Inclusion criteria for a statistics table[edit]

Michtrich has started adding a table to the article Refugee that will give statistics for refugee repatriation between pairs of countries. The data is sourced. Anticipating that the number of pairs could potentially be huge, I asked Michtrich how many they expected there to be. Michtrich's response was that they would only include pairs of countries with more than 5,000 refugees repatriated per year. This is Michtrich's own figure to keep the size of the table down. We would like advice on whether this inclusion threshold constitutes some form of original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the creation and use of the table is more subject to original research concerns than an arbitrary threshold. If the consensus is that the creation of such a table is okay for the article, then the threshold would not be an example of OR, but might exhibit some NPOV concerns. Ultimately, there should be community consensus on what the threshold is, if there should be any threshold at all.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Scoobydunk. Can I get other editors' thoughts on whether the table itself counts as original research? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you're concerned about the table itself, the reason it could be considered OR is because it's an original gathering and displaying of information by wikipedia editors that serve to fit some larger narrative. From what it sounds like, editors are taking any mention of refugee numbers and are compiling them into an overall table to demonstrate the vast number of refugees. It's quite possible that some or none of the sources were emphasizing the total number of global refugees, and were only mentioning individual pieces of information as data. I work more on articles related to slavery and racism, but think if I took every court case and made a table of the number of lashes given to slaves as punishment and inserted it into every article that addressed slavery. Now, none of the sources emphasized the severity of lashes or sheer number of lashes given to slaves, but my table would be attempting to push that POV through my own original research of gathering and displaying whipping numbers. So you can see how that becomes OR. Lets say a person wants to make a table noting all crashes that women were at fault for. Though this information can come directly from sources, the table clearly serves an editor's own narrative to demonize women. So I'm not sure of the rules regarding the creation of tables in WP articles, but these are some examples of why caution should be given to creating a table with a very specific purpose like listing all refugees.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, Scoobydunk, the figures for refugee repatriation (which is what the table covers, rather than the total global refugee population) are all coming from annual editions of the same source - the UNHCR statistical yearbook (see tab 21 in this spreadsheet). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the table is ok provided that the information is presented in the article with the same description as it is presented in the source. The source given should be more explicit: give the table number and quote its caption. Check that the choice of cutoff does not distort the overall view. Zero^talk 22:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero0000. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming a source implies something it doesn't state directly[edit]

See Talk:Agent Carter (season 2)#When are MCU tie-ins not MCU tie-ins?.

The TV show includes a story point ("Zero Matter"/"Darkforce") borrowed from the Doctor Strange comic books, and there is an upcoming film based on these comics, but we don't know if the story point in question will have anything to do with the film itself. The sources state that the show runners had to check that their script didn't contradict that of the film, and this is being interpreted by User:Favre1fan93 and User:adamstom.97 as implying an explicit tie-in. I take the opposite view, that if the show-runners had to check with some higher-ups that their script didn't contradict the film script, that means there could have been no pre-planned tie-in, as the show runners do not know what the film is going to about.

Talk page discussion has been going round in circles for almost a week, and on a niche article it doesn't look like it will end in anything other than a 2-1 non-consensus. So I brought it here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I would note that nowhere in the article in question (Agent Carter (season 2)) have we stated that this story point is an "explicit tie-in", nor do we intend for it to say that. In fact, we understand that the sources do not say this, which is why we have written the section specifically to contain only the information that we do know, which, if you do read the section (Agent Carter (season 2)#Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins) and not just the discussion linked above, you will clearly see. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The title of section is "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins", not "Marvel Comics tie-ins". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a fair source for the topic Anti-semitic anti-Zionism[edit]

At a newly created article Anti-semitic anti-Zionism, material has been removed with the edit summary:'removing quote coatracked here because it does not reference this phrase.'

In short, the editor E.M.Gregory is implicitly arguing that no material can be added to the article unless it contains the exact phrase: 'Anti-semitic anti-Zionism'. This is an extreme reading of WP:OR in my view.

The source I introduced is Jonathan Judaken, ‘Rethinking the New Antisemitism,’ in Jonathan Judaken (ed.), Naming Race, Naming Racisms, Routledge, 2013 pp.195-223 p.215-21, which is an extensive analysis of the literature on the historical connections between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It contains phrases like

after the broad incursion into Lebanon in 1982, volumes were produced signaling a rise in antisemitic rhetoric hiding behind the shield of anti-Zionism, . .all these works raised the alarm about a confluence of anti-Zionism within part of the radical left .. which is what many observers signal as the most significant new danger of the new antisemitism. p.213

I believe I am not connecting the dots between the two elements 'anti-Zionism' and 'Anti-Semitism' since Judaken does, and I further contend that Gregory's excision of this critique screws up in a pointy manner the distinction we make re WP:SYNTH. Expert external advice regarding the use of Judaken's article here would be appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Response I believed that I was enforcing a valid rule for an article on a term of art since other editors have tagged and removed material that directly engages the concept, without using the exact phrase. (See: RolandR "ottolenghi does not use this term" [1]).

My first action was to take the Judaken material move it to a more appropriate spot on the page. (here: [2]) It was only then that I began to consider the problem with introducing such material. Which is...

That this is an article about the idea, put forward by several major scholars, that there is a specifically recent (21st century) variety of anti-semitic anti-Zionism originating on the left and having the peculiar characteristics set out by Bergmann, Johnson, and Hirsch (Hirsch's work on the subject still needs to be added to the page)

The Judaken material does not engage the assertion by Bergmann/Johnson/Hirsch et al. Rather, it sets sail on an ocean-sized discussion of whether "every critique of Israel is antisemitic and not all forms of anti-Zionism are animated by Jew-hatred,"

Note that the particular bits of Judaken cited have nothing to do with the argument being made by Bergmann/Johnson/Hirsch, but, rather, address other aspects of the is-anti-Zionism-antisemitic debate: "numerous Jewish traditions have insisted that preservation of what is most precious about Judaism and jewishness “demands” a principled anti-Zionism or post-Zionism"; drawing readers' attention to those who "have engaged in a wholesale condemnation of ‘the left’ as antisemitic if not in intention" These red herrings serve only to lure readers away from the topic: a specific, tightly defined type of contemporary anti-Zionism.

I urge that we confine this page to material that directly confronts the specific phenomenon defined by Bergmann/Johnson/Hirsch.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A page with a title like that can not be restricted, except by an editor with a WP:OWN approach, to the original editor's own preferred material. Bergmann/Johnson/Hirsch do not define the topic, the topic is defined by whatever source discusses the two elements together. (Alan Johnson is not a 'major scholar', compared to the other 2 he has written on his own virtually nothing of notable substance and is using a term that long predates his newspaper piece) Where is your policy argument? Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We have hundreds of articles in the Category: Political terminology, all of which would be rendered meaningless unless they are defined and the page contents limited by definitions. We have about a dozen articles on separately defined types of antisemitism (including one I had not seen until just now, secondary antisemitism, I just linked it from a page I started yesterday on Werner Bergmann). Pages like secondary antisemitism, Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, and Anti-semitic anti-Zionism are useful, which is probably why we have dozens of pages in Category:Antisemitism, and hundreds in Category:Democracy. We already have 8 subcategories in Category:Anti-Zionism, each containing multiple articles. Frankly, I don't see a problem with either OR or Notability on this page. But if you want a policy argument it is WP:GNG, the principle that pages exist when there are persuasive, reliable sources to support a page. As there are in this case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Its possible a broader title/article could be written which would be better, but this topic certainly passes the minimum bar. (As to my first point, there are a multitude of POVs out there about if antizionism is inherently antisemetic, to others who say it is never so. Every shade of grey in between. There is probably some title that could cover the question as a whole better, but this is a reasonable starting point) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)