Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
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 [2] [3] the last revision before my removals two year ago (cf. [4]). They refuse to discuss at the article talk.
Which revision should the article feature, StopTheV4dals's reinstatement of the old one [5] or my pruned revision of the last two years [6]? ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
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:
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:
|
... 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)
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. |
* 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. |
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:
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)
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)
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.
The following is a quotation which appears in the same source at page 33:
|
---|
Dämonenglaube im Islam
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)
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)
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:
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).
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.
Despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny.
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)
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)
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:
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)
mainstream viewcan 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)
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)
outdated. "Outdated" does not just mean "old". The fact that you personally find the author's conclusions
horridis 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)
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)
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.
outdatedrequires 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)
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)
bad tastehas 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)
to show that misandry typically targets the virile male machismois 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".
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)
− | 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.
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 | + | 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.
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. |
virtually all societiesis 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)
"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)
"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)
"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."
author David D. Gilmore saidis 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 agreeto 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)
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)
MRAs, professors interested in men's activism, as well as everyday peoplebelieve is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources by experts in their field. The only reason to consider the
historical contextof a given source is if scholarly consensus has meaningfully changed.You initially objected to the phrase
most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studiesas original research; tacking
most scholars agree...or
scholars such as...onto the views of a single author is no different. The phrase
institutionalised legislatureis 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)
in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogynysaid 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)
2024 perspectivebeyond vague assertions of what
everyday peoplebelieve, feel free to present it here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Many scholars, such as David D. Gilmore and Marc Ouellette, state that in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogynyis the way to go here. ImmersiveOne ( talk) 16:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
many? If not, who are the others? This is just more weasel wording. Expecting an RS to state outright that
the scholarly consensus is Xis 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)
I don't see why two men should have the ultimate say, especially when other authors/scholars/professors exist such as:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is this considered WP:OR?
Example:
Another example:
How about this:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
Subanark ( talk) 20:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
easily checked against the text of the lawisn'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)
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.
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.
Last Modified 12/10/2007bit 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.
Humphrey Law Offices ... Rhode Island Statutory Rape Defense Attorney ... Have you been accused of statutory rape?[15] – once again: are you kidding?
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. [1] 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". [2] 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. [3] 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". [4]
References
- ^ Acting to Save Songbirds: CATS – Love them or hate them!, SongBird Survival, archived from the original on 20 June 2006
- ^ Animals 'devastate' UK songbirds, BBC, 29 May 2006
- ^ Webster, Ben (30 December 2015). "RSPB accused of going soft on cats to appease donors". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 27 September 2020.
- ^ Songbird predation by free-roaming domestic and feral cats, SongBird Survival, archived from the original on 31 July 2016
Songbird Survival's post-2006 view appears to represent the current scientifc consensus that predation by cats is a global conservation problem. (e.g., [16]) 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)
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 [17] 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)
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)
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 [1] 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." [2] [3] Journalist Richard Littlejohn alleges that this was done to compensate after losing the votes of the working class [4] 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". [5] 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.' [6]
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’. [7] [8] After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium. [9] 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”. [10] 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.” [11] NotQualified ( talk) 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) NotQualified ( talk) 13:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
References
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)
Aren’t some of the earlier entries OR? Or am I missing something? Doug Weller talk 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
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”. [1] [2] [3]
|
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)
Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
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 [2] [3] the last revision before my removals two year ago (cf. [4]). They refuse to discuss at the article talk.
Which revision should the article feature, StopTheV4dals's reinstatement of the old one [5] or my pruned revision of the last two years [6]? ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
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:
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:
|
... 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)
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. |
* 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. |
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:
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)
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)
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.
The following is a quotation which appears in the same source at page 33:
|
---|
Dämonenglaube im Islam
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)
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)
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:
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).
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.
Despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny.
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)
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)
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:
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)
mainstream viewcan 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)
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)
outdated. "Outdated" does not just mean "old". The fact that you personally find the author's conclusions
horridis 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)
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)
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.
outdatedrequires 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)
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)
bad tastehas 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)
to show that misandry typically targets the virile male machismois 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".
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)
− | 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.
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 | + | 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.
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. |
virtually all societiesis 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)
"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)
"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)
"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."
author David D. Gilmore saidis 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 agreeto 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)
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)
MRAs, professors interested in men's activism, as well as everyday peoplebelieve is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources by experts in their field. The only reason to consider the
historical contextof a given source is if scholarly consensus has meaningfully changed.You initially objected to the phrase
most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studiesas original research; tacking
most scholars agree...or
scholars such as...onto the views of a single author is no different. The phrase
institutionalised legislatureis 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)
in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogynysaid 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)
2024 perspectivebeyond vague assertions of what
everyday peoplebelieve, feel free to present it here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Many scholars, such as David D. Gilmore and Marc Ouellette, state that in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogynyis the way to go here. ImmersiveOne ( talk) 16:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
many? If not, who are the others? This is just more weasel wording. Expecting an RS to state outright that
the scholarly consensus is Xis 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)
I don't see why two men should have the ultimate say, especially when other authors/scholars/professors exist such as:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is this considered WP:OR?
Example:
Another example:
How about this:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LegendPermissible 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)
easily checked against the text of the lawisn'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)
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.
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.
Last Modified 12/10/2007bit 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.
Humphrey Law Offices ... Rhode Island Statutory Rape Defense Attorney ... Have you been accused of statutory rape?[15] – once again: are you kidding?
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. [1] 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". [2] 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. [3] 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". [4]
References
- ^ Acting to Save Songbirds: CATS – Love them or hate them!, SongBird Survival, archived from the original on 20 June 2006
- ^ Animals 'devastate' UK songbirds, BBC, 29 May 2006
- ^ Webster, Ben (30 December 2015). "RSPB accused of going soft on cats to appease donors". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 27 September 2020.
- ^ Songbird predation by free-roaming domestic and feral cats, SongBird Survival, archived from the original on 31 July 2016
Songbird Survival's post-2006 view appears to represent the current scientifc consensus that predation by cats is a global conservation problem. (e.g., [16]) 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)
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 [17] 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)
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)
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 [1] 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." [2] [3] Journalist Richard Littlejohn alleges that this was done to compensate after losing the votes of the working class [4] 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". [5] 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.' [6]
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’. [7] [8] After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium. [9] 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”. [10] 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.” [11] NotQualified ( talk) 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) NotQualified ( talk) 13:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
References
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)
Aren’t some of the earlier entries OR? Or am I missing something? Doug Weller talk 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
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”. [1] [2] [3]
|
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)