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. |
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)
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)
Somebody else certifying is always better that self certification, hence relisting this request for inputs. Bookku ( talk) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
A user is citing this AP article on the Gazan Ministry of Health to append "Hamas-run" to the places Ministry of Health is cited in Al-Sardi school attack. The source has nothing to do with the topic of the attack on the school. The sources cited about the actual attack do not say anything about "Hamas-run" The user, @ WeatherWriter, says this is not a synthesis violation, whereas I think that it is a straightforward A+B=C (MoH is under Hamas government (A), MoH reported number of dead (B), Hamas-run MoH reported number of dead (C)). Is this improper synthesis? nableezy - 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Drawing a conclusion from two sources when it is not present in either of them is synth. Apart from which this whole Hamas run business is a complete irrelevancy when WP has already decided that GMH is a reliable source (not all verifiable information needs to be included). Selfstudier ( talk) 16:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
References
...the Gaza-based Ministry of Health — an agency in the Hamas-controlled government...
Could someone give me a reality check on List of Masonic abbreviations. It strikes me as one huge OR violation. The two sources cited do demonstrate that Masons abbreviate words when writing about their fraternity, but neither source actually discusses “Masonic abbreviation” as a concept. OR or not? Blueboar ( talk) 11:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at The Method of Mechanical Theorems? It's an article about a treatise by Archimedes on various mathematical/geometrical theorems. My concern is that the segments outlining the various propositions read like a professor's lecture notes, extensively use modern mathematical notation, and are entirely unsourced. For example, the intro to the first proposition, the "Area of a parabola" reads:
On several occasions, the article uses Instructional language:
There are no citations in any of the sections discussing the five propositions of the Method.
I put "Original research" tags on the article two years ago, but was not aware of this notice board; if I had known, I would have listed it then. The OR tags were deleted by an IP editor a year ago and I didn't notice. I recently came across the article again.
I don't think there is anyone I should notify of this post, since as far as I can tell, these parts of the article were added around 2010 by an editor who is now blocked indefinitely.
I don't have the mathematical skills to determine if there are reliable sources in support of the five proofs given in the article.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Category:Crime action films has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.
It is claimed by some participants that the genre label is not in common usage and lacks a consistent definition beyond " crime film + action film", whereas others digress and argue the opposite. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have been looking at the contributions from Hypersite ( talk · contribs) and I have the impression that they are using artificial intelligence to create their articles without even checking the generated text, let alone the references. I exemplify this by noting that two of their articles have obvious residues of artificial intelligence 1 2. In these same articles, the references are extremely bizarre (too generic, lacking the expected links, etc.). I think this might be original research by synthesis or, worse yet, complete hoaxes. Can someone verify this more carefully? RodRabelo7 ( talk) 00:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
User @ Masem has reverted my edits twice now, and I won't try to do it a third time due to WP:3RR. These reverts were for the following reasons as directly quoted from the History tab.
The first reason is asinine as the body of the article should reflect what reliable sources have put out, not the opinion of an editor. I have not touched the category field and left " Roguelike video games" intact in all my edits to the article which I assume is what they were refering to. Despite this, they believe that applies to the whole body of text.
The second reason is equally as asinine since Wikipedia works best by not giving undue weight to controversial topics. See WP:UNDUE. Hence why, I have politely asked this user to add reliable sources to substantiate the label "Roguelike" over "Roguelite", but they didn't. The only source cited on the paragraph that calls the game a Roguelike is from Ars Technica which describes the game as a Roguelite.
The only article I found on this page that ever calls the game a roguelike is from Kotaku which also describes it as a "pseudo-roguelike".
What I find particularly disingenuous from this editor is that to another editor they said the following "You are definitely applying OR. If sources say it is a roguelike, we list it as a roguelike" and "We go by the sources, not personal opiniokn". So, I believe this is a case of personal opinion where Masem prefers their own "truth" over the reality that publications tend to refer to the game as either a roguelite or as a game with roguelike elements ie "pseudo-roguelike" and rather than citing another source to substantiate their claim they revert my edits with bogus claims that amount to WP:OR drivel. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D ( talk) 15:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Will add that there are quite a few reliable sources referring to Vampire Survivors as a roguelike: PC Gamer calls it "Best Roguelike 2022", GamesRadar uses it as a comparison w/ other Roguelikes, Kotaku calls it a roguelike, PCGamesN calls it a Roguelike, Polygon, etc. As best as I can tell, roguelike is the preferred term among major games media outlets; while the developer self-refers to it as rogue-lite. Given that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the term "roguelite", while there *are* clear definitions for "roguelike", it seems pretty clearcut to me that we should be using the better-defined, longer-standing, more widely-used term instead of the fuzzy neologism. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want, you may add these citations to the article,-- so can you; and one would have expected you to have made even a cursory attempt to do so before you inappropriately launched a noticeboard discussion labeling other editors as "disruptive". I'm not involved in this dispute and as a working game developer, I try not to edit gaming related articles to avoid the appearance of a COI. I would suggest that you consider reading WP:BOOMERANG, particularly if you're going to resort to personal attacks like calling me "lazy". As for
We are talking about Wikipedia here, any point that's not substantiated by a source is invalid.-- that is not an accurate statement of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability either. Do better. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please cast eyes on 2021 Canadian church burnings? It appears to be based on a list compiled by the unreliable source True North. The reference has been removed but the material remains. Elinruby ( talk) 18:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, yes, you did suggest that this could just have been natural, most recently here. You then inserted actual original research into the article. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 00:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
for discussion:
[10]
[11] and aha, our good friends RT
[12] But we are looking for "earliest" -- maybe a leading question
here?
Elinruby (
talk) 19:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Then there is
[13], which quotes something called the
Catholic Civil Rights League. which, aha, maintains a database of "church attacks".
Elinruby (
talk) 19:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC) This early report
[14] on the other hand specifically says Chief Crow, who is in his eighth year as chief, says he can only speculate on why the fires are being set.
Elinruby (
talk) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC) He is quoted elsewhere as saying the fires are "suspicious," without specifics. A lot of the early reports mention a Sgt. Jason Bayda of the Penticton South Okanagan Royal Canadian Mounted Police said in a statement that the police were “looking to determine any possible connection to the church fires.
Links to the statement are now giving 404 errors.
Elinruby (
talk)
20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Castanet, which is an RS for the BC interior, quotes Crow more fully
[15]: I really don't condone the actions of whoever's done this, but it is under investigation. We'll have to wait and see," Crow said
Something called churchleaders.com
[16] picked up their story framing it this way from something called "RNS", which I so far have not identified.
Major observation so far: if you seach on "kamloops graves church fires" you get a whole bunch of Catholic media in the search returns. Elinruby ( talk) 20:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
At least some of The fires in the article obviously happened. The question is why and what happened then. Elinruby ( talk) 10:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
coming at a particularly raw moment, just weeks after the unmarked graves of 215 children were foundand said
While the circumstances remained murky, investigators said one line of inquiry was arson, including the possibility that the Indigenous communities had been targetedalthough it does not rule out anger as a cause either. Elinruby ( talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Last, the Penticton Western News, part of a chain of local RS publications, gives a fuller RCMP quote:
“Should our investigations deem these fires as arson, the RCMP will be looking at all possible motives and allow the facts and evidence to direct our investigative action,” said Sgt. Jason Bayda, media relations officer for the Penticton South Okanagan RCMP. “We are sensitive to the recent events, but won’t speculate on a motive.”Elinruby ( talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Thirty-three churches have burned to the ground across Canada, since the discovery of possible unmarked children's graves at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in May, 2021. In most cases, officials have blamed arsonists. CBC’s Terry Reith details his investigation into the pattern of arson, and how it’s tied to Canada’s dark residential school history.
You're still saying "pattern". Maybe this will help: [21]. The pattern of fires in the British Columbia exterior was that they were so extensive all public infrastructure broke down and this was preceded by an extended period of temperatures in the 50 degree Celsius range and followed by extensive landslides. The stores ran out of food and no more could be delivered because all the highways broke. They stopped running trains to avoid setting even more fires. There is a pattern there if only that these events were close in time. These fires Pbritti so desperately wants to highlight are also related in that they were in the same time frame.
The entire province was under a state of emergency [22] and they were sending food up here by helicopter. Much the same was true where those fires were, probably, but no, no source singles out the four or five fires Pbritti claims are linked even though some of them are hundreds and hundreds of miles apart and any link would imply actual organized terrorism. That's not completely impossible, but it's really unlikely and it it did exist I think it would be more effective. I mean, an organized conspiracy to damage a door. Think about it.
What insurrection we did have in that timeframe involved tractor-trailers blockading the national capital. Why would anyone mess around with an abandoned church in the truly remote and obscure Hazelton? Vancouver Island is also literally another world from Hazelton, but we're already having trouble with the concept that stuff burns in British Columbia all the time. But A) "man-made fire" is not synonymous with "arson", for one improper synth, and includes trains, power tools, poorly attended campfires and yes, arson, as well as yahoos who consume too much grievance porn on YouTube perhaps. B) you are asking me for my own synth to counter his apparently uncritical acceptance of religious materials and whacko sources, and Wikipedia is not a matter of faith. It goes by RS. If there are no RS there is no topic. You did hear me say there are no journal articles about this alleged pattern, right? Yes, he keeps waving that cbc link around, but *it* doesn't say there is a link either. It is, yes, reliable. For the fact that there were fires and some of them were suspicious. It isn't reliable for saying that all these fires were post hoc ergo proctor hoc, because it simply doesn't say that. Sigh. I of sort expected the PR noticeboard to know what OR is. It isn't 'we need to update the article if we really must keep it,", OR is "of course there is a conspiracy, check out all the fringe sources that agree with me!" Double sigh. Elinruby ( talk) 11:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Pbritti also still has not answered the question about his affiliations with the Catholic Church btw. Elinruby ( talk) 14:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
fake newsthat was only
voiced by click-bait websites( [23]) despite dozens of reliable sources being furnished to connect them, I don't care. Do not bother me again. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.
not as individual fires, no. But this is not that. Elinruby ( talk) 06:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
oops it's not about churches. Does that make it not part of a pattern? Summer of 2021 is our timeframe though, aww. Seriously, I am looking for an article like this.which was published in the home area of those two fires in the southeast, so... arrest, followup, trial as to any of the fires in the article??? I don't know where you were in the summer of 2021 but I was in the British Columbia interior obsessively tracking the out of control wildfires in the area and volunteering to help wildfire refugees -- almost entirely indigenous, but that is just the local demographics --anyway, helping wildfire refugees get food and find out where they could go or even get to. Anyway, back to this article. I said the publisher was Black Box Media before. My mistake, it is Black Press Media. I have discussed their reliability over at RSN; I said I relied on them for stuff like road closures and think they are excellent to good for local news. Did not get an argument about it, but here is an example of their work, for the record. There are quite a few related small-town papers like this with the same format, look, owner and policies. They are professional and when I say they are reliable for road closures, DriveBC is not, btw, and road closures can be really really important around here. They might not immediately have every incident but if they say a road is closed, it is closed unless they updated it and you really do have to do the 200-mile detour. Seriously, where are the stories about these fires at churches? It's been three years now. These outlets are online but it isn't exaggerating much to say they would put out a special edition for the santa's parade. A new park bench would be front-page material. It beggars belief that they would not cover arrests or statements about a fire at a church anywhere in or around their distribution are. Where is the RS coverage like this of these church fires? Elinruby ( talk) 13:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
This source isn't real informative but it clearly says that one of the two men arrested for arson in Fort Chipewyan one was acquitted and the other one had previously received a suspended sentence [24] Source is Postmedia and should be at be very least ok btw Elinruby ( talk) 18:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello NOR Noticeboard, I am working on a page that describes variations of the log cabin quilt square in my sandbox. For the "settings" (patterns created by combinations of squares) I have a book that showed examples of the quilting squares accompanied by the description of the setting. I described the settings that I saw. I think this is similar to summarizing a book's plot. Is that okay? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The article late modern period (currently a redirect) was originally created without any actual sources defining the topic. It was just assumed that the existence of the early modern period meant there had to be a late "equivalent". But the term is actually very marginally used among historians and is often specific to the a period of English literature. It seems to be mostly based on the misunderstanding of how the modern period is defined, which is either c. 1500 until today or c. 1800 until today, depending on the context.
Almost a year ago, there was a clear and umabigious request [25] to provide sources to define the "late modern period" at talk:late modern period up for several months. No sources that actually describe the term unambiguously as "the period following the early modern period" have been provided, only references to search hits for the phrase "late modern" or "late modern period" in prose.
From what I can tell, there are several users who want to flat-out ignore WP:OR and even WP:N in order to keep late modern period because it "feels" logical and convenient. Periodization is in my view treated as though it was merely a subjective layout issue rather than something has to be verifiable and balanaced. It's as if a lot of Wikipedians think it's okay to disregard sources in favor of their own take on how history should be written and organized.
I would appreciate input on this over at talk:late modern period to help build a more sensible consensus around this. Peter Isotalo 23:05, 9 July 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. |
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)
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)
Somebody else certifying is always better that self certification, hence relisting this request for inputs. Bookku ( talk) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
A user is citing this AP article on the Gazan Ministry of Health to append "Hamas-run" to the places Ministry of Health is cited in Al-Sardi school attack. The source has nothing to do with the topic of the attack on the school. The sources cited about the actual attack do not say anything about "Hamas-run" The user, @ WeatherWriter, says this is not a synthesis violation, whereas I think that it is a straightforward A+B=C (MoH is under Hamas government (A), MoH reported number of dead (B), Hamas-run MoH reported number of dead (C)). Is this improper synthesis? nableezy - 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Drawing a conclusion from two sources when it is not present in either of them is synth. Apart from which this whole Hamas run business is a complete irrelevancy when WP has already decided that GMH is a reliable source (not all verifiable information needs to be included). Selfstudier ( talk) 16:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
References
...the Gaza-based Ministry of Health — an agency in the Hamas-controlled government...
Could someone give me a reality check on List of Masonic abbreviations. It strikes me as one huge OR violation. The two sources cited do demonstrate that Masons abbreviate words when writing about their fraternity, but neither source actually discusses “Masonic abbreviation” as a concept. OR or not? Blueboar ( talk) 11:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at The Method of Mechanical Theorems? It's an article about a treatise by Archimedes on various mathematical/geometrical theorems. My concern is that the segments outlining the various propositions read like a professor's lecture notes, extensively use modern mathematical notation, and are entirely unsourced. For example, the intro to the first proposition, the "Area of a parabola" reads:
On several occasions, the article uses Instructional language:
There are no citations in any of the sections discussing the five propositions of the Method.
I put "Original research" tags on the article two years ago, but was not aware of this notice board; if I had known, I would have listed it then. The OR tags were deleted by an IP editor a year ago and I didn't notice. I recently came across the article again.
I don't think there is anyone I should notify of this post, since as far as I can tell, these parts of the article were added around 2010 by an editor who is now blocked indefinitely.
I don't have the mathematical skills to determine if there are reliable sources in support of the five proofs given in the article.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Category:Crime action films has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.
It is claimed by some participants that the genre label is not in common usage and lacks a consistent definition beyond " crime film + action film", whereas others digress and argue the opposite. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have been looking at the contributions from Hypersite ( talk · contribs) and I have the impression that they are using artificial intelligence to create their articles without even checking the generated text, let alone the references. I exemplify this by noting that two of their articles have obvious residues of artificial intelligence 1 2. In these same articles, the references are extremely bizarre (too generic, lacking the expected links, etc.). I think this might be original research by synthesis or, worse yet, complete hoaxes. Can someone verify this more carefully? RodRabelo7 ( talk) 00:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
User @ Masem has reverted my edits twice now, and I won't try to do it a third time due to WP:3RR. These reverts were for the following reasons as directly quoted from the History tab.
The first reason is asinine as the body of the article should reflect what reliable sources have put out, not the opinion of an editor. I have not touched the category field and left " Roguelike video games" intact in all my edits to the article which I assume is what they were refering to. Despite this, they believe that applies to the whole body of text.
The second reason is equally as asinine since Wikipedia works best by not giving undue weight to controversial topics. See WP:UNDUE. Hence why, I have politely asked this user to add reliable sources to substantiate the label "Roguelike" over "Roguelite", but they didn't. The only source cited on the paragraph that calls the game a Roguelike is from Ars Technica which describes the game as a Roguelite.
The only article I found on this page that ever calls the game a roguelike is from Kotaku which also describes it as a "pseudo-roguelike".
What I find particularly disingenuous from this editor is that to another editor they said the following "You are definitely applying OR. If sources say it is a roguelike, we list it as a roguelike" and "We go by the sources, not personal opiniokn". So, I believe this is a case of personal opinion where Masem prefers their own "truth" over the reality that publications tend to refer to the game as either a roguelite or as a game with roguelike elements ie "pseudo-roguelike" and rather than citing another source to substantiate their claim they revert my edits with bogus claims that amount to WP:OR drivel. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D ( talk) 15:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Will add that there are quite a few reliable sources referring to Vampire Survivors as a roguelike: PC Gamer calls it "Best Roguelike 2022", GamesRadar uses it as a comparison w/ other Roguelikes, Kotaku calls it a roguelike, PCGamesN calls it a Roguelike, Polygon, etc. As best as I can tell, roguelike is the preferred term among major games media outlets; while the developer self-refers to it as rogue-lite. Given that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the term "roguelite", while there *are* clear definitions for "roguelike", it seems pretty clearcut to me that we should be using the better-defined, longer-standing, more widely-used term instead of the fuzzy neologism. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want, you may add these citations to the article,-- so can you; and one would have expected you to have made even a cursory attempt to do so before you inappropriately launched a noticeboard discussion labeling other editors as "disruptive". I'm not involved in this dispute and as a working game developer, I try not to edit gaming related articles to avoid the appearance of a COI. I would suggest that you consider reading WP:BOOMERANG, particularly if you're going to resort to personal attacks like calling me "lazy". As for
We are talking about Wikipedia here, any point that's not substantiated by a source is invalid.-- that is not an accurate statement of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability either. Do better. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please cast eyes on 2021 Canadian church burnings? It appears to be based on a list compiled by the unreliable source True North. The reference has been removed but the material remains. Elinruby ( talk) 18:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, yes, you did suggest that this could just have been natural, most recently here. You then inserted actual original research into the article. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 00:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
for discussion:
[10]
[11] and aha, our good friends RT
[12] But we are looking for "earliest" -- maybe a leading question
here?
Elinruby (
talk) 19:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Then there is
[13], which quotes something called the
Catholic Civil Rights League. which, aha, maintains a database of "church attacks".
Elinruby (
talk) 19:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC) This early report
[14] on the other hand specifically says Chief Crow, who is in his eighth year as chief, says he can only speculate on why the fires are being set.
Elinruby (
talk) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC) He is quoted elsewhere as saying the fires are "suspicious," without specifics. A lot of the early reports mention a Sgt. Jason Bayda of the Penticton South Okanagan Royal Canadian Mounted Police said in a statement that the police were “looking to determine any possible connection to the church fires.
Links to the statement are now giving 404 errors.
Elinruby (
talk)
20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Castanet, which is an RS for the BC interior, quotes Crow more fully
[15]: I really don't condone the actions of whoever's done this, but it is under investigation. We'll have to wait and see," Crow said
Something called churchleaders.com
[16] picked up their story framing it this way from something called "RNS", which I so far have not identified.
Major observation so far: if you seach on "kamloops graves church fires" you get a whole bunch of Catholic media in the search returns. Elinruby ( talk) 20:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
At least some of The fires in the article obviously happened. The question is why and what happened then. Elinruby ( talk) 10:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
coming at a particularly raw moment, just weeks after the unmarked graves of 215 children were foundand said
While the circumstances remained murky, investigators said one line of inquiry was arson, including the possibility that the Indigenous communities had been targetedalthough it does not rule out anger as a cause either. Elinruby ( talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Last, the Penticton Western News, part of a chain of local RS publications, gives a fuller RCMP quote:
“Should our investigations deem these fires as arson, the RCMP will be looking at all possible motives and allow the facts and evidence to direct our investigative action,” said Sgt. Jason Bayda, media relations officer for the Penticton South Okanagan RCMP. “We are sensitive to the recent events, but won’t speculate on a motive.”Elinruby ( talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Thirty-three churches have burned to the ground across Canada, since the discovery of possible unmarked children's graves at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in May, 2021. In most cases, officials have blamed arsonists. CBC’s Terry Reith details his investigation into the pattern of arson, and how it’s tied to Canada’s dark residential school history.
You're still saying "pattern". Maybe this will help: [21]. The pattern of fires in the British Columbia exterior was that they were so extensive all public infrastructure broke down and this was preceded by an extended period of temperatures in the 50 degree Celsius range and followed by extensive landslides. The stores ran out of food and no more could be delivered because all the highways broke. They stopped running trains to avoid setting even more fires. There is a pattern there if only that these events were close in time. These fires Pbritti so desperately wants to highlight are also related in that they were in the same time frame.
The entire province was under a state of emergency [22] and they were sending food up here by helicopter. Much the same was true where those fires were, probably, but no, no source singles out the four or five fires Pbritti claims are linked even though some of them are hundreds and hundreds of miles apart and any link would imply actual organized terrorism. That's not completely impossible, but it's really unlikely and it it did exist I think it would be more effective. I mean, an organized conspiracy to damage a door. Think about it.
What insurrection we did have in that timeframe involved tractor-trailers blockading the national capital. Why would anyone mess around with an abandoned church in the truly remote and obscure Hazelton? Vancouver Island is also literally another world from Hazelton, but we're already having trouble with the concept that stuff burns in British Columbia all the time. But A) "man-made fire" is not synonymous with "arson", for one improper synth, and includes trains, power tools, poorly attended campfires and yes, arson, as well as yahoos who consume too much grievance porn on YouTube perhaps. B) you are asking me for my own synth to counter his apparently uncritical acceptance of religious materials and whacko sources, and Wikipedia is not a matter of faith. It goes by RS. If there are no RS there is no topic. You did hear me say there are no journal articles about this alleged pattern, right? Yes, he keeps waving that cbc link around, but *it* doesn't say there is a link either. It is, yes, reliable. For the fact that there were fires and some of them were suspicious. It isn't reliable for saying that all these fires were post hoc ergo proctor hoc, because it simply doesn't say that. Sigh. I of sort expected the PR noticeboard to know what OR is. It isn't 'we need to update the article if we really must keep it,", OR is "of course there is a conspiracy, check out all the fringe sources that agree with me!" Double sigh. Elinruby ( talk) 11:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Pbritti also still has not answered the question about his affiliations with the Catholic Church btw. Elinruby ( talk) 14:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
fake newsthat was only
voiced by click-bait websites( [23]) despite dozens of reliable sources being furnished to connect them, I don't care. Do not bother me again. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.
not as individual fires, no. But this is not that. Elinruby ( talk) 06:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
oops it's not about churches. Does that make it not part of a pattern? Summer of 2021 is our timeframe though, aww. Seriously, I am looking for an article like this.which was published in the home area of those two fires in the southeast, so... arrest, followup, trial as to any of the fires in the article??? I don't know where you were in the summer of 2021 but I was in the British Columbia interior obsessively tracking the out of control wildfires in the area and volunteering to help wildfire refugees -- almost entirely indigenous, but that is just the local demographics --anyway, helping wildfire refugees get food and find out where they could go or even get to. Anyway, back to this article. I said the publisher was Black Box Media before. My mistake, it is Black Press Media. I have discussed their reliability over at RSN; I said I relied on them for stuff like road closures and think they are excellent to good for local news. Did not get an argument about it, but here is an example of their work, for the record. There are quite a few related small-town papers like this with the same format, look, owner and policies. They are professional and when I say they are reliable for road closures, DriveBC is not, btw, and road closures can be really really important around here. They might not immediately have every incident but if they say a road is closed, it is closed unless they updated it and you really do have to do the 200-mile detour. Seriously, where are the stories about these fires at churches? It's been three years now. These outlets are online but it isn't exaggerating much to say they would put out a special edition for the santa's parade. A new park bench would be front-page material. It beggars belief that they would not cover arrests or statements about a fire at a church anywhere in or around their distribution are. Where is the RS coverage like this of these church fires? Elinruby ( talk) 13:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
This source isn't real informative but it clearly says that one of the two men arrested for arson in Fort Chipewyan one was acquitted and the other one had previously received a suspended sentence [24] Source is Postmedia and should be at be very least ok btw Elinruby ( talk) 18:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello NOR Noticeboard, I am working on a page that describes variations of the log cabin quilt square in my sandbox. For the "settings" (patterns created by combinations of squares) I have a book that showed examples of the quilting squares accompanied by the description of the setting. I described the settings that I saw. I think this is similar to summarizing a book's plot. Is that okay? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The article late modern period (currently a redirect) was originally created without any actual sources defining the topic. It was just assumed that the existence of the early modern period meant there had to be a late "equivalent". But the term is actually very marginally used among historians and is often specific to the a period of English literature. It seems to be mostly based on the misunderstanding of how the modern period is defined, which is either c. 1500 until today or c. 1800 until today, depending on the context.
Almost a year ago, there was a clear and umabigious request [25] to provide sources to define the "late modern period" at talk:late modern period up for several months. No sources that actually describe the term unambiguously as "the period following the early modern period" have been provided, only references to search hits for the phrase "late modern" or "late modern period" in prose.
From what I can tell, there are several users who want to flat-out ignore WP:OR and even WP:N in order to keep late modern period because it "feels" logical and convenient. Periodization is in my view treated as though it was merely a subjective layout issue rather than something has to be verifiable and balanaced. It's as if a lot of Wikipedians think it's okay to disregard sources in favor of their own take on how history should be written and organized.
I would appreciate input on this over at talk:late modern period to help build a more sensible consensus around this. Peter Isotalo 23:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)