Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Myspace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace#New_Myspace the very last portion of this section contains a lot of original research and dubious sources for its citations.
treehouse attachment bolt
I have noticed that a few of the facts on the treehouse attachment bolt page, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_attachment_bolt, seem to contain some origional research. Specifically those that are linked to the 2nd reference. Both can be found at the end of the paragraphs in the history section.
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.
In the article Police state User:Ghostofnemo added a list of "Features of police states". The list was at first completely uncited and only after an extended discussion at Talk:Police state#New section "Features of police states" did I manage to convince the editor that sources are actually needed for each and every feature on the list. The editor proceeded to add citations from opinion-pieces, political organisations and geographically specific studies to cite a list that makes general claims about all police states.
My view is that in order to have such a list, we will need at least a scholarly study of police states in general which defines the features of a police state. The main problem being that most of the features on the list is not exclusive to police states but can occur in most types of states, making it obvious that the list has been put together on what the particular editor views as being features of police states rather than based on real scholarship on the subject. Googling "Police state" and adding a citation as source for a general claim that a feature is a general characteristic of police states if a columnist just happens to call it a sign of a police state seems to be rather blatant WP:SYNTH violations. And there are certainly a lot of those kind of citations on the list (the mass of citations often being a sign of dubious content in my experience). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Entirely agree. Sources for a list of characteristics should come from academic studies. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Some of the sources are academic, but most are from "mainstream newspapers", which are also considered reliable sources. There seems to be no dispute about the content, just over the appropriateness of the sources, but the editor who is making this complaint completely deleted the section in question, along with the reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- And no, most states THAT AREN'T POLICE STATES do [added 1/11/2013] not "disappear" people, torture them, blacklist dissidents, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- And I also believe that being published by a reliable source is the basis of notability and accuracy, not the personal opinions of editors as to their accuracy or notability. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- And the "mass of citations" (which were added BEFORE the latest "no refs" tag was added) is the result of said editor complaining about the references that were provided! Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mainstream newspapers are reliable sources for news, but this is a political science issue(for my sins, my major at Yale) and they aren't reliable sources for that. As an aside, blacklisting of dissidents has taken place in the US, torture has been used by western democracies - again there are some regrettable instances where it's been used by the US and the UK among other countries. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Most states do torture their citizens by the way, 70%, 112 countries in 2012 according to Amnesty's State of the World 2013. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe that is correct. Mainstream news sources are not restricted to supporting only news events. The BBC, for example, publishes many reference articles about countries and issues: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14107241. And this is not rocket science. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Check out this article. It has "police state" in the title, and goes on to enumerate why it considers Vietnam a police state: http://www.ibtimes.com/vietnam-police-state-where-one-six-works-security-forces-1401629 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the first line of this section says, "Features of a police state include:" not "any state that does any of these is a police state". But the more of these a state is guilty of, the more likely it is a police state. States that torture people routinely would probably be categorized as police states. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- And by the way, the definition of "original research" means it's unsourced, and this section is clearly sourced. I agree the quality of the sourcing could be better, but the current version of this section is clearly not original research as the numerous references demonstrate. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your mentioning of the Vietnam article just shows the root of the problem. You are using a source on a specific country or instance, in this case Vietnam, and apply it to cite general claims about police states in general. That is classic WP:SYNTH, since it is only your own interpretation that a specific case study can extrapolated to features of police states in general. And yes, original research means that you are making claims not supported by sources. In this case you are making your own interpretations that are not supported by the given sources cited. You can throw on as many sources as you want, but as long as none of them supports the claims made then it is indeed original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Most states do torture their citizens by the way, 70%, 112 countries in 2012 according to Amnesty's State of the World 2013. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I question your definition of synthesis. Here's what the WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." In the case of this section, there is no C. We have many sources discussing police states and noting why they are police states, and I am noting what these sources mention as features of police states. I'm not jumping to the conclusion that any particular state C is therefore a police state, or stating a conclusion C such as "all states are police states". Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is not what I have been saying either. You are making the conclusion that because a particular instance of something is happening in a country that is being termed a police state means that it is a general feature of police states. You are basically doing your own research, finding features and making general claims about the universality of these features. This is the problem, and you have still to come up with a reasonable explanation for why that should be allowed as per WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH (which you quote above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Here is one of the news articles I'm using as a source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment The top of the article reads, "From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms." And then 10 steps are listed. How is this OR? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Years and years later, and you're still attempting the same SYNTH/OR violations as you were on both Sea Shepherd and 9/11 related articles. Ghostofnemo, I don't understand why you don't understand this. You need to only state exactly what sources say. If a source talks about why Vietnam is a police state, you simply cannot use that as a source to verify why Country X or Countries In General are police states. This is absolutely basic, fundamental Wikipedia policy. And, on the more general issue of sources, just because a source is RS for one thing (news) does not mean it's reliable for something else (political science). As was already mentioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- That Guardian "article" is an opinion piece (it even has the word "comment" in the link), and thus not usable as a reliable source for anything but the opinions of Naomi Wolf. Again this is very basic stuff and as pointed out by Qwyrxian, due to the several previous times your edits has been reported on this board, should be something you had understood by now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've ever edited the Sea Shepherd article. Can you site the policy on this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC) I do recall a discussion in which people were arguing that you can't mention in an article about Brand X cigarettes that the Surgeon General has warned that cigarettes are harmful to your health and increase your risk of cancer, because the Surgeon General does not mention Brand X by name. That, of course, is ridiculous. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Ah, here it is. It appears that after a lengthy discussion no resolution was ever reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_52#Questionable_interpretations_of_SYNTH Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- Resolution was achieved, you simply refused to accept it...and, apparently, still do. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting information, Qwyrxian. Based on the long history of OR and SYNTH-violations carried out by Ghostofnemo it seems there is some possible WP:COMPETENCE or even WP:NOTHERE issues with this editor. Perhaps this should be taken further to ANI as these issues seems to go far beyond this single article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Resolution was achieved, you simply refused to accept it...and, apparently, still do. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've ever edited the Sea Shepherd article. Can you site the policy on this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC) I do recall a discussion in which people were arguing that you can't mention in an article about Brand X cigarettes that the Surgeon General has warned that cigarettes are harmful to your health and increase your risk of cancer, because the Surgeon General does not mention Brand X by name. That, of course, is ridiculous. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Ah, here it is. It appears that after a lengthy discussion no resolution was ever reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_52#Questionable_interpretations_of_SYNTH Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- Here is one of the news articles I'm using as a source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment The top of the article reads, "From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms." And then 10 steps are listed. How is this OR? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you see a resolution to that discussion? Where? So it's ok to delete an entire section of reliably sourced material from articles, but disruptive to constructively contribute by trying to improve the article? I would think the person who was doing the mass deletion would be the one who needed a warning. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Someone who was sincerely concerned about the quality of the sources would find better ones, one would think, instead of deleting the entire section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- As per WP:BURDEN it is entirely up to you to support the information you add to articles with acceptable citations. As it is quite clear from the process of how you added this list (you first added a bunch of items that you personally thought was features, gradually adding more as you went along, then when asked for citations you began roaming the net for odds and ends that contained just the slightest mention of some of the terms you made up) that the list does not represent anything comparable to what can be found in scholarly sources, the best solution is to delete the list and if such a list is found to be needed in the future, then start over and make one based on actual sources. As it is quite clear that your are in the minority of one here, I have gone ahead and deleted the list from the article. Please be aware that if such a list is to be introduced again, then it has to be based on reliable sources and not factual yardsticks (ie WP:TRUTH). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- The editor above has claimed on the article talk page that a . Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and
fair elections?consensus has been reached on this page to delete this entire section and all the provided reliable sources from the article. Here is the diff of the deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=582390708&oldid=580697927 Does such a consensus exist? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC) BTW, when an editor is asked to provide a reliable source for an edit, is it a bad thing to supply the requested sources? You seem to be implying this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone to voice an opinion disagrees with you, including myself just now. There is a "consensus of everyone but nemo", and that is good enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- So can we have a policy position as to why the reliable sources I've provided are not acceptable? The editor who is challenging this edit has claimed that only scholarly sources are acceptable in this situation. Is this indeed Wikipedia policy? And has it been decided that this entire section is actually original research, despite the scads of RS provided? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Well, it appears a small portion of the section was allowed to remain. Why isn't this a reliable source for noting the attributes of police states? http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2013/checklist-questions-and-guidelines Is it original research to change "Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?" into "- absence of free and fair elections" or is that an allowable paraphrase? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT once more. I didn't claim that only scholarly sources were acceptable, but that they would probably be the only ones that contained a comprehensive enough study of police states that would include a list of features suitable for the article. My objection was to your piecing together random sources of single examples to create your list, often only because the term "police state" was used in passing, thus making the entire list of features original research. Most of the sources you used weren't even acceptable as reliable sources for any general claim as they were opinion pieces and editorials. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I'm not conceding that my original edit was OR, but as an alternative approach I've taken the questions Freedom House uses to determine how free a society is, and listed them in the article as factors for evaluating the freedom of a society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state#Features_of_police_states Is this OR? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the source isn't about police states in particular. It is a list of questions used in the research for their study of the degrees of freedom in nations of the world. To infer that those questions are particularly describing the features of police states is your own personal opinion, and thus OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ghostofnemo, is it your goal here to describe on Wikipedia what reliable sources state to be the hallmarks of a police state, or what you personally think are the hallmarks of a police state? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the source isn't about police states in particular. It is a list of questions used in the research for their study of the degrees of freedom in nations of the world. To infer that those questions are particularly describing the features of police states is your own personal opinion, and thus OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- So can we have a policy position as to why the reliable sources I've provided are not acceptable? The editor who is challenging this edit has claimed that only scholarly sources are acceptable in this situation. Is this indeed Wikipedia policy? And has it been decided that this entire section is actually original research, despite the scads of RS provided? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Well, it appears a small portion of the section was allowed to remain. Why isn't this a reliable source for noting the attributes of police states? http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2013/checklist-questions-and-guidelines Is it original research to change "Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?" into "- absence of free and fair elections" or is that an allowable paraphrase? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone to voice an opinion disagrees with you, including myself just now. There is a "consensus of everyone but nemo", and that is good enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is the latest attempt at resolution, which has already been deleted. Note how the edit is a direct paraphrase of the supplied reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=582794914&oldid=582788773 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC) This is the reliable source the edit is based on: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2013/checklist-questions-and-guidelines Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- That checklist is for measuring the "freedom" of a given country. It is only by your own personal analysis that this is a checklist for determining whether something is a police state. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- And what do we call an unfree state, a state where civil liberties are restricted, a state where citizens live in fear of speaking out? An "unfree state" (the term used by the RS) is just a euphemism for a police state. We can call them authoritarian regimes, despotisms, dictatorships, but they are all words used to describe states where the citizens are not free. Note that in the article there is a map from this same RS (created using the checklist I'm using as an RS) showing states that are "free" and states that are "unfree". According to your logic, since they don't use the term "police state" this shouldn't be in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- I hope the above comment by Ghostofnemo speaks for itself regarding the fact that this editor, after years on Wikipedia, and after being involved in countless similar incidents as this one being informed of the same policies and issues (their userpage is quite revealing in that regard), either is completely incapable of understanding the most basic policies of this site or are deliberately ignoring them in the vain attempt that doing so will help them in their attempt at introducing whatever POV it is that they adhere to. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nemo, the problem has never been the mention of the press freedom index on an article about police states, but your insistence that its authors are describing police states, despite their never having said as much. As mentioned previously, there is no shortage of sources that explicitly discuss police states. Go find them. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- The last version (now deleted) does not claim to be "describing police states". It claims to be a list of indicators used to determine how free or unfree a state is. Unfree states are clearly another term for police states. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't recognise that last part of your statement as being the very cause of the OR-problem, after all this time and all those similar past incidents that has brought you to this board, just boggles the mind. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- The last version (now deleted) does not claim to be "describing police states". It claims to be a list of indicators used to determine how free or unfree a state is. Unfree states are clearly another term for police states. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- And what do we call an unfree state, a state where civil liberties are restricted, a state where citizens live in fear of speaking out? An "unfree state" (the term used by the RS) is just a euphemism for a police state. We can call them authoritarian regimes, despotisms, dictatorships, but they are all words used to describe states where the citizens are not free. Note that in the article there is a map from this same RS (created using the checklist I'm using as an RS) showing states that are "free" and states that are "unfree". According to your logic, since they don't use the term "police state" this shouldn't be in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, so let's say you are quoting a reliable source that says "Mr. X has been accused in the press of cheating on his wife." Is it original research to paraphrase that by saying, "Some news media have made allegations that Mr. X has been unfaithful to his spouse"? Police state=unfree state, just as press=news media, cheat=unfaithful, accusation=allegation, wife=spouse (in this context). Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- You actually got that hypothetical horribly wrong. The attribution should be to the accuser, not the news site that is reporting the accusation. And in no circumstance should you weasel out of saying who reported it like that. That may be besides the point, but perhaps it provides some insight to your understanding of policy. Either way, what everyone here disagrees with you on is that very claim that "police state" is a synonym of whatever phrases are used in the sources you are trying to cite. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, of course this line would be followed by several refs of press articles which make this accusation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Freedom House, a respected human rights organization (my reliable source), is using the term "unfree states" because to call a state a "police state" is like calling an authoritarian leader a "despot" or "dictator". They are trying to be fair and unbiased, and "police state" is a loaded term. That's why they are using "unfree state" instead. I only have a bachelor's degree in politics, so I'm not an authority on this subject, but this is very basic material for people in that field. I suggest we get a request for comment WP:Rfc because this material seems to be beyond the grasp of some of the editors who are participating in this discussion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm so glad we have you to read the minds of Freedom House's writers. But if you want to continue to beat this dead horse, go ahead. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have to read anyone's mind - it's called English. Freedom House is defining unfree states as states "where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied." Which is also the definition of a police state. I suggest the Rfc say: "Is this edit a legitimate paraphrase of a reliable source, or is it original research?" and include the diff of the deleted edit and the url of the source it's based on. And I suggest it be posted at the "Politics, government, and law" page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- You can forumshop all you want. It doesn't change the fact that your edits to the article constitute original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for assuming good faith. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. And thank you for the interesting epic on the life and times of Ghostofnemo on your userpage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for assuming good faith. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can forumshop all you want. It doesn't change the fact that your edits to the article constitute original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have to read anyone's mind - it's called English. Freedom House is defining unfree states as states "where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied." Which is also the definition of a police state. I suggest the Rfc say: "Is this edit a legitimate paraphrase of a reliable source, or is it original research?" and include the diff of the deleted edit and the url of the source it's based on. And I suggest it be posted at the "Politics, government, and law" page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm so glad we have you to read the minds of Freedom House's writers. But if you want to continue to beat this dead horse, go ahead. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I see your main user page is on the Danish Wikipedia. Are you a native speaker of English? That might explain why you seem to be confused about political terminology in English. Do you have any background in politics, government or law? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are more than welcome to point out where I "seem to be confused about political terminology in English". After all I have shown you the courtesy of pointing out, page after page, where you reveal considerable deficiency in the knowledge of basic Wikipedia policies. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- You seem unable to understand that when Freedom House refers to a state as an "unfree state" that this is synonymous with calling it a "police state". Are you a native speaker of English? And do you have any background whatsoever in this field? Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Can a single editor close a discussion because he or she personally feels it's not constructive? And don't my questions deserve answers? Are they entirely immaterial to this discussion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Short answer: Yes.
- Long Answer: It depends on who is closing it, and why. We normally don't "close" noticeboard discussions (instead, we allow them to simply die out because no one has anything further to say) ... however, when it is clear that one (or both) sides in the discussion are being combative, and engaging in disruptive, WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior, then "closing" can be appropriate.
- Ideally the "closer" should be someone who has not participated in the dispute. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
"Paris is the capital of France" etc.
I would like the help of 3rd party editors to resolve an emerging issue with "attributable content" regarding the following and similar examples. The struck through text is the stable article text which I believe is attributable content of the vanilla "Paris is the capital of France" variety, and if disputed a [citation needed] tag and a little bit of effort from any editor questioning it is less disruptive than simple deleting.
Brugge/Bruges
(English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area)
The reason why this is in my view falls into WP:OR "Paris is the capital of France" level general knowledge is because it is "flemish+speaking"&hl= easily attributable without having to WP:POINTedly fill the page with standard Tourist Guide footnotes.
The particular case is here where User:Dohn joe is arguing that statements are WP:OR at the same time as deleting sources such as (1) Lonely Planet Turkey (2) Jordan, Adamič, and Woodman Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names: Approaches towards the Resolution of an Apparent Contradiction Vienna 2007 and (3) Jean-Pierre Duteil Alexandre de Rhodes' Histoire du royaume du Tonkin 1999 which supported 3 of the statements the editor has deleted claiming "WP:OR." Since this series of deletions has been justified with WP:OR I defer to experienced editors in this subject (hopefully those who contributed to the current shape of the guideline) to comment. I do not intend to contribute to the discussion. I also do not intend to be frogmarched to adding sources for "English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area" statements known to every schoolboy. Footnote refs should be reserved for less clear statements such as to which the (3) deleted sources above were attached. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would appreciate this editor also addressing such claims as
- Ngũ Hành Sơn : Marble Mountains (Vietnamese name more accurately is "Five elements mountains")
- Plzeň : Pilsen (German name no longer used in English)
- Leuven/Louvain : Louvain (old - English used to use French name, though in Dutch-speaking area)
- I removed a number of similar claims of terms being "old-fashioned", "obsolete", or of the form "English uses Portuguese name", none of which were cited - and none of which I learned as a schoolboy. As for the refs 1) and 2) cited above, I have explained to In ictu why they were non-sequiturs to the exonym status of Istanbul. If an experienced editor here has any advice, I am quite open to it, however. Dohn joe (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, as I said: "I do not intend to contribute to the discussion." I would suggest to other editors that the whole edit and justification of the edit by WP:OR be considered in relation to (a) the whole edit, (b) the whole guideline. Good luck. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- The edit is not in the least helpful. Where there is something to say about the place name, that should be in the etymology section, not immediately after the article title. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted, for the 3rd time, Dohn joe's removal of stable article content (more lines of the Brugge/Bruges (English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area) etc. type and sources). The issue having been brought to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard the User should at least give regulars here a chance to comment before deleting stable and uncontroversial content a 4th time. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support position of In ictu oculi. Ideally citations should be provided, but deletion of unsourced items is not appropriate per "Paris". Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Surely all these lists are some sort of breach of WP:NOT in the first place. Formerip (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Macrophilia article
Editor Sage94 (talk · contribs) is engaging in consistent violations of the WP:Original research, WP:Undue weight and WP:Edit warring policies at the Macrophilia article. The matter concerns whether or not the term macrophilia covers females who have sexual fantasies about male giants. The WP:Reliable sources restrict the term to males who have sexual fantasies about female giants (giantesses); if any of the WP:Reliable sources give space to male giants, it is minor space. See this discussion for backstory on Sage94's editing of that article: Talk:Macrophilia#Again With This. It includes Pandarsson (talk · contribs) trying to steer Sage94 in the right direction with regard to editing that article, and recent commentary from me as well. As can be seen at other parts of that talk page, people have been trying to give the topic of male giants space in that article for years. But, of course, we must go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with due weight.
Since in the aforementioned Macrophilia talk page discussion, I have already alerted Sage94 and Pandarsson to the fact that I would be reporting this matter here and have pinged them via WP:Echo, I do not see a need to notify them of this talk page section on their talk pages as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, first of all, the edit war covers whether the article focuses on male giants as well as female giants, not whether females have the same sexual fantasies as males. If you want to give the article reliable information, then just take away all the information that has to do with sexual play. The person who's editing the article is putting up information that focuses on sexual fantasies that objectify certain human beings and not the other. That makes no sense. The article should either focuse on BOTH genders, or neither. It's as simple as that.
- I don't understand why you're putting this here in the first place, I already tried to talk it out on the talk page. Don't make me into the bad guy for trying to get things settled.--Sage94 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I characterized the WP:Edit war clear enough above; I made it clear that it is about whether or not the term covers male giants and, if so, how commonly that term is applied that way. And like I just told you here, I pointed out what Wikipedia considers fair with regard to WP:Neutrality; read its Due and undue weight section and the subsections to that (Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity"). The fact that you don't understand why I brought this matter here adds to the issues with your editing. I will report this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) if nothing is done here about your wholly inappropriate editing of the Macrophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody before me was editing it to make it inappropriate. I was just making it fair because the edit seemed to be there for a long time and I thought it was considered okay by users viewpoints. Please calm down and try to discuss this before jumping to conclusions.--Sage94 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh. The policies have already been explained to you. And I have therefore reverted you. Do not revert and violate the WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research policies again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody before me was editing it to make it inappropriate. I was just making it fair because the edit seemed to be there for a long time and I thought it was considered okay by users viewpoints. Please calm down and try to discuss this before jumping to conclusions.--Sage94 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is already a source on the page that asserts that Macrophilia sometimes refers to giant men. In this source, (Kenter, Peter (July 27, 2012). Driving. "Gongo crush all cars! YouTube videos cater to macrophiliacs". National Post. p. 14.), the "Gongo" in question is a male giant, and the article quote is "Some macrophiles derive particular enjoyment from seeing cars being crushed by giant men or women..." I'm sure people will consider the National Post to be a mainstream and reliable source and that they are not making up the existence of Macrophiliac-catering videos that feature giant men. I'm sure the article can reflect that it's "predominantly" or "primarily" about giant women fantasies, but it is completely undue to omit all mention of something covered in a reputable and current source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Elaqueate, no one stated that the male aspect should not be mentioned at all in that article. In fact, above I stated..."If any of the WP:Reliable sources give space to male giants, it is minor space" and "people have been trying to give the topic of male giants space in that article for years. But, of course, we must go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with due weight." WP:Due weight is quite clear about what weight to give minority views, that tiny minorities shouldn't be given any space at all, and that we should not try to give "equal validity" to matters. One source makes nothing mainstream. Macrophilia is not even mainstream. And Sage94 was trying to give "equal validity" to male giants throughout the article (in WP:Original research ways), as even Sage94 has basically stated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about "equal space". Many of the sources claim that it's somehow about larger people, then give women as the most prominent example. That's not the same thing as saying it can only be women. It does not support using the term "giantess" throughout instead of the more neutral and inclusive "giant people", which would be more true to the sources on balance. Ignoring all divergent evidence that is also from reliable sources can be interpreted as Original Research as well. Right now the terms "Giantess" or "Female giant" have been over-added by an IP address throughout in every instance. It is clearly in contexts where the gender is immaterial or contradicted by the sources cited, such as insisting that Giant Foot fetishism must be specifically "the feet of a Giantess". This should be scaled back. And the lead should say something like "primarily" or "most commonly" at the very least. As it stands now, it looks undue-weighted and unbalanced.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I never stated that the term can only apply to women or only to females. I basically stated what has been commented on more than once by different editors at that article's talk page -- that the vast majority of sources concerning the term apply/mention it (the term) with regard to female giants only or mostly with regard to female giants. If the term applying to male giants is mentioned, it's almost as an afterthought. Otherwise, the term extending to male giants is generally not mentioned at all. I am considering the term with regard to what the WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight policies state. Where are the many sources that show that the term macrophilia applies to male giants (as in fantasies about them)? And where are the many WP:Reliable sources specifically about that? Rightdiagnosis.com, for example, is not a Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant source. You and I also have a somewhat different outlook on what can be considered WP:Original research, but, either way, no one who has argued for giving more weight or sole weight to the female aspect has ignored the male aspect of this topic; they have questioned the validity of mentioning the male aspect. Right now, by not mentioning that the term macrophilia extends to fantasies about male giants, the article is following the WP:Due weight policy. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Umm, you admit the male aspect is mentioned in reliable sources. That means the idea that it's not simply or only "giantesses" is an idea that's advanced by some of the reliable sources we already have.[1][2] And that means it's not an OR issue. It's also more neutral to use non-gender-specific language that reflects that. I don't see how any of it's an argument to reintroduce needlessly one-sided gendered language [[3]] that users like User:GorillaWarfare and User:Philip Trueman have previously reverted. I'd also say it looks like you have a bit of a history with this page, and I don't think the vague warnings to other users you gave in your edit summaries were completely helpful. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Um, no, I asked you, "Where are the many sources that show that the term macrophilia applies to male giants (as in fantasies about them)? And where are the many WP:Reliable sources specifically about that?" I have also made it quite clear that this a WP:Due weight issue, as well as a WP:Original research issue. Yes, it's a WP:Original research issue when an editor is engaging in WP:Synthesis (which is a part of the WP:Original research policy), and is exactly what Sage94 was doing. I reiterate that one source does not cut it when the vast majority of sources show or explicitly state otherwise. Neither do a few sources. You seem to be quite deliberately ignoring WP:Due weight and are trying to do exactly what it advises against. We should not use WP:gender-neutral language throughout an article when it is in stark contrast weight-wise with regard to the sources, which editors like Johnuniq and Binksternet would tell you. It's not one-sided to follow what the vast majority of sources state. Do read the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections of the WP:Due weight policy; like the latter section states, "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." And I have very little history with that article, which its edit history shows (and which I also pointed out on that article's talk page in the aforementioned discussion). My warnings to Sage94 were not vague in the least, in my opinion; and since those warnings (the latest one more specifically) stopped Sage94 from engaging in more WP:Undue weight and WP:Synthesis thus far, they were quite helpful indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Umm, you admit the male aspect is mentioned in reliable sources. That means the idea that it's not simply or only "giantesses" is an idea that's advanced by some of the reliable sources we already have.[1][2] And that means it's not an OR issue. It's also more neutral to use non-gender-specific language that reflects that. I don't see how any of it's an argument to reintroduce needlessly one-sided gendered language [[3]] that users like User:GorillaWarfare and User:Philip Trueman have previously reverted. I'd also say it looks like you have a bit of a history with this page, and I don't think the vague warnings to other users you gave in your edit summaries were completely helpful. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I never stated that the term can only apply to women or only to females. I basically stated what has been commented on more than once by different editors at that article's talk page -- that the vast majority of sources concerning the term apply/mention it (the term) with regard to female giants only or mostly with regard to female giants. If the term applying to male giants is mentioned, it's almost as an afterthought. Otherwise, the term extending to male giants is generally not mentioned at all. I am considering the term with regard to what the WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight policies state. Where are the many sources that show that the term macrophilia applies to male giants (as in fantasies about them)? And where are the many WP:Reliable sources specifically about that? Rightdiagnosis.com, for example, is not a Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant source. You and I also have a somewhat different outlook on what can be considered WP:Original research, but, either way, no one who has argued for giving more weight or sole weight to the female aspect has ignored the male aspect of this topic; they have questioned the validity of mentioning the male aspect. Right now, by not mentioning that the term macrophilia extends to fantasies about male giants, the article is following the WP:Due weight policy. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about "equal space". Many of the sources claim that it's somehow about larger people, then give women as the most prominent example. That's not the same thing as saying it can only be women. It does not support using the term "giantess" throughout instead of the more neutral and inclusive "giant people", which would be more true to the sources on balance. Ignoring all divergent evidence that is also from reliable sources can be interpreted as Original Research as well. Right now the terms "Giantess" or "Female giant" have been over-added by an IP address throughout in every instance. It is clearly in contexts where the gender is immaterial or contradicted by the sources cited, such as insisting that Giant Foot fetishism must be specifically "the feet of a Giantess". This should be scaled back. And the lead should say something like "primarily" or "most commonly" at the very least. As it stands now, it looks undue-weighted and unbalanced.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have occasionally seen a skirmish at Macrophilia (as periodically occurs at all articles related to sex), but the current issue appears very clear, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to debate it. If I have overlooked something, please correct me, but it appears that this diff is indicative of the proposed edit, an edit which essentially changes all mentions of "giantess" to "giant/giantess", while "female" becomes some variant of "male/female". That fails WP:DUE because it gives the impression that medically reliable sources suggest it is as common for females to fantasize about giants as it is for males to fantasize about giantesses. Where are those sources? Many news outlets are generally reliable when reporting observable facts such as that a certain event occurred at a certain date/place, however, the very brief definition offered by a news service as a convenience for its readers is not a reliable source concerning macrophilia. What proposed edit is being discussed here? Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
An IP address that was engaged in edit warring and the introduction of completely unsourced Original Research to related articles, also changed all the instances of giant people to the term giantess. Multiple sources describe macrophilia as dealing with more than just women subjects, as in "The attraction to giants, especially domination by giant women", and "Attractions to giants or giant creatures" (the gender of the people who do the fantasizing has nothing to do with anything here). The lead should be reverted to some pre-November version, in my opinion, in order to match sources not to ignore them. As per the academic title Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices, The Chicago Tribune, The National Post, and others. Maybe I'll clean it up in a little bit, if I find some time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- In the case of the Macrophilia article, the IP was changing things back to the way that the article used to be. And are you not familiar with WP:Synthesis?. Stating "people" does not equate to "women." Nor does it necessarily equate to "men and women" or "males and females." For many things that are by far about men, the term people is often used. For many things that are by far about women, the term people is used; the term slut, which no doubt mostly refers to women is one example of that. Bottomline is that we have a variety of sources restricting the term macrophilia to female giants in one way or another, and we have significantly fewer sources that specifically extend the term to male giants and fewer that specifically state that women fantasize about male giants. So your point regarding use of the term people is flawed. And in any case, the points that Johnuniq and I have made is that WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should ideally be used for that article, unless that topic is more of a popular culture matter. Passing mentions in the popular press do not measure up, especially when trying to give more space to a term that applies to one sex so much more than the other sex. Flyer22 (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- First, why are you bringing up the gender of the people doing the fantasizing? That has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Secondly, you admit some sources extend the term to fantasies about more than female giants. You also make it clear that there are no medical sources that make a specific claim that it's an attraction to only female giants. I agree with you that "passing mentions in the popular press do not measure up". This text is a reputable scholarly work, and it defines macrophilia as "Attractions to giants or giant creatures". That's not synthesis or original research, that's reference to scholarly sources. CRC Press is a reputable academic healthcare publisher. If you'd like to provide a reputable medical source that states it's only giantesses and nothing but, I'd be happy to review it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the diff that was questioned was the best way wording to keep the definition from being overly narrow, but it was addressing an actual problem of weight, it was backed up by sources that did not define the word as it currently stands in the lead. I think it should read "Macrophilia refers to a fascination with or a sexual fantasy involving giants, more commonly expressed as giantesses (female giants)." It addresses what's more frequent, without making it sound like it's only one type of expressed fantasy, which everyone here seems to admit is true, as well as being sourced. This would also be in line with a majority of the sources listed which do not use the word "giantess" when defining the word. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- First, why are you bringing up the gender of the people doing the fantasizing? That has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Secondly, you admit some sources extend the term to fantasies about more than female giants. You also make it clear that there are no medical sources that make a specific claim that it's an attraction to only female giants. I agree with you that "passing mentions in the popular press do not measure up". This text is a reputable scholarly work, and it defines macrophilia as "Attractions to giants or giant creatures". That's not synthesis or original research, that's reference to scholarly sources. CRC Press is a reputable academic healthcare publisher. If you'd like to provide a reputable medical source that states it's only giantesses and nothing but, I'd be happy to review it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The gender matter, either with regard to how much weight the sources give female giants as opposed to male giants, as well as whether or not women fantasize about giants to the same degree that men fantasize about giants, was brought up above and in the discussions on the article's talk page. The first is clearly relevant to this discussion. The latter is also relevant and is something some sources concerning macrophilia discuss -- that men fantasize about giants far more than women do/that macrophilia is mostly a heterosexual male matter. But then again, paraphilias and sexual fetishism are far more common in men than in women anyway. Another solid reason that I specifically mentioned the gender of the people doing the fantasizing is because, to me, you were/are conflating "people" to mean "men and women." Like I stated above, it does not always mean that. And, no, I did not "make it clear that there are no medical sources that make a specific claim that it's an attraction to only female giants." I'm not sure where you got that from. And, yes, some sources extend the term macrophilia to sexual fantasies about male giants, but those sources are significantly fewer; the scarcity of such sources, in comparison to the ones, especially the medical ones, that focus the term primarily or solely on female giants, is the whole point of this discussion. That is why WP:Due weight comes into play on this. Actually read some of the academic sources on this topic, not just the abstracts. And since it does not appear that I have been clear on this next point, I will state this: I do not oppose mentioning in the Macrophilia article that the term macrophilia may also refer to sexual fantasies about male giants. What I object to, which I've stated more than enough times already, is giving WP:Undue weight to that aspect of the term and engaging in WP:Synthesis (an aspect of WP:Original research) throughout the article. I asked you do you understand the WP:Due weight policy (this means its subsections as well). And I pondered if you understand WP:Synthesis. I asked and pondered this because the fact that the term macrophilia can extend to male giants does not discount applying inappropriate weight to that matter and that WP:Synthesis can still be engaged in with regard to it. It does not discount the fact that Sage94 was engaging in WP:Undue weight and WP:Synthesis at the Macrophilia article. And for the last time, "one source does not cut it when the vast majority of sources show or explicitly state otherwise. Neither do a few sources."
- All that stated, your suggestion of "Macrophilia refers to a fascination with or a sexual fantasy involving giants, more commonly expressed as giantesses (female giants)." is a good suggestion and should be implemented (without "refers to," per the WP:REFERS essay). Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll make the change to the lead; I should have clarified what I was suggesting earlier. And you say, "Actually read some of the academic sources on this topic", if they exist they should be included, can you point out a couple? I understand Synthesis and Due weight, I'm just not seeing that the majority of sources explicitly disallow non-female giants or define it only as women giants. Some do, but not a majority, and I think that's what your argument rest on. Beyond the sources, there are certainly many examples of male giant fantasies, so it doesn't seem so rare that it needs to be downplayed. Unless you think the heterosexual aspect is specifically defining above other aspects. Most of the sources listed , when defining the term, say it's a "love of the big" or "attraction to giants" even when they limit their discussion to anecdotal examples of fantasies of women. I would like the article to express the nuance and context found both in the sources and within your own comments here. Using "giantess" exclusively is distracting when it's clear it's not always giantesses. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Elaqueate, it's not about the sources explicitly disallowing male giants. It's about the sources on this topic usually giving a lot more weight or sole weight to female giants. That is why this matter has been a debate at the Macrophilia talk page for years. If it were easy to find sources (WP:Reliable sources) that give a lot of weight to male giants on this matter/women having sexual fantasies about male giants, then this debate wouldn't exist, now would it? It's why your wording of "more commonly expressed as giantesses (female giants)" is WP:Due weight (appropriate). Even some of the sources I have read on the macrophilia topic (years ago; can't recall the specific sources) that start out with what you consider a neutral descriptor of the term (applying it to male giants in addition to female giants, or simply to giants) have turned out to mostly focus on this attraction among men (clearly in a heterosexual context because of the focus on female giants). I'm certain that most of the sources on Google Books and Google Scholar, seen here and here, with regard to the term do as well (again, discounting if they start out with a "neutral descriptor"). All of this is why I brought up the fact that you will not find a source that mostly or solely focuses on this topic with regard to male giants. However, more than enough sources mostly or solely focus on it with regard to female giants; that should tell you right there how much more commonly the term is applied to female giants as opposed to male giants. Also, like I stated, simply fantasizing about giants is not macrophilia; otherwise, the term would include small children who fantasize about giants. Macrophilia is about having a sexual component to the fantasies (sexual attraction to the giants).
- I'll make the change to the lead; I should have clarified what I was suggesting earlier. And you say, "Actually read some of the academic sources on this topic", if they exist they should be included, can you point out a couple? I understand Synthesis and Due weight, I'm just not seeing that the majority of sources explicitly disallow non-female giants or define it only as women giants. Some do, but not a majority, and I think that's what your argument rest on. Beyond the sources, there are certainly many examples of male giant fantasies, so it doesn't seem so rare that it needs to be downplayed. Unless you think the heterosexual aspect is specifically defining above other aspects. Most of the sources listed , when defining the term, say it's a "love of the big" or "attraction to giants" even when they limit their discussion to anecdotal examples of fantasies of women. I would like the article to express the nuance and context found both in the sources and within your own comments here. Using "giantess" exclusively is distracting when it's clear it's not always giantesses. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- All that stated, your suggestion of "Macrophilia refers to a fascination with or a sexual fantasy involving giants, more commonly expressed as giantesses (female giants)." is a good suggestion and should be implemented (without "refers to," per the WP:REFERS essay). Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- On a side note, macrophilia does not appear to be a heavily researched term. It seems like it is more so a cultural term (though not popular culture); it seems like it is a WP:Neolgism. Because of all of this, the call for WP:MEDRS-compliant sources is not very necessary. Somewhat necessary, yes. But not very. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I never said one wasn't more common than the other. If the sources say, "usually giant women" then we should say "usually giant women". If it, and you, say "more common", then we should say "more common". It's clearly not synthesis if it's in the sources. From the Google books search you provided, the majority of definitions seem to be "Macrophilia—Attraction to giants, being men or women", an analysis of male-on-male macrophilia, "sexual fantasy involving fictitious giants" "Macrophilia is the love of big things" with a mention of both straight and gay men. Can you see why it's not original research to give indications that giant men are fantasized about when it's in the sources? No one is saying that they are equally common, but using "giantess" for every mention is giving it more weight than is in the sources used, and the sources you point to here. I don't think you had a strong case to bring this here to this noticeboard. Your argument about what the sources do is not supported by anything you've actually pointed to. Anyway, some of the "Giantesses" should be changed as some point, because at this point, they're synthesis, and this thread should be closed as this user does not seem to have synthesized the idea that male giants are sometimes the subject of sexual fantasy. It's in the sources, notwithstanding a minority that only mention women giants. (Most sources on the article and on the searches you provided talk about both or are gender-neutral, there's even some male-only ones, which you assert are unfindable for some odd reason). If the sources do it, so should we. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you are applying WP:Original research and WP:Undue weight, which is clearly why I have questioned how familiar you are with those policies. WP:Synthesis is about coming to a conclusion for text not explicitly stated in the sources used to support that text; that is exactly what Sage94 was engaging in. You stated "From the Google books search you provided, the majority of definitions seem to be 'Macrophilia—Attraction to giants, being men or women.'" You are wrong. Even just looking at the first few sources there on Google Books, those sources clearly give more emphasis to female giants and men's attraction to them. Some of the titles clearly indicate that they are specifically about men attracting women. Yet you are making it seem like those sources give equal weight to male giants, without having even read those sources in full (only snippets of them for the ones that provide access to the pages in question) and while disregarding where I stated above: "Even some of the sources I have read on the macrophilia topic (years ago; can't recall the specific sources) that start out with what you consider a neutral descriptor of the term (applying it to male giants in addition to female giants, or simply to giants) have turned out to mostly focus on this attraction among men (clearly in a heterosexual context because of the focus on female giants)."
- I never said one wasn't more common than the other. If the sources say, "usually giant women" then we should say "usually giant women". If it, and you, say "more common", then we should say "more common". It's clearly not synthesis if it's in the sources. From the Google books search you provided, the majority of definitions seem to be "Macrophilia—Attraction to giants, being men or women", an analysis of male-on-male macrophilia, "sexual fantasy involving fictitious giants" "Macrophilia is the love of big things" with a mention of both straight and gay men. Can you see why it's not original research to give indications that giant men are fantasized about when it's in the sources? No one is saying that they are equally common, but using "giantess" for every mention is giving it more weight than is in the sources used, and the sources you point to here. I don't think you had a strong case to bring this here to this noticeboard. Your argument about what the sources do is not supported by anything you've actually pointed to. Anyway, some of the "Giantesses" should be changed as some point, because at this point, they're synthesis, and this thread should be closed as this user does not seem to have synthesized the idea that male giants are sometimes the subject of sexual fantasy. It's in the sources, notwithstanding a minority that only mention women giants. (Most sources on the article and on the searches you provided talk about both or are gender-neutral, there's even some male-only ones, which you assert are unfindable for some odd reason). If the sources do it, so should we. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- On a side note, macrophilia does not appear to be a heavily researched term. It seems like it is more so a cultural term (though not popular culture); it seems like it is a WP:Neolgism. Because of all of this, the call for WP:MEDRS-compliant sources is not very necessary. Somewhat necessary, yes. But not very. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not that Sage94 "synthesized the idea that male giants are sometimes the subject of sexual fantasy." It's that Sage94 extended the term to male giants in ways that are not supported by the references in the Macrophilia article. Look at those references in that article, including this first one (the first source used in that article); most of them focus primarily or solely on female giants. Look at the name of those sources; the titles clearly indicate what their focus is on (in other words, not on male giants), and some of them are WP:Dead links. And yet you are asserting that most sources in that article are "gender-neutral" with regard to the term macrophilia. No, they are not; accessing Internet Archive for the dead links should provide further proof. And if you are referring to the Further reading section in that article, you only pointed to one source from that section. How do you know that the other sources are gender-neutral? It's best not to make sweeping arguments that are clearly not supported, especially when those who are fairly researched on this topic, such as myself and Pandarsson, are clear that your conclusions on this matter are not entirely accurate. In what way is Sage94's edit supported by that first source? That's one example of his WP:Synthesis. The source states, "Macrophilia — it’s one of those wonderful words that means exactly what you think it means. 'Macro' means big, 'philios' means love. Put ‘em together, whatta you got? A lover of bigness, a connoisseur of the colossal. Simply put, male macrophiles — and almost all macros are men – get turned on by giant women." The only spot that I see where Sage94 did not engage in WP:Synthesis is with this poor source that should be removed; WordPress.com does not count as a WP:Reliable source. I went to two administrators about Sage94's WP:Original research, WP:Undue weight and WP:Edit warring with regard to the Macrophilia article; those administrators are Bongwarrior and Barek, and here and here are those discussions; neither of them seemed to think I had a weak case with regard to accusing Sage94 of WP:Original research. Neither does Johnuniq. You are the only one making that claim thus far. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- All the user did was add "giant" to some of the places where it only said "giantess". Some of these were already discussed here. The paragraph about the crush videos was clearly about crush videos that had male and female "giants". That's sourced. Some of the articles describe giants of indeterminate gender because they're big animals. Some of the sources are about escort work to accommodate the fetish, not the fetish itself; this user didn't revise the article where it was talking about Amazon escort work. Saying it must only say "giantess" because some of the sources only talk about giant women is the wrong end of the stick. The Salon source from the 90s does make the case that's it's mostly a heterosexual guy thing. Again, there were no revision to what that citation supported except for the lead, which we agreed wasn't perfectly representative of what the sources tell us on balance. And relying on the Salon article is weak. I will re-invite you to share the academic sources you mentioned if you can remember them, because it would be more convincing than pointing to i09 slideshows and the like. In the meantime, whether or not you agree they are a numerical majority or not, various sources in the article mention that the subject of this sexual attraction can be giant women, giant men, or giant creatures, and it wasn't wildly inappropriate to try to include that in the article itself. It's certainly not worth this much botheration on the notice board. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- "All the user did was add 'giant' to some of the places where it only said 'giantess.'" Yeah, mostly in places that none of the references support, including what is still currently the first reference in the lead. WP:Synthesis is absolutely a part of the WP:Original research policy. It is absolutely WP:Synthesis to come to a conclusion for text/add that specific text when it is not explicitly stated in the sources used to support that text. It doesn't even matter if that text is covered in reference 7; we are not supposed to add text against reference 1 when reference 1 does not support it. Furthermore, I see no "various sources in the [Macrophilia] article mention[ing] that the subject of this sexual attraction can be [giant men or giant creatures]." Like I stated, look at those references in that article. "[M]ost of them focus primarily or solely on female giants. Look at the name of those sources; the titles clearly indicate what their focus is on (in other words, not on male giants), and some of them are WP:Dead links." But either way, since you don't see what Sage94 did wrong (except for the lead blunder) and are continuing to suggest that the sources concerning macrophilia extend as much to male giants as they do to female giants (when they quite clearly do not, as evidenced by more than just the Salon.com source), I'm pretty much done discussing this matter with you. It's a broken-record discussion at this point. No one has relied solely on the Salon.com source for this topic; so the fact that you are ignoring the non-Salon.com sources, including a few you cited earlier above and the ones on Google Books, that outright state that the vast majority of macrophiles are men, and/or focus on their sexual attraction to female giants, shows that your view on this topic is not too accurate and is ill-informed. I have already pointed you to sources, including academic ones (there on Google Books and Google Scholar), for you to review. Get access to them and review them, and review the academic sources you listed; I've reviewed material on this topic over the years, enough to know that the term is far more a man/female giant matter than it is a woman/female giant matter, woman/male giant matter or a man/male giant matter. I also pointed out to you that this term is not a heavily researched academic term; that's clear by the sources on Google Books and on Google Scholar. So it's a bit funny, after suggesting that I "share the academic sources," to suggest that "it would be more convincing than pointing to i09 slideshows and the like."...when that is the type of sourcing you started out with when making your arguments on this matter above. That you want to hold on to the fact that some of the sources start off with a "neutral" descriptor of what macrophilia is, despite those same sources then focusing almost exclusively on female giants or outright stating that the matter is mostly a man/female giant matter is not my problem. Nor is it a problem or "much botheration" that I brought this matter to this noticeboard. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Google Books only confirms that male giants are discussed: the first two hits deal with female giants, the third is purely male-on-male, the fourth is female, the fifth includes giant women and giant men, the seventh states "Attraction to giants, being men or women". You mischaracterize my argument as saying that the sources "extend as much to male giants as they do to female giants". I've repeatedly said that female giants are probably more common, but they are not the only subject discussed in the sources you keep pointing to. This is clear in your own language, as you say "mostly a man/female giant matter" and "almost exclusively" etc. Which is the essence of my point; the article should not imply "exclusively giantess" if it's somehow "almost exclusively giantess". You have also made some oddly contradictory claims. You insisted on medical sources, then rejected a strong need for them after I pointed to one; you claim years of reviewing papers but can't provide specific ones (and in a thread where you're complaining of Original Research). You say you have somehow provided academic sources to me by pointing me at Google at the same time as saying there is a dearth of academic sources. You make the strange request that I should "get access" and review the source I provided. Why are you assuming I haven't read a source I quoted the contents of? But ultimately, and in the spirit of constructiveness, if you have sources other than pointing to Google, you should share them. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Generally wrong. And I meant it when I stated that I am pretty much done discussing this matter with you, but just to address a few points. For example, "mischaracterize [your] argument"? Well, now you know what it feels like. And if it's somehow "almost exclusively giantess," then that is where WP:Due weight comes into play. We do not then give "equal weight" (undue space) to male giants throughout the article. I have been over WP:Due weight more than once in this discussion with you (Johnuniq commented once thus far above, pretty much telling you the same thing), and, to me, you still don't seem familiar with that policy. My "claims" are not "oddly contradictory"; you simply don't pay good attention to them. For example, what you call my insistence on using medical sources for this topic is me asking and stating "Where are the many sources that show that the term macrophilia applies to male giants (as in fantasies about them)? And where are the many WP:Reliable sources specifically about that? Rightdiagnosis.com, for example, is not a Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant source... And in any case, the points that Johnuniq and I have made is that WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should ideally be used for that article, unless that topic is more of a popular culture matter." See where I stated unless that topic is more of a popular culture matter? I later re-characterized that as simply "cultural," since macrophilia is nowhere close to being mainstream. Re-analyzing some of the literature on this matter reminded me that this topic is not a heavily researched academic topic; therefore, there is not going to be much need for WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for this topic. As for access to the sources, it's easy to see that you don't have access to them, which is why you responded the way that you did when I suggested that you read more than the abstracts. You certainly don't have full access to any of those Google Books sources, and you also certainly have not attempted to read the archived versions of those aforementioned dead links in the Macrophilia article. So, yep, not much more to state to you on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I obviously read more than the abstracts, as I quoted material not from abstracts. I also quoted from sources on the page that I dug up past dead links. Why are you claiming you know what I've read? That's just bizarre.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Generally wrong. And I meant it when I stated that I am pretty much done discussing this matter with you, but just to address a few points. For example, "mischaracterize [your] argument"? Well, now you know what it feels like. And if it's somehow "almost exclusively giantess," then that is where WP:Due weight comes into play. We do not then give "equal weight" (undue space) to male giants throughout the article. I have been over WP:Due weight more than once in this discussion with you (Johnuniq commented once thus far above, pretty much telling you the same thing), and, to me, you still don't seem familiar with that policy. My "claims" are not "oddly contradictory"; you simply don't pay good attention to them. For example, what you call my insistence on using medical sources for this topic is me asking and stating "Where are the many sources that show that the term macrophilia applies to male giants (as in fantasies about them)? And where are the many WP:Reliable sources specifically about that? Rightdiagnosis.com, for example, is not a Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant source... And in any case, the points that Johnuniq and I have made is that WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should ideally be used for that article, unless that topic is more of a popular culture matter." See where I stated unless that topic is more of a popular culture matter? I later re-characterized that as simply "cultural," since macrophilia is nowhere close to being mainstream. Re-analyzing some of the literature on this matter reminded me that this topic is not a heavily researched academic topic; therefore, there is not going to be much need for WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for this topic. As for access to the sources, it's easy to see that you don't have access to them, which is why you responded the way that you did when I suggested that you read more than the abstracts. You certainly don't have full access to any of those Google Books sources, and you also certainly have not attempted to read the archived versions of those aforementioned dead links in the Macrophilia article. So, yep, not much more to state to you on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Google Books only confirms that male giants are discussed: the first two hits deal with female giants, the third is purely male-on-male, the fourth is female, the fifth includes giant women and giant men, the seventh states "Attraction to giants, being men or women". You mischaracterize my argument as saying that the sources "extend as much to male giants as they do to female giants". I've repeatedly said that female giants are probably more common, but they are not the only subject discussed in the sources you keep pointing to. This is clear in your own language, as you say "mostly a man/female giant matter" and "almost exclusively" etc. Which is the essence of my point; the article should not imply "exclusively giantess" if it's somehow "almost exclusively giantess". You have also made some oddly contradictory claims. You insisted on medical sources, then rejected a strong need for them after I pointed to one; you claim years of reviewing papers but can't provide specific ones (and in a thread where you're complaining of Original Research). You say you have somehow provided academic sources to me by pointing me at Google at the same time as saying there is a dearth of academic sources. You make the strange request that I should "get access" and review the source I provided. Why are you assuming I haven't read a source I quoted the contents of? But ultimately, and in the spirit of constructiveness, if you have sources other than pointing to Google, you should share them. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- (I started writing this before the last comment was added, so consider it a response to the comment before that.) I think the point is that, like it or not, macrophilia is one of the many philias that have simply not had that much research into them. The required articles simply don't exist. Even the sources used on this page show it glaringly. Some of the pages no longer exist, one of them is simply a retelling of one of the others (it links to it, even) and the only ones show anything specific to male giants are on some random blog, an article about an artist who depicts homosexual macrophilia in their own imagined biblical context, and one is a fetish site for a furry artist that in no way satisfies any standards for sources. And that's it. Look at them. As for actual scholarly articles mentioning macrophilia, the few that exist are worthless to making an encyclopedia page or I'd have already suggested them. However, for you to see for yourself, look at this, this, and this. As you will see, none of these are very helpful and they provide little information. But that's as much information as is currently available. This is why I made an RFD and suggested before that this topic to be merged to one of the more general pages on paraphilias. Obviously, there simply wasn't enough interest in the page to generate a satisfying conclusion one way or the other, leaving the page as it was. You'll find a link to that old vote near the top of the page. And it's not that I have something against the topic. I wish there were enough sources to fill this page out. However, they don't exist. And what does exist says little to nothing about women who fantasize about male giants. Pandarsson (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- "nothing about women who fantasize..."? Why do you keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer? You've done it in just about every comment you've made. That's a response to something that's really not being discussed here. Sexuality is probably important, but no one has made any edit or request to say anything specifically about women vs. men. For the other part I agree that many of the sources are weak which is why I was tying to point to academic writing and more of the sources in the further reading section. It will need some rewriting, some paring and some re-sourcing at some point, you're right about that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- "All the user did was add 'giant' to some of the places where it only said 'giantess.'" Yeah, mostly in places that none of the references support, including what is still currently the first reference in the lead. WP:Synthesis is absolutely a part of the WP:Original research policy. It is absolutely WP:Synthesis to come to a conclusion for text/add that specific text when it is not explicitly stated in the sources used to support that text. It doesn't even matter if that text is covered in reference 7; we are not supposed to add text against reference 1 when reference 1 does not support it. Furthermore, I see no "various sources in the [Macrophilia] article mention[ing] that the subject of this sexual attraction can be [giant men or giant creatures]." Like I stated, look at those references in that article. "[M]ost of them focus primarily or solely on female giants. Look at the name of those sources; the titles clearly indicate what their focus is on (in other words, not on male giants), and some of them are WP:Dead links." But either way, since you don't see what Sage94 did wrong (except for the lead blunder) and are continuing to suggest that the sources concerning macrophilia extend as much to male giants as they do to female giants (when they quite clearly do not, as evidenced by more than just the Salon.com source), I'm pretty much done discussing this matter with you. It's a broken-record discussion at this point. No one has relied solely on the Salon.com source for this topic; so the fact that you are ignoring the non-Salon.com sources, including a few you cited earlier above and the ones on Google Books, that outright state that the vast majority of macrophiles are men, and/or focus on their sexual attraction to female giants, shows that your view on this topic is not too accurate and is ill-informed. I have already pointed you to sources, including academic ones (there on Google Books and Google Scholar), for you to review. Get access to them and review them, and review the academic sources you listed; I've reviewed material on this topic over the years, enough to know that the term is far more a man/female giant matter than it is a woman/female giant matter, woman/male giant matter or a man/male giant matter. I also pointed out to you that this term is not a heavily researched academic term; that's clear by the sources on Google Books and on Google Scholar. So it's a bit funny, after suggesting that I "share the academic sources," to suggest that "it would be more convincing than pointing to i09 slideshows and the like."...when that is the type of sourcing you started out with when making your arguments on this matter above. That you want to hold on to the fact that some of the sources start off with a "neutral" descriptor of what macrophilia is, despite those same sources then focusing almost exclusively on female giants or outright stating that the matter is mostly a man/female giant matter is not my problem. Nor is it a problem or "much botheration" that I brought this matter to this noticeboard. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- All the user did was add "giant" to some of the places where it only said "giantess". Some of these were already discussed here. The paragraph about the crush videos was clearly about crush videos that had male and female "giants". That's sourced. Some of the articles describe giants of indeterminate gender because they're big animals. Some of the sources are about escort work to accommodate the fetish, not the fetish itself; this user didn't revise the article where it was talking about Amazon escort work. Saying it must only say "giantess" because some of the sources only talk about giant women is the wrong end of the stick. The Salon source from the 90s does make the case that's it's mostly a heterosexual guy thing. Again, there were no revision to what that citation supported except for the lead, which we agreed wasn't perfectly representative of what the sources tell us on balance. And relying on the Salon article is weak. I will re-invite you to share the academic sources you mentioned if you can remember them, because it would be more convincing than pointing to i09 slideshows and the like. In the meantime, whether or not you agree they are a numerical majority or not, various sources in the article mention that the subject of this sexual attraction can be giant women, giant men, or giant creatures, and it wasn't wildly inappropriate to try to include that in the article itself. It's certainly not worth this much botheration on the notice board. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not that Sage94 "synthesized the idea that male giants are sometimes the subject of sexual fantasy." It's that Sage94 extended the term to male giants in ways that are not supported by the references in the Macrophilia article. Look at those references in that article, including this first one (the first source used in that article); most of them focus primarily or solely on female giants. Look at the name of those sources; the titles clearly indicate what their focus is on (in other words, not on male giants), and some of them are WP:Dead links. And yet you are asserting that most sources in that article are "gender-neutral" with regard to the term macrophilia. No, they are not; accessing Internet Archive for the dead links should provide further proof. And if you are referring to the Further reading section in that article, you only pointed to one source from that section. How do you know that the other sources are gender-neutral? It's best not to make sweeping arguments that are clearly not supported, especially when those who are fairly researched on this topic, such as myself and Pandarsson, are clear that your conclusions on this matter are not entirely accurate. In what way is Sage94's edit supported by that first source? That's one example of his WP:Synthesis. The source states, "Macrophilia — it’s one of those wonderful words that means exactly what you think it means. 'Macro' means big, 'philios' means love. Put ‘em together, whatta you got? A lover of bigness, a connoisseur of the colossal. Simply put, male macrophiles — and almost all macros are men – get turned on by giant women." The only spot that I see where Sage94 did not engage in WP:Synthesis is with this poor source that should be removed; WordPress.com does not count as a WP:Reliable source. I went to two administrators about Sage94's WP:Original research, WP:Undue weight and WP:Edit warring with regard to the Macrophilia article; those administrators are Bongwarrior and Barek, and here and here are those discussions; neither of them seemed to think I had a weak case with regard to accusing Sage94 of WP:Original research. Neither does Johnuniq. You are the only one making that claim thus far. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- That was my first post on this specific page. And please refer to the first post on this page regarding this subject, particularly this line from it: "The matter concerns whether or not the term macrophilia covers females who have sexual fantasies about male giants." Also, if you have looked at the scholarly articles I provided, you will see that there isn't enough information there on the subject of macrophilia to make a full page out of it. I have seen a couple of other mentions in articles I've looked up in a library that I can't find online, but they were again mere mentions and even less than what you'll find in the three links I gave. You will also see that in those articles I linked, the descriptions of macrophilia involve female giants when the object (or one of the objects) of the fantasy is a human. Thus not only does it specifically not provide mention of male-gendered giants or female-gendered fetishists, there simply is not even enough information for a full page. I have to keep mentioning this because I do not think I would be doing any service by not reiterating it. I'm not going to do another RFD, but I guarantee you that if someone does not somehow find some obscure thorough scholarly source that does more than merely mention macrophilia, if someone does another RFD, I will be again voting to merge. Pandarsson (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Pandarsson does not "keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer"; I, Johnuniq and Pandarsson mentioned "the gender of the fantasizer" for obvious reasons, reasons I already told you -- sexually fantasizing about giants is mostly a male thing (something males do far more than females), a heterosexual male thing to be exact. The sources hardly attribute macrophilia to women as the ones doing the fantasizing. You make it sound like, well, if heterosexual women are hardly involved, then there's enough lesbian women and gay men involved. No, by "hardly attribute macrophilia to women," we mean "all types of women." See my "15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)" post for more on that. That you may have confused me with Pandarsson (who commented in this discussion for the first time with the "00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)" comment above), if your "Why do you keep bringing in the gender of the fantasizer?" line is any indicator, is further enough reason to stop discussing this matter with you. You don't seem to be listening well to what others in this discussion have told you, and you every now and then misunderstand what they (we) have stated. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- You've got things muddled. At the beginning of this conversation you pointed to this conversation where Pandarason mentions the gender of the person fantasizing multiple times. I hadn't confused this user with you (even if it wasn't clear otherwise, he said that scholarly works didn't exist while you said you provided me with some). Again, it's nice that you both assert that it's "mostly a male thing" but it's completely irrelevant and has not been disputed. The changes you were complaining about here had zero to do with adding any mention of women or removing any mention of its prevalence among men. The changes were about the subject of fantasy, not the person fantasizing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not completely irrelevant that it's mostly a male thing. Mostly a heterosexual male thing. And we have already addressed exactly why it is not; most importantly, it speaks directly to the fact that macrophilia does not equally refer to male giants. To state that it's irrelevant that macrophilia is mostly a male thing (a heterosexual male thing) is to suggest that heterosexual women, lesbian women and gay men fantasize about giants as much as heterosexual men. The sources do not show that; when they speak of the fantasizer being male, they usually mean that the fantasizer is fantasizing about female giants; you seem to want to imply that when the term focuses on men, it includes heterosexual and gay men, or, that wen it states "female giants," it includes lesbian women fantasizing about female giants. The sources generally don't. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)