Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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

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

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


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

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

The part that has been highly debated is this line:

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

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


 * Source 1 (2001 book): (page 12)


 * Source 2 (2007 book): (page 442-443)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(*) Misogyny is more severe in its consequences

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

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

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


 * This is a content issue, not an original research issue. ImmersiveOne does not understand that we summarize the literature in the lead section, in accordance with the guideline at Summary style. The article in question summarizes a wide swath of scholarly literature which is the best possible sourcing. A consensus exists among scholars, and we relay this consensus to the reader by using a clearly focused summary of the sources. ImmersiveOne has a problem with this because the scholarly consensus does not agree with ImmersiveOne's personal experience or viewpoint.
 * There's nothing to do here; no original research. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's not OR. Instead it is an NPOV issue and the relevant guideline is WP:INTEXT. Opinions, especially those likely to be contentious, should be attributed to whoever is making the opinion and not stated as fact in wikivoice. Looking only at the examples at the top of this section, I don't see any problem with "Gilmore says...", but "to show that" is not good and is also bad writing (terms designate things, they don't show things). Zerotalk 15:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In my eyes, Bink should have to prove what "most" scholars (in 2024) think using reliable sources, instead of just vaguely claiming it's their consensus, and I don't have the time/energy to go through 60 sources. And in my opinion, the 2023 study should not count because it's only one study and it's discussing misandry in relation to feminist stereotypes. To me, information and such broad claims like that should be cited with references that actually support the claims. When people generalize and try to claim what a consensus is, and sources are not necessarily saying what they are actually saying, there is room for bias. Anyway, I'm so exhausted at this point so I'm going... ImmersiveOne (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be awfully convenient for you, to get rid of the very authoritative 2023 meta-analysis performed by 40+ topic scholars, which says exactly what you don't want to have in the article. Again, this is a content issue, not any kind of original research. ImmersiveOne doesn't like the content of the article, and is the only one voicing an opinion in that direction at Talk:Misandry. Talk page consensus is against ImmersiveOne; this forum is another attempt to get leverage. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the WP:LEAD of the article, it summarizes 60 sources, not just some that were cited inline. As we already tried to explain to you on the talk page, whether the lead has inline citations for every single line or not is up to the discretion of local consensus, which is clearly in favor of the lead as it stands. The article discusses all sources in the relevant sections in more detail.
 * Multiple very experienced editors, including administrators have explained to you on the talk page these policies and the consensus of the article based on all the sources of it.
 * You were asked repeatedly to provide any WP:RS to back your claims for changes, but have not provided any other than referencing MRA Reddit’s which are called out in the very article. Raladic (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's what the proposed changes (in bold) to the paragraph about Gilmore would look like in context: What? This downplays the source's reliability by using the loaded WP:CLAIM. Needlessly repetitive; the statement is merely expanding on the previous one, Gilmore says, etc. as indicated by the semicolon linking the two independent clauses. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I originally meant "to argue that", I have nerve damage in my hands due to a childhood incident so I'm prone to texting errors... ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I originally meant "to argue that", I have nerve damage in my hands due to a childhood incident so I'm prone to texting errors... ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


 * Nathanson and Young have made a "cottage industry" out of their activism against feminism. They are religious scholars who have left their area of expertise and decided instead to write extensively about gender issues. They do not have scholarly authority regarding gender issues; they are instead making up their own opinions (see Michael Kimmel's Angry White Men.) Misandry topic expert scholars would be found among anthropologists, PhDs of gender studies, sociologists, etc. More than forty such scholars combined their expertise to author the 2023 study which examined the misandry issue thoroughly, calling it a myth. The findings of the 40+ scholars, and all the other cited scholars, are so authoritative that they are properly presented in wikivoice. 4meter4's suggestion of converting this wikivoice to inline attribution is misguided because a strong scholarly consensus exists. We are not relaying to the reader the "opinions" of researchers; we are relaying their statistical findings and their expert analysis. Nothing major should be changed at the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bink, dude, come on. Just let it go, man. Wikipedia does not state controversial opinions (or anything that can qualify as an opinion) as if they are facts, even in leads. There are a lot of people who argue sexism harms men more than women, that misandry has worse consequences than misogyny (forced conscription says hi), and that misandry is more deeply ingrained within humanity (women-are-wonderful effect). Even if the vast majority of scholars agree on something, even if 1% of these scholars say "I disagree", then we don't use wiki voice. The misandry and misogyny articles (and possibly even the sexism article) are violating Wikipedia policies. You, Raladic and Grayfell can try to pressure people all you want, but the three of you were lacking knowledge in Wikipedia's own policies. Intimidation tactics do not work on me. Me, Zero, 4meter4 and Remsense have pointed out the article clearly suffers a neutrality issue. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Controversial' is not a synonym for 'some Wikipedia editors disagree'. When a field has arrived at a consensus we should not over-attribute, just as we don't write things like 'According to the NASA Administrator, the earth is round'. We should not cast the mainstream consensus of academia as just somebody's opinion. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we really comparing controversial heated debated subjects and opinions like "is misandry widespread?", "does sexism primarily affect men or women?", "which sex has more consequences as a result of gender prejudice?" and "is misogyny or misandry more rooted in society?" to "is the Earth flat or round?" now? Seriously, this is the second time our discussion has been compared to Flat Earth theory. ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Manosphere has a lot in common with flat earthers - they are both fringe groups railing against the mainstream. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Men's rights are human rights. You are literally comparing a group of people who want better treatment for half the human race (such as the same prison sentence length, bodily autonomy, freedom to opt out of being a soldier in warfare, etc...) to a literal conspiracy group who thinks the Earth is flat. Both are minorities, sure, but we should be able to admit that the gender topics I listed above are subjective, and whether or not the planet we live on is flat/round is objective. We should be able to admit these gender topics are subjective and opinionated enough to not use wiki voice. People like have been straight-up listing subjective opinions as facts. And then people like Bink/Raladic/Grayfell have been using mainstream views in order to justify this, and then telling me to "WP:DROPTHESTICK" and leave the debate because of how stubborn I am. Anyone who edits Wikipedia should know you do not list anything that can be considered a subjective opinion as fact. This is basic Wikipedia 101, and Bink failed to understand this concept even after he has like 500,000 edits on this site. An example of this is "[misogyny] is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences." That's a freaking subjective opinion being pushed as an objective fact on the misandry article as we speak. ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - Wikipedia is not the place to try to prove that the fringe position is the correct position. We reflect the mainstream view here, even if you might think the mainstream is getting it wrong. MrOllie (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to prove the minority position is the correct one. I'm trying to prove these topics are contested, debated, subjective, and opinionated enough that we don't use an objective tone while describing them. Otherwise we end up seeing biased, asinine and embarrassing "objective" (not really) claims like "misandry is a minor issue" on the misogyny article. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, we should not (through over attribution or otherwise) make the mainstream view sound like it is just one competing opinion. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't have to. At the end of the day, the mainstream view is still an opinion, but we do not have to make it sound as if it being highly contested. We can easily do this by being fair, neutral and level-headed writers. To me, it is painfully obvious there is enough dissent and subjectivity in these gender topics that Wikipedia must fix the NPOV prose on these articles. Anyway, I'm out. I'm getting a massive headache after dealing with this for 5 days. I need a few days vacation for myself. I invite more people to leave their feedback and for more eyes to see this whole debate. I can't deal with this anymore. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Literally any mainstream view can be described as just an opinion. No one has ever seen the Higgs boson with their own eyes; instead, physicists rely on theoretical modeling and indirect observations. But we don't say, In the opinion of many physicists, the Higgs particle is a massive scalar boson with a zero spin, even (positive) parity, no electric charge and no colour charge. The evidence is sufficiently strong to treat these as facts.The same is true for the mainstream scholarly position on questions like, "is misandry widespread?", "does sexism primarily affect men or women?", "which sex has more consequences as a result of gender prejudice?" and "is misogyny or misandry more rooted in society?". The answers are controversial to published experts in the field. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The views of Warren Farrell, Paul Nathanson, Katherine K. Young, and Cathy Young (no relation) are given too much weight in the article as is. None of these individuals are subject-matter experts.Farrell has some training as a political scientist, but his later writings are not academically vetted at all and are disregarded by sociologists such as Allan G. Johnson, who writes that Farrell's book The Myth of Male Power relies on a "very narrow definition" of power that excludes the very forms of power used to oppress women and minorities.Nathanson & Young publish their criticisms of "misandry" in the popular press, not academic journals, and actual sociologists like Michael Kimmel decry the "bad history" in their writing. Kathy Young's essay is just a newspaper op-ed. Citing these sources as though they are equivalent to peer-reviewed scholarship is extremely UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the very late reply, here, but I must object to your "any mainstream view c an be described as just an 'opinion'". You - and most editors here, not to single out just you - don't seem to UNDERSTAND what the difference is between fact and opinion. It is not a popularity contest. A fact is always a fact and an opinion is always an opinion, NO MATTER HOW many people agree or disagree! Even if 100% of the world agrees with an opinion, it is still an opinion, and we can say that "There is near universal agreement that it is so," but we should NOT be putting "It is so" if it ain't a fact. Same for the opposite: a fact can never become an opinion, even if no one agrees. I do not address disputed vs undisputed facts, but in sum: what IS an opinion is (ironically) an objective fact, and opinions should never be written about as if they are not opinions. Doing so is damning to the encyclopedia's credibility. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Noting here that this is not an accurate record of this conversion as it happened because ImmersiveOne has been editing their comments after they have been replied to. - MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just wanted to clarify a few things due to people not understanding Wikipedia basics. I'm an extremely new editor so I don't know many policies, but even I know editors should not list subjective opinions as facts. Anyway, now I'm out. ImmersiveOne (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between an opinion piece and the scientific finding of research scholars that publish said findings in peer reviewed journals, which we consider one of the most reliable type of sources - these are not some mere opinions and us summarizing said findings, similarly does not make them opinions.
 * Also please assume good faith and be cautious with throwing around accusations of other editors as this can run afoul of WP:NPA. You have already been warned about this on your talk page. Raladic (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The role of peer reviewed journals in policy is not what you claim it is. Although they have our highest a priori status for factual information, they can be challenged like any source and opinions in them are still opinions. The simplest proof that opinions in such sources do not automatically have the status of facts is that multiple contradictory opinions appear in them. A scholarly opinion becomes closer to fact for our purposes when it is the scholarly consensus; merely being offered as an opinion in a good source is not enough. Zerotalk 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * No one has yet presented any evidence whatsoever that the views of are outdated. "Outdated" does not just mean "old". The fact that you personally find the author's conclusions horrid is the same as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I also sense a double standard at work; if the source claimed instead that misandry was a  issue, would you be trying to dismiss it as irrelevant? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nor would I call Gilmore's analysis of misandry a quick jab. While it's not the focus of the book, he devotes a full page and a half to answering the question of whether misandry exists as a "reciprocal analogue" to misogyny, concluding that the answer is a "resounding no". Your personal belief that misandry is not a "minor issue" based on commentary by an antifeminist YouTuber has no bearing on the reliability of the source whatsoever. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On your argument against The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts. - The 2023 study is a meta-analysis co-authored by 40 expert scholars of the field of and published in the Psychology of Women Quarterly journal, which is ranked the highest impact journal in Women Studies and one of the highest in Psychology all up. They have strongly refuted the false stereotype, which is why they summarized it as such and called it a myth. It is absolutely appropriate to have summarized it as such.
 * Your proposal to water down the scientific findings of experts on the topic because you personally may not like them isn't how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia is not a place to promote personal world views if they don't align with that of expert scholars on the topic. Raladic (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By "outdated", I merely meant he was speaking in the context of a world 23 years ago. About the "misandry is a minor issue", it feels like a non-sequitur, and I meant the phrasing of it ("minor issue") felt like a quick jab, not the book being a quick jab. I read the book and I wouldn't interpret that as Gilmore trying to say "misandry is a minor issue", but rather something like, "society does not recognize misandry as a cultural institution like misogyny is." He also used "seems to be a resounding no", not that it is a "resounding no." I have many other reasons to believe misandry is not a minor issue, it's definitely not something I came to solely based on a Shoe0nHead video. I love her content, though. A study is also simply a study. When we use language like "false idea" as if it is a fact, it feels going too far, even if it is 40 research experts. It should at least be "strongly suggests it is a false idea." If a study by 40 topic experts suggests eggs are healthy, we don't use the language "the idea that eggs are unhealthy is a false idea" as if it were fact. I want to finish this up and let other people not involved in the Talk:Misandry discussion decide. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To show that the source by Gilmore is outdated requires more recent sources of comparable quality that actually contradict it. Not just drawing an arbitrary boundary between today and the world 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, etc. Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity over a century ago and it is still considered the most successful explanation of gravity and cosmology. It isn't "outdated" just because it's older than most people alive today. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just one more clarification before I leave, I also meant the Wikipedia editor's phrasing of how they interpreted the book ("misandry is a minor issue") was horrid, not that whatever Gilmore's conclusions were was horrid. To me, I see editorializing. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think it should be noted that "misandry is a minor issue" was added by Bink as his interpretation of it. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever your reasons to believe misandry is not a minor issue, Wikipedia articles are not based on users' personal beliefs or experiences. That's what published, reliable sources are for. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thinking something is in bad taste has nothing to do with either WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored to suit your or anyone else's delicate sensibilities. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Point of clarification as to what @Raladic said: The 2023 study by Hopkins-Doyle et al. reported as being a meta-analysis also seems to contain original research. Could someone clarify as to what extent this does not go against WP:NOR? Yes, there is some literature research and analysis in the article, but this is the norm for most scientific papers. Konanen (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * First, agreed with the above that this is irrelevant to NOR. You want WP:NPOVN (which is about how well we neutrally summarize source material). But since we're here...
 * I was about to agree with the first part of the original comment -- what in the world is such detail about Gilmore doing in the lead?? -- but then I realized I misread and that was from the body. As far as that content goes, I agree it should be copyedited. to show that misandry typically targets the virile male machismo is just awkward. How does coining a term ever "show" anything beyond showing one's ability to coin a term? Keep the content and just tweak it a la "viriphobia, in line with his view that misandry targets the virile male machismo".
 * As for the other disputed claim, This viewpoint is denied..., that's not remotely controversial. It's perhaps even conservative to limit its rejection to sociologists, anthropologists, and gender studies. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I left a little note directing them to here. Also, I'm aware that it's definitely what "most" scholars think, but my issue with it was mainly the latter parts being presented in fact, the fact that it was being in a way to make it seem people in the past were trying to debate people in the future, and the three citations not supporting the claims. We should focus on everything else about the article. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the talk page, we can adjust the sentence order to fix the past/future issue, and omit the questionable phrase "most sociologists" etc. I would suggest a change similar to the following:


 * As says, we shouldn't make the mainstream view sound like it is just one of many equally valid opinions. I'm fine with the copy edits suggested by  as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick chime in, I argue "in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny" is still highly subjective and an improper use of wiki voice. If you go onto the conscription article, look at all the countries in purple and red. Circumcision is still legal in many countries. And I'm sure people could write entire essays about how boys and men are at a disadvantage. And you already know why I think the word "comparable" is in bad taste and going too far. We're talking about 2024 perspective, and I think the claim is far too broad, speaking on the behalf of too many cultures. As 4meter4 said, the article as it is a WP:VERIFYOR violation. Wikipedia's policy is no matter what someone believes, they must WP:PROVEIT using RS. And in the lens of a 2024 world, I think it would be incredibly challenging to do (you would have a point about the Middle East, but it's not like Canadian women in 2024 are severely oppressed and fighting for the right to vote). ImmersiveOne (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure people write entire essays about how boys and men are supposedly at a disadvantage. But saying "there must be sources" does not satisfy the requirement to actually provide sources.The phrase  is paraphrasing :  (p. 12). The context for this is  (p. 8). So we can infer that when Gilmore says, he is talking about virtually all societies.Your objections to this statement (e.g. circumcision, voting rights) are essentially your personal opinions, based on some low-quality (including self-published) sources by non-experts. A Wikipedia article in particular is not a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It should still be in the language to remove the authoritarian wiki voice (as well as add some historical context) imo. Anything more than that would need RS I believe. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, it should not be phrased as though it is just Gilmore's opinion. Watering down the language because you happen to disagree (or based on a claim that it is 'subjective') really is not something that is done on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (with a link to source 2 here) Sound fine to everyone? If so, that's one half of this already over, with us just needing to decide what to do with the "false idea" part of the 2023 study. ImmersiveOne (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Gilmore's conclusion was not taken into consideration by the 40+ authors of the 2023 meta-analysis. Other scholars that don't cite Gilmore cannot be assumed to based on Gilmore. The lack of Gilmore cites in other works makes it appear that most scholars are doing their own research and analysis, not simply "agree"-ing with Gilmore. Your suggested wording is watering down the broad consensus of scholars. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We all happy? ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In-text attribution like is unnecessary and makes it seem like Gilmore's view is just one of many alternative viewpoints. Once again, there is no serious scholarly debate on whether misandry is equivalent to misogyny . The second sentence just tacks on  to a phrase lifted directly from . This is likely a copyright violation as well as being weaselly and repetitive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We were literally just told by Zero, an admin on this site for over 20 years (and others), that text is improperly using wiki voice to anything that can be considered a subjective opinion, and we must use WP:INTEXT. There are enough MRAs, professors interested in men's activism, as well as everyday people who could debate that line or consider it an opinion. Mentioning the year is also important for historical context. We don't automatically just state the scholarly consensus as a fact. We can change "said" to "stated", and we can change the second sentence to We could also begin it with  But that's it as far as it goes, I believe. Unless you can propose something better, we're at a standstill. ImmersiveOne (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Admins don't have any special authority in content disputes. What MRAs, professors interested in men's activism, as well as everyday people believe is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources by experts in their field. The only reason to consider the historical context of a given source is if scholarly consensus has meaningfully changed.You initially objected to the phrase as original research; tacking  or  onto the views of a single author is no different. The phrase  is simple gibberish. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't automatically just state the scholarly consensus as a fact. <--- This misunderstanding seems to be the root of your difficulties here. We do not treat the scholarly consensus as just another opinion to be attributed to someone. MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Admins don't have any special authority in disputes?! Then who does? I can't believe this is where we are right now: ignoring what the people who run this site tell us! I know you want said as straight-up fact so bad, but that claim is subjective, especially when you use the language "virtually all societies" and keep in mind the 2024 perspective. And I only tacked that language to try to satisfy Bink, but it seems he can not be satisfied here. Bink has had a grip on this article since 2011, you've had a grip on it since 2017. I'm getting WP:TAGTEAM vibes. This article has become a laughing stock. If anyone else is reading this, please add to this conversation. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is run by many volunteer users, only some of whom are administrators. has any special authority in content disputes, which are resolved by consensus. The role of an admin is primarily concerned with policy and editor conduct, not deciding content issues. We even have a policy against use of admin tools in disputes where admins are personally involved.
 * If you have evidence of misconduct by either or myself, you want Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you have a reliable source for the  beyond vague assertions of what  believe, feel free to present it here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gilmore is also a professor of anthropology, not just an . 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)
 * Wikipedia is run by many volunteer users, only some of whom are administrators. has any special authority in content disputes, which are resolved by consensus. The role of an admin is primarily concerned with policy and editor conduct, not deciding content issues. We even have a policy against use of admin tools in disputes where admins are personally involved.
 * If you have evidence of misconduct by either or myself, you want Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you have a reliable source for the  beyond vague assertions of what  believe, feel free to present it here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gilmore is also a professor of anthropology, not just an . At a certain point it's just more concise and readable to state mainstream scholarly "opinion" as fact rather than attributing each statement to its author. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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


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

Admins have the authority to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sometimes that means actively preventing something from appearing in articles even if it means blocking someone or protecting an article. That does not count as participating in a "content dispute". However, once an admin starts to edit an article except to enforce policies, they become "involved" and should leave the policy enforcement to a different admin. There isn't a very clear definition of when the transition occurs. Anyway, I'm only here to state my opinion on policy and I have no intention at the moment to look at the article. Several things are confused in this discussion. First, an opinion is an opinion regardless of where it appears. Second, we are allowed to report the "scholarly consensus" without attribution but first we need a reason other than our own likes and dislikes for why it really is the scholarly consensus. If there is a significant amount of scholarly writing that disagrees with the writing we like, then there is no scholarly consensus and we are supposed to report both sides of the debate (see NPOV) and INTEXT explains how. It's impossible to define "significant" objectively, but mainly it means that the dissenting opinions come from sources which themselves meet the standards of RS and don't meet the definition of FRINGE (these rules to some extent disagree with each other). Finally, you aren't allowed to write "Most scholars believe..." or similar unless you have a reliable source which says that most scholars believe; that would be a very elementary violation of NOR. However, you can get away with "Many scholars, such as X and Y, ..." provided that you really know of "many" scholars. Zerotalk 16:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried making some of those points before, especially "an opinion is an opinion regardless of where it occurs" and that if people are going to claim scholarly consensus, they should still need to show RS where such phrasing occurs, as Gilmore/Marc Ouellette are only two authors. Hmm... maybe is the way to go here. ImmersiveOne (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are two authors ? If not, who are the others? This is just more weasel wording. Expecting an RS to state outright that is setting an impossible standard. We aren't making any claims in Wikivoice about the scholarly consensus, we're just summarizing the most reliable sources and avoiding fringe viewpoints as much as possible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Many scholars" can become "scholars". If INTEXT is not used, then you are claiming the opinions of two men between 2001-2007 as the ultimate fact in a very grandiose manner imo. The article is the way it is now because Wikipedia editors are basically acting they get to decide what the scholarly consensus is without an RS explicitly stating it, I've only been vaguely told "oh, all the other sources basically agree with us so it's okay." ImmersiveOne (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that it isn't just 'the opinions of two men'. You've been told this many times now. We're getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. MrOllie (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been asking for scholarly, non-fringe works that disagree with the views presented above. So far I haven't seen any, let alone in the present discussion. (I would definitely describe  as fringe scholars.) So I think we have pretty good reasons to treat the views of Gilmore and Ouellete as the consensus, more or less. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * ImmersiveOne: These aren't mainstream works of psychology but a mixture of research papers (WP:primary sources) and "provocative new idea" books. When misandry becomes more established as a mainstream theory we can revisit it. Until then it's time to accept consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 19:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is, they are the views of people who hold Ph.Ds and they are still professors, psychologists, scholars and authors. It is also conducted scientific findings and research. It would be biased to ignore every author/study agreeing that "misandry is indeed rooted in society" and sweep their findings and opinions under the rug, so much so we state "" as a fact. To me, it reeks of WP:UNDUE and we need a lot more voices in this discussion to obtain NPOV. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The studies you linked to are indeed primary sources that are reporting on novel findings. They do not represent established academic knowledge. When evaluating scholarly consensus, we look for works that have been vetted by the scholarly community such as literature reviews in peer-reviewed journals or books from mainstream academic publishers.City Journal is a magazine published by a conservative think tank, not a scholarly publication. Other researchers have identified problems with the 2023 study by Paul Connor et al.; see Talk:Misandry/Archive 6. The 2019 study authors actually say that "men's disadvantage is largely due to a shorter healthy lifespan", nothing to do with .The books listed here are mostly in the popular press. I've already stated the problems with using Warren Farrell as a source. Janice Fiamengo is a retired English professor. David Benatar is a philosopher and editor of the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident philosopher at a conservative think tank. Owen Strachan is a Calvinist theologian. None of these are sociologists, psychologists or anthropologists. Just because someone has a Ph.D. does not mean their views are in the mainstream; see Nobel disease.Roy Baumeister is probably the only person with relevant academic expertise in this list. His book apparently argues that "men compete with one another and build larger organizations and social networks from which culture grows. But cultures in turn exploit men by insisting that their role is to achieve and produce, to provide for others, and if necessary to sacrifice themselves." Is exploitation the same as ? Ivana Milojević says this idea of male expendability is simply the result of patriarchy. Where does Baumeister say this has anything to do with hatred of men? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) edited 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Gilmore/Ouellette be considered primary sources as well? And what, Wikipedia is allowed to discredit sources/studies/reportings simply because they may come from conservative sources? I do not consider myself a conservative, but I think that would be going too far. And I thought Wikipedia was allowed to mention information from magazines. I wouldn't be against adding information about how that particular study could be flawed.
 * You're discrediting a professor just because she's retired? All professors eventually die or retire, it does not mean their writings and worth is suddenly rendered meaningless. Benatar's own Wikipedia also mentions he is an academic, and I think just because he's a member of that journal, it does not mean his book is entirely meaningless and I think it's a nitpicky reason to discredit his book. At the end of the day, he's still an academic who published a book. He is also a professor, and has a Bachelor of Social Science which focuses on Anthropology, History, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology. Just because philosophy is his forte, it does not undermine his entire education.
 * Baumeister's book mentions that "it shows that while men have greatly benefited from the culture they have created, they have also suffered because of it. Men may dominate the upper echelons of business and politics, but far more men than women die in work-related accidents, are incarcerated, or are killed in battle--facts nearly always left out of current gender debates." I would have to do more research into his work, I admit. Still, he believes prejudice against men is indeed institutionalized to a degree.
 * One more study: Male gender bias deters men from some career paths ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * – where does Baumeister say this is because of ? The book by 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 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 . 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)
 * analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The source by 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 . Now you want to open the article up to political propaganda from Koch-funded think tanks? Please make up your mind. It seems you are still working backwards from your own personal point of view instead of looking for the most reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * No! The meta-analysis by 40+ scholars in 2023 resoundingly confirms the existing scholarly consensus. It doesn't just "strongly suggest". Your wording is a whitewash.
 * At this point, your continued hammering at the same argument amounts to WP:Tendentious editing. Persisting in this manner wastes the community's time and patience, and will likely get you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Various other editors (uninvolved at Talk:Misandry) all pointed out the article suffers neutrality issues, with two other editors saying there should be WP:INTEXT. I'm not going to get into another circular argument with you, Bink, and that "misandry is a minor issue" you wrote was an absolutely horrible cringey phrasing. I've made my points and I'm going. There's nothing else for me to argue anymore. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Another problem with the article is that it barely mentions prejudice and discrimination against trans men, which is doubtless more severe. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is called Transphobia and has a separate article, with its own sub article Discrimination against transgender men. Raladic (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if discrimination against trans men is commonly analyzed as misandry. I'm more familiar with seeing it analyzed as transphobia. I wonder if at least a disambiguating hatnote or see also link would be sensible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the term Transmisandry currently exists as a redirect to Discrimination against transgender men. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This paraphrasing okay or synth?
To be discussed in context to WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH, WP:SYNTHNOT.

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

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 ”.

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? &#32;Bookku   (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Since no responses yet, let me self evaluate a bit WP:PRIMARY lists a policy protocol point 3 says ".. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. .." and point 4 says "..Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. .." IMO my edit takes care of aspects and rest of the policy too. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting
Somebody else certifying is always better that self certification, hence relisting this request for inputs. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * $$ \int_0^1 x^2 \, dx = \frac{1}{3},$$


 * which can easily be checked nowadays using elementary integral calculus.

On several occasions, the article uses Instructional language:
 * "of course"
 * "we see that"
 * "We will think"
 * "we wish to show that"
 * "Q.E.D." (the statement by a person who has successfully proved a geometrical proposition, ie - a statement directly to the instructor, students, or readers)

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

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

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

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

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


 * In any case, all of the alleged WP:OR content fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. –LaundryPizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The IP who removed the OR tags claimed that the manuscript itself was used to derive these contents, which violates WP:NOPRIMARY. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I nuked the overview section as WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and added a summary to the lead, which the one source I can access explains in terms of integral calculus. (It is a book that is cited in the article and available open-access on the Internet Archive.) The rest of the source is an English translation of the Method, as reported by the original discoverers; I suggest rewriting the rest of the article as a summary of each theorem in this translation, on similar principles as MOS:PLOT for works of fiction and without original research. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The explanations seem like pretty lucid expositions of the Archimedes text, and are broadly consistent with Heath's (secondary) commentary on the manuscript. For technical articles, we routinely include lay descriptions of things (including proofs).  I can confirm that the explanations do not contain systematic original research, in the sense of arriving at novel conclusions or synthesis.  Tito Omburo (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the citation needs to be used inline. Also, your concerns do not address that the article should be written like an encyclopedia, not a textbook. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, MOS:EDITORIAL. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a style issue, irrelevant for this Noticeboard. And WP:MSM: "Mathematics articles are often written in a conversational style similar to a whiteboard lecture." Tito Omburo (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to this comment:
 * "I can confirm that the explanations do not contain systematic original research, in the sense of arriving at novel conclusions or synthesis"
 * Respectfully, that assurance is irrelevant. Individual Wikipedians are not reliable sources, as that term is used here: WP:RELIABLE. The concern I am raising is that much of the article is unsourced, leading me to believe it contains original proofs devised by a previous editor. A personal assurance by an editor, whether that is you or me, does not make up for a lack of cites to reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You asked others for their opinions, so it's weird that you would say their opinions are irrelevant. The article is sourced to Heath's translation and commentary of Archimedes The Method. I am saying that the proofs here are not original. They are in the original source.  Tito Omburo (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then please provide the specific page numbers to support the proof. I asked here for discussion whether the proof is original research, as that term is used on Wikipedia. That doesn’t mean I’m asking for their personal opinions on the proof. I’m asking others if they agree that the proof is adequately supported by reliable sources, or if there is a lack of reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're asking for opinions on whether the proof is supported by sources. I've given you my opinion. Not sure why that's such a problem. Big picture: the article is actually rather good. The explanations of the proofs are clearer in my opinion than in Heath"s commentary, the original palimpsest, or even Netz and Noel's pop book on The Archimedean Codex. So I see this gunning for the article as rather destructive. Could the article use more sources, better citation style, some copyediting? Sure.  But it's not a GAR where everything needs to be perfect. So just lay off. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Put simply, is the article summarizing Archimedes’s propositions, as he set them out in the letter? Or is the article providing modern proofs of his propositions?  If it is the latter, then reliable sources for the modern proof are needed. It can’t just be a free-standing proof given by a previous editor. There has to be a reliable source cited in support of that proof. Otherwise it is just original research. Wikipedia summarises. It doesn’t provide original research by some unknown editor. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is summarizing Archimedes' proofs. In fact, this is clear enough from the article itself. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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

It is claimed by some participants that the genre label is not in common usage and lacks a consistent definition beyond "crime film + action film", whereas others digress and argue the opposite. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 19:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_society_before_the_French_Revolution – See also this bizarre 72,000-byte article... RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting...... Would take me weeks if not months to produce all this information. Moxy 🍁 01:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, that article is a mess. Just read this sentence for instance:
 * The intricate tapestry of pre-revolutionary French society was woven from threads of longstanding tradition, emerging modernity, and growing contradictions that would eventually lead to one of the most significant political upheavals in Western history.
 * That reeks of some cobbled together AI mess that seems like it's snatching up high school history essays. Personally, I'd recommend blanking the whole thing until a much better version can be written. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Similarly, both "Sugar islands" and "Venality of offices" aren't really terms or phrases that have any historical use. There were islands that made up parts of the sugar trade of course, but "Sugar islands" isn't really a term that was used at least not with any significance. Same goes for "Venality of offices". There's a valid historical concept there, but the article indicates that it's some specifically named concept or system. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve indeffed them. No responses to messages on their talk page, only deletions, clearly using AI. Doug Weller  talk 18:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I put a whole bunch of these deleted pages on my watchlist see if they come up again. Moxy 🍁 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Moxy Thanks, good idea. Doug Weller  talk 10:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Disuptive WP:OR on Vampire Survivors
User @Masem has reverted my edits twice now, and I won't try to do it a third time due to WP:3RR. These reverts were for the following reasons as directly quoted from the History tab. 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.
 * 1) Wp doesn't use "Rogue lite" due to the blurred line between that and roguelike
 * 2) The is no well defined line between these in RSes

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

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

What I find particularly disingenuous from this editor is that to another editor they said the following "You are definitely applying OR. If sources say it is a roguelike, we list it as a roguelike" and "We go by the sources, not personal opiniokn". So, I believe this is a case of personal opinion where Masem prefers their own "truth" over the reality that publications tend to refer to the game as either a roguelite or as a game with roguelike elements ie "pseudo-roguelike" and rather than citing another source to substantiate their claim they revert my edits with bogus claims that amount to WP:OR drivel. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, looking at past edits on the same page, it becomes increasingly more evident that this editor treats it as if they own the page. See WP:OWN.
 * https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Masem&page=Vampire_Survivors&server=enwiki&max= 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not specific to Vampire Survivors, but in general, the terms "roguelike" and "roguelite" are unfortunately very diffuse terms, which the only practical distinction are from people that want to keep the original "roguelike" term to strictly apply to games that follow the Berlin convention and make sure anything else is labeled as a "rogurlite" to keep the "purity" of the first term. But most of video games reliable sources do not respect that distinction and because where the line draw between the terms extremely difficult to nail down, we generally treat any game called either term as just "roguelike" to avoid edit warring over this gray line. If you want to talk Vampire Survivors specifically, Google shows hits for both terms related to the game, representing the same inconsistent, fuzzy use of either term. I *know* many gamers would call it a roguelite, but until RSes come to a better agreement to want there differences in the terms should actually be, we avoid creating a novel take as just call it as the most recognized term roguelike.<span id="Masem:1719244256743:WikipediaFTTCLNNo_original_research/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 15:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Not specific to Vampire Survivors, but in general, the terms "roguelike" and "roguelite" are unfortunately very diffuse terms,"
 * WP:OR + WP:OPINION
 * "which the only practical distinction are from people that want to keep the original "roguelike" term to strictly apply to games that follow the Berlin convention and make sure anything else is labeled as a "rogurlite" to keep the "purity" of the first term."
 * The way other editors behave should not affect how you edit articles yourself. In a collaborative environment, that's always bound to happen. And you, behaving the way you do, will not improve the said environment.
 * "But most of video games reliable sources do not respect that distinction and because where the line draw between the terms extremely difficult to nail down, we generally treat any game called either term as just "roguelike" to avoid edit warring over this gray line. If you want to talk Vampire Survivors specifically, Google shows hits for both terms related to the game, representing the same inconsistent, fuzzy use of either term. I *know* many gamers would call it a roguelite, but until RSes come to a better agreement to want there differences in the terms should actually be, we avoid creating a novel take as just call it as the most recognized term roguelike."
 * There is no gray line in that specific article. In fact, continuing to uphold your WP:OR is more likely to lead to edit wars as editors notice the article has original research on it, thus attempting to fix it only to be reverted by you because you're the sole perpretrator enforcing your own point of view. The fact remains that no source cited in the article specifically calls the game a roguelike, with one exception even stating it to be a pseudo-roguelike. None of the sources in the entire "Reception" section call it a roguelike, with Ars Technica the lead citation calling it a "roguelite" and IGN simply stating that it has roguelike elements. Google is not a reliable source. It is clear that you are giving undue weight to your viewpoint and opinion. If you want to put an end to the argument immediately, you either cite one, two or more reliable sources that specifically AND directly describe Vampire Survivor as a roguelike, or update the information to be factually correct. That's all I'm asking for, that's all I asked for when I initially undid your revert. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles that discuss the diffuse nature of these terms Gamedeveloper.com, Inverse for a few examples.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>We know that sources call VS a roguelite. I used Google as a quick search to find there are also several sources that call it a roguelike eg, , and that's just a quick skim.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>It points to the fact that it really gets far too much into murky waters to explicitly distinguish roguelike v roguelite as applied to VS, just that overall one of either term is used to describe the genre of the game. So we use the term that is more common and has broadest applicability, roguelike.<span id="Masem:1719248434735:WikipediaFTTCLNNo_original_research/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem  (t) 17:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If your concern is that "roguelite" is not well-defined, I'd rather still have "roguelike elements" or "pseudo-roguelike" (per mention by 2 sources) as opposed to roguelike when that's neither the favorable opinion based on what I could garner nor the prefered term by which this game is described by sources (unless again, you can prove me wrong without resorting to WP:OR). There are more citations describing the game as a bullet hell or as an RPG than as a roguelike. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Will add that there are quite a few reliable sources referring to Vampire Survivors as a roguelike: PC Gamer calls it "Best Roguelike 2022", GamesRadar uses it as a comparison w/ other Roguelikes, Kotaku calls it a roguelike, PCGamesN calls it a Roguelike, Polygon, etc. As best as I can tell, roguelike is the preferred term among major games media outlets; while the developer self-refers to it as rogue-lite. Given that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the term "roguelite", while there *are* clear definitions for "roguelike", it seems pretty clearcut to me that we should be using the better-defined, longer-standing, more widely-used term instead of the fuzzy neologism. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then, add the appropriate citations since the only citations I could find were all hinting at the game being roguelite.
 * Notably, Kotaku describes the game as pseudo-roguelike, not as a roguelike.
 * "As best as I can tell, roguelike is the preferred term among major games media outlets"
 * 4 outlets out of a few dozens doesn't seem like it.
 * Primary sources are still important, particularly if they have supported by secondary sources which it is since Ars Technica calls it a roguelite, Ign states the game only has Roguelike elements, Kotaku describes it as a pseudo-roguelike and most other articles do not mention it one way or the other.
 * Roguelike is a fuzzy neologism, Masem did say it had a "diffuse" definition too. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I find it disingenuous and hard to believe that "the only citations I found were all hinting at the game being roguelite." That to me suggests you didn't actually check outside of the article before you brought Masem to this noticeboard by accusing him of instituting his personal opinion; having apparently not done even cursory research as to what major media sources say about it. I also think it's disingenuous to suggest that "roguelike is a fuzzy neologism" -- an example of *you* instituting your personal opinion, as it's a well-defined term in the games industry. Masterclass did an article on it. The NY Times has done an article on what a roguelike is. RogueBasin has a whole article on it from a development standpoint not to mention a detailed breakdown of the Berlin Interpretation, an industry-centric definition of the principle characteristics of a roguelike as defined at the International Roguelike Development Conference 2008; Green Man Gaming likewise has one as does Cloudfall Studios, etc. So, circling back; we have *multiple* reliable sources that broadly represent the games media industry at large, stating that the game is a roguelike; we have a clear definition for what a roguelike is; and we have neither such thing for the definition that you're pushing. Perhaps it's not Masem whose the problem here?  ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Wikipedia here, any point that's not substantiated by a source is invalid. If you want, you may add these citations to the article, but as far as Masen or you should be concerned, what they did fall under WP:OR. You either source your edits or you don't revert if somebody comes along to change something you did that they deemed incorrect.
 * See for yourself.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_Survivors#Reception
 * This has many citations, and out of these:
 * Ars Technica calls the game a Roguelite.
 * Ign says the game has Roguelike elements.
 * Kotaku calls the game a pseudo-roguelike.
 * "an example of *you* instituting your personal opinion, as it's a well-defined term in the games industry. Masterclass did an article on it. The NY Times has done an article on what a roguelike is. RogueBasin has a whole article on it from a development standpoint not to mention a detailed breakdown of the Berlin Interpretation, an industry-centric definition of the principle characteristics of a roguelike as defined at the International Roguelike Development Conference 2008; Green Man Gaming likewise has one as does Cloudfall Studios, etc."
 * All of these use each a different definition. If we go by the Berlin interpretation alone, which another user tried to shove into the article before getting reverted, the game wouldn't be a Roguelike.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vampire_Survivors&oldid=1205822026
 * Thus proving my point that the definition isn't consistent and established. Your friend Masen also earlier stated that roguelike had a fuzzy definition. They said it first, I only reiterated that point of contention. Good to call me disingenuous when you can't read into the conversation and can't click on URLs to read what's within them, I find that rather lazy if not disingenuous of you.
 * Roguelite has also been defined many times by reliable secondary sources:
 * https://www.g2a.com/news/features/roguelike-vs-roguelite-do-you-know-the-difference/
 * https://www.destructoid.com/the-difference-between-roguelike-and-roguelite-games/
 * https://screenrant.com/roguelike-roguelite-difference-permadeath-hades-rogue-slay-spire/
 * https://www.thegamer.com/roguelike-roguelite-difference-hades-darkest-dungeon/
 * And even has a definition on the Wiktionary, another site by Wikimedia and a tertiary source. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IP, behave yourself, and knock off the personal attacks. If you want, you may add these citations to the article, -- so can you; and one would have expected you to have made even a cursory attempt to do so before you inappropriately launched a noticeboard discussion labeling other editors as "disruptive". I'm not involved in this dispute and as a working game developer, I try not to edit gaming related articles to avoid the appearance of a COI. I would suggest that you consider reading WP:BOOMERANG, particularly if you're going to resort to personal attacks like calling me "lazy". As for We are talking about Wikipedia here, any point that's not substantiated by a source is invalid. -- that is not an accurate statement of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability either. Do better.  ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You called me disingenuous earlier.
 * There is WP:BURDEN that disagrees with you, so pretty much yes if you can't prove a point, then it's fully invalid. I'm not doing someone else's homework even now that the amount of sources is still rather iffy for "roguelike" to be an appropriate term for that article, and only something someone intentionally enforces due to personal opinion on the subject matter. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, let's be clear -- I said I found your claims disingenuous. That's my opinion on the quality of the arguments you've made, not a statement about you personally -- I'm not required to agree with you, or to find your position to have any merit. On the other hand, calling another editor "lazy", on the other hand, is an ad-hominem personal attack. You *are* required to refrain from doing that. With regard to citations, I'd suggest you look at the lede paragraph of WP:V which clearly outlines the four scenarios in which a citation is required. The policy in no way states that "if you can't prove a point then it's fully invalid". Your statement that "any point that's not substantiated by a source is invalid" is simply, flatly wrong -- nowhere in our verifiability policy does it state this. But really ultimately it comes down to this for me -- if you're unwilling to do the prerequisite research before bringing someone to a noticeboard; where even a cursory effort would have shown that Rogue-like is a well defined, appropriate term widely used by reliable sources to describe the game in question; while insisting that others be the ones to correct an issue that only *you* seem to have a problem with, referring to it as "not doing someone else's homework", you're simply showing me that you're not here to constructively and collaboratively build an encyclopedia. You're not going to gain consensus for your argument by attacking people, demanding they do things you're unwilling to do yourself, and being generally disruptive. Good luck with that though. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Decrying not doing something as basic as reading the conversation as "lazy" is not an ad hominem. If that's an ad hominem then "disingenuous" also is an ad hominem. If I called you an "idiot" that would be an ad hominem. I'm criticizing your perceived behavior as much as you criticise my perceived behavior as "disingenuous". I don't understand why you are flipping out over this.
 * In fact, you should have read the article you just linked. That's the 4 scenarios
 * direct quotations,
 * material whose verifiability has been challenged,
 * material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
 * contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.
 * None of them are applicable in this situation. That article's claim that it is a roguelike has been challenged and it's a point against @Masem if anything.
 * Also, none of them state "You are expected to change the article for someone else if that someone else can't be bothered", so no you're incorrect.
 * "where even a cursory effort would have shown that Rogue-like is a well defined, appropriate term widely used by reliable sources to describe the game in question;"
 * That's demonstrably not true and I have shown that several times over.
 * The definition is not consistent across sources you've cited.
 * There are several reliable sources disagreeing with your opinion. Currently, it is a 4v3; 4 aggreeing Vampire Survivor is a Roguelike and 3 do not agree Vampire Survivor is a Roguelike, only it having partial elements from the genre.
 * I'm not in the mood to be happy-go-lucky nice when I'm trying to get the attention of a moderator to deal with this problem or at least have someone prove me wrong by updating the article accordingly, but the article hasn't yet been updated with new reliable source and no moderator showed up to deal with their WP:OR. It does nothing to help that you can't read into the conversation nor the sources you peddle here, sources you could have spent the time to add to the article.
 * I'm here to fix an article that has a bad case of WP:OR I never edited here before and probably never will again. If the article was fine the moment I saw it I wouldn't have edited it in the first place and I wouldn't have escalated the situation. I'll even escalate it to an admin if it needs to be done. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are looking at the specific case of VS but I am speaking to what in broader terms we've adopted for general issue of fuzziness between the terms rouglike and roguelite on WP. It doesn't matter what you identify for VS, even if 100% of the RSes used "roguelite", we'd still call it a roguelike because in broad terms, they are one and the same genre which we standardize to "roguelike". Nitpicking the distiction between the two lead to arguments exavtly like this one.<span id="Masem:1719257933905:WikipediaFTTCLNNo_original_research/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 19:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And you know what would help? Actually using the terms used by the sources. As mentioned much earlier, I edited this article because I saw it being a case of WP:OR. The least I would expect is for that to be rectified with a reliable source.
 * There is no guideline on Wikipedia against using "roguelite" over "roguelike" by the way, that's something you have made on the spot and that I have since objected to. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot do a full comparison now (on mobile) but if I could sit down to do a Google search of VS to compare how it is used with "roguelike" vs "roguelite", I suspect I will have around a 59/50 to 60/40 split on which term is preferred. I am pretty confident that if I did this for any game hat some want to be specifically called a "roguelite" such as Hades or Dead Cells, I'd find the same split. I stress again, the line between roguelike and rugelike is extremely fuzzy in RSes to the point that they are effectively the same genre, and maybe at best, roguelite being a subgenre of roguelike. We are avoiding WP:NEO problems by using the term we known has best clearly established to define games like VS. M asem (t) 20:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried this out of curiosity, picked a random game that was popular and listed as roguelike on Steam and the results may surprise you, but you're not completely right in that assessment.
 * So first, we have Polygon, ok.
 * Then, we have nichegamer, not a reliable source.
 * Next up in line, we have eurogamer, ok.
 * Lastly, we have this, which I think is a blog, not a reliable source.
 * Already, compared to Vampire Survivor Slay the Spire has more good sources supporting it being a roguelike than a roguelite. Including IGN, Gamesradar, The Gamer and the 4 aforementioned websites on that thread that also called VS a roguelike.
 * So that's 7v2 here for Slay the Spire.
 * However, you do bring a good point that there will always be a split. It's still important to not put undue weight like here. 7v2 is a huge disparity, so I wouldn't object to that word being used to describe this game in particular.
 * Roguelite is not a neologism if we go off what's written on WP:NEO, it gets frequent uses and appears frequently in secondary sources. I agree it's a neologism much like roguelike, but I had to point that out. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ┌──────────────────────────────┘ There is no strict definition as to what a roguelite is, which is why it is a neogolism for us.<span id="Masem:1719263908206:WikipediaFTTCLNNo_original_research/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So does roguelike which has 10 different definitions depending on who you ask. 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:1112:5B18:F185:3D6D (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Roguelikes are games that are similar to the game Rogue, by definition, and generally emphasized with procedural generation and permadeath. That's the readily accepted definition. Where a roguelike game slips into being a roguelite is very much not well defined, and us not an area WP should be tryi g to wiki lawyer within.<span id="Masem:1719267259161:WikipediaFTTCLNNo_original_research/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 22:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

2021 Canadian church burnings
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)
 * The description of what fires occurred probably looks like the list from True North because True North listed the fires that occurred. Since True North is a deprecated source, it's not used. Instead, numerous reliable sources (around 20 in total) are used that independently verify the fires and the relationship between them. By the metric you describe, any accurate statement could be discounted if it is accurately described in a deprecated source. In any case, that also wouldn't be original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As you know quite well, since we have now discussed this multiple times, it is the implied attribution that I am questioning, as well as your framing of the fires as some sort of retaliatory attack on the Catholic church. None of that is ANYWHERE in the sources. And when you find yourself saying things like 'accurately described in a deprecated source" then it may be time to revise your metric for accuracy. Yes, there are one or two sources for each specific fire saying that it happened. The entire premise of the article is still however undemonstrated, three years after the fact. Elinruby (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect: every reliable source, investigators, and tribal officials all say the most likely cause was retaliation for the gravesites. See this 2024 CBC News report on the church fires, this NYT story, this Guardian story, and every other cited piece on the article. Trudeau even made a statement unambiguously connecting the two. In the meantime, you have suggested that the fires were just natural occurrences. If you can provide a reliable source that says there isn't a connection, go for it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you are asking me to prove that an unproven theory is unproven. *You* need to prove it is not, by proving it. Also I do not claim the fires all had natural causes. Or even any of them for that matter. I simply do not know, and I am saying that there is no evidence that they are all retaliatory arsons. Three years later when some portion of them would surely have gotten through the criminal justice system by now if that were the case. Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, please describe Justin Trudeau's credentials as an arson investigator, and discuss how "I could understand why someone might do this" supports the proposition that someone of a given ethnicity in fact did. And please stop misquoting me; it's a really bad habit Elinruby (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that a major take away of everything here is that the Canadian government has, for more than a century, had a propensity towards failing to address crimes against Indigenous peoples. The good news is that your personal denialism does not prevent the utilization of RSs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are accusing me of denialism. Please illuminate me as to the train of thought that led you there. Elinruby (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, yes, you did suggest that this could just have been natural, most recently. You then actual original research into the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a diff, what is its point here? I am quoting you. You said that less than a month ago at ANI, do you remember that? What I get out of it is that you have absolutely no idea about a wildfire season. Meanwhile, Lytton is an example of an extremely large fire in the immediate time period that was neither an accident nor an arson, since it was started per local consensus by a train. It is classified as "man-made" btw, and so is the fire that was started by the upstanding citizen off the Coaquihalla who while having an argument with his girlfriend drove at top speed down a forest road with a barbeque grill going in the back of his pickup truck. In drought conditions surrounded by wildfires. I do not object to an article about retaliatory arsons if we can find some to write about, incidentally. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have nominated the article for deletion at Articles for deletion/2021 Canadian church burnings. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 02:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article was created based on list published by Aleteia, the Catholic on-line newspaper. We avoid OR by reporting possible connections published in reliable sources.
 * Your mention of True North btw links to a direction. TFD (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah welll the reliability of Aleteia is currently being questioned at RSN based on some other examples of the excellence of their reporting. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I might see if I can get some more reliable support for a potential list, e.g. from local (reputable) news sources from the areas where incidents took place.
 * I'd be interested in if there could be some sort of consensus for the criteria that make an incident 'count' for potentially being part of a list - e.g. a specific time period they occurred in, whether they were believed to be arson, if they occurred in a specific region, etc.
 * I'd like to see some description and delineation of how the incidents have been lied about (e.g. by disinformation sources like True North) and misrepresented to whip up fear and furor to support far-right conspiracies. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say go to town, but this is clearly not the article Pbritti wants to write. He just categorized it as an article about Catholicism, which is, yes, mentioned, but that is what he thinks the article is about. It would actually be quite interesting to recast this as a journalism article, and maybe that would even save us all from typing the same thing over and over again for the rest of our lives. There didn't use to be an active journalism project but maybe that has changed. Elinruby (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As for what would count: if this is a spinoff of the gravesites article I think the standard should be quite high. If this is a list of fires in June 2021 in Canada, you wouldn't have that. At least, when I worked on wildfire articles before, it was, I think, a category --2018 wildfires in California. If this is a list of suspected arsons in late June 2021 in Canada, the next question is why. Why would you have that category? I don't think you should, unless there are a whole lot of other lists like it. And by the way I keep meaning to look up the sample size on that CBC poll. The point I am making with the nationwide scope however is that things are being grouped into single sentences with no indication of why. These are groups of people who may or may not have ever even heard of each other. Elinruby (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * maybe the place to start is where the church burnings (we can't even call them arsons for crying out loud) first became discussed in the context of the graves. Probably it is something like what happened with "mass grave", I suspect, but that is just a theory. Some reporter assumed that this was helpful context. But in terms of Wikipedia that definitely *would be* OR, is the problem. Useful question for disinformation research though. Do the academic journals discuss this fire idea, do you know? I have only seen a discussion of the "they said mass graves" trope, but I haven't searched specifically for this. 18:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

for discussion: and aha, our good friends RT But we are looking for "earliest" -- maybe a leading question here? Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Then there is, 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 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 : 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 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)


 * Ok, I'm confused. What's the issue here? Pbritti has supplied sources for the contested claim. Nobody's challenged those sources. So what OR are we discussing exactly? 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 10:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * giggle. Yes, you are confused. Several of the sources have in fact been challenged, see RSN. Some excellent sources remain, but only for the fact that some people three years ago said that they would be mad too. And that the local RCMP put out a press release. The story evaporated. Only person ever convicted for anything was mentally and and mad at her boyfriend. But we have an article that says that three years ago there was speculation that something or other -- it isn't entirely clear what, but it's obviously Bad....so we have a list of fires in June 2021 that might or might not have something to do with bodies in Kamloops. Maybe. An elder or an academic says I can Understand why someone would -- this is not proof that someone did.

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)
 * When you manage to get the CBC, BBC, NYT, Guardian, WSJ, and NPR deprecated as sources at RSN, feel welcome to reopen discussion. In the meantime, feel welcome to personally stick to your theory that the 200+% increase in church fires is just a fluke. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have a theory and neither should you. That is the point here. All those are very fine sources but they don't support the idea that there is anything here to have a theory about. Meanwhile since my position that you are misrepresenting is immediately about your comment, I am letting go of the idea that your repeated problems with this have something to do with your memoryaking tem merely has t. Elinruby (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I spot-checked the BBC, CBS and WSJ sources. They all draw a connection between the fires and the gravesites story. This is speculation, but it’s speculation being done by reliable sources and the people they are quoting - not speculation by Wikipedia editors. So it does not look like WP:OR. The premise of the article is that there has been an unusual pattern of fires, and notable people have commented on it. This is not the article to document every Canadian church that caught fire in 2021. It’s an article about a notably unusual pattern of fires. If the article includes mention of a fire that has not been linked to a wider pattern, then that would be WP:SYNTH. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * edit conflict six times trying to get something said in the past 10 minutes.... I give up. Moxy 🍁 20:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies I am done now and the floor is yours. Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who is doing the linking though? The RS tends to mention the proximity in time, only. The Federalist isn't shy about drawing a connection mind you but this is not RS. The "unusual pattern" is that at a time when literally half of British Columbia was on fire, there were "suspicious" fires that sparked some speculation. The OR is in framing the fires in particular as a group of related events when there is no evidence of that whatsoever, at least not in the article, or that I have been able to find so far. Elinruby (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) The Daily Mail is also pushing an explicit revenge motive  The New York Times linked them merely as coming at a particularly raw moment, just weeks after the unmarked graves of 215 children were found and said While the circumstances remained murky, investigators said one line of inquiry was arson, including the possibility that the Indigenous communities had been targeted although 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)
 * Ironically, Elinruby pressed for the removal of the only arson (that of St. Gregory Coptic Church) that explicitly contradicted the RS consensus that this is likely retaliation for the gravesites. Indeed, the reason they supporting removing it was the perpetrator's claim that that it was over domestic strife, despite an overwhelming amount of coverage in RSs initially suggesting there was a relationship to the other fires. If Elinruby really wanted to challenge the established narrative, they wouldn't have insisted on excluding that particular fire. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources which speculate that the cause of the pattern of fires was due to natural wildfires / climate / similar? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * there are literally thousands of sources but to answer that question I need to know which fires. The two in the southeast that are close together? Elinruby (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to know if any reliable source has offered the theory that the pattern of fires has a natural explanation (in which case that can be mentioned in the article), or if that’s just your theory (in which case it’s OR). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What pattern? There are a lot of sources, yes. None of them say that these is a link except for the NY Post and the Daily Mail and some really obscure other sites, either Catholic or right wing. By the way "Kamloops graves church fires" produces zero relevant results at JSTOR. It's all about hits like "Church St" in addresses. Plus one American site ranting about blood libel, just to double down on the inappropriateness. Since a now-topic-banned editor essentially gutted Canadian Indian residential school gravesites, I have been going through sources for the reconstruction. Pretty confident in saying that in 2021 RS were saying things like "these two fires came on the heels of the announcement of ground-penetrating radar results." Now these fires are completely off their radar and the top hits about graves in Kamloops right now are all whackadoodle sources. Elinruby (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is CBC a reliable source? : Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You're still saying "pattern". Maybe this will help:. 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 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)


 * I said pattern because we have RS that says pattern. I haven’t seen you cite any source which disputes this. Your reasoning above is OR. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The CBC said "pattern" as in, "a pattern of increase in a certain type of fire in a small sample of fire events". Maybe I even believe them given it's the CBC, but something in the back of my mind is telling me that I should look up degrees of significance. Assuming the sampling is valid, though, and the calculations are gold standard, for the sake of the argument, because again, I have questions, but let's pretend: it's still three-year-old speculation that possibly didn't age well. No matter what. Certainly in three years time, some fire investigator somewhere found something out. That is the problem with articles about this type of breaking news story. They have to be updated or they start to be worse than not having an article at all. So the article needs to be updated if we keep it.


 * And what is the current topic of this article? Maybe I am missing something. Selected police blotter items from 2021? One of these patterns is not like the other. If it wasn't notable enough for the hyper-local online news outlets then, or more likely the RCMP were all drafted to direct traffic or whatnot, then why why why are we hosting an article based on these really really subpar sources now? (partial answer) see comment below where Pbritti says I should have let the mentally ill woman who started a fire because she was mad at her boyfriend stay in the article, because then I would have had a better argument. This is what we are dealing with here. Yes, that happened, and the clearly unrelated episode is already gone, and now we are dealing with those where we just do not know and should not guess. WP:ONUS still applies and yes the article pointlessly discusses one less fire.

Pbritti also still has not answered the question about his affiliations with the Catholic Church btw. Elinruby (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it's an absurd, false accusation that warrants no reply. Nor does your WALLOFTEXT or persistent 1AM struggle. Seeing consensus that there's no issue, we're done here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)'
 * a) it is not an accusation.
 * b) to the extent that I am accusing you of anything at all at the moment, it is of being unaccountably stubborn about this strange little synth that seems to be happening here.
 * c) Oh and then there is flinging wild accusations, but that's to the side for the moment. Right now I just want to know the topic of this article, please. I mean, the church burned down in Lytton, but I don't see it in this article. So what is the category? List of fires some guy called suspicious once? Scottish law has a possible verdict of "not proven", I hear, and that is where I am on that, personally
 * d) seriously, what is up with all the Catholic sources?
 * e) are you saying you never worked for, interned with, attended or volunteered at any organization that might have a stake in how these events are perceived? All I need is yes or no. You seem to be saying no, but I am not quite certain. In which case, I eagerly await an explanation for your strong interest in a string of fires on the other side of the continent. It feels like a very specific interest.
 * There may be many reasons for that of course and no doubt a lot of them are none of my business. I am getting from RSN that a couple of them the sources might not be bad, just very devout. But why would you use them here? Is this your primary reading list here in the sources? Elinruby (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was compensated while contracted to the United South and Eastern Tribes, an inter-tribal non-profit representing 33 US federally recognized tribes that promotes Native sovereignty and lobbies to improve conditions in the US's Indian Country. I was also contracted to work with the US Department of the Interior to teach Native students civics skills to better advocate for restitution of damages caused by American government policies, including the US boarding school system. Both teaching positions have been my favorite experiences working. Since working in these positions, I have performed few edits related directly to the residential school system, as my extreme bias against the schools could interfere with my ability to be impartial. I have never been financially compensated by any organization related to the school burnings but I've been aware of them since they began in June 2021, hence my focus on them. Whether you still believe the attacks on Indigenous churches were fake news that was only voiced by click-bait websites 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)
 * template it is for the additional misrepresentation of the positions of another editors, after multiple warnings. I do thank you for the above reply, but I did not limit the question to paid positions. Are you certain you didn't miss something? I am sure you enjoyed answering it even less than I enjoyed asking it. Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have missed nothing. I am also aware of your statements about me on other websites. Cut the badgering. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * if that is your final answer then that is your final answer. I have no idea what you are talking about. So shall we remove some unsourced leaps of logic from the article then? I'll start after supper. Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with @Pbritti that many reliable sources do mention the possibility that the church arsons may have some sort of link to the findings of potential unmarked graves at residential schools. For instance, beyond the articles in CBC, etc., which mention such a possibility, some Indigenous leaders have also suggested there may be a link.  For example, in this article from Global News, both Chief Clarence Louie (chief of the Osoyoos Indian Band, where a church was burnt) and Grand Chief Stewart Phillip (of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs) appeared to suggest that some church arsons may have been associated with anger about the findings at residential schools.
 * If that theory is correct? No idea. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, or if it wasn't, or if a few were and a few weren't! The events themselves - a number of arsons of churches, which made the news - did occur, though we don't know if they were connected. However, many people speculated they were connected. I also think the events were taken up and folded into a conspiracy theory (mostly about the idea of Christianity, and white people, being under attack) and the number and facts were misrepresented by many far-right sources.  It can be valuable to mention that some people theorised the churches were burnt for reasons of anger in response to the findings at residential schools, because, well, that theorizing occurred. It also allows us to discuss how that possibility was used and lied about by the far-right.
 * So, two things can be true at once.
 * We should certainly take care to ensure the accuracy of the article, which I think we can all agree. Also, part of the circumstances around these arsons was the conjecture, by many people and sources, that it may have been driven by anger. Whether that's true or not? Unclear. But the suggestions certainly did exist. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree: So let's write that article not the Church-under-attack article that Pbritti is trying to write here. I think this noticeboard is living up to its reputation and there is little point in further discussion here, especially since some people now seem to have automagically gotten the idea that I am attacking Pbritti for his faith. Just a coincidence of course and certainly not retaliation for the level-2 template for aspersions I gave him moments before. I am going to ping you from somewhere else. This (I guess?) is now at Arbcom but I think it is being conflated into something else about the Mormons along with some other stuff about Muhammed. Anyway, if these two still do not see how cherry-picked the sampling is, I don't think I will be able to convince them of that myself, and maybe this should be at Arbcom. Save your carpals, and let's talk p-values at the the other article.Elinruby (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mormons and Muhammed..... what does this have to do with anything we're talking about. I'm wondering if this account has been compromised? Moxy 🍁 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Funny, I was wondering the same thing about you. You never used to refuse to read before. Go ask ; it's her clarification request. Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Elinruby is talking about this. I only added the first seven parties to the clarification request, another editor added more (to include Elinruby among others). Essentially, I was asking ArbCom if a principle from a previous case is still applicable in certain circumstances, since people have linked to it in three different matters recently. It's not a case request and I doubt ArbCom is going to do anything more than say "yes, this principle is still applicable" or "no, it's not". The principle in question states: 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.
 * I think this is the first time I've posted to the no original research noticeboard. I'm hesitant to get myself super involved here because this discussion looks incredibly heated and I'm not sure I want to sign myself up for that but maybe having an extra set of eyes will help add a new perspective. There's a bunch of background reading I'd like to do first so I don't accidentally make things worse. After that, I'd probably want to set up some kind of table on relevant talk pages where I compare statements made in wikivoice to what a source actually says since at least one editor is concerned about original research. At least that's my plan. I have some other things on my plate right now and it might take me awhile to actually do all that. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the short version here is that in a context where thousands of fires were burning an editor has created an article sourced to militant-faith-under-attack publications to try to have Wikipedia say that the church is under attack. Based on a half dozen of those thousands of fires. There are some good sources for individual fires but they are for the individual fires only.This really is just a sideshow to the main issue though and I think we should see what if anything Arbcom does about the private evidence. Not really upset about being added, as it saved me a trip to COIN maybe, but is very invested in portraying me as unworthy of being read for whatever reason (see WikiProject Canada) so I was just answering that. I personally strongly doubt we are going to get a yes or no answer on such a broad request, and I personally think  should have refrained from the point of view of his position, since afaict this falls under one of the delineated exceptions. But I am happy to leave this in Barkeep's hands. If you are interested in the topic I would not start here; this discussion was primarily BEFORE and is mostly notable for the mind-bending assertion that it is the editor saying that the sources don't support that who is doing OR. A table such as you described would be useful, and if you are taking suggestions I would start with all the source misrepresentation I have been noting in edit summaries at the Canadian Indian residential school gravesites article starting around the last week in May Elinruby (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that, but every time someone reads the article and the sources, they end up realizing your claims are false. You seem to believe that the article is somehow biased, false, or original research. However, you've failed to convince anyone of this over the last month and a half. Move on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't matter how often you say it, your premise is a formal fallacy and although I know you are accustomed to indignation getting you what you want I know it's a tactic. What's the topic of the article? It's just a string of police-blotter items that your defending-the-faith sources used to gin up donations.
 * You also don't have consensus either, no matter how many times you say *that*. You say a lot of things. Elinruby (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the point that you are missing is that I am not out to prove anything, just saying that you have not Elinruby (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If a fire was speculated in RS to be linked to the pattern, but later proven not to be linked, then both of those facts can be covered in the article, with due weight. The initial speculation and the subsequent resolution are both part of the evolution of the story. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There isn't a lot of proof of anything. That's kinda the problem. Recent coverage is definitely limited to fringe and Catholic sources. But yes, one idea is to report the distortion of RS coverage in non-RS sources. Fluorescent Jellyfish mentioned that also, which would mean reframing it as a journalism story. I got stuck on what its title would be, though. "Hoax" is not demonstrated either. Well, maybe in journals. I should check that next. Elinruby (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * CBC News is fringe? Also, such a reframing would be original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not if there are sources for the analysis. I am looking into it, and am still waiting, btw, to see your sources per WP:ONUS that say there is a pattern. And listen, I think this is the third warning: quit misquoting me. I have previously warned you several times about this and if you ignore this warning as well, I am going to start templating you. People are supposed to be able to believe what you say. By the way, you never answered the question about why your article uses so many Catholic sources when better-known RS are available. I find that odd. Are you affiliated with one of these publications, perhaps? Do you or your present or former employers or schools have any affiliation to any entity with a stake in public perceptions of June 2021? Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No original research says that articles cannot present opinions that are not sourced to reliable sources. It does not say that opinions published in reliable sources cannot be reported. So long as reliable sources report comments on possible links between residential schools and church fires, it is not OR to mention them. TFD (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

not as individual fires, no. But this is not that. Elinruby (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ? TFD (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want me to answer a question you are gyoing to have to use your words. The OR is the vast conspiracy to attack churches, in case that is what you are not understanding. If that's not it. you are going to have to tell me. Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Our article does not mention a vast conspiracy to attack churches. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They keep claiming there's an issue, but haven't provided evidence for those claims. When you point out what they've said, they claim they're facing retaliation or personal attacks. We can move on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

ooo ooo I found an article about arsons in 2021!
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)


 * I have genuinely no idea where you’re going with this. Time for a break? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (ec)You're the one asking questions. I did come in here to append a note however, which is below.Elinruby (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

btw I found an acquittal for one of the alleged arsons on the True North list
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 Source is Postmedia and should be at be very least ok btw Elinruby (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Being acqa juitted sounds like something the Spanish Inquisition might do to you. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 10:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * bad mousepad. Fixed Elinruby (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Those on this noticeboard may wish to read Talk:2021 Canadian church burnings. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * , it's not an exact science, but the plot summary analogy seems accurate. It should be fine as long as it's simple statements of fact that are readily apparent from the image. I'll note that we essentially do the same thing with most image captions. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the descriptions you gave were based on the descriptions that accompanied the images in the source (and it sounds like that is what you did) then there isn’t a NOR issue. If, on the other hand, you stated something beyond what was in the source, there might be. A lot depends on what specifically you said. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I was not paraphrasing written material, but paraphrasing visual material, if that makes sense. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Late modern period"
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 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)


 * Note that the BLAR is now being discussed at Articles for deletion/Late modern period. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 13:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Is using sources to write about the existence of sources OR?
See Rust (programming language) paragraph 1. I wrote it, but I'm a little bit unsure about whether it would be WP:SYNTH to use the existence of sources to imply something and not the content of them, or how I categorized some sources in the sentence for properties of the language itself as well as the utility the language provides for writing software used for research. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 18:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, this is par for the course. JDiala (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Is using sources published before the topic event OR?
On Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (specifically the "Mentioning NATO in lead" and "Misrepresentation of WP:ONUS" sections), we are having an ongoing discussion about interpretations of WP:OR. Some of the sources in that article, particularly in the "background" section, utilize sources from prior to 2022, which was the year the invasion began. The user has stated that he believes, whenever editing an article about an ongoing or recent event, it is WP:OR to make use of any sources published prior to that event. His logic seems to be that any reliable source authored prior to 2022 would not know there would be an invasion in 2022, and so attempting to connect their work to the invasion is an instance of OR. On the basis of this belief, he is attempting to remove all pre-2022 sources from the article altogether and is also reverting edits which introduce pre-2022 sources into the article.

Myself and another editor,, expressed a concern that his viewpoint on this matter may not be mainstream, as many other articles regarding ongoing or recent geopolitical events (including homepage-linked articles and GA articles) do not follow this standard and allow for some sources published prior to the event's occurrence especially in the "background" (or similar) sections. Mr rnddude however is insisting that his position is the correct one.

Is Mr rnddude correct? And if so, does this mean that existing articles which make use of pre-event sources need significant overhauls? Thanks. JDiala (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the specific discussion or material that is contested there, but there are background statements for which it would be fine to use older sources. A hypothetical example: one can cite a reliable source from 2021 that says that Putin began his fourth term as President of Russia in 2018.It depends on the nature of the statements for which the pre-2022 source is being cited. Editors should definitely be careful of synthesis directly relating pre-2022 sources to post-2022 events. — MarkH21talk 00:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know a lot of people who hold Mr rndude's view. More broadly, they (not necessarily including Mr here anymore) hold that every source used in an article should be about that article's subject. It's a consistent and reasonable position. I disagree slightly in most cases and strongly in a few exceptional cases (none of which are relevant here). For this article, I think those folks are mostly right, since the invasion is such a well covered topic. There might be a hundred or more reliable sources that describe the background to the invasion. If one can't be found that mentions a particular background detail, it probably should not be included.
 * I'd be unlikely to challenge obvious, uncontested, entirely neutral facts, like Mark's example, but if someone did challenge them, I'd fall back pretty quick. Maybe Putin's 2018 election isn't a detail worth mentioning, if no RS are mentioning it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that editors should definitely be careful of synthesis. But wouldn't this kind of rule have rather problematic consequences in all sorts of areas, for scientific topics for example, the ongoing event of scientific research, where you have 'pre-event' conjectures/hypotheses and experimental results/discoveries. It doesn't seem like OR to connect published hypotheses about gravitational waves, for example, that pre-date observations/results, to the experimental results. A post-event only rule for sources seems too restrictive. Obviously, it's all context dependent. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think sources published before the outbreak of the war about the possibility of a war could (or even should) be cited in a background section. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think one needs some modern-day RS that connect directly the subject of the page (the invasion) with specific events of past that appear in the "Background" section. Otherwise, this will be WP:SYN. However, as soon as we have and use such RS, nothing prevents from using additional older sources that only describe events in the "Background" section. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is for such specific example. But in general, no, there is no such requirement. An article on subject X may include various aspects or subcategories, A,B,C (for example, an article about enzymes can include parts about hydrolases, transferases, etc.), and the sources can be about these aspects A,B,C, not necessarily directly on the whole subject X. Well, in this example no one will dispute that hydrolases and transferases are enzymes (hence belong to the page). This may be much less clear for historical events. In some cases, the connection may be so trivial that it does not require supporting references. But if the connection was disputed, then providing some supporting RS is necessary to avoid WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not have time to address this whole section. I will briefly reproduce my actual statements, as having read the talk page response, I do not for a moment trust that Jdiala has accurately summarised them here. My statements at the talk page regarding OR are as follows: The way to write a background for this article is to cite present, up-to-date sources that provide the background information and analyses themselves. You do not need, nor should you be referring to, outdated sources to achieve this. You will be hard pressed to present a convincing argument for how a source that cannot so much as discuss the article's subject is directly related to it. - The last comment here refers to the abundant use of sources that pre-date not only the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the whole war that started in 2014.  Compile a selection of sources on the Russian invasion of Ukraine that provide background coverage on NATO-Russia / NATO-Ukraine relations and an analysis on their impact leading up to the invasion. Write a paragraph or dedicated section about it from those sources.  You may not use sources that do not discuss an article subject to make claims about the article subject. Present that statement to any admin you like, they will tell you some variant of: no shit. - You can feel the frustration of dealing with this user at this point. Particularly their incessant insistence on abusing the word 'fringe' with regards the preceding statements.  The 'pre-invasion statements' section is a composition of original research through the use of sources unrelated to, and without comment on, the article topic: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented". None of that should be transferred here, and all of it should be removed from the prelude article. Do not base whole sections of an article on sources that do not and can not comment on the article topic. - This was a comment I made in an unrelated discussion that cites the specific wording of WP:OR. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - You say that [o]n the basis of this belief, he is attempting to remove all pre-2022 sources from the article altogether and is also reverting edits which introduce pre-2022 sources into the article. I have done neither of these things. I have not removed or attempted to remove all pre-2022 sources from the article, nor have I been reverting additions to the article. This is, as you have presented it, a bold-faced fabrication. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I perhaps should have been more circumspect with my wording, and I should also have been clear that it is not just you but rather a few other editors as well (e.g., My very best wishes) involved in the discussion; these latter editors were the ones reverting the new edits by Chino. I can also concede that this was not always the only argument for removal, but it was a significant one as indicated by how many bytes of text were spent discussing it. I apologize if you felt I misrepresented your views.
 * Putting aside these quibbles, I maintain that I made a good-faith attempt to describe your point of view based on what you said in the talk page discussion. The user ManyAreasExpert stated "please don't base [the NATO discussion] on outdated sources, as, after the start of the invasion, every pre-2022 source is outdated, and will be deleted", which was based on his interpretation of OR. This struck me as a strong, absolutist position, and it was what led to that user's discussion with Chino and I. You then later chimed in saying that you felt ManyAreasExpert's citations of OR were "accurate" and that "outdated" sources should not be referred to. You offered no qualification in your support for ManyAreasExpert's position. Based on this, I inferred that you too felt that "every pre-2022 source is outdated" and should "be deleted", as the person you were defending, ManyAreasExpert, said exactly this. JDiala (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say mostly yes, sources should be in the context of the article's subject outside of obvious essential facts. Sources are just as necessary when verifying relevance as they are when verifying facts. I recently wrote a short essay about how I think articles like this should be written. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 05:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If a recent source indicates that topic A is relevant to the article, then there is nothing wrong with using an older source to flesh out content about topic A. It isn't automatically SYNTH. In the example of the Ukraine invasion, I don't see anything wrong with using an older source for information on how Ukraine achieved independence from the USSR, because these two things are frequently presented together in modern sources. It would only be SYNTH if editorial conclusions regarding the invasion were drawn from the older source. The underlying confusion here derives from the "directly related to the topic of the article" clause which is an example of poor wording that does not unambiguously express either the intent of the policy or of common practice. The "topic of the article" is not just what is narrowly defined by its title, and in this example past events which, according to RS, are relevant to the invasion are included in the topic of the article. Zerotalk 05:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Mr rnddude is incorrect. Adding sources from prior to an event in a background section is not automatically WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (to be more specific). <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 06:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not automatically, agree. But it's easy to imagine that happening, and UNDUE stuff may creep in as well. I have not looked at the specific article under discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, that background sections can get a bit long and some editors may then attempt to COAT in their view of history. But if the argument is that having background sections, which use sources prior to an event in that the article is in relation to, is necessarily original research then I think that's patently wrong and far off common practice. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - I'll try to be brief. It is not my contention that the mere presence or inclusion of sources from prior to an event is automatically WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. My contention is that basing large tracts or whole sections of an article on such sources constitutes original research. The presence of a stray older source in the background is a distraction, particularly as at present there is a stray current source in that section. Of the present citations: 16 pre-date the event (~half are older than the whole conflict itself), 5 are contemporaneous, and a few are undated but I'll assume they are contemporaneous. That is an over-reliance on sources that don't and can't comment on the present conflict. Contrasting with the other presently on-going major conflict, the background section to the Israel-Hamas war has a mere 2 pre October 7th, 2023 sources and approximately 40 post October 7th, 2023 sources. That is a chasm in approach and without doubt the latter is far superior in quality to the former. I don't think any pre-2022 source is necessary for the article, there are ample current sources that cover all of the relevant subject matter, but if there is a reliable source from 2021 that says that Putin began his fourth term as President of Russia in 2018 or other such minutiae as MarkH21 presented as an example it doesn't matter remotely to me. I'd prefer – and were I writing such a section myself would employ only – those sources that either 1) speak directly on the topic of the article or 2) are referenced by sources that speak directly on the topic of the article. That's reflective of my actual editorial approach. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look later. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We are in no need to generalize here. And the vice versa, if we can't generalize, it does not mean that we are allowed to dive into OR and synthesis on which sources are relevant to the event and which are not.We have a specific article and a situation where a huge amount of post-2022 analyses are available for use. If some editor wants to keep pre-2022 sources to make a conclusion which post-2022 sources do confirm? Just use post-2022 source! If we want to use pre-2022 sources for a conclusion for which there is no post-2022 sources? The answer is obvious. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It is OR. The reason you include what preceded the event is to explain what caused the event. Saying something caused the event is OR and must be sourced. If something is relevant to the invasion, then you should be able to find a recent source that says that. TFD (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)