Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) 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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Reliable source only gives one out of three examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significant unreferenced additions by one user

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

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

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

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

I'd advise you check out this [1], if you want to verify his work. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Polling at Republicanism in Canada

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

Original research in biography

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

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

Is mere observation original research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absurd demand?

This is about [2]. IMHO, the demand that "quite conservative" and "mainstream" should be found verbatim in the WP:RS is absurd. We render the meaning of the WP:RS, we don't closely paraphrase it. The deletion is taking WP:OR to absurd extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Your reply there was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muqatta'at original contribution

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

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

Original research and fringe at Safa Khulusi

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

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

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

Notable scholar's own work acceptable or OR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMO revisit section heading too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anna Panagiotopoulou original research

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

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): [8] (page 12)

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

• Source 2 (2007 book): [9] (page 442-443)

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

• Source 3 (1989 book): [10] (page 7) - this source has essentially nothing to do with backing up the claims and is just an author asking random rhetorical questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(*) Misogyny is more severe in its consequences

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

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

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

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

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