Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis.
  • Include links to the relevant article(s).
  • Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:

  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.
  • For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


Search this noticeboard & archives

Talk:Nick Griffin[edit]

The issue here is not this person himself. However there is a discussion going on that the talk page for this article, about whether it is possible to state individual predecessors and successors in multi-member constituencies, at least when more than one seat changed hands at an election. A method for determining this has been suggested, but this is only one person's opinion, other methods are possible, and there is no evidence that any method is used by psephologists. So it would be clear original research for Wikipedia to adopt a specific method, and I would also question whether it is particularly helpful to do this. This could have implications for several other articles. PatGallacher (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no concept of "predecessor" for individuals in these multimember constituencies, so no, this shouldn't be included in WP, certainly not without a source. Caroline Lucas was a Green Party MEP in the South East region, now Keith Taylor is a Green Party MEP in the same region, but Lucas isn't directly the predecessor of Taylor, and we shouldn't oversimplify by this kind of loose wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Lucas is a bad example, as she was Taylor's predecessor; when she resigned to take her seat in the House of Commons, Taylor, as second on the Green list, was co-opted in her place. Sceptre (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH on the Emperor Jimmu article?[edit]

The article currently contains a paragraph (the on beginning "A grandiose Kigensetsu...") that cites 6 sources, most of which don't mention Emperor Jimmu at all. This is not necessarily a case of WP:UNSOURCED, though, because the paragraph itself hardly mentions Emperor Jimmu either. Some of the sources don't seem to even back up the claims specifically attributed to them. The whole paragraph gives an overall impression of the subject's association with WWII, that doesn't come across in any reliable sources by themselves.

There's been a slow-motion edit war going on between me and User:CurtisNaito over this for the past few months. I have laid out thoroughly[1] why I think this violates WP:SYNTH on the talk page, but have been almost completely ignored.

Can we get an impartial opinion on whether this violates WP:SYNTH?

182.249.240.24 (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be called original research or synthesis because the information in the article accurately reflects what the sources say and I don't think the subject matter is controversial in reliable sources. The portion that was recently deleted refers to the Kigensetsu of 1940 and Hakko Ichiu, both of which are certainly related to Jimmu's memory. The Kigensetsu of 1940 was a celebration of the 2,600th anniversary of Jimmu's alleged ascension to the throne. During this event numerous stone monuments were erected commemorating Jimmu's life, and, as the same cited sources note, more than one million people visited Kashihara Shrine on the occasion, a sacred site associated with Jimmu. In addition, Hakko Tower was opened on the alleged site of Jimmu's old palace. Hakko Tower derives its name from Hakko Ichiu, a slogan which is attributed to Jimmu. Therefore Kigensetsu and Hakko Ichiu are relevant to Jimmu's life.
As for the sources, they reflect what the article says. Walter Edwards brings up Jimmu in reference to both Kigensetsu and the origins of Jimmu's phrase Hakko Ichiu. Bix, the next source, notes that Hakko Ichiu had been used since 1928 to justify Japanese expansionism. Earheart provides a translation of the phrase Hakko Ichiu and refers to both Hakko Ichiu and Emperor Jimmu in reference to Kigensetsu and Japanese imperialism. Dower mentions both Hakko Ichiu and Kigensetsu and notes how one journalist compared Emperor Jimmu life with Japan's wartime mission. Brownlee and Ruoff deal extensively with the Kigensetsu of 1940, making considerable reference to Jimmu, and also noting, as the article does, that the government of Japan created numerous historical monuments in the year 1940 honoring Jimmu. All of these sources refer to Jimmu in a significant manner except Bix who only discusses Hakko Ichiu without mentioning Jimmu explicitly, though worship of Jimmu is mentioned in other parts of Bix's book. While it may be true that none of these works are entirely about Jimmu, they all mention him in a significant manner and in fact no books in English and not many books in any language have been written that deal exclusively with Jimmu. None of the sources in any part of this article on Emperor Jimmu are about him exclusively.
Therefore, this paragraph is relevant to the article and is neither original research nor synthesis. It should not be deleted.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This user is still deleting sourced material on the basis that linking Hakko Ichiu with Emperor Jimmu is original research. However, the sources in question do attribute Hakko Ichiu to Emperor Jimmu. Here is what the sources say.
Edward="Atop a tableland in the city of Miyazaki stands a stone tower, nearly 37 meters tall, its front face bearing the cryptic motto "hakko ichiu" in large characters (Figure 1). On its back, another bold inscription gives its date of construction as "kigen 2,600 nen," or year 2,600 of the current era. Both in scriptions link the tower to the realm of Japanese myth and, moreover, to the account contained therein of Jimmu, the legendary first emperor credited with founding the Japanese nation... The four-character formula hakko ichiu derives from a statement attributed to Jimmu just prior to his ascension... The text from which hakko ichiu thus derives is the Nihon shoki, compiled in a.D. 720 as the official history of the ancient Japanese state, whose ruling dynasty laid claim to Jimmu as its founding ancestor, and through him to divine descent from the Sun Goddess herself."
Dower="When Emperor Jimmu founded the Japanese state 2,600 years earlier, the Japan Times and Mail explained, the land was inhabited by at least five different races. Jimmu declared that they should unite under 'one roof'... it was the same account of Jimmu extending his sway over the diverse peoples of ancient Japan, based on a passage in the earliest written chronicles of Japan, dating from the eighth century, which inspired Japan's World War Two slogan about the country's divine mission to bring all races and nations of the world under 'one roof'."
Earheart="After all, it was Emperor Jinmu, the founder of the nation, who was said to have used the phrase, 'Hakko Ichiu' ('the eight corners [of the world] under one roof') to describe his unification of the known world under his sacred rule."CurtisNaito (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista killings[edit]

Is putting the article for the Isla Vista killings into the "violence against men" category original research? The violence against men category is a subcategory of the misandry category and is described as a category for “articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men and boys”. We currently don’t have any reliable sources which have put forth as a conclusion that the Isla Vista killing spree was a gender based attack on men. We also currently do not have any reliable sources which have called the perpetrator, Elliot Rodger, a misandrist. What we do have is several quotes, which were taken out of various reliable source articles, which wiki editors have interpreted to show that this was a gender based attack on men, but the sources themselves did not seem to come to that conclusion. However, multiple reliable source commentators have come to the conclusion that Rodger’s hatred of women led to a hatred of men, because he hated other men who got to have sex with the women he felt entitled to. Like these articles, which have been used to support putting the article in the "violence against men" category: [[2]],[[3]], [[4]], This has been discussed on the talk page here. And multiple quotes supporting the inclusion of the category have been provided here. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: the fact that "violence against men" is a subset of "misandry" does not mean that all violence against men must stem from misandry, so we shouldn't use the the current category structure to argue otherwise - in the same way, gender-based violence against women does not all stem from misogyny. Indeed, several sources have pointed out that violence against men can result from misogyny - for example when in order to avenge his anger at a woman, a man attacks another man. Such an attack can be both "misogynist" in nature, and nonetheless be "violence against men", because a man was targeted based on his gender and his gender role/relationship with the woman. Another example, which I discussed on the page, is the Srebrenica massacres, where 8000 men were separated from the women and killed. The ultimate motive was likely not hatred of men, but rather religious/political hatred, but nonetheless men were selected for death (see Androcide for more examples). In this case, the killer obviously hated women and wanted to enact violence against them, but he also hated men - specifically sexually active college-age men - and targeted them for death as well, and sources bear this out, and his video and manifesto was also explicit on this point. Thus, the violence against men category is warranted, as this is a clear cut case of violence against men based on their gender (he didn't target arbitrary people who were sexually successful, he targeted women who he felt had spurned him, and men who had access to those women). There are a number of lurid quotes that the media has taken from his manifesto where he talks of his plans to kill men specifically.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
My point was that if any reliable sources had indicated this was a gender based attack on men or called Rodger's a misandrist, inclusion in the category would make sense (because "violence against men" is subset of "misandry" category, so a misandrist killing men would seem to qualify it for inclusion in category) However, we have neither of these things. We have no reliable sources which say this was a gender based attack and no reliable sources that call Rodger a misandrist, yet the Isla Vista killings article has been placed in the violence against men category.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
this probably stems from a misunderstanding of the purpose and inclusion criteria for these categories and how they are generally used - which aren't based on motive but rather in targeting. For example, women are raped, but they are raped for a large number of reasons; not all of them misogyny. Sometimes women are killed by psychopath serial killers who do so because they heard voices. Sometimes men are targeted for death because of religious hatred which intersects with gender-specific violence. Thus the motive isn't ultimately the key driver here, what is key is targeting, and we have plenty of reliable sources that state Rodger specifically targeted men and planned to kill them - not just specific men like his roommates but more generally men who were popular or successful. The sources I provided in the article cover that. Even the Slate article states: "Elliot Rodger targeted women out of entitlement, their male partners out of jealousy, and unrelated male bystanders out of expedience". If you want to claim this isn't violence against men, you'd have to demonstrate that he didn't explicitly target men to be killed, or didn't explicitly threaten them - the last line of his video says "And all of you men, for living a better life than me, all of you sexually active men, I hate you. I hate all of you. I can't wait to give you exactly what you deserve. Utter annihilation." As for misogyny, I think it is fair to say that misogyny was an important driver of these attacks, but when misogyny results in specific targeting of a specific group of men for violence, that is nonetheless properly and fairly categorized as violence against men, in the same way that if religious hatred fueled by divisive nationalism provokes soldiers to rape women in an enemy's villages, no matter the ultimate motive, we still categorize it as violence against women. Another similar example is Amish_school_shooting#Possible_motives - however, these killings, even though they were clearly gendered (boys were specifically let go, only girls were targeted), the motive was complex and not misogyny or sexism, clearly some sort of complex psychological issues drove him to do what he did.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want to claim this isn't violence against men, you'd have to demonstrate that he didn't explicitly target men to be killed, or didn't explicitly threaten them - the last line of his video says "And all of you men, for living a better life than me, all of you sexually active men, I hate you. I hate all of you. I can't wait to give you exactly what you deserve. Utter annihilation." This is where the original research comes in. The sources are not interpreting this quote in the way that you are. Most sources, if they handle this at all, are interpreting his resentment towards sexually active men as being an outgrowth of his feelings of entitlement to sex from women.
You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're asking us to prove a negative, to find sources that say that your interpretation is incorrect. While such sources do exist, the burden is actually on you to prove that these quotes should be interpreted in the way you are suggesting by finding other sources which interpret them in the same way, not on others to find sources showing that your interpretation is incorrect. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Tara, it doesn't matter how the quote is interpreted. what matters is, he threatened men, he targeted men, because they were sexually successful men, and he succeeded in killing or wounding several men. That's all that is needed for the category to apply - any gender-based targeting suffices, and the sources already establish that. The slate article for example says "his lazy use of “sluts” and “brutes” to describe the women and men he would allegedly target and murder only hours later." - men were not incidentally killed, they were TARGETED.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
When we're talking about labeling this gender-based violence against men, yes, how the quotes are interpreted does matter. Using primary sources - quotes from Rogers - to prove a point that reliable sources which cover the incident do not support is original research. By your logic any killing which specifically targets a member of a gender would be a gender-based attack on that gender.
And, in fact, there's no evidence that any of the men who were killed were targeted because they were men. Sources show that he killed his roommates to get them out of his way so he could use his apartment as a killing room, and that the other man who was killed was shot while Rodger was firing wildly into a building: by that point, having failed to gain access to the sorority house, it seems his goal was just to kill anyone he could. The sources don't support the contention that these people were killed because they were men. The sources are not calling this gender-based violence against men. They are calling it gender-based violence against women. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not just about who was killed, it's also about who was wounded. And read the quote above: "the women and men he would allegedly target and murder"; from the other slate article, "But his stated motivation behind targeting both male and female victims—“If I can’t have them, no one will”—echoes the attitudes of the perpetrators of domestic violence. Conforming to Jane Doe’s framework, Rodger’s male victims included men he envied as well as roommates he perceived as getting in his way." and "Elliot Rodger targeted women out of entitlement, their male partners out of jealousy, and unrelated male bystanders out of expedience." - other sources cover similar ground - that he TARGETED men specifically. Whether he targeted men out of jealousy or spite or hatred or whatever doesn't matter, he targeted random men that he didn't know because they were men who fit into his image of "sexually successful men" that he hated. The roommates may be a different story,but plenty of other people, including men, were wounded, and sources detail how he targeted them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
And again, by this logic, any killing that specifically targets someone who has a gender is gender-based violence. The category's scope is clearly more nuanced than that. You do acknowledge, I hope, that there is substantial coverage by reliable sources which consider this a gender-based attack against women, and specifically cite his misogyny as a motivation? Similar coverage does not exist for framing the attacks as gender-based violence against men, so drawing that conclusion requires synthesis. Surely if it were so self-evident that this was gendered violence against men, rather than an incident of violence were some victims were men, there would be sources that said so? Not every incident of violence with male victims belongs in the violence against men category. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that not all attacks with male victims are gender-based violence, but your leap of logic doesn't work - since the male victims here were not incidental, they were targeted as men, and he explicitly planned to do so. I have no disputes on this being in the violence against women category, but it should also be in the violence against men category BECAUSE he targeted men for gender-specific reasons - he targeted men who were sexually successful - this is essentially a gender-based role. He was targeting them for their ability to fulfill a gender role that he himself was not able to. For example, this article [5] says "It's true that not all of Rodger's victims were women, but his male victims were chosen because they were allegedly getting the sex Rodger felt he was entitled to: "I'll give you exactly what you deserve ... all of you men for living a better life than me. All of you sexually active men. I hate you." - he didn't target lesbians who were getting sex, he targeted (what he perceived to be) heterosexual women AND their heterosexual partners. Cathy Young writes that "His "manifesto" makes it clear that his hatred of women ...was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success." The LA times quoted several sections of his manifesto, which stated " I will arm myself with deadly weapons and wage a war against all women and the men they are attracted to. And I will slaughter them like the animals they are." and "This First Phase will represent my vengeance against all of the men who have had pleasurable sex lives while I’ve had to suffer. Things will be fair once I make them suffer as I did. I will finally even the score." The deep underlying motive will be disputed for a long time to come but it's irrelevant to the categorization question. The only question is, were men targeted because they were men? The answer is, yes - they were - he was jealous of their status and their ability to get girls, and he intended to kill them. He made this all very explicit in his video and manifesto, and reliable sources covered this in detail, that he intended to target men - specifically - as well as women. He didn't say "I will kill those heathen students" or "I will kill those people I hate" or "I will kill those who stole my candle" or "I will kill the black people I don't like" etc - the way he identified his targets was by the use of the words "men" and "women". That is more than enough to keep this category - and that's what separates it from other incidents, where the intended targets are different sorts of groups - e.g specific individuals that are targeted for murder (irregardless of gender), or large groups of individuals who are targeted for violence indiscriminately (e.g. with terrorist attacks).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that particular edit is not based on RS 80.193.191.143 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There are some easily found sources that do explicitly state that Rodger was motivated to kill men, and he "hated" them. A couple of samples:

I think some editors are presuming it's an either/or situation so that if he was a mysoginist, he could not have hated men. That's an opinion. But there are reliable sources that explicitly state he was motivated to kill men, even if some of those link his actions to a hatred of women as well. I think some people are splitting hairs on this one to make it only about his anger towards women. His writings and some commentary make it clear that he hated some men too (those who succeeded in having relationships he did not).Mattnad (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think some editors are presuming it's an either/or situation so that if he was a mysoginist, he could not have hated men. That's not the issue at all. The category is for gendered violence against men: not men who have or do things the attacker does not. It's a subcategory of misandry and requires more than just targeting men. He hated some men, but that doesn't mean that he hated them because they were men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm....by your logic, one could readily argue then that he hated some women because they wouldn't have sex with him, but not because they were women. It's a specious argument that cuts both ways. But your opinion really doesn't matter. It's what the reliable sources say. This is the "No original research" noticeboard after all.Mattnad (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we could say that! But tht's exactly my point. The sources don't merely say 'he hated some women;' we have multiple reliable sources which cite this as a mysoginistic attack: as gendered violence. We don't have the same support for the violence against men category. "Specious?" My opinion doesn't matter, but neither does yours. The sources do not cite this as gendered violence against men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not true Tara, this is not how the category is used. I already gave the example of Srebrenica - the soldiers who slaughtered those men didn't kill them BECAUSE they were men, they killed them BECAUSE they were Bosniaks, but those selected for death WERE men. the women were selected for rape, so the Srebrenica massacre is in both the VAW and VAM categories. You don't get to play root-cause-analysis, it's not needed for these categories. He targeted men, that much is clear - not "people" or "college students" - but "men" - and reliable sources point this out and confirm it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I "don't get to play root cause analysis?" You're not in a position to tell me what arguments I 'get' to make. I disagree that there are sources that confirm that this is an incident of gendered violence against men: you only have quotes citing a hatred of men who had sexual access to women. You're oversimplifying the Srebenica massacre, which is actually a well-cited example of gendercide. You may feel there are parallels between that massacre and the Isla Vista killings, but the relevant difference is that the former is well sourced as gendered violence against men and the latter is not. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC) -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No, the only reason I bring up Srebrenica is not because there are parallels, I think there aren't. It's because it's an instance of gender-based violence that wasn't motivated by hatred of a gender, which you and Bobo are trying to claim is the only valid reason for entry here. In fact, it doesn't MATTER why a particular gender is targeted, IF a gender is targeted, then it belongs in this category. We have ample evidence that he targeted both women and men by gender, as his manifesto and reliable sources discussing the manifesto attest.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's because it's an instance of gender-based violence that wasn't motivated by hatred of a gender, which you and Bobo are trying to claim is the only valid reason for entry here. This is my problem, though. This is Synthesis. You're citing an incident that is well sourced as gender based violence, and claiming that the paraelles you do see are sufficient to apply the same label to this incident when there are no sources to support it. That's synthestis. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
How about this source Tara? ....{his hatred of women} was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success....Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don't is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma. Looks like it puts his hatred of women and men on equal footing.Mattnad (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That's an editiorial originally published by RealClearPolitics. The author has a very heavy and very clear bias. And she doesn't even seem to be making an argument that the killings were gendered violence against men so much as that they were not gendered violence against women. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece, but there are plenty of those in article and like those, it is a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This not correct. See WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. And again, the argument does not seem to be that this is gendered violence against men, but that it is not gendered violence against women. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Another RS proving Rodger expressed hatred toward males (which is why if violence again women cat is in article, the violence against men cat should also remain). Here is a quote: Elliot Rodger wrote extensively about the people he hated for rejecting him: Popular men. Beautiful women. http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-isla-vista-roommates-20140621-story.html NotHowItWorks (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a source that he hated specific sets of men, not men in general. It's not a source for the assertion that this was gendered violence against men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
So we agree there are sources that he hated "some men". It's also not in dispute that when he acted out on his hatred, he specifically targeted men, some at random. Unless you can demonstrate that the category requires the motivation to be against ALL members of a gender, then it's settled.Mattnad (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
exactly. Were men targeted for violence as men? Yes. Did he express his hatred of them and intent to kill them? Yes. The 'well he didn't hate all men' excuse is quite weak - most rapists don't hate ALL women, yet we consider rape to be violence against women nonetheless. When terrorists in Nigeria walk into a village and separate out all of the men and boys and then massacre them, allowing the women and children to go free, presumably those terrorists don't hate ALL men - indeed most of them are men - and I'm sure they have good male friends and laugh about it with them afterwards. But they enact their violence against a subset of men selected for their gender. A similar thing happened here, men were not attacked incidentally, they were attacked specifically as part of his plan.---Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If that were the case,it would be appropriate to place every incident of violence where there were male victims in the category. It needs to be demonstrated that the victims were targeted purely because they were men. The sources you have stop short of that, unlike the sources for the violence against women category. The sources we have say some men were targeted because they had sexual access to women, and others because of expediency. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And those same sources say (as well as the perp) that women were targeted because he spurned them and refused to sleep with him. There's always a reason behind the reason behind the reason, but the category is for gender-based violence; his threats and his attacks were towards MEN as a group - not individual specific men, but MEN more generally (a subset of them, but in the same way he targeted a specific subset of women, e.g. sorority girls).-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You're making a false equivalency. Yes, sources cite specific reasons for his hatred of both genders, but there are also many, many sources that explicitly cite Rogers' misogyny as a motivation of the attacks. Not so for "misandry." Our sources say he didn't merely hate women because they wouldn't sleep with him, but because he felt entitled to women's bodies. Whereas he resented sexually active men because they were 'getting' what he felt he deserved: sexual access to women. "Gendered violence" is not simply "violence against members of a given gender." -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There are sources that also say he hated men and are very clear on that point. His pathology was multifaceted and his rage directed at men and women and the violence was directed at men and women. Some sources take the POV that it's only about women. Others mention men too including Psychology Today, and I quote "Perhaps the most prominent theme through Rodger's autobiography is envy—his envy of everyone who was succeeding where he was failing. He not only hated women for not fulfilling his needs, but he hated men for being successful with women." which is about as reliable a source as you can get on this topic. It's not an either/or situation. I'm baffled by your resistance on this. However, in the end, this discussion is less about "original research" than gender politics IMHO.Mattnad (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, that seems to be an article making the argument that his acts of violence were not gendered violence at all, and were not motivated by misogyny or misandry, but envy. That's a useful but minority view and doesn't support adding the VAM category so much as removing he VAW category - however, the latter is well supported by other sources.
The category is up for deletion, in part because of concerns that it is being used to push an adjenda, while the previous CFD on the categories found that it was being overapplied and needed to be managed better - so it may well be moot, but there simply has not been any sourcing provided for its addition here that even approaches the sourcing required for the VAW category. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a suggestion since this prolonged debate has gone on and on and there still seems to be very different opinions on what to do. As I see it this person Elliot Rodger was a deranged lunatic (most likely suffering from a mental disorder and almost certainly suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder) who hated just about everyone if you read his writings. How about we remove both categories, since in some way having them there almost legitimizes Rodger as a sane person. I always felt that neither category was appropriate, and almost sort of silly seeing as how crazy and out-of-touch with reality the guy was. NotHowItWorks (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User: Arnitxe[edit]

Daniel Case has blocked Arnixte for 4 days. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Arnixte appears to be a single purpose account whose objective is posting unsourced rants that Europe is the world's only Superpower. (That's the continent Europe, not the supranational entity of the European Union.) The editor has been warned, and is coming off a 48-hour block for edit-warring, and is persisting. This is not being posted at WP:AIV because this is not vandalism as such . It is a content dispute with conduct aspects for the continued posting of well-meaning nonsense, maybe a competency issue. Maybe this needs to go to WP:AIN if that is the only way to get another block. See entire user contribution history and warnings on User talk:Arnitxe. Most recent diffs are

Please advise if this needs to go to WP:AIN. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for 96 hours, after ClueBot reported his activity to AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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


Trouble with IP user[edit]

I am having a difficult time working with IP User:190.158.2.15. There is an unnamed character in the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine which appears briefly on screen with no speaking part, who has some physical resemblance to the comic book character Toad. Apparently, at some point it was resolved by editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics that it was original research to suggest that this otherwise unidentified, uncredited character was Toad, and the following text was added as a hidden note to keep people from adding something there: "Please do NOT add any information about Toad and X-Men Origins: Wolverine; unless a citation is provided there is no proof that the long-tongued mutant in the movie is indeed Toad, as he was NOT credited. Unless you can provide a citation, please do NOT add anything."

Yesterday, the IP user added some information which suggested that this information could now be sourced; however, I checked out the sources provided, and they all appeared to be unreliable sources, or did not mention Toad at all, so I reverted this change. The IP user reverted back to his prior edit, with the summary stating "You're not a registered user and neither an administrator, so fuck you". I reverted once more and attempted to reach out to the IP on his talk page regarding the civility issues and the apparent OR in his edit, and he replied on my talk page stating "You poorly loser, I'm only answer to registered users and administrators, not to jerks like you. So let me alone." He then reinstated his prior edit, with the summary "I put reliable references, if you don't read it that's your problem".

So, aside from the potential behavioral problems, can anyone tell me if this still counts as OR given the references supplied? Thanks. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked through all of his sources and I agree that none of them are from verifiable sources. I reverted the page and he went ahead and change it back so I invited him to discuss the matter on the talk page. Thefro552 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Something tells me I have encountered this individual before. BOZ (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am going to suggest an outside the box - non-NOR based - solution to the issue... from what you describe, the appearance of this character is so quick, so trivial that, even if a source is found to definitively prove that the character was intended to be Toad, I would seriously question whether it merits being mentioned in the X-Men Origins: Wolverine article. Mentioning the appearance at all gives a trivial appearance undue weight. I would suggest changing the hidden text to make this point clear. Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The article in which the hidden note appears, and which the anonymous user was trying to add the OR info to, was Toad (comics), not X-Men Origins: Wolverine. And it would be difficult to present a wholly convincing argument that such information is trivial in the context of Toad (comics).--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH - gaaahhh!!![edit]

I'm at a loss as to how you do not run up against synth issues when dealing with alternative titles. I've got conceptually equivalent laws (attaining an age where you are considered an adult under the law) that use different terminology to achieve the same end result. I have 50+ quality sources available which describe how, separately, they achieve the same or extremely similar end result. I can not find any comparisons that directly state they are equivalent though. I can find hundreds if not thousands of sources where they are transposed by lay persons or for lay persons. I can even find sources which demonstrate the change from one term to the other over a 50+ year period. In the end it's always synth. The only way I can find to connect the terms is that 195 states ratified a UN treaty who's first article requires the varying terms hold the same legal meaning. That in itself is synth though since the treaty doesn't explicitly state the equivalence, it just requires it. It's like trying to prove Plum and Beefsteak are both tomatoes, when the only connection you can make is that they both ended up in the same jar of tomato sauce. You can show their similarities in all sorts of ways, you can show that someone else accepted them as tomatoes for their sauce, but without something that says "these are both tomatoes"... gaahhh!!! Help! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Age_of_majority#Alternate_Title_Dispute JMJimmy (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you adopt a "fundamentalist" approach virtually any edit can be categorised as synth, since all edits involve making editorial decisions, choosing what to include or exclude, deciding what scholarly consensus is about a topic, or even deciding that the "David Smith" mentioned by one author is the same one mentioned by another. It's difficult to deal with such issues in the abstract. Concrete details are more useful. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You need a source that explains the terminology, create a section about it and explain which definition the article uses. Note the article says that in Ontario one reaches the age of majority at 18. But Ontario for many years issued an Canadian Provincial Liquor Cards#Ontario|"Age of Majority Card" to 19-year olds. And individuals were considered minors, or infants, at ages up to 16, 18, 19, 21 and others under various provincial and federal laws.
Articles that list the different ages for voting in each country and similar lists avoid synthesis. But it you create an article explaining how individuals are treated as adults in different countries, then it is synthesis unless you have sources that make a global comparison. Incidentally, there are articles in reliable sources about tomatoes that list the varieties. While it is obvious to you that because they look similar and are both called tomatoes that they are types of tomatoes is synthesis. There are examples of unrelated flora and fauna having the same name because someone thought they were the same, and modern biology has proved they are not.
TFD (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
While I understand Paul Barlow's approach on synthesis, I don't agree that it applies to the WP:Synthesis policy (at least not generally); this is because I think that the WP:Synthesis policy is pretty straightforward. I do agree with The Four Deuces (TFD) on this matter. And now, even if we leave out "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority" in the Age of majority article because it is against the WP:Synthesis policy (unless it's acceptable to take JMJimmy's alternative approach and simply note in the Age of majority article that "age of maturity" is another term to indicate the age of adulthood, not that the terms are synonyms), we currently have a disambiguation page listing "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority," as noted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 7. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Age of Majority does not relate to the attainment of specific rights, just that you are recognized as an adult under the law. In Ontario at 18 you are a major and certain rights are withheld due to justifiable reasons (usually safety/health). That's neither here nor there though... I guess my objective is to understand where common sense/logic ends and WP:NOR begins.
From my perspective this is a fairly simple logic problem A[] ≠ B[] ≠ C[]; (A[]) → X[]; (B[]) → X[]; (C[]) → X[]; and not A ± B → C of NOR/SYNTH. Meaning, if A[age of majority], B[age of maturity], and C[legal age] each independently result in X[legally an adult] it doesn't matter that the properties of A/B/C aren't identical in all respects, merely that each can be shown (cited) to result in X. NOR/SYNTH on the other hand is would be A[age of majority] together with B[age of maturity] results in C[legally an adult] which makes no sense because it assumes a relationship that doesn't exist. JMJimmy (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
What does it mean to be recognized as an adult under the law? Suppose that one is always considered an adult under criminal law at 16 but cannot enter into contracts until 21, and is defined in various other laws (voting, drinking, military service) as a minor until 18 or 19? TFD (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It has no fixed meaning in and of itself. It's a trigger mechanism in law. One second you're a child, the next you're an adult. Each legal system uses this for different purposes but usually it grants you rights and responsibilities and takes away some as well. By example, child protections granted by the UN treaty I spoke of are taken away (except in some disability cases). In Ontario you're granted the right to vote and given criminal liability to name a couple. That doesn't mean you get all your rights - that also varies. Ontario you don't get the right to consume alcohol until a year later. In Quebec you'd have been given that right a year before you became a legal adult. It's really quite arbitrary but it's intended as a way to delay giving rights/responsibilities to those who may not be ready to handle them with sound judgement while being equitable to all. That equality factor has been eroding as well, emancipation allows one to apply early to be granted either partial or full status as a legal adult. Conversely, in cases of disability mental capacity is used to delay the change in status. All of that is highly variable between legal systems but both have the same mechanism to trigger whatever those rights/responsibilities are. JMJimmy (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
When in Ontario one was considered an adult in criminal law at 16, under voting laws at 18, and under civil law at 21, at which age would one be considered an adult? TFD (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"Section 1: Every person attains the age of majority and ceases to be a minor on attaining the age of eighteen years" is the "default", if you will, as it goes on to state: "Section 1 applies for the purpose of any rule of law in respect of which the Legislature has jurisdiction." this leaves room for the federal government, specifically the federal courts to issue an order that changes that age and what rights may or may not change along with it. They only do so in very rare cases and even rarer do they shift any of the rights/responsibilities (ie: still can't vote until 18, still has the same rights as a minor in criminal law, etc). That relation between age of majority and splitting from parents is not universal though - Botswana by example can order continued responsibility in the case of disability. In some US states that link is never severed (adults are being forced to pay their parents debts). JMJimmy (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of Synth by inference - the page is in need of major cleanup as it is a hodgepodge of mis-informed edits which apply numerous rights which do not relate to the topic of the article, though may be triggered by it. ie: Ontario age of majority triggers the right to vote that doesn't mean the right to vote determines the age of majority. By example, all countries listed as age 19 or higher (except for the US) need to be double checked. All countries should have changed their age of majority/maturity to 18 or lower subject to UN child act (US has not ratified it)08:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The 1971 Act also says, "In the absence of a definition or of an indication of a contrary intention, section 1 applies for the construction of the expression “adult”, “full age”, “infant”, “infancy”, “minor”, “minority” and similar expressions in...any Act of the Legislature or any regulation, rule, order or by-law made under an Act of the Legislature." Specifically the age of adulthood for criminal cases continued to be 16, while the "age of majority" for alcohol consumption was later raised to 19. (Note that while the Criminal Code is federal legislation, each province sets its own age of adulthood.) And before 1 September 1971, there was no overall Act. So the most you can say is that in Ontario, unless otherwise stated in an act, the age of majority is 18. Before the Act came into force, the age of majority depended on the specific Act. To say that the age of majority in Ontario, without qualification is 18 is original research and requires a reliable secondary source.
In practical terms, in one jurisdiction the default age of majority could 18 and allow people to vote at 18 and sign contracts at 21, while in another the default could be 21, but also allow people to vote at 18 and sign contracts at 21.
TFD (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)