions on both the side of when it can legal at a younger age, and exceptions where it is illegal at an older age. Is it better not to discuss any of these exceptions? Subanark (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't be dispensing information that we know or suspect may be in error, regardless of the direction of the potential error. EEng 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Gregorian Bivolaru

Hi, this is about [12]. Please chime in.

Meaning: could not invoke a 1989 document that had already been "annulled" by the 2011 court decision smacks of a priori reasoning. But we have 9 (nine) WP:RS that his defense pleaded he is legally insane during his extradition trial. So, empirical reality goes against her a priori reasoning. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

These are allegations that the press obsessively repeats, even though no official accusations of pimping or prostitution have been made—again, how would Mr. Andreescu know in 2017 what happened in 2023 and 2024? Is he a psychic? tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Güns

Is this considered WP:OR?

Example:

• "Ottoman military action, however, was considerably less glorious than the triumphal arches and panoply that marked the sultan's progress. Impeded by heavy rain, Suleyman's army of some 100,000 men slowly made its way toward Vienna. Ibrahim Pasha committed the water-logged army to a siege of the small fortress of Koszeg (Guns), 100 kilometers southeast of Vienna, but by the time the defenders surrendered, the campaigning season was past." --Prophecy and Politics in Istanbul: Charles V, Sultan Suleyman, and the Habsburg Embassy of 1533-1534, "Journal of Early Modern History", Robert Finlay, page 13

Another example:

• "At one small fortress on the Austrian border, Günns (modern Koszeg, c.100 km south-east of Vienna), the entire Turkish army, some 100,000 regular troops, was held up by a garrison of less than 800 men." --"The Turks and Islam in Reformation Germany", Gregory J. Miller(Professor of History at Malone University), page 36.

How about this:

• "On the siege of Guns..[..].. see the very useful survey of events by Gertrud Gerhartl, "Die Niederlage der Turken em Steinfeld (1532)", who also believes however, that Suleiman's army consisted of 200,000 soldiers...." --The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571, Volume III, Kenneth Meyer Setton, 365.

Can we place in the infobox of the article that Suleiman had an army of 100,000/200,000 men? Or is this considered WP:OR? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The only useful and verifiable source I see is from Miller. Finlay gives a number at a different place (which means it doesn't directly and explicitly support any claims for the Siege of Güns). Setton attributes a number to a source from 1532 without any strong indication that he agrees with that number. I do question the phrasing of the Miller source, though; he almost makes it sound like the 800 men besieged or obstructed the 100,000. That's a minor quibble, however. If no other historians agree with Miller, then the citation should be attributed as well. Woodroar (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The Gerhartl source isn't from 1532, it was published in 1974.[13] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely correct about the "1532" part, and I've struck that. I still don't see Setton giving much credence to those numbers. He begins the footnote with Numbers seem to have had little meaning for the sixteenth-century mind, before mentioning a source that gives 200,000 vs. 700,000. Setton then mentions Gerhartl's survey but says he also believes, however, that Suleiman's army consisted of 200,000 soldiers. To me, that "however" is Setton saying "this scholar put together a useful outline but even he's overestimating the numbers". Otherwise, why mention them only in a footnote about wildly inflated numbers? Woodroar (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Woodroar, while I mostly agree with you, I would say Finlay is usable. It describes the army at least at the inception of the siege, so for me, that would support the 100,000 man figure. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. I will say that the Finlay source and our own article (Siege of Güns) gives a little more context than what's above, which perhaps explains why Finlay doesn't come out and say 100,000 men were at the siege. (I can get into that if you're interested.) But it's the same number as Miller so it may not be worth the spoons arguing about it. Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Finlay is the only source that gives an estimate for the specific event. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• It is not Original Research to use numbers found in external sources (It would only be OR if we used our own calculation or analysis). That does not mean the numbers given in the sources are necessarily reliable (or at least reliable enough for an infobox). This strikes me as something that needs attribution… and you can’t do that in an infobox. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Notable scholar's own work acceptable or OR?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A number of Muslim Islamic scholars (including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm (994-1064)), believe that belief in Jinn (supernatural beings, the origin of Genies) is essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. I want to add two more scholars (Abul A'la Maududi (1903-1979) and Fethullah Gülen (1941-), on the basis of what they have clearly written in their own (RS) scholarly work

Quotes from scholars' writing Supporting Abul A'la Maududi's belief:

In his introduction to the Quran, Maududi defends "the reality of the jinn" against the influence of "modernism", the failure of modernists to believe in what cannot be perceived, and their idea that the jinn of the Quran were not supernatural invisible beings but actually "savage and wild mountain tribes, and sometimes the people who used to listen to the Quran secretly".
Mawdudi, Sayyid Abul. "72. Al-Jinn". Towards Understanding the Quran. Archive.org. p. 2739. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Maududi, Syed Abu-Ala'. "72. Jinn. Reality of Jinn". Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi's Chapter Introductions to the Quran. International Islamic University of Malaysia. Retrieved 12 March 2024.
Maududi, Syed Abu-Ala'. "72. Jinn. Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi's Chapter Introductions to the Quran". islam101.com/. Retrieved 11 May 2024.

(Not included in the proposed notes to the article but in Maududi's Introduction to chapter 72, are two mentions of "the clear statements of the Qur'an about the jinn" and "the statements of the Qur'an in this regard are so clear and explicit that these interpretations bear no relevance to them whatever.")

Supporting Fethullah Gülen's belief that Jinn are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran, are quotes from his work, Essentials of the Islamic Faith:

"As mentioned earlier, jinn are a species of invisible beings. A short Qur'anic chapter is named for them, and in it we learn that a band of jinn listened to Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, and some became believers: ..."
Gülen, Fethullah (14 September 2001). "Jinn and Their Functions". fgulen.com, Essentials of the Islamic Faith. Retrieved 5 May 2024.

"Jinn can harm the body and cause physical and psychological illnesses. It might be a good idea for medical authorities to consider whether jinn cause certain types of cancer, since cancer is an unordered and diseased growth in the body that we can describe as cellular anarchy".
Gülen, Fethullah (14 September 2001). "Jinn and Human Beings". fgulen.com, Essentials of the Islamic Faith. Retrieved 5 May 2024..

... on the same lines. Would it be okay to add such names as WP:SUMMARY in the list or would that be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (with assistance of User:Bookku)

IMO revisit section heading too.

May be you can try some thing like 'Notable scholar's own work acceptable or OR?' Bookku (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Done --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

OR is a policy for editors editing Wikipedia. It usually doesn't apply to outside researchers, academics, historians etc. who may publish work based on their own research. Has the scholarly work of the two scholars in question been published in WP:RS? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry there still may be some confusion remained in framing the question. The question is not whether a scholar can engage in OR in his/her own scholarly work. Let me try again.

Say four scholars ABCD, PQRS, EFGH and MNOP are of equal standing and their works are RS to Wikipedia.

On the basis of their individual scholarly works we can write scholar ABCD believe in specific philosophical side XYZ. Also scholar PQRS believe in the same specific philosophical side XYZ. Also scholar EFGH believe in in the same specific philosophical side XYZ. Also scholars MNOP believe in in the same specific philosophical side XYZ.

1) So whether forming single sentence saying "Scholars ABCD, PQRS, EFGH and MNOP, all four, believe in the same specific philosophical side XYZ" will be acceptable sentence even though we do not have fifth scholar (i.e. one more independent) saying so, or would that be considered synthesis?

2) Here in this case present sentence in the article Jinn is on the line like: ".. many ... scholars, including ... scholar ABCD and the ... scholar PQRS, believe in specific philosophical side XYZ." For this kind of sentence luckily a specific RS is available from independent author mentioning scholar ABCD and the scholar PQRS believe XYZ.

Say you wish to add two more notable author names 'EFGH', and 'MNOP' on the basis what they too have clearly written in their own (RS) scholarly that they too believe in the same specific philosophical side XYZ. Though yet not covered as such by one more independent scholar saying 'EFGH', and 'MNOP' believe XYZ.

Here the question is if, anyways scholars 'EFGH', and 'MNOP' too believe in the same 'XYZ', then why not add them in the same sentence which state scholar ABCD and the scholar PQRS believe 'XYZ'? Bookku (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A request to share inputs in this discussion has been made @ WP:Teahouse#How does OR works? Pl. join @ WP:NORN Bookku (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Mere juxtaposition of information from different sources is not OR if no additional conclusion is being drawn or implied. After all, that's what our entire articles are supposed to consist of. So your sentence in (1) is perfectly OK if I understand the question. In (2), beware of "many" as some will argue that 4 is not many given that there have been thousands of commentators on Islamic law. Using "several" or "some" would be better, and if there are reliable sources with an opposite opinion mentioning them as well would satisfy NPOV better. Zero^talk 04:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Actually, the vast majority of Muslims believe that believing in the jinn is necessary, since they are mentioned in the Qur’an and authentic hadiths, but User:Louis P. Boog would like to mention some Muslim scholars, just for example.TheEagle107 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not debating the facts but only the Wikipedia rules. If there is a reliable source using "most" it is allowed for us to use it too. However we aren't allowed to judge "most" by ourselves. I didn't look at the sources so I don't know which of these is true. Zero^talk 10:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems perfectly acceptable to me. If anything, it is a very mild (and acceptable) form of SYNTH, not OR. Toadspike [Talk] 17:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Er, um ... SYNTH is a species of OR. EEng 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I still don't think the claim suggested by Louis is problematic, and this seems to be the consensus of this entire discussion (which I now realize continues far below this point on the page). Toadspike [Talk] 17:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Notability refers to whether or not an article should be written about someone, not whether their opinions belong in an article. For example, Meloni is a notable person, but not every article should present her views.

You need to show the relevance of the opinions in reliable sources and give them the same weight that they do. And if they have no weight in reliable sources, they don't belong in the article. TFD (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Inputs from Maproom and rest)

I've been invited here in a posting at the Teahouse. I'm puzzled by the thread. It's a debate about whether some claim counts as "original research", but I can't figure out what claim. Maybe it's one of these:

• Jinns exist.
• Devout Muslims believe that Jinns exist.
• Hanbalī and others believed that Jinns exist.
• Hanbalī and others stated that devout Muslims believe that Jinns exist.

While I don't know, I can't usefully contribute to the discussion. Maproom (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom, Thanks for your response. It will be always good to have more views. I am my self in discussion facilitator role @ Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC. Up til now both sides are taking discussion ahead in good structured manner. Let me try to explain you once again.

The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion

The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be WP:DUE how much to cover.User:VenusFeuerFalle says (in the article-body Jinn) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too. Highlighted sentences in LPB's sandbox will be for consideration.

At Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion User:VFF's two concerns one was referred at WP:RSN#Hachette Livre the second OR one is referred here.

* Present sentence in the article for consideration here
Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran.

This sentence is supported in the article by Ref: Nünlist, Tobias. Dämonenglaube Im Islam. Germany, Walter De Gruyter Incorporated, p.33.

Tobias Nünlist is independent RS acceptable to both side referring to two scholars Hanbalī, ibn Taymiyya in above sentence.There is no disagreement up til here.

User LPB wishes to add two more scholar names Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen in the same above sentence. But there is no independent RS like Tobias Nünlist. So User VFF says adding Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen amounts to OR, where as user LPB says Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen are scholars in their own standing and references from their own book should be sufficient as RS. Hence section heading is titled, and main question is Notable scholar's i.e. Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen's own works acceptable or OR? for the given purpose.

Personally I have not weighed on Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen own books since these two authors are WP:DUE or not will be for main proposed RfC to decide; my role is discussion facilitator hence above I presented hypothetical case of "Scholars ABCD, PQRS, EFGH and MNOP" for juxtaposition. Your and other user inputs will be helpful for users who would participate in main RfC (@ Talk:Jinn) tentatively planned after closure of this discussion. Bookku (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom. I'd also like to thank you and encourage you to weigh in. Maybe I can simplify the issue. To be a true Muslim many Muslims believe it is not only necessary to believe There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is his prophet but some other points of doctrine as well — for example, the "six articles of Islamic faith" (which include the belief in the existence and oneness of God, the existence of angels, etc.). For a number of Islamic scholars another point of doctrine is the existence of Jinn, because they are mentioned in the Quran. The wikipedia article on Jinn mentions two scholars who say this (ibn Taymiyya and ibn Hazm), and I want to add two more (Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen).

Ok, I'll weigh in. Disclaimer: I know very little of the tenets of Islam. I have looked at Wikipedia:No original research, and have observed how it's applied.

In Wikipedia, OR refers to research done by the editor making the claim.

If someone studies ants, and adds to an article the statement "some ants have eight legs", that is OR, and is not acceptable.

If someone cites reliable and uncontested sources, in support of the claim "All Muslims believe that God exists", that's fine. If someone cites a published work by Richard Dawkins, in support of the claim "Dawkins believes that no God exists", that's fine. If someone cites all those sources, in support of the claim "Dawkins is not a Muslim", that is synthesis, a form of OR. He has put two facts together and formed his own conclusion. That is not acceptable.

So: citing A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen in support of the claim "some notable scholars have stated that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith" is not OR. It may be overkill to cite four scholars in support of that claim, but it is not OR. Maproom (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

But I am including them on the basis of THEIR saying this (Jinn are real invisible beings and not a metaphor) in their writings, and not a THIRD PERSON WP:RS saying so in a commentary. There is not dispute (AFAIK) that the two scholars are notable or that their writings quoted are their own, but is quoting THEM (and not a third person) OR? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Their writing it in a published source is evidence that they believe it. You don't need another source to say that they wrote it, and it's certainly not OR. Another example of "a published source says what it says, no need for independent sources" is the "plot" section of e.g. David Copperfield. It cites no sources. You can verify it by reading the book. Maproom (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Any similar previous discussions?

Can someone pl. help in finding previous discussions, similar to the case discussed in this section above, from archives of this notice board or any other discussion, if possible? Bookku (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Since some users dealing first time to such question seem to find the question complex, or difficult to understand. It's much likely that similar issue would have been discussed and some old timers may be aware or at least able to get into the nitty-gritty. Below I could collate few old discussions and active old timers of this notice board from xtools. If user of either side of discussion wishes to request more inputs from them then in case you ping then ping all active ones from following.

Finding active old timers from this notice board for inputs

Finding exact similar instantaneously from archives or talk pages is huge task, but in archives I could have few following discussions where users seem discussing some complex aspects: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Original scientific works Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Is this OR by synthesis? Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 6#author's own work WP:OR for quotes? From this xtools still active among most active users on this notice board: User:Blueboar User:The Four Deuces, User:Viriditas, User:Doug Weller, User:Masem

Bookku (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• To anwswer User:Louis P. Boog's question: No, it's not OR if you paraphrase the views and statements by Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen from their own with in-text attribution. You might however violate the principle of WP:due weight by doing so, since both are not independent secondary sources. Sources that engage in exegesis within the framework of their own faith are always to be considered primary sources for Wikipedia being an indepedent encyclopedia, even if these sources are considered secondary sources within the framework of their own faith since they base their exegesis on a thorough review of earlier Islamic scholarship.

The mention of Ibn Taymiyya is based on a independent secondary source (Nünlist), so this is unproblematic since Wikipedia reflects. If there is however no independent source that presents a specific viewpoint of a specific Islamic scholar (here: Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen's views on the importance of the belief in the existence of Jinns), why should we do so? By doing so, we don't reflect, but rather promote that specific viewpoint by giving it more space here than it has ever received in the relevant literature that we base our encyclopedia on.

This is not necessarily a hard rule. Consensus and editorial judgement can still come to a different result, e.g. when multiple other viewpoints by the same religious scholar are widely cited in independent sources, which indicates that their voice is relevant within their field. But of course, it would be much better if the relevance of Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen's views on this matter is evidenced by an independent secondary source that cites/mentions them. –Austronesier (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

To reply to Austronesier, But if a search of JSTOR yields 310 hits for Abul A'la Maududi and 592 results for Fethullah Gülen, that may indicate the notability of those scholars/preachers but is not allowed because it is WP:SYNTH, right? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is no element of original research on our part if we mention them, therefore it's only a matter of due weight, not WP:SYNTH (and other OR-issues). Have you already specifically tried to find a secondary source that talks about their views on the belief in jinns?

The JSTOR count is only partially helpful especially in the case of Gülen. Many of the sources in the search result most probably don't cover such theological details, but more likely discuss the sociopolitical impact of Gülen and his movement. –Austronesier (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you already specifically tried to find a secondary source that talks about their views on the belief in jinns? Yes I have. Commentators on Maududi and Gülen mostly seem interested in their influence on Pakistan and Turkey respectively, which at certain times was considerable. -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think the question to discuss here is WP:UNDUE not WP:OR. It is not WP:OR to note that these two scholars said what they said… it might be WP:UNDUE to note that they said it. (I am not familiar enough with the topic to fully judge, but the 600 year gap between ibn Taymiyya and the two more modern scholars in question makes me suspicious… if the existence of Jinn was central to Islam, surely other scholars would have talked about this in the interim?) Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar:

• • 600 year gap. Bear in mind the case here is that while there are different schools of Islam, we (or at least I) are arguing that the belief that Jinn are supernatural beings and part of Islamic belief is held by significant/noteworthy scholars of Islam. (TheEagle107 would say the mainstream belief.) There are rationalist and modernists who don't agree, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone arguing they held sway during any period of Islamic history. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

While my expertise in Islamic scholarship is very limited, I think its safe to say that ibn Taymiyya is mentioned because he is a celebrated scholar. the two more modern scholars are mentioned because they indicate that to a large extent current pious opinion has not changed greatly, of course it remains to be seen how well respect for their scholarship will withstand the test of time.

• • if the existence of Jinn was central to Islam ... In the dispute between literal and metaphorical, strict and broad interpretation, jinn is just one of a multitude of issues in Islam. Few would call it "central" to Islam. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar: @Louis P. Boog: @Bookku: Well, there is another Muslim scholar mentioned in the same source who holds the same opinion and position as them, but his name is not included in the article! I think Fakhr al-Din al-Razi should be added in the article along with Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya.🤓

@Blueboar:

The following is a quotation which appears in the same source at page 33:

Dämonenglaube im Islam ORIGINAL: (in German) Anderseits verweist Ibn Hazm ähnlich wie Ibn Taymiyya darauf, dass sich die Muslime in der Bejahung der Existenz von Dämonen einig seien (agma'a, igmä). Auch die Christen, Zoroastrier, Sabier und die meisten Juden, hier mit Ausnahme der Samaritaner, würden sich zustimmend zum Geisterglauben äußern. Ibn Hazm schließt seine Überlegungen zur Existenz von ginn mit der folgenden, für die Position traditionalistischer Kreise bezeichnenden Bemerkung: "Wer die ginn leugnet oder über sie Umdeutungen ersinnt, durch die er sie aus der äußeren Welt hinausdrängt, ist ein ungläubiger Polytheist (käfir mušrik), dessen Blut und Besitz vogelfrei sind (haläl ad-dam wa-äl-mäl)." Mit dieser Aussage brandmarkt Ibn Ḥazm das Leugnen der ǧinn als kufr (Unglaube) und bezeichnet all jene als vogelfrei, die die tatsächliche Existenz von Dämonen nicht akzeptieren. TRANSLATION: (in English), automatically translated by Google Translate. On the other hand, Ibn Hazm, like Ibn Taymiyya, points out that Muslims are united in affirming the existence of demons (agma'a, igmä). Christians, Zoroastrians, Sabians and most Jews, with the exception of the Samaritans, would also express their approval of the belief in ghosts. Ibn Hazm concludes his reflections on the existence of ginn with the following remark, which is representative of the position of traditionalist circles: "Whoever denies the ginn or thinks up new interpretations of it by which he pushes it out of the external world is an unbelieving polytheist (käfir mušrik), whose blood and property are outlaws (haläl ad-dam wa-äl-mäl)." With this statement, Ibn Ḥazm brands the denial of the Jinn as kufr (disbelief) and describes as outlaws all those who do not accept the actual existence of demons. Tobias Nünlist, "Dämonenglaube im Islam". p. 33.

If you have some free time and are interested in lending a hand, please take a quick look at the talk page. You will find there several sources that confirm what is written above in bold. Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheEagle107 I suppose the other side user VFF too is not contesting contents mentioned in relevant secondary academic literature. In above what you are bringing to attentions is good for you to discuss at upcoming RfC as WP:DUE weight. (May I request you to collapse the quote and translation part above).

Here question brought by User LPB was about technical and complex aspects of WP:OR. Over all consensus seem to be forming OR is not much concern in this case; but side note suggestions seem to be importance of weighing content on other counts like supporting with whether it has been talked about by other scholars importance of Jinn to Islam in the interim centuries? foremost is whether substantially supported by secondary academic sources for the relevant content last but not least WP:DUE.

I suppose every one will agree that inputs presented by users in this discussion are truly enlightening. I would request and fore see some of above inputs to get incorporated in FAQ and Wikipedia essays. (My emphasis). Bookku (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Genocide sidebar‎ problems

Hi, this sidebar used to have a list of events considered genocides, unfortunately this was a source of common disputes about how to follow NPOV (which events could be called genocide in wikivoice by listing in the template). Another editor organized the list into different levels of acceptance—which genocides are "universally", "majority" considered genocides—unfortunately these classifications are neither supported by RS nor particularly accurate. Can we get more input into avoiding OR in this template. Thanks (t · c) buidhe 13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Obsolete scientific opinions from 2006, sourced from archived website

This block of text was recently added to Cat predation on wildlife:

The advocacy group SongBird Survival, a limited company which achieved charitable status in 2001 and funds research into the causes of declining songbird populations, noted on its website in 2006 that "cats are frequently singled out as the primary reason for the disappearance of Britain's songbirds" and described the claim as unjustified. It decried the absence of numbers for cat predation on birds from the 1997 survey by the Mammal Society, and drew a comparison between the figure of 55 million birds killed annually by UK's suggested 9–10 million cats, derived from an estimate by Cats Protection, and the 100 million birds preyed on by the 100,000-strong UK population of sparrowhawks each year. It suggested that the hunting instinct of cats "could be dulled by their reduced need to catch their own food" and by human-sourced amusement, while noting that the total 2002 value of the cat product and service market approximated £1.5bn. However, a 2006 study report commissioned by SongBird Survival blamed grey squirrels and feral cats as responsible for "a sharp decline" in bird populations in combination with sparrowhawks. It alleged that predators were as harmful as factory farming and that their populations were "spiralling out of control". In December 2015, Nick Forde, a trustee of SongBird Survival, denounced the RSPB's position on the grounds that adequate studies had not been done. He accused RSPB of protecting their financial interests and pointed to the difference in income between his charity and the rival RSPB. By 2016, the website of Songbird Survival also alleged that RSPB's position was "no longer tenable". In support of this claim, it now stated that "the recovering sparrowhawk population in the 1970–80s resulted in the decline of some songbird populations" and that "cats kill around 3 times as many songbirds as sparrowhawks", hence it is "far more [sic] likely that cats have an even greater impact on songbird populations than sparrowhawks".

References

Songbird Survival's post-2006 view appears to represent the current scientifc consensus that predation by cats is a global conservation problem. (e.g., [14]) Is it original research to include these contradictory earlier views sourced to Internet Archive versions of their old website? There seems to be an implied conclusion that their views have changed a lot. Geogene (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely OR of the source-manipulation sort. If we had an article somewhere that encyclopedically treated the history of politicized dispute about differing approaches to control of cat predation on wildlife (which might or might not be a viable encyclopedia subject, depending on how much independent coverage the controversy may have generated about it as a controversy per se), then it is conceivable that a citation to this archived material could be pertinent, but only in the course of analyzing how positions have shifted over time. And even that could present OR issues, if independent secondary sources have not themselves published such an analysis.

Here, by contrast, the material is being misused to try to contradict current scientific consensus and to miscast the authoring organization as holding an advocacy position that it does not in fact hold any longer, so it's wrongheaded twice over.

The same editor (VampaVampa), in material [15] related to and longer than the quote above, is also trying to contradict current research with primary-source papers from the 1970s, which is not okay per WP:OLDSOURCES, though that might ultimately be a matter for WP:RSN if we really needed to have multiple, forked noticeboard discussions about this editor's approach. There's a lengthy thread about all of this at Talk:Cat predation on wildlife#Addition of old sources and misuse of primary sources, and it follows on another lengthy thread just above it, about a prior drive-by editor trying to similarly use advocacy op-ed material as if it were a scientific literature review. This article attracts this kind of WP:FRINGE stuff due to its emotionally politicized nature, ultimately a conflict between ecologists, zoologists, and other scientists, versus the more extreme bent in the animal-welfare advocacy camp (who somehow can stomach invasive cats killing billions of small animals per year, but cannot abide the idea of culling of feral cat populations, even if it means the difference between several more bird and other species surviving or going rapdily extinct due to cat predation).

VampaVampa's approach to all of this is outlandish claims that both WP and the scientific sources themselves are "biased", and even an evidence-free accusation that modern researchers are "ignoring" prior evidence/research that VV clearly considers to be WP:THETRUTH. This is leaning strongly in a conspiracy-theoretic direction. Their response to rebuttal has been to play victim and to text-wall their same position again and again in excessive, repetitive detail as if not already rebutted, and this is cannot go anywhere productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In response to the above claims, I would firstly welcome any external input, including mediation or arbitration, on the challenge mounted against my rather limited contribution by @Geogene and @SMcCandlish, two editors who happen to (1) support the same side in the academic debate about the impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife and biodiversity, and (2) both seek to deny that such a debate even exists in the field.

I wish to draw attention to the combative rhetoric with which the two editors have approached my contribution after I resisted @Geogene's attempt to revert it, and to their partisan comments about the NGOs involved in the dispute, as noted in the relevant talk page thread. It may be true that there has been a recent outpouring of research (notable for its quantity but not necessarily quality) that supports the claims they defend as the only scientific ones. But a number of important methodological objections have been raised to this new trend, as usefully summarised by Turner 2022, who is a senior scholar in the relevant field, and they deserve to be addressed on their merits, and not by the sheer volume of academic output.

Since the conflict between @Geogene and @SMcCandlish on the one side and myself on the other seems to boil down to whether there is currently any other tenable scientific position than the one they champion, this is clearly a WP:NPOV matter and I ask that it be treated as such. The WP:OR charge is bogus since nothing in my contested contribution is not covered by the sources cited and the sources are legitimate. VampaVampa (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Nah, the conclusions you are trying to draw and either explicitly state or steer the reader into believing, namely that there is extensive scientific debate about the extent and effects of cat predation (versus the well-attested political debating about what to do about it and how), that current researchers are in effect engaged in a conspiracy to ignore/hide prior research and are "biased", that WP editors are in cahoots with them, and that old research from the 1970s is superior to the current state-of-the-art in this field, is all supposition coming out of your own head and not found in the reliable source material. This is OR by definition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

When you say "not found in the reliable source material", you imply that the sources which do not support your view are not reliable. As the talk page amply shows, you and @Geogene have arrogated to yourselves a right to arbitrarily judge what constitutes a reliable source. To disqualify a published source based on personal opinion is nothing but a personal point of view and if you were to include such unsourced judgments in the article, it would constitute original research.

I once more invite you to continue building the article with citations and discussion of what the sources say. Anything else will be obstruction on your part, and you will be reported to the admins.

As for your particular viewpoint - which is of little interest to me, but you insist on equating it with a "current scientific consensus" - a comparison against the citations in Palmer 2022 suggests that you favour the extreme version of the cats-as-pests argument (which can hardly be identical with the NPOV), as expressed in Marra and Santella's 2016 Cat Wars. For example, you resort to the accusation of "science denialism" (Palmer 2002, p. 213), and you denounce RSPB as a "dead" organisation (cf. Palmer 2002, p. 211, for Marra and Santella singling out RSPB in their book); you have also voiced indirect support for cat culling above, which is the most notorious argument of Cat Wars. Few if any other sources go that far, and cat culling has likely never had a scientific consensus behind it - it is easy to show that the debate has long existed and there is no evidence other than your POV that it has conclusively ended. Again, your personal views are of little relevance to the article, so long as you can help build and source it properly.

Incidentally, since you have started this conflict by trying to revert an edit specifically relating to the UK context, Palmer 2022 happens to be dealing with the political (NGO) background to the controversy about cat predation in the UK context, and describes RSPB as one of "cat-neutral conservation groups" (p. 217). You may well disagree on this and many other issues, but the way to do that is to cite a source in the article and relate what it actually says, and desist from further edit warring. VampaVampa (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Great Replacement: i would like editors to review what i have written here

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Great_Replacement#please_review_this_before_i_add_it_in._if_something_needs_to_be_added_or_removed_please_tell_me

there are concerns that the below is potentially not relevant. i believe it is but i would like a review from anyone who wishes to read it:

Labour politician and former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson said that Labour 'sent out search parties' to bring migrants to Britain at the Blairite think-tank Progress stating "in 2004, when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country." Journalist Richard Littlejohn alleges that this was done to compensate after losing the votes of the working class while journalist Alex Hern argues that Mandelson "sounded like he was talking about the sort of programmes which were aimed at getting high-skilled immigrants to come to Britain" and that "the argument that Mandelson’s search parties “made it hard for Britons to get work” isn’t based in fact". Mandelson stated ‘we were almost... a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now... we have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin [makes it] hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.'

Lord Mandelson’s remarks came three years after Labour officials denied claims by former Labour adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain saying that the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium. Labour politician Ed Miliband said that the Labour government was not “sufficiently alive to people's concerns” over immigration and his party got “the numbers wrong”. Tory chairman Grant Shapps said that the admission that Labour had let immigration “spiral out of control” was “yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.” NotQualified (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) NotQualified (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

a specific point of contention is the lack of the article title appearing in any of the sources. i have disputed that is not a valid reason to dismiss a source but they have argued that even that being true, it still means i have to go further to prove the relevance of what i wrote (to my understanding of their criticism). here is my short response:

"this is obviously relevant. sources that say the blair government intentionally broke down migration barriers and actively searched and brought in migrants to replace the indigenous working class vote, citing quotation from a high ranking labour cabinet member "potentially" confessing to it as well as another labour official literally admitting it, is relevant. that is quite literally the whole conspiracy theory in detail from start to finish, and even "potentially" confessed to. what i wrote was fair and balanced and tried to take both sides into account as i know this has been contentious." NotQualified (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be an I don't hear that violation.

The article to which NotQualified proposed to append this text is Great Replacement, the topic of which is a conspiracy theory about migration.

To the very best of my knowledge, no reliable source about the conspiracy includes in it these anecdotes (from generally questionable sources) about Labour's immigration policy. In my view, this article should include only content clearly related to its topic, rather than creative assemblages of factoids offered in apparent support of a conspiracy theory.

Frankly, this looks like the editing history of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk page all over again, where every few months it seems some editor will come up with sources apparently unrelated to the conspiracy but seek their inclusion to support the FRINGE view that somehow the conspiracy is based on something real. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

> This appears to be an I don't hear that violation.

i was told to come here and post about it.

> To the very best of my knowledge, no reliable source about the conspiracy includes in it these anecdotes (from generally questionable sources)

i would agree the dailymail is questionable, but i would strongly disagree the telegraph is. the telegraph has sourced the dailymail in its own piece without disputing what was said, which was why i decided against my previous feelings that the source was valid enough to be put in. regardless, i use the word "alleges" in it, to show it is not a proven fact. the thing is, discourse around the topic article is relevant even if that discourse is right or wrong.

> In my view, this article should include only content clearly related to its topic, rather than creative assemblages of factoids offered in apparent support of a conspiracy theory. NotQualified (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

NotQualified: do you believe the source article you are proposing from The Telegraph is about the conspiracy theory? If so, why? Newimpartial (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

it directly cites the daily mail source, which is 100 percent about the conspiracy theory. sorry i'll go into this more in depth later im a bit busy NotQualified (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Mail was caught lying about the lies that it lied about, it's not a usable source see WP:DAILYMAIL which links to multiple discussions about it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

sorry it cut me off.

> In my view, this article should include only content clearly related to its topic, rather than creative assemblages of factoids offered in apparent support of a conspiracy theory.

define 'clearly'. i agree that contentious articles need to be especially properly sourced but i feel like we're at odds with how we determine if something is "clearly" related. ive already discussed on WP:SYNTH that an article does not need to be named in verbatim, especially given the relevance of the term relative to its publication.

> Frankly, this looks like the editing history of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk page all over again, where every few months it seems some editor will come up with sources apparently unrelated to the conspiracy but seek their inclusion to support the FRINGE view that somehow the conspiracy is based on something real.

define 'apparently', again im just not seeing this Newimpartial. if you need me to write what i wrote in an even more condemning or questioning way, i can. i can say the claims arent proven, or something along the lines that "The allegations of which are just allegations and can not substantively prove anything, but the discourse on a large publication is relevant" if thats how far you need me to take it, granted id find even mentioning that to be coming off as biased against but if you need me to go even further i can. i am trying to act in good faith but you have to understand how frustrating this is. NotQualified (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

NotQualified: Why do you believe the (unusable) Daily Mail source is itself about the conspiracy theory? Remember, the topic of the article is a conspiracy theory about population replacement, not Labour's immigration policy or even replacement migration. Content for the article, regardless of the terminology it uses, must relate to the topic of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these sources say that there was ever any intent to replace the current populace, none of of them even suggest it in any way. So it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. You have been told this multiple times by different editors on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The proposed text is rather obvious violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. Why are we even discussing this, it is obviously WP:SNOWBALL category. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Similar discussion at WP:NPOVN#Great Barrington Declaration. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples in India

Indigenous peoples in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editors following this board may be interested in editing the above article, which currently purports to straightforwardly present a list of groups indigenous to India with inadequate sources; academic literature on this topic primarily problematizes the category and the difficulties of identifying who belongs to it due to the history of successive empires subjugating India or parts thereof, followed by partition and independence, but none of this aspect of the topic is currently covered in the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Gillian Keegan

On this article, IP addresses keep adding the same edit regarding donations to the politician Gillian Keegan. I suspect it is the same user as the edit is always identical: "According to the 2023 Register of Interests, Keegan has accepted donations of £5000 from the following named individuals:

Tim Ashley, Charles Lewington of Hanover Communications, former Morgan Stanley bank President Franck Petitgas and David Russell as well as £17,710.60 from the Catholic Bishops Conference England & Wales and two tickets with hospitality to Qatar Goodwood Festival, total value £2,268."

The edit was reverted several times by myself and other editors in February and March who viewed the content as original research/in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY as it relies only on a primary source with no secondary sources to establish notability. The same exact edit has been added over the last few days but an IP keeps adding it back. Not sure what to do here as I would not like to start edit warring. Thanks in advance Michaeldble (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Michaeldble I agree it isn't appropriate. This would seem to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection given this is a BLP and it is a repeated BLP policy violations by anonymous IPs. I suggest going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and putting in a request for semi protection on the Gillian Keegan page. That should prevent further anonymous IPs from adding the content back. In your nomination you can refer them to this discussion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of the September 11 attacks

Aren’t some of the earlier entries OR? Or am I missing something? Doug Weller talk 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I just took a look at it, it's pretty lengthy and I'm sure a few of them could be removed for not being terrible relevant but which ones in particular do you feel constitute OR? Lostsandwich (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich The first and second for a start. Sure, they might be, but still seems OR. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not taken a deep dive… but most of the entries in the timeline seem to be cited… so are they going beyond what the sources say? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Do they need to discuss 9/11? Doug Weller talk 21:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the section. I don’t think the background does. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree it's probably pushing it as far as relevance really goes (at least with respect to wiki policy on WP:NOTEVERYTHING) but I've been trying to think of where a hard line would be drawn in this instance and can't really come up with one. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Depends on what the sources say, do the sources explicitly connect those events to 9/11? If not, then it's an WP:OR conclusion. From skimming the article without having dug into the sources, reference #2 looks like it's about 9/11 based on its title, so entries cited to it should be valid. Some of the others would need further inspection. Left guide (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Synth at Al-Sardi school attack

A user is citing this AP article on the Gazan Ministry of Health to append "Hamas-run" to the places Ministry of Health is cited in Al-Sardi school attack. The source has nothing to do with the topic of the attack on the school. The sources cited about the actual attack do not say anything about "Hamas-run" The user, @WeatherWriter, says this is not a synthesis violation, whereas I think that it is a straightforward A+B=C (MoH is under Hamas government (A), MoH reported number of dead (B), Hamas-run MoH reported number of dead (C)). Is this improper synthesis? nableezy - 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion seems a little pointless; regardless of whether including this information cited to this particular source is WP:SYNTH, we've already found sources that you agree can be used for this information without SYNTH issues. BilledMammal (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Clerical note: discussion opener was offered by myself to open a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but choose this route instead. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• It is not improper synthesis in my opinion as the Associated Press {reliable source per WP:RSP} wrote a full article on, in short "Who is the Gazan Ministry of Health?" and "How do they track deaths?". In the source, I cited the exact quote from them saying "the Gaza-based Ministry of Health — an agency in the Hamas-controlled government". The exact dispute is over this (specifically the bolded/italic part of the following):

"The exact death toll, as well as the breakdown between civilians and combatants, is disputed. The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry reported that at least 33 Palestinians were killed, including 3 women, 9 children and 21 men.

Everything is cited properly, so I do not see or understand how this would be "original research", as the discussion started claims. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Important note: The discussion opener has directly stated citing this BBC News article ("Gaza’s Hamas-run Government Media Office") for "Hamas-run" would not be original research, but citing the Associated Press saying the exact same thing is original research. Clarification is definitely needed from an administrator, as we have claims of the AP and original research on the same statement made by the BBC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please read WP:SYNTH and let people who have read it comment here. nableezy - 16:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Drawing a conclusion from two sources when it is not present in either of them is synth. Apart from which this whole Hamas run business is a complete irrelevancy when WP has already decided that GMH is a reliable source (not all verifiable information needs to be included). Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Additional note, per Nableezy's request, the AP News article has been re-added to the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Here is a today AP article which cites GHM without "Hamas run" appended to it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Hamas-linked Health Ministry" -per that AP article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  And what value is added by appending "Hamas-linked" to GHM, when GHM is already considered reliable? None. If, when you see that (or the run version) in a source, your first reaction is "I must add that", question your own motivation for doing so. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is no different than if the "Department of Defense" was cited. Whose DoD? Whose Health Ministry? Since it is a branch of the government, the associated government should be mentioned. IDF is a case where the government (Israel) is mentioned in the name. "Gaza" isn't a government. Gaza can be a lot of things. Mentioning the associated government gives value to it. It is a reliable source, but the government should still be listed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  We'll have to agree to differ, since if you believe that Gaza Health Ministry (look, a wikilink, even), is not entirely self explanatory, I can't help that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if what I'm describing falls under SYNTH, but it's usually an indication there's something wrong when there's a source unrelated to the article's topic. This article should be written exclusively using sources that are about the Al-Sardi school attack or sources that give it significant coverage. If a fact does not appear in any such sources, then it is undue. Start with relevant sources and find facts in them. Do not start with facts and then try to find sources for them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Need a reality check

Could someone give me a reality check on List of Masonic abbreviations. It strikes me as one huge OR violation. The two sources cited do demonstrate that Masons abbreviate words when writing about their fraternity, but neither source actually discusses “Masonic abbreviation” as a concept. OR or not? Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just had a look. That's gonna probably need an entire rewrite or some heavy, heavy removals. I'd probably be okay with removing the entire "List" section. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Crime action films has been nominated for discussion

Category:Crime action films has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

It is claimed by some participants that the genre label is not in common usage and lacks a consistent definition beyond "crime film + action film", whereas others digress and argue the opposite. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Method of Mechanical Theorems

Could someone please take a look at The Method of Mechanical Theorems? It's an article about a treatise by Archimedes on various mathematical/geometrical theorems. My concern is that the segments outlining the various propositions read like a professor's lecture notes, extensively use modern mathematical notation, and are entirely unsourced. For example, the intro to the first proposition, the "Area of a parabola" reads:

To explain Archimedes' method today, it is convenient to make use of a little bit of Cartesian geometry, although this of course was unavailable at the time. His idea is to use the law of the lever to determine the areas of figures from the known center of mass of other figures. The simplest example in modern language is the area of the parabola. Archimedes uses a more elegant method, but in Cartesian language, his method is calculating the integral

$$\int _{0}^{1}x^{2}\,dx={\frac {1}{3}},$$

which can easily be checked nowadays using elementary integral calculus.

On several occasions, the article uses Instructional language:

"of course"

"we see that"

"We will think"

"we wish to show that"

"Q.E.D." (the statement by a person who has successfully proved a geometrical proposition, ie - a statement directly to the instructor, students, or readers)

There are no citations in any of the sections discussing the five propositions of the Method.

I put "Original research" tags on the article two years ago, but was not aware of this notice board; if I had known, I would have listed it then. The OR tags were deleted by an IP editor a year ago and I didn't notice. I recently came across the article again.

I don't think there is anyone I should notify of this post, since as far as I can tell, these parts of the article were added around 2010 by an editor who is now blocked indefinitely.

I don't have the mathematical skills to determine if there are reliable sources in support of the five proofs given in the article.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

In any case, all of the alleged WP:OR content fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The IP who removed the OR tags claimed that the manuscript itself was used to derive these contents, which violates WP:NOPRIMARY. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I nuked the overview section as WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and added a summary to the lead, which the one source I can access explains in terms of integral calculus. (It is a book that is cited in the article and available open-access on the Internet Archive.) The rest of the source is an English translation of the Method, as reported by the original discoverers; I suggest rewriting the rest of the article as a summary of each theorem in this translation, on similar principles as MOS:PLOT for works of fiction and without original research. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The explanations seem like pretty lucid expositions of the Archimedes text, and are broadly consistent with Heath's (secondary) commentary on the manuscript. For technical articles, we routinely include lay descriptions of things (including proofs). I can confirm that the explanations do not contain systematic original research, in the sense of arriving at novel conclusions or synthesis. Tito Omburo (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Then the citation needs to be used inline. Also, your concerns do not address that the article should be written like an encyclopedia, not a textbook. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, MOS:EDITORIAL. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a style issue, irrelevant for this Noticeboard. And WP:MSM: "Mathematics articles are often written in a conversational style similar to a whiteboard lecture." Tito Omburo (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Responding to this comment:

"I can confirm that the explanations do not contain systematic original research, in the sense of arriving at novel conclusions or synthesis"

Respectfully, that assurance is irrelevant. Individual Wikipedians are not reliable sources, as that term is used here: WP:RELIABLE. The concern I am raising is that much of the article is unsourced, leading me to believe it contains original proofs devised by a previous editor. A personal assurance by an editor, whether that is you or me, does not make up for a lack of cites to reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You asked others for their opinions, so it's weird that you would say their opinions are irrelevant. The article is sourced to Heath's translation and commentary of Archimedes The Method. I am saying that the proofs here are not original. They are in the original source. Tito Omburo (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Then please provide the specific page numbers to support the proof. I asked here for discussion whether the proof is original research, as that term is used on Wikipedia. That doesn’t mean I’m asking for their personal opinions on the proof. I’m asking others if they agree that the proof is adequately supported by reliable sources, or if there is a lack of reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You're asking for opinions on whether the proof is supported by sources. I've given you my opinion. Not sure why that's such a problem. Big picture: the article is actually rather good. The explanations of the proofs are clearer in my opinion than in Heath"s commentary, the original palimpsest, or even Netz and Noel's pop book on The Archimedean Codex. So I see this gunning for the article as rather destructive. Could the article use more sources, better citation style, some copyediting? Sure. But it's not a GAR where everything needs to be perfect. So just lay off. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Put simply, is the article summarizing Archimedes’s propositions, as he set them out in the letter? Or is the article providing modern proofs of his propositions? If it is the latter, then reliable sources for the modern proof are needed. It can’t just be a free-standing proof given by a previous editor. There has to be a reliable source cited in support of that proof. Otherwise it is just original research. Wikipedia summarises. It doesn’t provide original research by some unknown editor. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is summarizing Archimedes' proofs. In fact, this is clear enough from the article itself. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Disuptive WP:OR on Vampire Survivors

User @Masem has reverted my edits twice now, and I won't try to do it a third time due to WP:3RR. These reverts were for the following reasons as directly quoted from the History tab.

1. Wp doesn't use "Rogue lite" due to the blurred line between that and roguelike
2. The is no well defined line between these in RSes

The first reason is asinine as the body of the article should reflect what reliable sources have put out, not the opinion of an editor. I have not touched the category field and left "Roguelike video games" intact in all my edits to the article which I assume is what they were refering to. Despite this, they believe that applies to the whole body of text.

The second reason is equally as asinine since Wikipedia works best by not giving undue weight to controversial topics. See WP:UNDUE. Hence why, I have politely asked this user to add reliable sources to substantiate the label "Roguelike" over "Roguelite", but they didn't. The only source cited on the paragraph that calls the game a Roguelike is from Ars Technica which describes the game as a Roguelite.

The only article I found on this page that ever calls the game a roguelike is from Kotaku which also describes it as a "pseudo-roguelike".

What I find particularly disingenuous from this editor is that to another editor they said the following "You are definitely applying OR. If sources say it is a roguelike, we list it as a roguelike" and "We go by the sources, not personal opiniokn". So, I believe this is a case of personal opinion where Masem prefers their own "truth" over the reality that publications tend to refer to the game as either a roguelite or as a game with roguelike elements ie "pseudo-roguelike" and rather than citing another source to substantiate their claim they revert my edits with bogus claims that amount to WP:OR drivel. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, looking at past edits on the same page, it becomes increasingly more evident that this editor treats it as if they own the page. See WP:OWN.

https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Masem&page=Vampire_Survivors&server=enwiki&max= 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not specific to Vampire Survivors, but in general, the terms "roguelike" and "roguelite" are unfortunately very diffuse terms, which the only practical distinction are from people that want to keep the original "roguelike" term to strictly apply to games that follow the Berlin convention and make sure anything else is labeled as a "rogurlite" to keep the "purity" of the first term. But most of video games reliable sources do not respect that distinction and because where the line draw between the terms extremely difficult to nail down, we generally treat any game called either term as just "roguelike" to avoid edit warring over this gray line. If you want to talk Vampire Survivors specifically, Google shows hits for both terms related to the game, representing the same inconsistent, fuzzy use of either term. I *know* many gamers would call it a roguelite, but until RSes come to a better agreement to want there differences in the terms should actually be, we avoid creating a novel take as just call it as the most recognized term roguelike. — Masem (t) 15:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"Not specific to Vampire Survivors, but in general, the terms "roguelike" and "roguelite" are unfortunately very diffuse terms,"

WP:OR + WP:OPINION

"which the only practical distinction are from people that want to keep the original "roguelike" term to strictly apply to games that follow the Berlin convention and make sure anything else is labeled as a "rogurlite" to keep the "purity" of the first term."

The way other editors behave should not affect how you edit articles yourself. In a collaborative environment, that's always bound to happen. And you, behaving the way you do, will not improve the said environment.

"But most of video games reliable sources do not respect that distinction and because where the line draw between the terms extremely difficult to nail down, we generally treat any game called either term as just "roguelike" to avoid edit warring over this gray line. If you want to talk Vampire Survivors specifically, Google shows hits for both terms related to the game, representing the same inconsistent, fuzzy use of either term. I *know* many gamers would call it a roguelite, but until RSes come to a better agreement to want there differences in the terms should actually be, we avoid creating a novel take as just call it as the most recognized term roguelike."

There is no gray line in that specific article. In fact, continuing to uphold your WP:OR is more likely to lead to edit wars as editors notice the article has original research on it, thus attempting to fix it only to be reverted by you because you're the sole perpretrator enforcing your own point of view. The fact remains that no source cited in the article specifically calls the game a roguelike, with one exception even stating it to be a pseudo-roguelike. None of the sources in the entire "Reception" section call it a roguelike, with Ars Technica the lead citation calling it a "roguelite" and IGN simply stating that it has roguelike elements. Google is not a reliable source. It is clear that you are giving undue weight to your viewpoint and opinion. If you want to put an end to the argument immediately, you either cite one, two or more reliable sources that specifically AND directly describe Vampire Survivor as a roguelike, or update the information to be factually correct. That's all I'm asking for, that's all I asked for when I initially undid your revert. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles that discuss the diffuse nature of these terms Gamedeveloper.com, Inverse for a few examples.
We know that sources call VS a roguelite. I used Google as a quick search to find there are also several sources that call it a roguelike eg [16], [17], [18] and that's just a quick skim.
It points to the fact that it really gets far too much into murky waters to explicitly distinguish roguelike v roguelite as applied to VS, just that overall one of either term is used to describe the genre of the game. So we use the term that is more common and has broadest applicability, roguelike. — Masem (t) 17:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If your concern is that "roguelite" is not well-defined, I'd rather still have "roguelike elements" or "pseudo-roguelike" (per mention by 2 sources) as opposed to roguelike when that's neither the favorable opinion based on what I could garner nor the prefered term by which this game is described by sources (unless again, you can prove me wrong without resorting to WP:OR). There are more citations describing the game as a bullet hell or as an RPG than as a roguelike. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Will add that there are quite a few reliable sources referring to Vampire Survivors as a roguelike: PC Gamer calls it "Best Roguelike 2022", GamesRadar uses it as a comparison w/ other Roguelikes, Kotaku calls it a roguelike, PCGamesN calls it a Roguelike, Polygon, etc. As best as I can tell, roguelike is the preferred term among major games media outlets; while the developer self-refers to it as rogue-lite. Given that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the term "roguelite", while there *are* clear definitions for "roguelike", it seems pretty clearcut to me that we should be using the better-defined, longer-standing, more widely-used term instead of the fuzzy neologism.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Then, add the appropriate citations since the only citations I could find were all hinting at the game being roguelite.

Notably, Kotaku describes the game as pseudo-roguelike, not as a roguelike.

"As best as I can tell, roguelike is the preferred term among major games media outlets"

4 outlets out of a few dozens doesn't seem like it.

Primary sources are still important, particularly if they have supported by secondary sources which it is since Ars Technica calls it a roguelite, Ign states the game only has Roguelike elements, Kotaku describes it as a pseudo-roguelike and most other articles do not mention it one way or the other.

Roguelike is a fuzzy neologism, Masem did say it had a "diffuse" definition too. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I find it disingenuous and hard to believe that "the only citations I found were all hinting at the game being roguelite." That to me suggests you didn't actually check outside of the article before you brought Masem to this noticeboard by accusing him of instituting his personal opinion; having apparently not done even cursory research as to what major media sources say about it. I also think it's disingenuous to suggest that "roguelike is a fuzzy neologism" -- an example of *you* instituting your personal opinion, as it's a well-defined term in the games industry. Masterclass did an article on it. The NY Times has done an article on what a roguelike is. RogueBasin has a whole article on it from a development standpoint not to mention a detailed breakdown of the Berlin Interpretation, an industry-centric definition of the principle characteristics of a roguelike as defined at the International Roguelike Development Conference 2008; Green Man Gaming likewise has one as does Cloudfall Studios, etc. So, circling back; we have *multiple* reliable sources that broadly represent the games media industry at large, stating that the game is a roguelike; we have a clear definition for what a roguelike is; and we have neither such thing for the definition that you're pushing. Perhaps it's not Masem whose the problem here? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about Wikipedia here, any point that's not substantiated by a source is invalid. If you want, you may add these citations to the article, but as far as Masen or you should be concerned, what they did fall under WP:OR. You either source your edits or you don't revert if somebody comes along to change something you did that they deemed incorrect.

See for yourself.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Vampire_Survivors#Reception

This has many citations, and out of these:

Ars Technica calls the game a Roguelite.

Ign says the game has Roguelike elements.

Kotaku calls the game a pseudo-roguelike.

"an example of *you* instituting your personal opinion, as it's a well-defined term in the games industry. Masterclass did an article on it. The NY Times has done an article on what a roguelike is. RogueBasin has a whole article on it from a development standpoint not to mention a detailed breakdown of the Berlin Interpretation, an industry-centric definition of the principle characteristics of a roguelike as defined at the International Roguelike Development Conference 2008; Green Man Gaming likewise has one as does Cloudfall Studios, etc."

All of these use each a different definition. If we go by the Berlin interpretation alone, which another user tried to shove into the article before getting reverted, the game wouldn't be a Roguelike.

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Vampire_Survivors&oldid=1205822026

Thus proving my point that the definition isn't consistent and established. Your friend Masen also earlier stated that roguelike had a fuzzy definition. They said it first, I only reiterated that point of contention. Good to call me disingenuous when you can't read into the conversation and can't click on URLs to read what's within them, I find that rather lazy if not disingenuous of you.

Roguelite has also been defined many times by reliable secondary sources:

https://www.g2a.com/news/features/roguelike-vs-roguelite-do-you-know-the-difference/

https://www.destructoid.com/the-difference-between-roguelike-and-roguelite-games/

https://screenrant.com/roguelike-roguelite-difference-permadeath-hades-rogue-slay-spire/

https://www.thegamer.com/roguelike-roguelite-difference-hades-darkest-dungeon/

And even has a definition on the Wiktionary, another site by Wikimedia and a tertiary source. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

IP, behave yourself, and knock off the personal attacks. If you want, you may add these citations to the article, -- so can you; and one would have expected you to have made even a cursory attempt to do so before you inappropriately launched a noticeboard discussion labeling other editors as "disruptive". I'm not involved in this dispute and as a working game developer, I try not to edit gaming related articles to avoid the appearance of a COI. I would suggest that you consider reading WP:BOOMERANG, particularly if you're going to resort to personal attacks like calling me "lazy". As for We are talking about Wikipedia here, any point that's not substantiated by a source is invalid. -- that is not an accurate statement of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability either. Do better. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You called me disingenuous earlier.

There is WP:BURDEN that disagrees with you, so pretty much yes if you can't prove a point, then it's fully invalid. I'm not doing someone else's homework even now that the amount of sources is still rather iffy for "roguelike" to be an appropriate term for that article, and only something someone intentionally enforces due to personal opinion on the subject matter. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

No, let's be clear -- I said I found your claims disingenuous. That's my opinion on the quality of the arguments you've made, not a statement about you personally -- I'm not required to agree with you, or to find your position to have any merit. On the other hand, calling another editor "lazy", on the other hand, is an ad-hominem personal attack. You *are* required to refrain from doing that. With regard to citations, I'd suggest you look at the lede paragraph of WP:V which clearly outlines the four scenarios in which a citation is required. The policy in no way states that "if you can't prove a point then it's fully invalid". Your statement that "any point that's not substantiated by a source is invalid" is simply, flatly wrong -- nowhere in our verifiability policy does it state this. But really ultimately it comes down to this for me -- if you're unwilling to do the prerequisite research before bringing someone to a noticeboard; where even a cursory effort would have shown that Rogue-like is a well defined, appropriate term widely used by reliable sources to describe the game in question; while insisting that others be the ones to correct an issue that only *you* seem to have a problem with, referring to it as "not doing someone else's homework", you're simply showing me that you're not here to constructively and collaboratively build an encyclopedia. You're not going to gain consensus for your argument by attacking people, demanding they do things you're unwilling to do yourself, and being generally disruptive. Good luck with that though. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Decrying not doing something as basic as reading the conversation as "lazy" is not an ad hominem. If that's an ad hominem then "disingenuous" also is an ad hominem. If I called you an "idiot" that would be an ad hominem. I'm criticizing your perceived behavior as much as you criticise my perceived behavior as "disingenuous". I don't understand why you are flipping out over this.

In fact, you should have read the article you just linked. That's the 4 scenarios

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

None of them are applicable in this situation. That article's claim that it is a roguelike has been challenged and it's a point against @Masem if anything.

Also, none of them state "You are expected to change the article for someone else if that someone else can't be bothered", so no you're incorrect.

"where even a cursory effort would have shown that Rogue-like is a well defined, appropriate term widely used by reliable sources to describe the game in question;"

That's demonstrably not true and I have shown that several times over.

The definition is not consistent across sources you've cited.

There are several reliable sources disagreeing with your opinion. Currently, it is a 4v3; 4 aggreeing Vampire Survivor is a Roguelike and 3 do not agree Vampire Survivor is a Roguelike, only it having partial elements from the genre.

I'm not in the mood to be happy-go-lucky nice when I'm trying to get the attention of a moderator to deal with this problem or at least have someone prove me wrong by updating the article accordingly, but the article hasn't yet been updated with new reliable source and no moderator showed up to deal with their WP:OR. It does nothing to help that you can't read into the conversation nor the sources you peddle here, sources you could have spent the time to add to the article.

I'm here to fix an article that has a bad case of WP:OR I never edited here before and probably never will again. If the article was fine the moment I saw it I wouldn't have edited it in the first place and I wouldn't have escalated the situation. I'll even escalate it to an admin if it needs to be done. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You are looking at the specific case of VS but I am speaking to what in broader terms we've adopted for general issue of fuzziness between the terms rouglike and roguelite on WP. It doesn't matter what you identify for VS, even if 100% of the RSes used "roguelite", we'd still call it a roguelike because in broad terms, they are one and the same genre which we standardize to "roguelike". Nitpicking the distiction between the two lead to arguments exavtly like this one. — Masem (t) 19:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And you know what would help? Actually using the terms used by the sources. As mentioned much earlier, I edited this article because I saw it being a case of WP:OR. The least I would expect is for that to be rectified with a reliable source.

There is no guideline on Wikipedia against using "roguelite" over "roguelike" by the way, that's something you have made on the spot and that I have since objected to. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot do a full comparison now (on mobile) but if I could sit down to do a Google search of VS to compare how it is used with "roguelike" vs "roguelite", I suspect I will have around a 59/50 to 60/40 split on which term is preferred. I am pretty confident that if I did this for any game hat some want to be specifically called a "roguelite" such as Hades or Dead Cells, I'd find the same split. I stress again, the line between roguelike and rugelike is extremely fuzzy in RSes to the point that they are effectively the same genre, and maybe at best, roguelite being a subgenre of roguelike. We are avoiding WP:NEO problems by using the term we known has best clearly established to define games like VS. Masem (t) 20:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried this out of curiosity, picked a random game that was popular and listed as roguelike on Steam and the results may surprise you, but you're not completely right in that assessment.

So first, we have Polygon, ok.

Then, we have nichegamer, not a reliable source.

Next up in line, we have eurogamer, ok.

Lastly, we have this, which I think is a blog, not a reliable source.

Already, compared to Vampire Survivor Slay the Spire has more good sources supporting it being a roguelike than a roguelite. Including IGN, Gamesradar, The Gamer and the 4 aforementioned websites on that thread that also called VS a roguelike.

So that's 7v2 here for Slay the Spire.

However, you do bring a good point that there will always be a split. It's still important to not put undue weight like here. 7v2 is a huge disparity, so I wouldn't object to that word being used to describe this game in particular.

Roguelite is not a neologism if we go off what's written on WP:NEO, it gets frequent uses and appears frequently in secondary sources. I agree it's a neologism much like roguelike, but I had to point that out. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────────┘
There is no strict definition as to what a roguelite is, which is why it is a neogolism for us. — Masem (t) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

So does roguelike which has 10 different definitions depending on who you ask. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Roguelikes are games that are similar to the game Rogue, by definition, and generally emphasized with procedural generation and permadeath. That's the readily accepted definition. Where a roguelike game slips into being a roguelite is very much not well defined, and us not an area WP should be tryi g to wiki lawyer within. — Masem (t) 22:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This paraphrasing okay or synth?

To be discussed in context to WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH, WP:SYNTHNOT.

The following paraphrasing is proposed to be used in draft under construction Tashabbuh bi’l-kuffār (Link to draft in user sandbox). Tashabbuh is a Sunni Islamic doctrine which considers imitation of others, mainly of non-Muslims as deplorable.

Paraphrasing proposed to be used

Bruce Lawrence mentions an anecdotal tashabbuh incidence from 11th century Al-Biruni's book on the topic of 'The Exhaustive Treatment of Shadows' where in literalist muezzins were reluctant to use astrolabe in spite of accuracy it offered, since they were afraid to use any thing pertaining to Byzantine non-Muslims, then Al-Biruni retorted to them saying "The Byzantines also eat food and walk around in the market. Do not imitate them in these two things”. Ref list References

Two secondary academic reliable sources (Lawrence and Stowasser) and a primary translation source (Kennedy) from where the quote is sourced. (also confirmed at humanities ref desk for accuracy)

Lawrence is specifically talking about Tashabbuh hence important. But seems minor deviating from primary source at two places 1) While primary source is using word 'Byzantine .. not-Muslims' Lawrence construes that as 'Byzantine .. Christians' 2) Lawrence seem to have skipped "..walk around the market. .. in these two things [either]? " from the primary source but I want to use it that being relevant to the article topic.

Stowasser (and some other sources too) cite this anecdote more closer to primary source but they are talking about sciences not necessarily Tashabbuh.

I am using Lawrence as main source since directly relates to Tashabbuh, but also using Kennedy and Stowasser along with for more accuracy. Is the above proposed paraphrasing okay or WP:Synth or need to be paraphrased better? Bookku (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Since no responses yet, let me self evaluate a bit WP:PRIMARY lists a policy protocol point 3 says ".. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. .." and point 4 says "..Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. .." IMO my edit takes care of aspects and rest of the policy too. Bookku (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting

Somebody else certifying is always better that self certification, hence relisting this request for inputs. Bookku (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course paraphrasing is ok, otherwise we would have a fucktonne of copyright issues. TarnishedPath^talk 02:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Misandry original research

The Misandry article has what I consider original research, mainly in the lead, but it can also be seen here:

Anthropologist David D. Gilmore coined a similar term—"viriphobia"—to show that misandry typically targets the virile male machismo, "the obnoxious manly pose", along with the oppressive male roles of patriarchy. Gilmore says that misandry is not the hatred of men as men; this kind of loathing is present only in misogyny which is the hatred of women as women.

Gilmore is just one author with his own set of beliefs:

• "to show that" really ought to be changed to "argues that"
• "Gilmore says that" should become "Gilmore claims that"
• "this kind of loathing" should be changed to "he argues that this kind of loathing".

This article appears to be highly protected by Binksternet, an editor who has been blocked 11 times in the past, and someone who states that misogyny is "1000 times worse" than misandry, and I believe he really should not be editing this article at all in my opinion.

The part that has been highly debated is this line:

"This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences."

I actually analyzed the three sources with Sangdeboeuf (there is a lengthy discussion on the talk page).

• Source 1 (2001 book): [19] (page 12)

Do women return the favor the favor by hating men and inventing magical dangers? The answer seems to be a resounding no. Male-hating among women has no popular name because it has never (at least not until recently) achieved apotheosis as a social fact, that is, it has never been reified into public culturally recognized and approved institutions complete with their own theatrical repertory and constituent mythology and magic.

• Source 2 (2007 book): [20] (page 442-443)

Despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny.

• Source 3 (1989 book): [21] (page 7) - this source has essentially nothing to do with backing up the claims and is just an author asking random rhetorical questions.

Basically, what the three references actually say can be summed up as:

"In cultures around the world, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny."

Bink refuses to modify the original statement to this, calling it "whitewashing" in order to protect his original research, which are these lines in particular:

(*) Most sociologists/anthropologists/scholars of gender studies... (no proof that "most")

(*) Misandry is not a cultural institution (source 1 only mentions that misandry among women is not recognized as a cultural institution in a 2001 perspective -- 23 years ago. It is also simply in the context of how women view men. Source 2 is only in comparison in misogyny, and again it's from a 2007 perspective)

(*) Misogyny is "far more" deeply rooted in society (should be changed to simply "more" because "far more" is hyperbole not said in the sources)

(*) Misogyny is more severe in its consequences

Additionally, the debated paragraph is trying to make it seem as if these authors (from 2001 and 2007) are trying to reject viewpoints held by more modern discussion of misandry, 17 years into the future. For example, the original authors were not trying to refute that "misandry is widespread" in a 2010s or 2020s world. It's pure editorializing. These two 2001 and 2007 books are dated, and the article is written from an extreme myopic Western perspective, making bold and broad claims that ignore the cultures of South America, Mexico, Africa, Europe, Asia, etc. We are to write our articles in an up-to-date 2024 universal perspective.

When I pointed out that the article is adding statements and making suggestions that were not said in the sources, Bink became defensive and told me changing the article is "not gonna happen". I left a comment on 21:01, 14 May 2024 basically explicitly calling him out, and he then tried to use the excuse that he was just trying to summarize the sources, despite that he is clearly adding statements that the sources were not saying. For example, "[misogyny] is more severe in its consequences" was not said in the sources.

Additionally, the misogyny article contains an awful line: "Misandry is a minor issue" simply based on an interpretation of the reading of the 2001 book. It's basically saying the prejudice of half of humanity is a "minor issue" which is horrid. ImmersiveOne (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a content issue, not an original research issue. ImmersiveOne does not understand that we summarize the literature in the lead section, in accordance with the guideline at Wikipedia:Summary style. The article in question summarizes a wide swath of scholarly literature which is the best possible sourcing. A consensus exists among scholars, and we relay this consensus to the reader by using a clearly focused summary of the sources. ImmersiveOne has a problem with this because the scholarly consensus does not agree with ImmersiveOne's personal experience or viewpoint.

There's nothing to do here; no original research. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not OR. Instead it is an NPOV issue and the relevant guideline is WP:INTEXT. Opinions, especially those likely to be contentious, should be attributed to whoever is making the opinion and not stated as fact in wikivoice. Looking only at the examples at the top of this section, I don't see any problem with "Gilmore says...", but "to show that" is not good and is also bad writing (terms designate things, they don't show things). Zero^talk 15:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In my eyes, Bink should have to prove what "most" scholars (in 2024) think using reliable sources, instead of just vaguely claiming it's their consensus, and I don't have the time/energy to go through 60 sources. And in my opinion, the 2023 study should not count because it's only one study and it's discussing misandry in relation to feminist stereotypes. To me, information and such broad claims like that should be cited with references that actually support the claims. When people generalize and try to claim what a consensus is, and sources are not necessarily saying what they are actually saying, there is room for bias. Anyway, I'm so exhausted at this point so I'm going... ImmersiveOne (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That would be awfully convenient for you, to get rid of the very authoritative 2023 meta-analysis performed by 40+ topic scholars, which says exactly what you don't want to have in the article. Again, this is a content issue, not any kind of original research. ImmersiveOne doesn't like the content of the article, and is the only one voicing an opinion in that direction at Talk:Misandry. Talk page consensus is against ImmersiveOne; this forum is another attempt to get leverage. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the WP:LEAD of the article, it summarizes 60 sources, not just some that were cited inline. As we already tried to explain to you on the talk page, whether the lead has inline citations for every single line or not is up to the discretion of local consensus, which is clearly in favor of the lead as it stands. The article discusses all sources in the relevant sections in more detail.

Multiple very experienced editors, including administrators have explained to you on the talk page these policies and the consensus of the article based on all the sources of it.

You were asked repeatedly to provide any WP:RS to back your claims for changes, but have not provided any other than referencing MRA Reddit’s which are called out in the very article. Raladic (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's what the proposed changes (in bold) to the paragraph about Gilmore would look like in context:

Anthropologist David D. Gilmore coined a similar term—"viriphobia"—argues that misandry typically targets the virile male machismo... What?

Gilmore claims that misandry is not the hatred of men as men... This downplays the source's reliability by using the loaded WP:CLAIM.

He argues that this kind of loathing is present only in misogyny which is the hatred of women as women. Needlessly repetitive; the statement is merely expanding on the previous one, Gilmore says, etc. as indicated by the semicolon linking the two independent clauses. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I originally meant "to argue that", I have nerve damage in my hands due to a childhood incident so I'm prone to texting errors... ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment I agree there are systemic issues of using wiki voice where it shouldn't be used and failing to attribute controversial opinions to specific writers; which ultimately presents as fact something that is only opinion. Any controversial facts in the lead need to be attributed in the lead or removed entirely from lead summary. We can not use wiki voice without attribution on POV opinions, even in summary. While this is also a WP:POV problem it has blossomed into a WP:VERIFYOR violation (see Neutral Point of View section). It was absolutely appropriate to bring this issue to the noticeboard, and many of the examples of systemic problems raised by ImmersiveOne seem pertinent and reasonable under that guideline. The text should be appropriately modified per WP:INTEXT to solve the problem.4meter4 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, 4meter4. It makes me feel less insane.

I would like to point out, if people are going claim the collective sources (60 of them) say things like "misogyny has worse consequences", "misandry is not a cultural institution", etc, then I would like to ask: which ones? I just don't think the 2023 study is relevant as you claim it is. And I looked at some of the sources, and some of them support my point a bit, that misandry is rather prominent in society:

• Farrell, Warren (2001) The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex
• Everything written by Nathanson & Young
• A French book called "I Hate Men" sees a sales boom
• Cathy Young's article

I'm not the only one who thinks the Misandry article is a bit warped. People on other sites, people seen in the article history, as well people in the talk page archives have all pointed out the article has a tendency to suffer from neutrality issues. So yes, this is an attempt to get people talking. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Nathanson and Young have made a "cottage industry" out of their activism against feminism. They are religious scholars who have left their area of expertise and decided instead to write extensively about gender issues. They do not have scholarly authority regarding gender issues; they are instead making up their own opinions (see Michael Kimmel's Angry White Men.) Misandry topic expert scholars would be found among anthropologists, PhDs of gender studies, sociologists, etc. More than forty such scholars combined their expertise to author the 2023 study which examined the misandry issue thoroughly, calling it a myth. The findings of the 40+ scholars, and all the other cited scholars, are so authoritative that they are properly presented in wikivoice. 4meter4's suggestion of converting this wikivoice to inline attribution is misguided because a strong scholarly consensus exists. We are not relaying to the reader the "opinions" of researchers; we are relaying their statistical findings and their expert analysis. Nothing major should be changed at the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Bink, dude, come on. Just let it go, man. Wikipedia does not state controversial opinions (or anything that can qualify as an opinion) as if they are facts, even in leads. There are a lot of people who argue sexism harms men more than women, that misandry has worse consequences than misogyny (forced conscription says hi), and that misandry is more deeply ingrained within humanity (women-are-wonderful effect). Even if the vast majority of scholars agree on something, even if 1% of these scholars say "I disagree", then we don't use wiki voice. The misandry and misogyny articles (and possibly even the sexism article) are violating Wikipedia policies. You, Raladic and Grayfell can try to pressure people all you want, but the three of you were lacking knowledge in Wikipedia's own policies. Intimidation tactics do not work on me. Me, Zero, 4meter4 and Remsense have pointed out the article clearly suffers a neutrality issue. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

'Controversial' is not a synonym for 'some Wikipedia editors disagree'. When a field has arrived at a consensus we should not over-attribute, just as we don't write things like 'According to the NASA Administrator, the earth is round'. We should not cast the mainstream consensus of academia as just somebody's opinion. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we really comparing controversial heated debated subjects and opinions like "is misandry widespread?", "does sexism primarily affect men or women?", "which sex has more consequences as a result of gender prejudice?" and "is misogyny or misandry more rooted in society?" to "is the Earth flat or round?" now? Seriously, this is the second time our discussion has been compared to Flat Earth theory. ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The Manosphere has a lot in common with flat earthers - they are both fringe groups railing against the mainstream. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Men's rights are human rights. You are literally comparing a group of people who want better treatment for half the human race (such as the same prison sentence length, bodily autonomy, freedom to opt out of being a soldier in warfare, etc...) to a literal conspiracy group who thinks the Earth is flat. Both are minorities, sure, but we should be able to admit that the gender topics I listed above are subjective, and whether or not the planet we live on is flat/round is objective. We should be able to admit these gender topics are subjective and opinionated enough to not use wiki voice. People like have been straight-up listing subjective opinions as facts. And then people like Bink/Raladic/Grayfell have been using mainstream views in order to justify this, and then telling me to "WP:DROPTHESTICK" and leave the debate because of how stubborn I am. Anyone who edits Wikipedia should know you do not list anything that can be considered a subjective opinion as fact. This is basic Wikipedia 101, and Bink failed to understand this concept even after he has like 500,000 edits on this site. An example of this is "[misogyny] is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences." That's a freaking subjective opinion being pushed as an objective fact on the misandry article as we speak. ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - Wikipedia is not the place to try to prove that the fringe position is the correct position. We reflect the mainstream view here, even if you might think the mainstream is getting it wrong. MrOllie (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove the minority position is the correct one. I'm trying to prove these topics are contested, debated, subjective, and opinionated enough that we don't use an objective tone while describing them. Otherwise we end up seeing biased, asinine and embarrassing "objective" (not really) claims like "misandry is a minor issue" on the misogyny article. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, we should not (through over attribution or otherwise) make the mainstream view sound like it is just one competing opinion. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to. At the end of the day, the mainstream view is still an opinion, but we do not have to make it sound as if it being highly contested. We can easily do this by being fair, neutral and level-headed writers. To me, it is painfully obvious there is enough dissent and subjectivity in these gender topics that Wikipedia must fix the NPOV prose on these articles. Anyway, I'm out. I'm getting a massive headache after dealing with this for 5 days. I need a few days vacation for myself. I invite more people to leave their feedback and for more eyes to see this whole debate. I can't deal with this anymore. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Literally any mainstream view can be described as just an opinion. No one has ever seen the Higgs boson with their own eyes; instead, physicists rely on theoretical modeling and indirect observations. But we don't say, In the opinion of many physicists, the Higgs particle is a massive scalar boson with a zero spin, even (positive) parity, no electric charge and no colour charge. The evidence is sufficiently strong to treat these as facts.

The same is true for the mainstream scholarly position on questions like, "is misandry widespread?", "does sexism primarily affect men or women?", "which sex has more consequences as a result of gender prejudice?" and "is misogyny or misandry more rooted in society?". The answers are not controversial to published experts in the field. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The views of Warren Farrell, Paul Nathanson, Katherine K. Young, and Cathy Young (no relation) are given too much weight in the article as is. None of these individuals are subject-matter experts.

Farrell has some training as a political scientist, but his later writings are not academically vetted at all and are disregarded by sociologists such as Allan G. Johnson, who writes that Farrell's book The Myth of Male Power relies on a "very narrow definition" of power that excludes the very forms of power used to oppress women and minorities.

Nathanson & Young publish their criticisms of "misandry" in the popular press, not academic journals, and actual sociologists like Michael Kimmel decry the "bad history" in their writing.

Kathy Young's essay is just a newspaper op-ed. Citing these sources as though they are equivalent to peer-reviewed scholarship is extremely UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the very late reply, here, but I must object to your "any mainstream view c an be described as just an 'opinion'". You - and most editors here, not to single out just you - don't seem to UNDERSTAND what the difference is between fact and opinion. It is not a popularity contest. A fact is always a fact and an opinion is always an opinion, NO MATTER HOW many people agree or disagree! Even if 100% of the world agrees with an opinion, it is still an opinion, and we can say that "There is near universal agreement that it is so," but we should NOT be putting "It is so" if it ain't a fact. Same for the opposite: a fact can never become an opinion, even if no one agrees. I do not address disputed vs undisputed facts, but in sum: what IS an opinion is (ironically) an objective fact, and opinions should never be written about as if they are not opinions. Doing so is damning to the encyclopedia's credibility. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that this is not an accurate record of this conversion as it happened because ImmersiveOne has been editing their comments after they have been replied to. - MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify a few things due to people not understanding Wikipedia basics. I'm an extremely new editor so I don't know many policies, but even I know editors should not list subjective opinions as facts. Anyway, now I'm out. ImmersiveOne (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a big difference between an opinion piece and the scientific finding of research scholars that publish said findings in peer reviewed journals, which we consider one of the most reliable type of sources - these are not some mere opinions and us summarizing said findings, similarly does not make them opinions.

Also please assume good faith and be cautious with throwing around accusations of other editors as this can run afoul of WP:NPA. You have already been warned about this on your talk page. Raladic (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The role of peer reviewed journals in policy is not what you claim it is. Although they have our highest a priori status for factual information, they can be challenged like any source and opinions in them are still opinions. The simplest proof that opinions in such sources do not automatically have the status of facts is that multiple contradictory opinions appear in them. A scholarly opinion becomes closer to fact for our purposes when it is the scholarly consensus; merely being offered as an opinion in a good source is not enough. Zero^talk 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I know I said I wanted a break, but I think it would be good to take care of some things now, with experienced people who know Wikipedia policies chiming in to create a neutral POV. Honestly, I don't really care about proving whether "most" sociologists believe something -- that's 60 sources to go through and it was never really my issue with the article, my issue was mainly because it seemed the citations were not supporting the claims, as well as the wiki voice being improperly used. I want to know if these changes can be justified:

(before) This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences. (after) This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who argue that misandry is not a cultural institution equivalent in scope to misogyny.

I think the "which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences" is improper wiki voice, and also, it's just incredibly bad taste to compare prejudice like that so I think it should be removed entirely.

(before) The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts. (after) A study analyzing if misandry is more commonplace among feminists suggests that it is not as common as many people believe.

Are these changes justifiable according to experienced editors and Wikipedia policies? We all have to decide on something to go with.

And can "Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny" be entirely removed from the misogyny article? It's also using wiki voice to turn an opinion into fact, it's using the interpretation of a single 2001 book as a source (so it can be considered as pushing outdated views), and it's honestly irrelevant to defining misogyny. Seems it exists just as a quick jab to downplay misandry's importance ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No one has yet presented any evidence whatsoever that the views of Gilmore (2001) are outdated. "Outdated" does not just mean "old". The fact that you personally find the author's conclusions horrid is the same as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I also sense a double standard at work; if the source claimed instead that misandry was a major issue, would you be trying to dismiss it as irrelevant? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nor would I call Gilmore's analysis of misandry a quick jab. While it's not the focus of the book, he devotes a full page and a half to answering the question of whether misandry exists as a "reciprocal analogue" to misogyny, concluding that the answer is a "resounding no". Your personal belief that misandry is not a "minor issue" based on commentary by an antifeminist YouTuber has no bearing on the reliability of the source whatsoever. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On your argument against The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts. - The 2023 study is a meta-analysis co-authored by 40 expert scholars of the field of and published in the Psychology of Women Quarterly journal, which is ranked the highest impact journal in Women Studies and one of the highest in Psychology all up. They have strongly refuted the false stereotype, which is why they summarized it as such and called it a myth. It is absolutely appropriate to have summarized it as such.

Your proposal to water down the scientific findings of experts on the topic because you personally may not like them isn't how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia is not a place to promote personal world views if they don't align with that of expert scholars on the topic. Raladic (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

By "outdated", I merely meant he was speaking in the context of a world 23 years ago. About the "misandry is a minor issue", it feels like a non-sequitur, and I meant the phrasing of it ("minor issue") felt like a quick jab, not the book being a quick jab. I read the book and I wouldn't interpret that as Gilmore trying to say "misandry is a minor issue", but rather something like, "society does not recognize misandry as a cultural institution like misogyny is." He also used "seems to be a resounding no", not that it is a "resounding no." I have many other reasons to believe misandry is not a minor issue, it's definitely not something I came to solely based on a Shoe0nHead video. I love her content, though. A study is also simply a study. When we use language like "false idea" as if it is a fact, it feels going too far, even if it is 40 research experts. It should at least be "strongly suggests it is a false idea." If a study by 40 topic experts suggests eggs are healthy, we don't use the language "the idea that eggs are unhealthy is a false idea" as if it were fact. I want to finish this up and let other people not involved in the Talk:Misandry discussion decide. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

To show that the source by Gilmore is outdated requires more recent sources of comparable quality that actually contradict it. Not just drawing an arbitrary boundary between today and the world 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, etc. Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity over a century ago and it is still considered the most successful explanation of gravity and cosmology. It isn't "outdated" just because it's older than most people alive today. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Just one more clarification before I leave, I also meant the Wikipedia editor's phrasing of how they interpreted the book ("misandry is a minor issue") was horrid, not that whatever Gilmore's conclusions were was horrid. To me, I see editorializing. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I think it should be noted that "misandry is a minor issue" was added by Bink as his interpretation of it. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Whatever your reasons to believe misandry is not a minor issue, Wikipedia articles are not based on users' personal beliefs or experiences. That's what published, reliable sources are for. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thinking something is in bad taste has nothing to do with either WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored to suit your or anyone else's delicate sensibilities. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification as to what @Raladic said: The 2023 study by Hopkins-Doyle et al. reported as being a meta-analysis also seems to contain original research. Could someone clarify as to what extent this does not go against WP:NOR? Yes, there is some literature research and analysis in the article, but this is the norm for most scientific papers. Konanen (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

First, agreed with the above that this is irrelevant to NOR. You want WP:NPOVN (which is about how well we neutrally summarize source material). But since we're here...

I was about to agree with the first part of the original comment -- what in the world is such detail about Gilmore doing in the lead?? -- but then I realized I misread and that was from the body. As far as that content goes, I agree it should be copyedited. to show that misandry typically targets the virile male machismo is just awkward. How does coining a term ever "show" anything beyond showing one's ability to coin a term? Keep the content and just tweak it a la "viriphobia, in line with his view that misandry targets the virile male machismo".

As for the other disputed claim, This viewpoint is denied..., that's not remotely controversial. It's perhaps even conservative to limit its rejection to sociologists, anthropologists, and gender studies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I left a little note directing them to here. Also, I'm aware that it's definitely what "most" scholars think, but my issue with it was mainly the latter parts being presented in fact, the fact that it was being in a way to make it seem people in the past were trying to debate people in the future, and the three citations not supporting the claims. We should focus on everything else about the article. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, we can adjust the sentence order to fix the past/future issue, and omit the questionable phrase "most sociologists" etc. I would suggest a change similar to the following:

−

Men's rights activists (MRAs) and other masculinist groups have characterized modern laws concerning divorce, domestic violence, conscription, circumcision (known as male genital mutilation by opponents), and treatment of male rape victims as examples of institutional misandry.<br/>In the Internet Age, users posting on manosphere internet forums such as 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism have claimed that misandry is widespread, established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men. This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences.

+

Men's rights activists (MRAs) and other masculinist groups have characterized modern laws concerning divorce, domestic violence, conscription, circumcision (known as male genital mutilation by opponents), and treatment of male rape victims as examples of institutional misandry. However, in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny.<br/>In the Internet Age, users posting on manosphere internet forums such as 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism have claimed that misandry is widespread, established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men.

As MrOllie says, we shouldn't make the mainstream view sound like it is just one of many equally valid opinions. I'm fine with the copy edits suggested by Rhododendrites as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Quick chime in, I argue "in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny" is still highly subjective and an improper use of wiki voice. If you go onto the conscription article, look at all the countries in purple and red. Circumcision is still legal in many countries. And I'm sure people could write entire essays about how boys and men are at a disadvantage. And you already know why I think the word "comparable" is in bad taste and going too far. We're talking about 2024 perspective, and I think the claim is far too broad, speaking on the behalf of too many cultures. As 4meter4 said, the article as it is a WP:VERIFYOR violation. Wikipedia's policy is no matter what someone believes, they must WP:PROVEIT using RS. And in the lens of a 2024 world, I think it would be incredibly challenging to do (you would have a point about the Middle East, but it's not like Canadian women in 2024 are severely oppressed and fighting for the right to vote). ImmersiveOne (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure people could write entire essays about how boys and men are supposedly at a disadvantage. But saying "there must be sources" does not satisfy the requirement to actually provide sources.

The phrase virtually all societies is paraphrasing Gilmore (2001): There are virtually no existing examples of culturally constituted antimale complexes in traditional cultures (p. 12). The context for this is an inquiry into misogyny as it occurs and has occurred in cultures around the world (p. 8). So we can infer that when Gilmore says Male-hating among women [...] has never been reified into public culturally recognized and approved institutions, he is talking about virtually all societies.

Your objections to this statement (e.g. circumcision, voting rights) are essentially your personal opinions, based on some low-quality (including self-published) sources by non-experts. A Wikipedia article in particular is not a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It should still be in the language "In 2001, author David D. Gilmore said that in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny." to remove the authoritarian wiki voice (as well as add some historical context) imo. Anything more than that would need RS I believe. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, it should not be phrased as though it is just Gilmore's opinion. Watering down the language because you happen to disagree (or based on a claim that it is 'subjective') really is not something that is done on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"In 2001, author David D. Gilmore said that in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny. Many scholars agree with this view." (with a link to source 2 here) Sound fine to everyone? If so, that's one half of this already over, with us just needing to decide what to do with the "false idea" part of the 2023 study. ImmersiveOne (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Gilmore's conclusion was not taken into consideration by the 40+ authors of the 2023 meta-analysis. Other scholars that don't cite Gilmore cannot be assumed to based on Gilmore. The lack of Gilmore cites in other works makes it appear that most scholars are doing their own research and analysis, not simply "agree"-ing with Gilmore. Your suggested wording is watering down the broad consensus of scholars. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"In 2001, author David D. Gilmore said that in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny. Most scholars agree that misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny."

"The idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts in a study which strongly suggests this belief is a misconception."

We all happy? ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

In-text attribution like author David D. Gilmore said is unnecessary and makes it seem like Gilmore's view is just one of many alternative viewpoints. Once again, there is no serious scholarly debate on whether misandry is equivalent to misogyny in any society. The second sentence just tacks on Most scholars agree to a phrase lifted directly from Ouellette (2007). This is likely a copyright violation as well as being weaselly and repetitive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We were literally just told by Zero, an admin on this site for over 20 years (and others), that text is improperly using wiki voice to anything that can be considered a subjective opinion, and we must use WP:INTEXT. There are enough MRAs, professors interested in men's activism, as well as everyday people who could debate that line or consider it an opinion. Mentioning the year is also important for historical context. We don't automatically just state the scholarly consensus as a fact. We can change "said" to "stated", and we can change the second sentence to Most scholars agree that misandry lacks the institutionalised legislature of misogyny. We could also begin it with Scholars such as Marc Ouellette agree that... But that's it as far as it goes, I believe. Unless you can propose something better, we're at a standstill. ImmersiveOne (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Admins don't have any special authority in content disputes. What MRAs, professors interested in men's activism, as well as everyday people believe is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources by experts in their field. The only reason to consider the historical context of a given source is if scholarly consensus has meaningfully changed.

You initially objected to the phrase most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies as original research; tacking most scholars agree... or scholars such as... onto the views of a single author is no different. The phrase institutionalised legislature is simple gibberish. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't automatically just state the scholarly consensus as a fact. <--- This misunderstanding seems to be the root of your difficulties here. We do not treat the scholarly consensus as just another opinion to be attributed to someone. MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? Admins don't have any special authority in disputes?! Then who does? I can't believe this is where we are right now: ignoring what the people who run this site tell us! I know you want in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny said as straight-up fact so bad, but that claim is subjective, especially when you use the language "virtually all societies" and keep in mind the 2024 perspective. And I only tacked that language to try to satisfy Bink, but it seems he can not be satisfied here. Bink has had a grip on this article since 2011, you've had a grip on it since 2017. I'm getting WP:TAGTEAM vibes. This article has become a laughing stock. If anyone else is reading this, please add to this conversation. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run by many volunteer users, only some of whom are administrators. Nobody has any special authority in content disputes, which are resolved by consensus. The role of an admin is primarily concerned with policy and editor conduct, not deciding content issues. We even have a policy against use of admin tools in disputes where admins are personally involved.

If you have evidence of misconduct by either Binksternet or myself, you want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you have a reliable source for the 2024 perspective beyond vague assertions of what everyday people believe, feel free to present it here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Gilmore is also a professor of anthropology, not just an author. At a certain point it's just more concise and readable to state mainstream scholarly "opinion" as fact rather than attributing each statement to its author. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, me, Zero and 4meter mentioned the importance of WP:INTEXT being used in this article. My stance is that anything that can easily be considered a subjective opinion should not be in wiki voice, and that bears more weight here. You (Sangdeboeu)/Bink/Grayfell/Raladic/MrOllie give me WP:TAGTEAM vibes. I think it's time to let other people chime in. ImmersiveOne (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

So a head count is useful when it agrees with you, but when it disagrees with you it's "tag teaming". Once again, WP:ANI is thataway for any conduct disputes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Admins have the authority to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sometimes that means actively preventing something from appearing in articles even if it means blocking someone or protecting an article. That does not count as participating in a "content dispute". However, once an admin starts to edit an article except to enforce policies, they become "involved" and should leave the policy enforcement to a different admin. There isn't a very clear definition of when the transition occurs. Anyway, I'm only here to state my opinion on policy and I have no intention at the moment to look at the article. Several things are confused in this discussion. First, an opinion is an opinion regardless of where it appears. Second, we are allowed to report the "scholarly consensus" without attribution but first we need a reason other than our own likes and dislikes for why it really is the scholarly consensus. If there is a significant amount of scholarly writing that disagrees with the writing we like, then there is no scholarly consensus and we are supposed to report both sides of the debate (see NPOV) and INTEXT explains how. It's impossible to define "significant" objectively, but mainly it means that the dissenting opinions come from sources which themselves meet the standards of RS and don't meet the definition of FRINGE (these rules to some extent disagree with each other). Finally, you aren't allowed to write "Most scholars believe..." or similar unless you have a reliable source which says that most scholars believe; that would be a very elementary violation of NOR. However, you can get away with "Many scholars, such as X and Y, ..." provided that you really know of "many" scholars. Zero^talk 16:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried making some of those points before, especially "an opinion is an opinion regardless of where it occurs" and that if people are going to claim scholarly consensus, they should still need to show RS where such phrasing occurs, as Gilmore/Marc Ouellette are only two authors. Hmm... maybe Many scholars, such as David D. Gilmore and Marc Ouellette, state that in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny is the way to go here. ImmersiveOne (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Are two authors many? If not, who are the others? This is just more weasel wording. Expecting an RS to state outright that the scholarly consensus is X is setting an impossible standard. We aren't making any claims in Wikivoice about the scholarly consensus, we're just summarizing the most reliable sources and avoiding fringe viewpoints as much as possible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Many scholars" can become "scholars". If INTEXT is not used, then you are claiming the opinions of two men between 2001-2007 as the ultimate fact in a very grandiose manner imo. The article is the way it is now because Wikipedia editors are basically acting they get to decide what the scholarly consensus is without an RS explicitly stating it, I've only been vaguely told "oh, all the other sources basically agree with us so it's okay." ImmersiveOne (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The whole point is that it isn't just 'the opinions of two men'. You've been told this many times now. We're getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. MrOllie (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been asking for any scholarly, non-fringe works that disagree with the views presented above. So far I haven't seen any, let alone in the present discussion. (I would definitely describe Nathanson & Young (2001) as fringe scholars.) So I think we have pretty good reasons to treat the views of Gilmore and Ouellete as the consensus, more or less. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why two men should have the ultimate say, especially when other authors/scholars/professors exist such as:

• Professor Roy Baumeister - Is there Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men
• Professor Janice Fiamengo - Sons of Feminism: Men Have Their Say (contains an Introduction describing the ways that men are abused, vilified, subjected to domestic violence, disbelieved, mistreated, falsely accused and much more.)
• Psychologist Helen Smith (ph.D) - Men on Strike: "Men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century."
• Christina Sommers (scholar at the American Enterprise Institute) - The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men
• David Benatar - The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys
• Warren Farrell (American political scientist)
• Owen Strachan - The War on Men: Why Society Hates Them and Why We Need Them
• 2019 study: "Surprisingly, our new measure indicated that men are, on average, more disadvantaged than women in 91 countries compared with a relative disadvantage for women in 43 countries."
• 2023 study: "Participants in every category—men and women of all races, ages, and social classes—were quicker to associate positive attributes with women and negative attributes with men."

I haven't read every book to see what all of these men and women have to say, but these scholars exist. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

ImmersiveOne: These aren't mainstream works of psychology but a mixture of research papers (WP:primary sources) and "provocative new idea" books. When misandry becomes more established as a mainstream theory we can revisit it. Until then it's time to accept consensus. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

My point is, they are the views of people who hold Ph.Ds and they are still professors, psychologists, scholars and authors. It is also conducted scientific findings and research. It would be biased to ignore every author/study agreeing that "misandry is indeed rooted in society" and sweep their findings and opinions under the rug, so much so we state "in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny" as a fact. To me, it reeks of WP:UNDUE and we need a lot more voices in this discussion to obtain NPOV. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The studies you linked to are indeed primary sources that are reporting on novel findings. They do not represent established academic knowledge. When evaluating scholarly consensus, we look for works that have been vetted by the scholarly community such as literature reviews in peer-reviewed journals or books from mainstream academic publishers.

City Journal is a magazine published by a conservative think tank, not a scholarly publication. Other researchers have identified problems with the 2023 study by Paul Connor et al.; see Talk:Misandry/Archive 6. The 2019 study authors actually say that "men's disadvantage is largely due to a shorter healthy lifespan", nothing to do with hatred of or prejudice against men.

The books listed here are mostly in the popular press. I've already stated the problems with using Warren Farrell as a source. Janice Fiamengo is a retired English professor. David Benatar is a philosopher and editor of the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident philosopher at a conservative think tank. Owen Strachan is a Calvinist theologian. None of these are sociologists, psychologists or anthropologists. Just because someone has a Ph.D. does not mean their views are in the mainstream; see Nobel disease.

Roy Baumeister is probably the only person with relevant academic expertise in this list. His book apparently argues that "men compete with one another and build larger organizations and social networks from which culture grows. But cultures in turn exploit men by insisting that their role is to achieve and produce, to provide for others, and if necessary to sacrifice themselves." Is exploitation the same as misandry? Ivana Milojević says this idea of male expendability is simply the result of patriarchy. Where does Baumeister say this has anything to do with hatred of men? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) edited 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't Gilmore/Ouellette be considered primary sources as well? And what, Wikipedia is allowed to discredit sources/studies/reportings simply because they may come from conservative sources? I do not consider myself a conservative, but I think that would be going too far. And I thought Wikipedia was allowed to mention information from magazines. I wouldn't be against adding information about how that particular study could be flawed.

You're discrediting a professor just because she's retired? All professors eventually die or retire, it does not mean their writings and worth is suddenly rendered meaningless. Benatar's own Wikipedia also mentions he is an academic, and I think just because he's a member of that journal, it does not mean his book is entirely meaningless and I think it's a nitpicky reason to discredit his book. At the end of the day, he's still an academic who published a book. He is also a professor, and has a Bachelor of Social Science which focuses on Anthropology, History, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology. Just because philosophy is his forte, it does not undermine his entire education.

Baumeister's book mentions that "it shows that while men have greatly benefited from the culture they have created, they have also suffered because of it. Men may dominate the upper echelons of business and politics, but far more men than women die in work-related accidents, are incarcerated, or are killed in battle--facts nearly always left out of current gender debates." I would have to do more research into his work, I admit. Still, he believes prejudice against men is indeed institutionalized to a degree.

One more study: Male gender bias deters men from some career paths ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Far more men than women die in work-related accidents, are incarcerated, or are killed in battle – where does Baumeister say this is because of institutionalized prejudice against men?

The book by Gilmore (2001) is a secondary source, i.e. it presents

analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The source by Ouellette (2007) is an academic encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source, i.e. a synthesis of secondary sources.

Academics who publish books are not uncommon. Bachelor of Social Science degrees are a dime a dozen. Being an academic does not make someone a recognized expert, let alone in fields outside their specialty. Once again, we look for works that have been vetted by the scholarly community.

We have been talking about scholarly consensus. Now you want to open the article up to political propaganda from Koch-funded think tanks? Please make up your mind. It seems you are still working backwards from your own personal point of view instead of looking for the most reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe those books I mentioned could be considered secondary sources too. Unfortunately, I do not have access to their content or bibliographies to see what they may be referencing, so I admit it's a moot point. Baumeister's book is a book about the scientific and cultural biases against men (as mentioned in a video called "Scientific Misandry — Roy Baumeister on Biases Against Men in Psychology and Sociology"). Prejudice is defined as "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." It's pretty obvious what the book is about and it feels like arguing semantics. He does not use the M-word because the book was published in 2010, and according to Google Trends, "misandry" was at its most popular in November 2014. The usage fell down, but now it's on the rise again.

I think the Misandry article is sorely lacking, not just in the opening but also in discussions about misandry in relation to philosophy, psychology, etc, so in my opinion, those books about misandry from philosophers are still worth mentioning somewhere else in the article. I do not own them, so I'm not going to try, though. My point was simply to show there's some dissent; of course their views are not mainstream (that was not the point I was trying to prove), but I hoped it was enough to make it so that part is not in wiki voice. Feels like no matter what I do, you're just going to discredit scholars and researchers. So fine, we can have that part in wiki voice, even if I disagree with it. Maybe in the future, there will be a lot more scholarly research into misandry, enough to remove the wiki voice.

"In virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny." "The idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts in a study which strongly suggests this belief is a misconception."

Can we agree to this? ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

No! The meta-analysis by 40+ scholars in 2023 resoundingly confirms the existing scholarly consensus. It doesn't just "strongly suggest". Your wording is a whitewash.

At this point, your continued hammering at the same argument amounts to WP:Tendentious editing. Persisting in this manner wastes the community's time and patience, and will likely get you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Various other editors (uninvolved at Talk:Misandry) all pointed out the article suffers neutrality issues, with two other editors saying there should be WP:INTEXT. I'm not going to get into another circular argument with you, Bink, and that "misandry is a minor issue" you wrote was an absolutely horrible cringey phrasing. I've made my points and I'm going. There's nothing else for me to argue anymore. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Another problem with the article is that it barely mentions prejudice and discrimination against trans men, which is doubtless more severe. (t · c) buidhe 13:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  That is called Transphobia and has a separate article, with its own sub article Discrimination against transgender men. Raladic (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if discrimination against trans men is commonly analyzed as misandry. I'm more familiar with seeing it analyzed as transphobia. I wonder if at least a disambiguating hatnote or see also link would be sensible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, the term Transmisandry currently exists as a redirect to Discrimination against transgender men. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated articles

Hello, I have been looking at the contributions from Hypersite (talk · contribs) and I have the impression that they are using artificial intelligence to create their articles without even checking the generated text, let alone the references. I exemplify this by noting that two of their articles have obvious residues of artificial intelligence 1 2. In these same articles, the references are extremely bizarre (too generic, lacking the expected links, etc.). I think this might be original research by synthesis or, worse yet, complete hoaxes. Can someone verify this more carefully? RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/French_society_before_the_French_Revolution – See also this bizarre 72,000-byte article... RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting...... Would take me weeks if not months to produce all this information. Moxy🍁 01:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, that article is a mess. Just read this sentence for instance:

The intricate tapestry of pre-revolutionary French society was woven from threads of longstanding tradition, emerging modernity, and growing contradictions that would eventually lead to one of the most significant political upheavals in Western history.

That reeks of some cobbled together AI mess that seems like it's snatching up high school history essays. Personally, I'd recommend blanking the whole thing until a much better version can be written. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, both "Sugar islands" and "Venality of offices" aren't really terms or phrases that have any historical use. There were islands that made up parts of the sugar trade of course, but "Sugar islands" isn't really a term that was used at least not with any significance. Same goes for "Venality of offices". There's a valid historical concept there, but the article indicates that it's some specifically named concept or system. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ve indeffed them. No responses to messages on their talk page, only deletions, clearly using AI. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I put a whole bunch of these deleted pages on my watchlist see if they come up again. Moxy🍁 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy Thanks, good idea. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Is describing an image OR?

Hello NOR Noticeboard, I am working on a page that describes variations of the log cabin quilt square in my sandbox. For the "settings" (patterns created by combinations of squares) I have a book that showed examples of the quilting squares accompanied by the description of the setting. I described the settings that I saw. I think this is similar to summarizing a book's plot. Is that okay? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Helps (BYU), it's not an exact science, but the plot summary analogy seems accurate. It should be fine as long as it's simple statements of fact that are readily apparent from the image. I'll note that we essentially do the same thing with most image captions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If the descriptions you gave were based on the descriptions that accompanied the images in the source (and it sounds like that is what you did) then there isn’t a NOR issue. If, on the other hand, you stated something beyond what was in the source, there might be. A lot depends on what specifically you said. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I was not paraphrasing written material, but paraphrasing visual material, if that makes sense. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)