Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

Supporting or WP:SYN

Over on the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States a particular editor keeps making the following points, I would like to get some outside views here on their merits.

A source is off topic and cannot be used in the article unless the exact term "state terrorism" is present in it.

  • I opposed this view and would like to give an example and then hear feedback. We have a section on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this section an author, Coady, states the bombings were an instance of state terrorism due to the targeting of a civilian group by the Targeting committee. There is a references to the book by Coady as well as the targeting committee documents. Should the link to the targeting committee documents be removed since they do not specifically state "state terrorism" in them?
  • Another example is background information. For instance there is a section on the Philippines, in that section an allegation is made that the financial and military support from President Bush to the Philippine government, to fight the War on Terror, constitutes supporting state terrorism. In this section is information and references that simply discuss the US financial support in the War on Terror to the Philippine government, is this WP:SYN violation?

Any help in sorting out these issues is greatly appreciated. In what way can someone give background information that is not in the "main source." Just go one step further, if the section is discussing the atomic bombings, but does not mention the blast radius, can we use another source to mention it? --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, pretty obviously, concepts can be expressed in a variety of ways, so whether the one term or another are used, is irrelevant. In your next example, you say 'an allegation is made'... by whom? A wikipedia editor? Yes that would be original research. Dlabtot (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Notable authors and historians are making the accusations, sorry for not making that clear. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's a very long debate on the talk page of that article, and I can't hope to parse through it. But here's what I see..
A source is off topic and cannot be used in the article unless the exact term "state terrorism" is present in it
Not necessarily. That's an extreme interpretation of the SYNT rule. Note that there's room for debate on the definition of what an article is "about". For example, if you have a section on Hiroshima, then the article is also "about" Hiroshima, and it is perfectly fine to include background information about Hiroshima. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your interpretation, I tried to summarize the best I could as the talk page is a bit of a mess. Thank you for your feedback. Anyone else able to say yay or nay to this idea. I would like a consensus of third party people if possible so as to remove any doubts on the issue. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Squidfryerchef; that is a truly extreme interpretation of SYN. My view of SYN is that it strictly applies to the practice of melding multiple sources together in a way that distorts what's said in any of them. For the issue of whether a given source is "about" some subject (such as state terrorism), that's a matter for editorial evaluation, nothing more.--Father Goose (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is far more complex than I Write Stuff alleges, representing one side in the discussion, in his rather biased presentation. Please see [1]. Ultramarine (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked people from the article do not come here and argue. Sadly it seems your summary page is lying. No one for instance in your section is ever arguing that BBC said it was terrorism, a source is provided and the allegation is attributed to him specifically. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well after saying my piece about SYN, I would like to point out that the various "Allegations of ..." articles are POV traps, and that's part of why editors are arguing SYN that way. IMO, it might be better to have a neutral article called "Covert actions by the United States" that has one section for allegations of state terrorism, and this one section would require the word "terrorism" to be used by the source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And I also would like to clarify, that demanding that the exact term "state terrorism" be in any source used is overly restrictive; however, there should still be a sound consensus as to whether a given source is relevant to the article and supportive of the exact claim being made (or implied).--Father Goose (talk)
Squidfryerchef's assessment of how 'Allegations of' articles are POV traps is spot-on here. Such articles are thinly-disguised original research almost from beginning to end, with the thin thread of bias running throughout.
I am going to step outside my usual policy of not discussing in WP a field I am involved in (its always better to edit in those categories where you are less likely to get all Crazy about when folk get it wrong). The basic misconception with this article (aside from the Kiss-O'-Death title) is that one man's definition of terrorism is another man's definition of a wartime decision.
While Jenkins and a few others argue that terrorism should be defined 'by the nature of the act, not by the perpetrators or the nature of their cause' (Jenkins, The Study of Terrorism : Definitional Problems, 1980); however, the need to differentiate between violence perpetrated by state and non-state actors is paramount, as it "plays into the hands of terrorists and their apologists who would argue that a 'low-tech' pipe bomb placed in a rubbish bin at a crowded market...equates with that of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Terrorists deliberately cloak themselves and their acts in military jargon, so as to lend themselves an air of legitimacy afforded state or wartime actions. (Hoffman, Inside Terrorism). Such has been the rationalization from revolutionaries dating back to Ché Guevara
Hoffman denotes that the difference is that states are bound by certain rules of war, whereas non-state actors (ie, terrorist organizations) refuse to be bound by such rules of war and codes of conduct. Such self-sanction (ie, moral justification), says Albert Bandura (in his book, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, as reprinted in Origins of Terrorism, ed. by Walter Reich) is what differentiates the terrorist from a state; the state has internal repercussions for the violation of these rules and codes of conduct, whereas the non-state actor does not.
I could go on (and on) about how the very article title is spurious on its face, and should either be re-titled to something less pov, like "Instances of Terrorism committed by the United States" or even better, "War Crimes Committed by the United States". However, I am thinking that much more in the way of legitimate sources would be able to be found for an article of the second subject title.
Failing that alteration, I would have to opine that the term "state terrorism" must appear in any citation connected to the article discussing specific acts. There are far too many pov sites out there giving the most debatable reasoning, and we should not accept the veracity or fidelity of many of those sources on their face, being without redundant sourcing as almost all of them are. Such sources, interpreted by like-minded individuals reflecting on those sources that compliment their own personal beliefs is far more likely to contain supposition and persuasion-style arguments, all of which are synthesis, and wholly includable. It's a slippery slope, and we shouldn't be engaging in that sort of sledding. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Arcayne. Although 'Allegations of X' articles tend to be POV magnets, we can in principle write a good article, if we're extremely disciplined. In particular, it must be very clear that Wikipedia is not making allegations of state terrorism by the United States, but reporting on such allegations made by others. It is nigh-on impossible to verify that a source is making such an allegation unless the source itself uses the term.
I Write Stuff asks: "if the section is discussing the atomic bombings, but does not mention the blast radius, can we use another source to mention it?" This strikes me as a difficult question. I wonder whether it can be perceived as advancing a position? For example, could one argue that the blast radius - with the associated loss of life - makes it a more severe act of terrorism (state or otherwise) than others? I would personally be inclined to err on the side of caution. Readers can always follow a link to get background information, after all. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


The problem with Synthesis in this context is that one extreme minority opinion considers an event to be X. Lot’s of other more mainstream sources consider it to be Y and don’t even address the X consideration because it is such a minority. The synthesis occurs through using “definitions” and “quotations” to try and synthesize a mainstream view of X. After the synthesis, the article implies that X is the mainstream or widely held view even if they never say it.

For example, to make up a scenario,


Here you can see that the relevant terrorism accusation was made by Joe Blow. The rest of the statements are cobbled together to lend credibility to Joe Blow when in reality they are not. They are separate statements that synthesize support for Joe Blow as their context was never meant to support such a statement. In this example, none of the other sources have even taken a position on State Terrorism by Foobarland. But using them to bolster the opinion of an individual or organization is synthesis as it implies that all those statements and definition support Joe Blow. They do not. --DHeyward (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I give up, since no one could possibly allow an independent group of editors to decide without attempting to misstate the position of "state terrorism" quoted exactly being required, it goes to show how little faith those editors felt the argument would stand up. Just to add your analysis is patently wrong, I find it odd that no one could quote from the article itself, perhaps because their "examples" are not actually present. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The position advocated by Ultramarine Arcayne and DHeywood on this page would mean that this source [2] is an invalid source for the featured article Hurricane Isis (1998) because it does not contain the words 'Hurricane Isis'. I cannot see where their position has any validity at all. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The comparison with Hurricane Isis doesn't wash because Bonnie and Isis were both the result of the same tropical depression, but otherwise distinct, and the 'Hurricane Isis (1998)' article in no way suggests otherwise, leave alone that they were identical. Saying Bonnie is the sister of Isis is not comparable with an editor's own interpretation that 'allegations of X' is equivalent to 'allegations of state terrorism'. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Applying the strict interpretation advocated by Ultramarine et al would mean that the NOAA could not be used as a source in the Hurricane Isis article because the NOAA article does not include the words "Hurricane Isis". TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But, of course, NOAA's report on Hurricane Isis does... Jakew (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But Ultramarine et al have been arguing in essence that [3] is an inappropriate source and cannot be used in the aritcle because it does not specifically have the words 'Hurricane Isis'. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not what Ultramarine et al have been arguing "in essence." None of them have even mentioned Bonnie or Isis. You choose to take their words out of context (error #1), and then additionally interpret them in a scheme of your own devising (error #2). Were this in an article, both would be examples of OR. Further, I've already explained why the comparison a Bonnie/Isis is a no-go. Since that rack won't take your coat, you need to find something else if you think you have a point. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is exactly the essence of what Ultramarine has been stating: any source that does not contain the words 'state terrorism' is being removed. [4]. I stand by my analogy. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I interpret it the same way. In any article, this would establish a precedent for easy elimination of sources a POV dislikes, simply by arguing that some aspect ofthe title precludes a given source by supposed omission of the pasword du jour. not thanks. ThuranX (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would expect an article titled "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" to review allegations made by other people of state terrorism by the United States. This then is the OR (but not SYN) crux: Is an editor him/herself evaluating someone's statements to claim that that person is making an allegation of state terrorism? ...or... Is that someone directly and unambiguously stating that him/herself? -- Fullstop (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A general standard that has been applied by the "not every source needs to have the words 'state terrorism' group" is:if there is a source (Source A) that makes the complete analysis "The US did (supported people who did) ACTS we define as terrorism" and another source (source B) says of those same ACTS "here is detailed information about those ACTS", source B is perfectly acceptable and not a violation of SYN. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this... I think we are all agreed that if you have source (A) stating a given act is an act of Terrorism, and source (B) stating the US did that act, we can not reach the conclusion (C) and state the US did an act of terrorism. Doing so would fit exactly the definition of synthesis in our policy (A+B=C). You need a source that ties A and B together. The question being raised is... Once you have established (C) through a source, is it appropriate to include background information about the act discussed in (B), by mentioning facts discussed in sources (D),(E) and (F)? Is that a fair summary? Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar, you are correct. Source A says that SOMETHING is an act of terrorism by the US. Sources B, C and D talk more about the SOMETHING. Is including the information from sources B C and D prohibited under WP:OR?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1. That is not pertinent to the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion here is whether a source declared SOMETHING an act of terrorism by the US, or whether WP editors interpreted that source's discussion of SOMETHING as (an implicit) declaration as an act of terrorism (and hence suitable for inclusion in the article). Thats all.
2. Whether B, C, D are suitable for inclusion (or not) is subject to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and is to be resolved in article talk. It is not an OR issue, and thus not suitable for discussion here. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
To think about this another way, source A is linking X (the subject of the article) to Y (the "something"), so while sources B, C, and D may be directly related to Y, they are at best indirectly related to X. I think this policy is quite clear when it says (in the very first paragraph) that sources must be directly related to X. I would tend to think that if the relationship between X and Y is strong, there should be plenty of sources giving background info. On the other hand, if there are so few sources linking X to Y that it is difficult or impossible to find background information, that's probably a good indicator that extensive coverage and background aren't needed, and may even give undue weight to the sources suggesting a link. Jakew (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Fullstop, your statement 1) is incorrect - please review the first post in this thread. We all agree that a reliable source states "Act is terrorism by the US" - there has not been anyone with a different position for at least as long as I am familiar with the article. And 2) is what we are discussing. Ultramarine has claimed that including information from sources B C D that do not have the words "state terrorism" is OR / SYN.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I read it again, but it hasn't changed since I read it the first time. And Ultramarine's invocation of OR/SYN does not appear to about what you think it is either. But as long as you are convinced that your assumptions are correct, it would be a meaningless to point you in the right direction (which, as evident by your comments on the article's talk page, you do take when it suits you). I suppose you might catch on eventually... -- Fullstop (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that we are still not addressing the same items. Going back to the initial post we have Source A (Coady linking US targeting committee's actions at Hiroshima to state terrorism) and the question: Should the link to the targeting committee documents (source B) be removed since they do not specifically state "state terrorism" in them? and final question in the initial post In what way can someone give background information that is not in the "main source." (Main Source A - Coady calls bombings terrorism) Just go one step further, if the section is discussing the atomic bombings, but does not mention the blast radius, can we use another source (source B) to mention it? Both questions Source A making analysis of US terrorism, Source B not using words 'terrorism' but describing in more depth the actions Source A has described as terrorism. (the same situation is, I believe, true for 2nd bullet, but less clearly described by the original poster.) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
RedPen, maybe you could save yourself a lot of confusion if you could perhaps avoid interpreting my posts in favor of your position. If you are going to take my statements out of context, it might be easier for you to avoid using them altogether. When I say that unless they are verifiable, objective and reliable sources that call a US action state-sponsored terrorism, we cannot call it such, as it would be synthesis. In two places now, you have been provided with hard sources as to how state and non-state terrorism differ. What part of that is difficult for you to accept? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for including your position with Ultramarines. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgive you for confusing my position to be in support of yours. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. At the very least, a given topic is not valid for inclusion in the article unless some source specifically makes the US -> state terrorism connection. If such a source can be found, then it is valid to include a bit of background material from other sources, but that material should be immediately relevant, and be concise. It should not overwhelm material from sources that actually make the accusation; otherwise we're giving the impression that we're building that sources' case for it. - Merzbow (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Merzbow just hit the nail on the head, I believe. If, for example, a source that accused the United States of state terrorism referenced some official report, or governmental definition of "state terrorism", it would not be out of hand to include a small quote or cited and paraphrased statement to illustrate what is being discussed. In practice however, a small portion of the material is based on sources that make clear allegations, with most of it being drawn from supporting references. It crosses the line from illustrative use to making a case not made by the majority of sources used. It can be described as "coatracking", "original research", or in any number of ways. Regardless, it clear that such an approach is essentially incompatible with the goals and principles of Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Including cited backgound information on an event is not automatically a SYN violation. However, great care is needed to do this properly. It really depends on how we include the background material. We have to be careful not to give readers the impression that the background material supports the contention that the event was an act of state terrorism. Write it poorly, and we could inadvertently create a SYN situation... but that is a problem with how the section was written, not with the sources. A re-write will fix the problem. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It is automatically a SYN violation if there aren't any reliable sources on the topic that consider it to be "background material". Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would make a distinction between background material and supporting material. In a case (such as this one), where the "main" material is drastically overwhelmed by supporting material, it is not a matter of poor writing. Using such a set up, it is nearly impossible to create a coherent on-topic article with anything but the impression that all of those supporting facts support the conclusion presented by the small portion of "main" sources.
Basically, what is happening is that Source X says that Nation Y commits state terrorism because of specific aspects of Action Z. That source supports at most a few relatively short statements. This is followed by extensive material about Action Z, with facts chosen that are most likely to be disagreeable to a reader. The initial very short paragraph of material is inflated into a long section using this technique. The intent and result the coherent advancement of a position not supported by the vast majority of the sources used, which is at the least a very close cousin to SYN. This technique of soapboxing, creating undue weight or forming an improper synthesis (depending on your view) is unfortunately not uncommon in political battleground articles, most noticeably in conspiracy theory articles and Eastern European topics.
I also sincerely doubt that this constructed impression that evidence of state terrorism is overwhelming was inadvertent. Though in some cases I do not doubt the good intentions/faith of the proponents of such editing, it is still problematic. One can wikilawyer that it does not represent the exact definition of soapboxing, undue weight or original synthesis, but it is clearly counter to the principles behind all three, regardless of whether or not it fits exactly into the strict definitions of those rules. We have to remember not to get caught up in the exact wording and presentation of the rules, remembering that they are imperfect presentations of the underlying principles. If something clearly runs against the foundational principles, it shouldn't matter if it does not fit the exact definition provided. Vassyana (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's little difference between "Background material" and "Supporting material". If reliable sources directly referring to the topic haven't seen fit to present the "Background material" or "Supporting material" then we shouldn't either. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to me that an opinion piece on "state terrorism" would contain extensive background information. While I don't subscribe to that interpretation of SYN ( I'd rather see SYN stick to facts and deductions and not try to also do relevance ), the article is a POV trap, and its not necessary to go into the details of, say, the Bay of Pigs, when we already have articles on the topic. I'd like to make a bold suggestion that the "accusations" article should not be an article at all, but a category. The articles on the alleged incidents would need a reference with a "terrorism" accusation to be included in the category. And by definition this would solve the background information problem. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To reiterate (and in support of Squidfryerchef and Jayjg):
  • An article titled "Allegations of..." needs to review the *allegations*, and not the events that those allegations refer to.
  • Further, because this is a 'hot' issue, the article must be NPOV conform and thus must balance each allegation with a refutation of it. If no refutation (in OR parlance: no secondary reference) can be found, then that allegation can't be used. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"must balance each allegation with a refutation of it. If no refutation (in OR parlance: no secondary reference) can be found, then that allegation can't be used." Where do you find this in WP:NPOV? I see where 'all significant views' of a topic need to be included - we are agreed - but nowhere that says that any topic that doesnt have 'refuting viewpoints' is to be excluded from Wikipedia. That would seem to be an absurd policy interpretation if it were applied.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And what, pray tell, constitutes "all significant views" of an *allegation* itself? Note: not of the author of an allegation, nor of the subject of an allegation, but of an allegation itself, which (ostensibly) is what the article is about. Oh wait! I already said that. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A theoretical question to which theoretical answers may be given but I fail to see what such a discussion might accomplish. Further, I don't believe that you have addressed my very real question about your interpretation of NPOV. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course you "fail to see." Given that the context has been reiterated several times now, the turn of the blind eye is already spectacularly obvious. So, to cut things short, I'll simply point back up. Either you have something you need help with or you don't; either cut to the chase, or find someplace else to spin your top. Of course, it would be nice if you would come up with something more substantial than straw man sleight-of-hand. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Accusations of "straw men" arguments seem unsupported when you are the one who brought the unusual interpretation that an article "must balance each allegation with a refutation of it. If no refutation (in OR parlance: no secondary reference) can be found, then that allegation can't be used."[5] to the discussion. Since "Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three" I was hoping that you would either clarify your position or retract it. Or we could move this discussion to NPOV. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When is a lack of sources poor sourcing, and when is it OR?

As a result of a discussion at Talk:Kender, I'm a little befuddled. This sort of regards cleanup templates, but really it's about when something is OR.

An article (Kender) is full of statements which may well be source-able from various books. There is a disagreement as to whether it is more appropriate to mark the article as needing citations, or to do that and mark it as containing OR. So when is a lack of sources poor sourcing, and when is it OR? SamBC(talk) 15:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OR is the generation of original ideas or synthesis by the person editing the article. If they are merely relating facts from an unspecified third-party source, regardless of the authoritativeness of that source this is simply poor sourcing and the best course of action is to dig up the sources and cite them. Sometimes it can be difficult to tell these cases apart, for example when a user is noncommunicative and refuses to reveal their sources; in these cases, provided no one is able to find an appropriate source after a reasonable period, the information should be removed. Dcoetzee 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, Dcoetzee is correct on all points. "Poor sourcing" isn't an OR matter, its a WP:V issue. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, the original contributor(s) seem to be long gone. I feel it's more appropriate to assume good faith; indicate that sourcing is needed, but not label the article or sections as OR without more specific indication of such. Does that seem reasonable? Another editor is claiming that the article should be tagged OR and the tag not removed until it is proved that there's no OR in the article. I don't think I'm misrepresenting the position; take a look at the talk page in question to be sure. SamBC(talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Under the circumstances (and after seeing the heat on talk), I'd err on the side of caution (and good feelings :-) and take the middle road: i.e. move the problematic stuff to talk with an appropriate comment that its presently unverifiable, but that anyone who can verify it is welcome to put it back. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That would seem reasonable, if only the other editor would actually identify which content is problematic... good compromise though. SamBC(talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not what you stated at Talk:Kender, as you have basically asserted that it was down to me to prove that the article contains OR [6]. I think you are misrepresenting the position. In my view the OR template should remain for two reasons:
  1. to demonstrate that original research is not being presented, an article must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented;
  2. is a reasonable presumption that in universe descriptions of fictional characters are Original Research if they are uncited, because they are not drawn from primary or secondary sources.
I feel there is a lot of confusion about this the nature of the content of this article, and I would be grateful for the intervention of an editor independent of the subject matter with strong view to make their opinion known about the article Kender, even if those opinions are contrary to mine.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You will get your outside opinion at [[7]]. Ursasapien (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with your second claim above. Regarding the Kender article in particular, I think you're underestimating the sheer volume of official descriptive material (sourcebooks etc.) written about everything connected with Dungeons & Dragons. I find it quite plausible that every single in-universe claim in that article may be directly based on official D&D publications — indeed, I'd be more worried about the possibility that some of them may be copied verbatim and therefore copyright violations. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed! However, I don't think we should be as worried about that as Gavin seems to be about OR… SamBC(talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

Following some tortuous discussion Talk:Circumcision, I have realized there is a major problem with the delineation between primary and secondary sources in the policy, which says: "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims."

Now the minimum accepted structure for a standard peer-reviewed medical journal article is: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. Methods and Results clearly fit with the ambit of primary source, but Introduction and Discussion are invariably exactly what we describe as a secondary source. So how do we characterise such articles, which are the mainstay of verifiable citation? The problem is not restricted to medical articles, of course, but they provide the clearest example.

It seems to me a radical redraft of this section of the policy may be required, unless someone has some elegant solution … Johncoz (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been raised before... part of the problem stems from the fact that this policy is based more upon the definitions used in the humanities and library sciences, than those used in the hard sciences such as medicine. About the only thing that was agreed the last time we debated this was that it is very difficult to write a definition of the terms "Primary source" and "Secondary source"... since each accademic disipline in subtle different ways (and some not so subtle). Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
To my mind, a typical scientific paper can't be regarded as either as a whole; each section of it would need to be considered separately. "Background" sections are secondary, descriptions of an experiment/study are primary, results are primary, interpretations of those results are generally harder to categorise. However, that's only speaking for myself. I've always had a problem with requiring a single categorisation for a whole source, as that often fails to make sense. SamBC(talk) 20:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Original calculations

In the article Tsar Bomba has an edit been deleted as "original calculation". Howerer, since the calculation was of an elementary kind, there is no doubt that the result is correct. Does the NOR policy really prohibit any kind of own calculations even if everyone can easily verify that they are correct? Does it further mean that no one may derive e.g. the formula for some geometrical relationship (e.g. the ellipse parameters, volume of geometric bodies, interpolation/regression formula (with reference to the method) of graph of published data etc.) by him/herself without citing a reference? If so, than it would be strange, really strange...:-/--SiriusB (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, those things you've mentioned aren't really "elementary"; they're not the kind of thing that anyone with a basic education can check. Simple addition/subtraction/multiplication/division people can do themselves. However, the example in question is really a numerical analysis requiring nontrivial background knowledge and not readily checkable by the typical editor. There may be other problems as well... SamBC(talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not fully agree. Take the very first example (Tsar Bomba), where some "complex calculations" have been deleted with reference to this very discussion. These "complex calculations" consist of some elementary operations (in at least one case just multiplications!) that everyone who owns a calculator can reproduce within a few seconds (and students are usually expected to do this just by brain). And if the input values like the solar constant, TNT equivalent or the duration of the energy release are just linked with related Wikipedia articles then the "original research" would be reduced to these basic calculations. I cannot see why it should be illegal just to assume that, analogously, 1+1=2 without proving by citing the literature. And do you really believe that the equations in Articles like Volume or Kepler's laws of planetary motion are entirely taken from the literature, without any transformation or substitution done by WP authors? As long as these are checkable by applying standard mathmatics, I do not see any problem.
Furthermore, scientific literature has IMHO the same problem as the more complicated examples above since many peer-reviewed journal articles cannot be completely understood by readers with only basic education but require advanced specific knowledge. Even worse, most peoble (especially those who do not work in a university or scientific institute) do not have easy access to those sources since they require a subscription. The main difference between "original research" and curve fitting is IMHO that the former is probably connected with personal interpretation of the author while the latter is a more or less straightforward application of well-proven methods (however, I agree that the author must state which methods he actually used).
The main reason for my question is that I have, in my early Wikipedia days, contributed some content like this which is created e.g. by numerical integration while the underlying source data are taken from the literature. You may now argue that these contributions now have to be speedy-deleted, but is that really what the nro-policy aims at (in the case given above I do not know any free content that might be used as a replacement)?--SiriusB (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are correct in the distinction you make between "original research" and "curve fitting". I also believe you correct that the assumptions need to be specified/cited, rather than a pure simple formula run. Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Original images

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Radical_Gun_Nuttery.21_website. While this policy is about original research, unreliable sourcing in images is a problem. This policy is the only source of information about restrictions or permissibility of original images. The text, [emphasis in original] "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy", was added to policy to clarify the permissibility due to nonsense like this. I would suggest that a single sentence follow that statement:

I believe this would suffice to prevent the abuse of WP:OI to promote images based on unreliable sources, while clearly distinguishing the OR exception (the nature of this policy) from editorial decisions about the reliability of source material. Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To me the issue with images comes down to this: Images should illustrate something stated in the text of the article. If the text that the image is illustrating is not OR, then the image based upon that text is not OR either (even if the image is an original creation). Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that. However, editors are using WP:OI as a defense stating that it's OK to use unreliable sources and that OI encourages that. The link above is not at all an isolated incident of using the section in such a way. Considering the common misuse of the section, I felt we should clarify the point I raised above. Vassyana (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I was not clear... I agree completely on your proposed addition. I am actually thinking that we need to re-think the wording on the entire section. Make it clear that images and the text they illustrate are directly related. While user created images are allowed, they must illustrate something stated in the text... and that text must not be OR or based upon unreliable sources. An image that illustrates text that is deemed Original Research is considered Original Research by association... and an image illustrating text that is based upon unreliable sources is considered unreliable by association. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I should have known we were on the same wavelength. :) How would you express that relation for things like user-taken photos of celebrities and landmarks? Vassyana (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I too am on this wavelength, a word of caution about cyclic proofs: The completely unencyclopedic "she has brown hair" was "substantiated" by a -- also wonderfully photoshopped -- accompanying image. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)ps: since this example is from an article on a porn-star, I should add that it was the hair on her head that was being being referred to :-)
I agree, but I think this should not be phrased as an "exception to an exception", which is too confusing. None of this, either "images themselves are usually good", or "images based on unreliable information are bad", is an exception anyway; this is all based on fundamental principles of verifiability. We can state this in a positive way, such as:
"An editor-produced photograph or drawing is not original research if (1) it has been was published in a reliable source, or (2) the information depicted in the image is verifiable and could be appropriately included in the article in text form. Any modifications to the contents of an image that have been introduced by the editor, such as "Photoshopping", should be disclosed either in the caption or on the Image page."
COGDEN 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Images (including photographs) are primary sources, and as such should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, except for a statement about that particular image itself. Ideally, an image should be used as a source at all ... but instead should be used as an illustration of statements that are cited to reliable sources. ... you know, I think I will bounce that thought off of the folks at WP:V and WP:RS and see if a statement like that should be included on those pages. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, images should not be used as sources. Own interpretation == OR. This is what I think the most image OR comes from, i.e. the editors are not using images to demonstrate what text already says, but basing text on images. The issue of using images to further a point-of-view is not an OR matter; in the Radical Gun Nuttery! affair, the image is using "published" data that is (however whacky or unreliable) being faithfully reproduced, and hence not OR. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What should happen when WP:SYN contradicts WP:NPOV?

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A claim arises that the Cuban govenment is directly involved in smuggling cocaine into the United States. Pulitzer award-winning journalist Jow Blow (a notable source) investigates, and publishes a story apparently confirming the claim and suppying specific details: the drugs are carried on Cuban submarines and transferred to small boats just off the Florida coast. Wikipedians are in general agreement that this story is notable enough to deserve its own article, "Allegations of Cuban involvement in Cocaine Smuggling".

However, there is a problem: Cuba has no submarines. At least, that's what Admiral Popeye (USN) is saying: and he's a notable and (normally) reliable source. But, even though he said this in response to a claim that Cuba does have submarines, he was NOT specifically referring to Blow's claim that Cuban submarines were used for drug smuggling.

This contradiction is all over the Internet: however, if there are any reliable sources pointing this out, nobody can find them among the 98,172 forum and blog postings regarding this issue. And fans of Blow (or enemies of Cuba) won't allow anyone to point out the lack-of-submarines problem without a valid reference that directly ties in to the article's subject, the alleged drug-smuggling (if this situation strains credibility, imagine a less high-profile variant: John Smith is accused of smuggling marijuana in his truck, but Smith has no truck...).

So, does Wikipedia only present one side of this controversy, thereby violating NPOV? --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is defined by Wikipedia as "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Hence, if there is a viewpoint that hasn't been published by a reliable source, then it should not be represented. Hence there is no WP:NPOV problem - in fact, WP:NOR is helping to prevent an WP:NPOV problem.
But realistically, if the story is indeed notable enough to deserve its own article, then there will be reliable secondary sources that comment on Blow's allegation. If the lack-of-submarines issue is truly significant, you can pretty much guarantee that at least one source will mention it. So if such a situation were to arise, it would probably indicate that either a) the story fails notability, or b) there isn't a verifiable controversy (expressed in reliable sources) about the issue that needs to be represented. Jakew (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK, but in this case I'm assuming that Popeye's claim has been published in a reliable source. So, it could be argued that his claim regarding the existence of Cuban submarines qualifies as "a significant view that has been published by reliable sources". The problem arises with the interpretaion of the phrase "significant view" (significant to what, and who decides?). Would I be correct in assuming that if there was a second Wikipedia article entitled "Controversy regarding the Existence of Cuban Submarines", a "See also" link to that page would be admissible? This seems to be a common pattern, and I haven't yet seen anyone comment that the linked page doesn't mention the subject of the previous one (though I suppose someone could raise that objection...). --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What many wikipedians who edit the non-scientific wiki articles get wrong is that so-called "reliable sources" can write nonsense (e.g. the Wall Street Journal editorials on Global Warming are mostly garbage and not acceptable for the wiki global warming page). The best thing to do is to demand peer reviewed sources to back up information. This is not always posible, so the next best thing is to see if the claims in the source are verifiable. Does the published story cite references, does it cite witnesses, does it say that the author him/herself witnessed it him/herself? Count Iblis (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose another related issue is this: supposing a Blow-supporter (blowhard?) admits on the article talkpage that he fully accepts both the notability AND the factual accuracy of Popeye's account (i.e. he fully accepts that Cuba does indeed have no submarines): so there's really little room for doubt that his refusal to admit Popeye's testimony is POV-pushing (after all, we do have WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE, and even WP:TE might be applicable). In this case, the "nonsense" would appear to be Blow's report itself, which is probably the main reference for the article! --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, Robert. The standard for Wikipedia, after all, is verifiability, not truth. As such, it makes little difference whether the editor in question thinks that Popeye's account is correct. Inclusion of Popeye would constitute synthesis of sources to advance a position about the subject that hasn't been made in reliable sources, and that needs to be avoided. We shouldn't even try to determine whether OR is correct; we should just report on what reliable sources say.
Consider the following (slightly silly) hypothetical scenario. Suppose we did include Popeye's quote in order to contest Blow's claim. Another journalist, Moe, reads Wikipedia's coverage, and decides to interview Popeye. Popeye says "oh no, my words were taken way out of context. What I actually said was that our intelligence services determined that Cuba had no submarines as of the late 1980s. Wikipedia got it wrong." Now we're in a tricky situation, because instead of being a neutral observer, Wikipedia has actually entered the debate. We have no option but to include self-referential material. Jakew (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
To include Admiral Popeye's comment that Cuba does not have any submarines, we need to cite a reliable source that reports that Popeye says this. However, if there is such a source, I see no problem with including the fact that Popeye said it in the article on Cuban drug smuggling. More to the point, there are likely to be numerous other reliable sources that would back up the fact that Cuba has no submarines (such as Janes "Fighting Ships" which lists all ships in every Navy). Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If the subject of the article were "Cuban naval forces", I would entirely agree with you. However, unless the Popeye source (or Janes) makes these comments in the same context, I think it would constitute synthesis of sources to advance a position (namely, that Blow is incorrect). Consider what WP:SYN says:
  • This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.
Bearing this in mind, I think that we would need a source that specifically comments on the non-existence of Cuban submarines in the context of drug smuggling. Jakew (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's toss in another curveball (this is rather fun, isn't it?): Jow Blow mentioned a specific class of submarine that was based in Cuba during the Cold War (on loan from the then Soviet Union). Editor Blowhard (the pro-Blow editor) has fleshed this out with various technical details of these subs (which, unsurprisingly, imply that they could have been used for drug-smuggling). In doing so, he has used naval sources which make no mention of drug-smuggling (or even, in some cases, the loan of these subs to Cuba). He considers this to be "background information": but the pro-Popeye editor (OliveOyl?) objects, accusing Blowhard of a WP:SYN violation. Is she correct? Should Blowhard and OliveOyl then haggle over whether discussion of these submarines is sufficiently "on-topic", and does OliveOyl have the right to demand removal of the info about these subs if Blowhard does not agree to relax his restrictive interpretation of what is "on-topic"? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
From your description, I'd say that OliveOyl is indeed correct. The article should simply reflect what reliable sources have said about the subject, not try to build the case for either viewpoint using unrelated material. Jakew (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a statement along the lines of "The allegation that Cuba is using submarines to smuggle drugs is false, because Cuba has no submarines." would need a source that states this. ... but I disagree with the contention that you can not include the simple blunt statement: "Cuba has no submarines." The policy states: Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. In this case there is no conclusion or position being advanced. All that is being stated is a blunt fact. I think you are being overly strict in your application of the policy. One has to look at the intent of the Policy as well as its exact wording. And if you wish to use an overly strict interpretation of the policy, then I would say that we are dealing with a situation where IAR is eminently applicable. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall seeing something like that on one of these policy pages: "Let the facts speak for themselves" (i.e. if the editor doesn't embellish them, that's OK). However, I can't find it now. A change of policy, or have I just not looked in the right place? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you were looking for WP:PEACOCKTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's another policy that could cause difficulties here: WP:UNDUE. It's quite possible that Blow's claims are considered to be so unlikely (perhaps because of the lack-of-submarines problem) that they represent a rather fringe viewpoint: but it's also quite likely that this fringe status is actually the reason why notable and reliable sources haven't bothered to address it specifically. I can think of many scenarios which are so far-out that no specific refutation is likely to be available. How should these be placed in perspective (i.e. given due weight) if WP:SYN is preventing a tailored response? --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point. Looking at this from another point of view, if Blow's claims are so fringe that few secondary sources have even discussed them in any detail, then maybe Wikipedia shouldn't do so either. Maybe we haven't got sufficient secondary sources to justify having an article in the first place? Jakew (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of IAR, I'd say create a source. If it's this obvious, drop an email to a couple more accessible journalists pointing out the contradiction. It's probably not something you'd want to admit on-wiki, but realistically I think it's the best alternative. But I really don't see anything wrong with tipping off a journalist. Some people might see it as an attempt to skirt the rules, but quite frankly, the person you tip off is still the one making a call on the facts of the matter.

You might have more of a problem with a more obscure topic. Guettarda (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blueboar, if this hypothetical article were to include the statement that "Cuba has no submarines" immediately after discussing Blow's claim, then the net effect would be to very strongly imply that Blow is incorrect. To my mind, that's advancing the editor's position, and I don't think that the intent of the policy is to say that OR is permitted as long as it isn't explicit. I can't see that it matters whether the argument is made explicitly or not; the point is that we should report on viewpoints expressed in reliable sources, rather than try to prove or disprove them ourselves.
Consider the "Chicago Manual of Style" example given in the policy. What we're discussing here is like saying: "Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references. The Chicago Manual of Style requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them." Sure, it doesn't explicitly make a link between Jones and the CMoS, but there is a strong implication there, and I think that the intent (as the policy basically states) is that editors should instead cite a reliable source making that specific analysis. Jakew (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda's right. If an editor thinks unpublished "evidence" like this needs to be aired, the editor needs to take it to a reporter or find a publisher, but not to bring heretofore unpublished original research to wikipedia. It's worth asking if there is undue weight, for example could the story about the Cuban drug running be considered a WP:FRINGE issue? But editors can't "balance" the scale of a fringe topic with original research, there are much better ways to handle it. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Indeed. Irrespective of how authoritative a source is, the topic is fringe until acknowledged (either positively or negatively) by multiple other reliable sources. As such -- and coinciding with the net result of Guettarda's suggestion -- there would need to be sources that discuss Blow's journalism in light of Popeye's remarks. Until that happens, WP editors shouldn't be adding two and two together.
  2. OR (to include SYN) never contradicts NPOV. NPOV is established by providing both 'A' and a refutation of 'A'. The two must naturally be speaking of the same subject. When they are not speaking of the same thing, then the two sources are not comparable, and can't be used to balance each other. In this context, OR (to include SYN) occurs when an editor takes an only orthogonally-related source to refute 'A'. For example, taking Popeye's statement (which only notes Cuba's lack of submarines, but does not mention Blow or Cuban cocaine smuggling) as a refutation of Blow.
    To understand the distinction, imagine that the subject was Cuba's submarine fleet: Blow asserts it exists (and secondarily, that it is used it to smuggle cocaine). Popeye says it doesn't exist. Now the two are on the same wavelength, and can be used to establish NPOV. Get it?
-- Fullstop (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't actually that simple. From time to time I've come across things that I know are wrong, but that fairly reflect the sources provided. Back in the old days it was easy - we weren't too particular about sources. But as the quality improved, and as articles became more contentious, sourcing became a bigger issue.
Faced with the scenario that Robert outlined, it's entirely likely that I would have added the Popeye ref without giving much thought to the issue of SYNTH...after all, if you know the statement is wrong, and you can source it, common sense would dictate that you document the problem. Chances are, no one would ever notice until a Blow supporter (who was policy-savvy enough) came along and complained.
The issue here is that this isn't really what SYNTH and NOR were meant to protect against. The issue here is one of deriving novel conclusions. We should not do our own analysis, we should not draw new conclusions. Drawing a line between Blow's book and Popeye's prior statement falls somewhere in the middle continuum of drawing connections. If it were common knowledge that the Cuban navy lacked submarines, then pointing out the obvious error, while technically problematic, is balanced by common sense. One reliable source saying so...a little more problematic. A reliable source which lists all the vessels in the Cuban navy (from which one could conclude that the Cuban navy lacks submarines) - now we're getting into the type of stuff that these policies are meant to combat. The best way to avoid making the wrong call is to create a source. Guettarda (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Another factor to consider is that what seemed to be an obvious error may later turn out to be correct, but we didn't have enough information at the time to realise. Similarly, what seemed to be obviously correct may later turn out to be incorrect. True, reliable sources can and do make mistakes, but we're not infallible either. Jakew (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I recognize the dilemma, but the solution is simple even if the issue isn't:
As long as no one else has critically responded to Blow's book (at which point Popeye's comment would presumably have been noted), then Blow's book remains non-notable per Wikipedia:NOTABLE#General notability guidelines.
Inversely, once Blow's book has become notable there will no longer be a dilemma because someone else will have said something about Popeye.
But that regulation aside, when the dimwits "inclusionists" insist that Blow's hypothesis deserves an article on WP, and your perfectly-justified AfD has failed (i.e. IAR is in effect), you have no choice but to apply IAR as well. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(Because lack of recognition equals 'fringe', I would have instinctively said 'fringe' instead of 'non-notable'. Unfortunately, wp:fringe is now worthless)
I agree that in this example, the claim's notability is the key to judging the dispute. But SYNTH should never be sacrificed to provide balance which is otherwise missing. I love wikipedia, but we all know that some of our fellow editors tend to get a bit full of themselves sometimes. In this case given to us, we have a Pulitzer prize winning journalist--and even he couldn't get his conclusions published without editorial review. Has a self-published reporter ever been awarded a Pulitzer for his report? I highly doubt it. There's a reason we don't allow unpublished or self-published claims in wikipedia, from anybody practically speaking, and it's not to leave more room for some wikipedian's claims instead.
Returning again to this example. We have a ref written by a pulitzer prize winner making Claim A, and several refs quoting Adm. Popeye making Claim B. Claim B perhaps contradicts Claim A, or so thinks a wikipedian and some bloggers. Everybody else is asleep on this big story but bloggers. Not even the pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter has the smarts to figure out the Adm's Claim B out there undermines his entire report. But we do have a wikipedian who's thinking, "If any human being alive has the stuff it takes to straighten this out and expose such a fantastic hoax, it's gonna be me!" Well, I think they need to also be thinking hard on this too: "but the encyclopedia is not the place for me to be do it in".
New conspiracy theories are literally born every day from ambiguous or seemingly contradictory juxtapositions just like what's given in this example. What needs to happen next is a reporter's task, not an encyclopedian's task. It's a reporters job to look further, because many conclusions are possible other than the one hypothetical wikipedian has synthesized. The only rationale proposed for including Popeye in the article about Cuban drug running is an assumption that Popeye's claim should jive with the Pulitzer prize winning reporter's, but that's not necessarily true at all. And if nobody knowledgeable who is watching the story thinks the two claims should jive, then it's no surprise at all they're not addressing the "controversy". If, for example, Admiral Popeye is giving a report on Cuban military subs does that mean he is also providing assurance Cuba has no drug trafficking subs? Conversely, would Popeye's report on the US naval fleet inventory also include the inventory of air and marine craft used in US drug enforcement? If not, would that mean there is a "controversy" over the discrepancy? Spend 5 minutes at 911 truth and know most of it is built from SYNTH drawn from disparate facts not all that much different than those posed in the hypothetical posed here.Professor marginalia (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, its precisely because we are not authorities (or -- if the ego says otherwise -- pretend that we are not) that we should abstain from leaping to conclusions. Either way you slice it, publishing novel conclusions on WP would make WP a source of never-before-published information. And that is what OR policy is really there to protect against. We can't undermine it. Ever. Or all the work honest people have put in will be worthless. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis issue at Doctor Fate

In Talk: Doctor Fate, I am encountering some difficulty with a user who seems to be synthesizing information regarding a comparison between Doctor Fate and Doctor Strange, and pointing to a citation that doesn't make the specific comparison.
The edit in question[8] states:

"For this purpose, Fate formed his own little sub-group within the League. It is a disguised version of the Marvel Comics group The Defenders, with Fate, Aquaman, and Grundy counterparts to its founders, Doctor Strange, the Sub-Mariner and the Hulk.[1] Only after this episode does it seem that Fate maintains any continual relationship with fellow superheroes (miscommunication being the reason for the struggles between him and the League in "Terror"), including joining the expanded League in Unlimited."

The citation being utilized to defend the comparison between Fate and Strange is here. No mention whatsoever is made comparing the two specifically. Furthermore, this user is stating:

"The three original Defenders were Dr. Strange (a sorcerer, as is Fate), Namor the Sub-Mariner (a fish-man from Atlantis, as is Aquaman) and the Hulk. Just because Timm did not expressly state which Marvel characters Aquaman and Fate were analogous to (or did not have that part of his statement quoted) does not mean that the point is not right there, period. I am not reading something into Timm's statement that might not be there, that might not be his intent. To deny that fact from representation in the encyclopedia because Timm did not spell out every last detail is incredibly dense (or evidence of a hidden agenda). If you still don't see it, then for God's sake be reasonable: just take my word for it that the citation does support the passage" [9]

and

Their is no "intuitive leap" here. The fact that Bruce Timm did not say (or get quoted as saying) every single detail out loud does not mean that it is not there, as I explained. To not fill in the gap (only one, which is nothing but a technicality) for the comics-uninitiated is to fail in our mandate to be informative to the users."[10]

I am not really interested in fighting with this pretty abrasive person over this, and am about an inch away from simply reporting him to AN/I, but I wanted to make sure that I am interpreting our synthesis guideline of our NOR policy correctly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... the source clearly indicates that the DC grouping (does it have a name?) is a deliberate homage to Marvel's "Defenders", and I agree that the analogy between characters is obvious if you know both sets of comic book heros... but you are correct that the source does not actually state a direct comparison between the individual characters in each group. I would call this "borderline", but falling on the OR side of the line. I would be very surprised if there wasn't another source out there that makes the comparison more explicitly. I think this is a case where the statement is probably factual, but simply needs to be better sourced. You might find the editor more willing to cooperate if you approach it from that angle. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have suggested such on two prior occasions, but the editor appears to be of the opinion that we are allowed to make that connection, and that other sourcing isn't necessary. I am not opposed to the inclusion of the info, but think it needs better sourcing. I haven't found an sources that connect Doctor Strange to Doctor Fate (outside of Amalgam comics meldings, which were pretty much removed from most comics late last year as being non-notable). Outside of this interview with the later Steve Gerber (tasked with re-creating/re-envisioning Doctor Fate for DC's Crisis series):
"My original conception was simply to treat the character as DC’s Doctor Strange, the occult superhero, engaged in bizarre battles, against esoteric villains, in weird settings that other comics didn’t explore.
That might have been okay in 1979, but given the character’s contorted history -- to say nothing of the evolution of comics themselves since then -- it was nowhere near drastic enough a change. The time had come for a major break with the past.
So I’m adapting some elements from what I originally wanted to do, but I’m coming at it from an entirely new angle. The new Doctor Fate will be an occult superhero, uh, probably. Eventually. But he’s not yet. He’s no longer a sorcerous adept; he’s someone who’s encountering sorcery for the first time, and who frankly doesn’t believe in it. Nor is he interested in it; it’s a complication in his life, and his life is complicated enough as it is.
We’ll actually get to see a character become a sorcerer, rather than simply appearing full-blown as a master of the mystic arts."
Not really on point, and the only thing that comes as close to discussing the relationship/comparison of the two is a meditation site, found here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the line between synthesis and pointing out the obvious?

That is, if someone reads several things that are already in Wikipedia and are not controversial, and notices a connection between them that is obvious when pointed out, is it "synthesis" to point it out?

I noticed such a connection and added a sentence or two to each to the articles Sir Harold and the Gnome King and L. Ron Hubbard. (The preceding links are to the old versions that include my additions.) Gwernol, who's an admin, undid my additions as OR. I see his point in terms of the policy as I understand it, but as far as I can see (and I freely admit that I'm no Wikipediologist), this kind of borderline case has not been addressed. I originally wrote up my question in Talk:Sir Harold and the Gnome King, but this seems the appropriate place to ask, so I'm moving the question here:

Reading about the Harold Shea series, I was struck by a connection that I have not seen remarked on anywhere [emphasis added]:

  1. Harold_Shea#The_original_series: ... L. Ron Hubbard's misuse of their hero in his novella The Case of the Friendly Corpse (1941). (De Camp would finally address the latter issue in "Sir Harold and the Gnome King".)
  2. Harold_Shea#The_second_series: The impulse for the continuation [i.e., creating a second series] appears to have been de Camp's desire to tie up the main loose end from the original series, in which Walter Bayard had been left stranded in the world of Irish myth, and to resolve the unaddressed complication introduced by Hubbard. Both of these goals were accomplished in "Sir Harold and the Gnome King" (1990).
  3. Sir_Harold_and_the_Gnome_King (introduction): [One of the issues that de Camp addressed in the story] was a long-standing plot complication introduced by L. Ron Hubbard's "borrowing" of Shea for use in his novella The Case of the Friendly Corpse (1941), previously ignored by de Camp and Pratt.
  4. Sir_Harold_and_the_Gnome_King#Plot_summary: The Oz he [Shea] encounters is greatly changed from the land of which Baum had written, the enchantment that had kept its inhabitants ageless having been broken through a misuse of magic by a dabbler in spells named Dranol Drabbo some years prior.

I think the character of Dranol Drabbo is intended as a Tuckerization of L. Ron Hubbard. (Although I read the story, it was years ago, and all of my information is based on the Wikipedia articles cited.) My reasons:

  1. The names are similar: "Dranol" is an anagram of "Ronald", Hubbard's middle name, and "Drabbo" spelled backwards is "Obbard", very close to "Hubbard" (but maybe -- this is a guess -- different enough to avoid a libel suit).
  2. The actions are parallel:
    • In the real world, Hubbard used the Shea character improperly. In "Sir Harold and the Gnome King", Dranol Drabbo used magic improperly.
    • Hubbard's story created complications in the Harold Shea universe. Drabbo's dabbling destroyed the immortality spell in the Oz universe.

When I added this idea to the article, User:Gwernol removed it as original research. I can see his point, but this seems to me to be a pretty open-and-shut case.

Thnidu (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwern was being polite in that she didn't call it "obvious OR." :-) The difference between "obvious" and "OR" lies in the ability to count: 1+1 is obviously 2, and thats where "obvious" ends (as far as WP is concerned).
The only thing that would be "apparent" and "obvious" about the name 'L. Ron Hubbard' would be if the name were written 'L. Ron Hubbard'.
It is also not "obvious" to draw connections between disparate subjects. You will need to find a source to do that for you. In this case, the OR is even reinforced by the use analytical verbiage, e.g. "L. Ron Hubbard's misuse of their hero..."a. Do you have a reliable source to substantiate reuse, leave alone misuse? Do you have a reliable source that says "Dranol Drabbo" is none other than L. Ron Hubbard?b If not, it doesn't belong in the 'pedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
-- Fullstop (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"Misuse" was not my word. I was quoting the existing plot summary, as I said in #4 above.
But you have made the difference clear: any resemblance beyond exact identity (in the mathematical sense) or equality is not considered to be "obvious" under WP rules, and treating is as such is barred as original research.
And on rereading the policy article I see the relevant sentence: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, ... then the editor is engaged in original research." Thank you. But it seems to me that the policy would be clearer if it included something like your The difference between "obvious" and "OR" lies in the ability to count: 1+1 is obviously 2, and thats where "obvious" ends (as far as WP is concerned) (although not in just those words).
-- Thnidu (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You could hypothetically argue that anything other than a direct quote from a reliable source is original synthesis, so a little bit of common sense will always apply. Looking at the specific case, I agree that the statement is beyond the patently obvious. If it's different enough to avoid libel, it's not obvious enough not to be original research.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Inuit

Could someone who knows more than I do, settle a dispute on the Inuit page. There is a comparison to abandoning the elderly and burning a town library. The user seems to have a history of Original research and policy violation. Cheers.--THobern 05:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this OR?

I emailed the host of a podcast (for which article I am the creator and primary author) as a fan of the podcast, and the host emailed back that the podcast had been cancelled. There has been no official announcement from the sponsoring network. Can I include the information in the article? I'm thinking no but I wanted additional opinions. Otto4711 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you call it OR or unverifiable material, it shouldn't be included in the article, because there's no way for the reader to verify your private communication. Jakew (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Otto: why don't you simply ask the host to post a notification of the cancellation on the website? -- Fullstop (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"Whether you call it OR or unverifiable material, it shouldn't be included in the article, because there's no way for the reader to verify your private communication."
It strikes me that this is, while a seemingly accurate statement of policy, slightly dubious as an explanation. If I add a footnote to an appallingly hard-to-find book (say, a 16th Century text found only in the private collection of a book-collector friend), then it would, to all extents and purposes be unverifiable to the general reader.
However, it would presumably NOT be OR, because it is theoretically verifiable, if someone else were to uncover a copy; visit the same collection. (Assuming I'm right on that front!)
Likewise, comments made by somebody in personal communication are theoretically verifiable, since anyone else can also e-mail/talk to them.
It would appear that asking somebody a question and then using their answer here is OR. Asking the same question, publishing it on one's website and then using it here generally is fine, as it is then "out there" and verifiable. Doesn't make it any less accurate when it is said privately; doesn't make it any more accurate to be published as a "proper" interview.
Just some (probably flawed!) observations. :o) ntnon (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a longstanding rule that you cannot go out and interview someone and cite that as a source. It has to be published somewhere, and not on your personal website. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal websites are excluded..? I didn't know that, thanks. :o) Seems like that would create a number of situations where important information would go unrecorded or noted, simply because a discussion/interview hasn't been written down somewhere semi-official. I assume this is to keep people "safe" from misquotation, although arguably many officially published interviews are riddled with misquotes - but would be cite-able. I realise it's to protect the interviewee, but it seems to work counter to potential biases if, for example, a subject cannot ask (except perhaps personally, on a talk page) that something be corrected rather than removed.
For future reference, therefore, roughly how many degrees of separation (or degrees of officialdom) must there be between an interviewer and the publication/website in which an interview appears? And does this preclude the citation of interviews with genre authors in self-published periodicals, even by someone other than the self-publisher..? ntnon (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll address these points one by one. There's two issues with personal websites. One of them is they usually are not considered acceptable sources. The only exceptions are if it's a website written by an expert on the topic _and_ it's not used to source anything contentious, or if the article is about the person who's website it is _and_ you're reasonably sure it's not an impostor's website, or if you're only using it as an external link not to back up facts.
The other issue is that you don't cite your own work. Even if you had the interview published, you would ask on the talk page for another editor to do the cite. As far as not doing your own interviews, that's a pretty undisputable part of the "no original research" policy. We work with previously published material; we don't originate our own interviews, science experiments, literary criticism, etc. It's not just to protect the interviewee, original reporting is not the job of an encyclopedia.
The final point is there's no set number of degrees of separation required. There is a pecking order of sources however, where "secondary sources" ( those published by an institution with an editorial board ) take preference over official "primary sources" ( corporate websites, government documents ), which are preferred over self-published primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I was clear on all that already, but my major difficulty is what I see as a discrepancy and semi-contradiction between two positions: un-sourced FACTS, and then attempting to source them, through conversations with whomever they refer. i.e. If I were to talk with Notable Person A (about whom there is a page), and they were to tell me what their first published work was, where they studied and with which notable individuals they attended school, those would seem fairly incontrovertible, and worth of encyclopedic addition. That they may not have been asked these questions by interviewers in the past should surely not imply that the information is not notable. And, if the Person in question were then to pass on without telling anybody else... I'm just trying to find an acceptable median between OR, self-citing and "needs a footnote." Previously (about a year ago), I've noticed an individual asking on their talk page that something be added, and then somebody else deciding that the talk page is not a good enough source/unfootnotable, and thus the information is removed.
There are two individuals of noteworthiness and importance, who have nonetheless not given interviews to forums other than incredibly niche fannish publications. Therefore, the questions they were asked revolve around one, tiny aspect of their professional lives, and are not particularly helpful to writing anything about them on Wikipedia. I was hoping to be able to interview them... but now I don't see what the best way forward would be.
(Also, I thought it was broadly acceptable to cite your own work, just so long as it's not controversial research or biased - and aside from leading questions, I don't see how an interview could be dubious in such a way. Other than misquotation, which is not solely a hazard of self-citation.) ntnon (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

original research link?

I was wondering if there was some acceptable way to put a link in this page that refers to a way to publish original content. Perhaps a person wandered to this page because they wanted to publish original research on wikipedia, and with no alternate outlet, they decide to vandalize a wikipedia page anyways.
People in the IRC were opposed to the idea of directly linking to a site that publishes original content, so perhaps a link to a wikipedia page that gives options. AKA breadcrumbs
I wonder if it could link to the Publishing page?
-kwifler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.176.33 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly Question

I assume that as long as original research is, in fact, published in a journal then it is okay to reference it, correct? I'm writing a case study for publication in a scientific journal and it's possible that some of the information it contains may be useful in a relevant Wiki section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NOR prohibits research that's original to WP. Discussion of original research published in reliable sources is, in general, encouraged. Please see WP:COS. Jakew (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The words "original research" are used in a different sense in Wikipedia and the rest of the world (most research is expected to be novel). This is a confusing point. Please read Wikipedia:No original research to learn about the specific definition used in our policies. Dcoetzee 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually our definition is not so unusual. Lots of academic journals, on their masthead, say they publish original research. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, and most encyclopedias do not publish original research. The sources we cite publish original research; we don't generate any of it on our own. Once something's published, yes you may use it in a Wikipedia article as long as it's relevant. But there is also a conflict-of-interest rule about citing yourself. If you wrote the journal article and you want to cite it, you should leave a request on the article's talk page and let the other editors decide if and how to cite it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There are journals of various quality. In general we accept as potentially reliable only peer-reviewed journals or journals with an equivalent degree of editorial control, but even so, they cover the complete range of quality and reliability. The ultimate reliability and acceptance of a particular article in a journal is determined by the scientific community and measured roughly by the extent to which it is cited favorably. A preliminary indication is of course the reputation of the journal as a whole. The world of sources is not divided into Reliable and non-reliable, but is a continuum for almost all sorts of material. Material in low quality journal articles is frequently successfully challenged when it is contradicted by better material.DGG (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

an informal request for comment

Gospel Harmony seems to me to violate NOR - it proposes to harmonize the chronology of Jesus' life from the four Gospels. Most historians and I think many theologians make a distinction between the three so-called syncretic Gospels and John; hence, the view that all four express a unified chronology is a point of view. The question is, whose? I cannot tell from the article Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Some of the specific ordering of events here involve some guesswork." comment kinda gives it away as OR. I was expecting an article about Gospel music with that title anyway. The article may also be a WP:POVFORK of Chronology of Jesus, a much better constructed article. I would recommend merging or deletion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

would you mind putting you rcomment on the talk page of the article in question? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The article frankly says "Gospel Harmony describes attempts to merge or harmonize the Christian canonical gospels into a single gospel account" and there are indeed such attempts--the article in fact refers to the standard classical account from the 2nd century. . But some explanation is needed that modern harmonizations are usually done from the three synoptic (that's the right word, not syncretic) gospels. DGG (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

reword in order to assume good faith

I would propose to reword "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" into "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". The reason is that we need to assume good faith. Also, there is no way to show that a synthesis has been done with the purpose to advance a position. We can however say that it advances a position (or not). This is prompted by a recent discussion on the cold fusion article. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Action figures

I just want to be clear: action figures are a primary source because they're an artistic work. So you can't say that an action figure about lord of the rings is a secondary source about lord of the rings. I know this may seem like something stupid to say, but lately I've been encountering a lot of people who are either prone to mistakes or prone to just making things up.

I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify this point, because I'd like to add this to the policy for clarity's sake. Randomran (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is probably the policy you're looking for, not WP:NOR. Works of art are rarely good sources for facts (unless the article is about the work of art itself), though scholarly interpretation of art is sometimes a useful source when there are no other records (q.v. Beowulf). In that case, the interpretation must be citable and verifiable, not original research or original synthesis.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Although WP:PSTS logically belongs in WP:V, it is part of this policy (as an aside, could/should we move it to a separate page and transclude it from both NOR and V?), so I can understand why Randomran raises this point here. Having said that, "artistic and fictional works" are already included as examples of primary sources, so I'm not sure that we really need to explicitly list action figures. Jakew (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputes between different parties

If a living person person is the subject of a controversy, e.g. several people in a notable position (e.g. employees) accusing the subject of the article (e.g. their employer) of something, and these accusations are made in an interview, would those interviews be suitable as sources for a section discussing the controversy, or would a "secondary source" discussing the dispute be required? I'm asking because NOR has been used as a rationale for entirely removing a section about the controversies revolving around the person of Pat Lee, even though those controversies have been addressed in interviews with several of his former employees. So generally, my question is: If an article were to include a dispute between several parties, and all statements are only available in the form of interviews (e.g. "party A claimed X", "party B claimed Y" etc.), and the section was to be entirely descriptive, without trying to draw any conclusions, would that be a violation of NOR as the editor claims?--132.252.185.42 (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In part it would depend on who conducted the interviews. If the interviewer was a Wikipedia editor, then the information would indeed be Original Research, and not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the interviews were conducted by an independant source (ie not a Wikipedia Editor) then the information would not be OR (as it does not originate with Wikipedia). That said, the information would have to be published - as that would impact on their verifiability and reliability. Finally, when dealing with BLPs, it is always better to err on the side of caution. Blueboar (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There are various levels of interviews. A published source in which a sympathetic interviewer lets the subject simply give his account is sometimes just as suspect as if the subject had written it himself. COmmon sense has to be sued for the source and nature of the statement. The reputation ofthe interviewer and of the place it is published in are relevant considerations.DGG (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But OR may be all we have!

The fun is going out of wikipedia. It's getting silly. We are coming to the stage where there is no point in contributing to it. In the past few months no less than half-a-dozen so-called editors have taken out my contributions on the grounds of OR (Original Reasearch). Apparently you cannot put forward your own interpretation on things unless it is backed-up by a third-party — which in many cases can be non-existent.

The point is that an encyclopedia is supposed to inform people of facts and, I believe, make conclusions based on those facts. For me, what makes a subject interesting is not just how it happened, but the motives and reasons behind it all. A friend and I once saw a film which included a lot of action and drama, but afterwards our main conversation was not what the characters did but why they did it and how it affected their relationship with one another. To say that this happened and that happened is not enough: it should also be about why it happened and how it affected events.

There have been times when I have been unable to find a third party review, either in books or the Internet to back up my analysis, but I went ahead and put it on wikipedia anyway. I included references to the source material and examples to back up my claims and these have been accepted. If they are done in good faith and on good grounds then I do not see why they cannot be kept.

If analysis made by a wiki contributor is backed up by examples from the source material then I do not see why they cannot be included. It would make the subject more interesting and help those who did not understand it themselves.

Of course there are limits. To describe Hitler as a decent man because he was a vegetarian would be the high point of absurdity, but articles would be rather dull if they relied simply on "what happened" and forgoe the "why it happened".

One wiki editor took out my analysis on the grounds that "we aren't allowed to connect the dots". But if a third-party has not connected the dots either then should the puzzle be left undone and leave people wondering forever what it was?--Marktreut (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. If OR is all we have on a subject, then we shouldn't have an article on it. If a third-party has not connected the dots, then people can be puzzled. --Onorem♠Dil 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
As well, what might be even less fun is the possibility of being sued over information that we added, because Original Research was all that we had. Imean, i understand your point, Mark - really I do - but the point is, we are supposed to be a neutral source of information. If we cannot be that, then we have no business holding ourselves up to to comparisons with the likes of Britannica and others. There is no room in the wiki articles for personal opinions or interpretations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case perhaps we should not be a source for information period. Just saying that somebody did something might be enough to be sued. Whatever happened to Freedom of Information?--Marktreut (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's more than a little OTT Mark.
And looking at what appears to have kicked this off [11], the others are right: the articles are supposed to be as neutral as possible. That means we try not to spin or slant, and we try not to guess or present our pet theories. If all that is keeping a paragraph, a section, or even an entire article together is original research by the editor, or editors, writing it, it doesn't belong here, period.
If there's a source that the information drawn from, without needing to be interpreted, add the source. That's no longer OR. In the example, that means either point to an interview or statement from Frank Miller laying out character motivations and/or backgrounds, or point to a reliable secondary source that puts those theories forward as its conclusions.
- J Greb (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree... it is fun to connect the dots, but an encyclopedia is not the place to do so. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
(carried over from my user talk page):
Are you seriously suggesting that DC comics or Frank Miller might take wikipedia to court for speculating on the parentage of a minor, one-off, hardly-seen-before-or-since character? Get real!--Marktreut (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying, though Miller could have a case, if such were to occur and remain. Wikipedia is a collection of articles on every subject. The policies that guide the Wiki are consistent throughout the Project so as to preserve neutrality and be more encyclopedic in their coverage. We don't make exceptions to those policies for one article , because the exceptions could easily set precedents for other articles wherein the subject matter would open the Project to significant liability and challenge our neutral stance. As evidenced by the conversation in the NOR discussion page, this opinion seems rather consistent. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
But my point is: what if the source was the material itself? "Lana", "Harper" and "Lane" are not names that DC has used that often so the connection between that one-off character and three major figures is not that hard to make. Besides which I specified that the connection was a POSSIBILITY, not a FACT ! There's the difference and I think that it would be of interest to those not familiar with the DC world.--Marktreut (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is that we should not add our own specualtion to articles. If a reliable source has stated that there is a possible connection, then we can mention it. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And who defines a "reliable source"? I've read history books in which what was actually sepculation was taken by the author to be fact and later proved to be inconclusive. In other words, nothing is realiable short of a statement in writing overseen by a Supreme Court judge, and then again maybe even that could be suspect. It make you wonder why bother to edit wikipedia at all. It would be far safer to take the whole thing off the Net and forget it.--Marktreut (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
What is more I have submitted facts WITH sources, but that was still not enough for some editors. They simply took away my contributions as if I was some blott on "their" perfect article.--Marktreut (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Marktreut, you're missing the point. Do the sources you cited reach the same conclusions that you did? Or did you use the facts that are stated in those sources to form your own conclusions? From what I can tell, the latter is the case. In other words, it looks as if you went beyond the sources and into the realm of OR. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And what is wrong with OR if it is based on careful interpretation of the source material? The point is that provided we highlight the points of the source material that back our argument (such as quotations from the text) I think that that should be good enough. I sometimes get the feeling that those who edit out what they perceive as OR have not actually read or seen the source material for themselves.--Marktreut (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is wrong with OR... but Wikipeida is not the place to publish it. Read the policy... it is one of core policies and has solid consensus. I am sorry you don't like it, but if you want to contribute to Wikipedia you are going to have to abide by it. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's simply ridiculous is what it is.--Marktreut (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Mark, I wasn't going to comment, but I'm surprised this debate went on this long. There is a very simple non-OR approach: just state fact 1, then fact 2, and let the user speculate whether there are dots to connect. On the diff cited, you simply say this: "Hawkboy makes it clear that he will go all the way to get revenge. Batman does not try to talk him out of it: 'You're going to get what I never got! Retribution.' Batman's parents were murdered in his youth." (No participial clause.) "Lana Harper-Lane: a reporter for a TV news station who appears when Catgirl leads the attack to free Flash. She shares last names with major characters Jim Harper (The Guardian) and Lois Lane, and a first name with Lana Lang." That totally clears you of the synthesis charge (there is neither a "conclusion C" nor a "therefore"). Occasionally a real nitpicker might argue that fact 2 does not belong in the paragraph where fact 1 does, but I really don't see that supportable as either WP:UNDUE weight or WP:COATRACK. These phrasings state facts neutrally, and thereby perform a perfect ambiguity function: either Harper-Lane's parentage is being subtly indicated by DC, or it's an interesting coincidence; either Batman recalls his youth, or something else; and in both cases WP finds it suitable to report and does not decide among the options. On WP, we hold that if you want to speculate, you get your own website (and you don't quote it here either). I'm occasionally disappointed by that, but I can most certainly abide by it in this universe. JJB 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Original images" section

Per WP:A, IMO this section must be expanded with the requirement of citing the sources which confirm the validity of the content of the self-made diagrams or other pictures, if they are not merely graphical representation of the actual article content.

What do you think?Mukadderat (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly Agree that this is a sane extension of the policy, though it may simply be redundant (images are just another kind of content). I know I had an issue with a proposed picture of the Sukhoi PAK FA. This was also a WP:CRYSTAL issue, and there were other problems, but it may be that the artist was simply putting together what "looked right" based on similar aircraft and previous Sukhoi designs, but WP:OR was raised during the discussion. To put a different spin on the question, there are some articles which have a sound file showing pronunciation. Citing a sound is almost impossible, though it can still be wrong (i.e. they pronounce Willamette incorrectly like the The West Wing does).Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
"though it may simply be redundant" - unfortunately many people may disagree with you: (or agree with premises but not with the conclusion) - it is another kind of content indeed, but they may argue that the policies look like crafted for textual content in mind and their extension to images must be explicitly mentioned. Mukadderat (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A whole lotta synthesis goin' on

I was surfing articles and came across one of the Doctor Who episode articles, and met some editorial resistance when I encountered a substantial infestation of synthesis. Perhaps some eyes to examine the page would be helpful. I've pointed to WP:SYN a number of times, but I am not getting the impression (from the usertalk pages or article discussion responses I am getting) that anyone is interpreting our synthesis/NOR policy accurately there. I don't want it to turn into a whole 'thing', so some assistance would be mighty welcome. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "directly related"

I've run into a problem quite a number of times regarding the words "directly related". The problem, in a nutshell, is that people insist that whatever sources they use are "directly related" to the topic at hand, based on the argument they've constructed, regardless of what the actual topic of the article is. So, for example, if an article on Mr. X states that he was acquitted of murder, someone would then bring legal sources to argue that the judge in the case erred in his decision, based on the decisions in cases Y,Z, and W. When you point out that the sources do not actually mention the case of Mr. X, they insist that since the charges were identical, they are "directly related", and can be used to prove that the judge erred. Is there a wording that can more explicitly cover this problem? I'm thinking instead of

"if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article"

stating

"if the sources cited do not refer directly to the subject of the article"

Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. "Directly related" lends itself to abuse. The proposed change removes some of the ambiguity. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I could have really used this change of wording in the past...and what do you know, the only times I could think of this actually being useful were over law-related issues. A lot of editors unfortunately, but in good faith, feel the need to describe the strength of a legal argument that is presented in an article about the subject/origin of that specific argument. And of course they find reliable sources describing the strength of a very similar argument made by/at a completely different subject, or even more unfortunately resort to the laws or court decisions themselves. There are of course similar examples in non-legal situations, and they are similarly inappropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable wording change that more clearly expresses what is intended. Vassyana (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The proposed change is an improvement. While the original "directly related" may have meant sources that refer to the subject, it can be loosely interpreted. The tighter "refer directly" closes that loophole. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an excellent suggestion that should help to avoid an all-too-familiar problem. In a nutshell, editors need to be able to demonstrate that material is directly related to the subject of the article without creating a logical "loop" by relying on original research to do so. A possible alternative is "are not directly and verifiably related", but I think Jayjg's suggestion has slightly more clarity. Jakew (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Referring to the subject of an article is too narrow. If Einstein is the subject of an article, and I want to include something about James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electromagnitism, which inspired general relativity, I can't use any sources that don't mention Einstein. In other words, the relevance may not be demonstrated within a single source; source A might say that Maxwell inspired Einstein, and source B might say something interesting about Maxwell's theory, without mentioning Einstein. Of course, this process could be carried too far, and result in original research, but I don't think this process should be prohibited altogether. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I like Jayjg's proposal, but I think Gerry raises an interesting point. I have mixed feelings. I think the solution will not lie in the introduction to the policy but in how we explain the appropriate use of primary and secondary sources, but maybe not. In effect, i think Gerry is saying that some articles need background or contextual information that is not directly related to the topic. I agree. I have two points. First, a question: Gerry are there secondary sources that make the connection between Maxwell's equations and Einstein's? I would think so, and if the answer is yes, then your example really is not an objection to Jayjg's proposal. If the connection is made by a reliable secondary source, it is not a problem. If the answer is no - if we agree that an article may need contextual or background information despite the fact that no secondary source says it is related, we move to my second point, which is that I think we need to shift our attention from the introduction to the section on primary and secondary sources, and synthesis. The question now is, does background information simply help someone appreciate or understand something in the article, or is it being used to make an argument? If the former, there may be no need for a secondary source, even if it is not directly related. If the latter, there is definitely a need for a secondary source. I always see this policy in terms of how added information is being used. If it is being used to forward any kind of argument, it needs a secondary source for the argument i.e. that argues for/explains how one thing is connected to another. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
To answer Slrubenstein's question, there was a reliable TV documentary (I think it was Nova) that says Maxwell inspired Einstein; I'm not going to look up a full reference, but assume for the sake of discussion there is a secondary source. My example does not really illustrate advancing a position, so I suppose this clause wouldn't limit adding this kind of background information. But I still think there could be a case where secondary source A says "Jones believed in Smith's theory of X" and source B explains Smith's theory, which advances a position. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if I misunderstand, Gerry, but I don't understand why this is a problem. To consider your example, if Nova stated that Maxwell inspired Einstein, then Nova "refer[s] directly to the subject of the article", and we can document whatever they say. In all probability, Nova also gave some background information about Maxwell, which could be used without performing any synthesis.
The only thing we couldn't do is to use an independent source about Maxwell, which didn't mention Einstein. (Of course, in practise this wouldn't be a severe problem even if it did advance a position, since there are numerous highly reliable sources which no doubt discuss both in detail.) But we couldn't cite that independent source anyway, because according to the lead, "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". The only change is to clarify that "directly related" doesn't mean "I think it's directly related", but instead means something closer to "the source states that it is directly related".
So I guess I don't understand the problem. Jakew (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The attitude in this policy shouldn't be "let's muzzle everything that might be a problem". Information should be allowed unless there is a clear reason to exclude it. In an article about Einstein, everything that lead to his theories is relevant. While the claim that a certain earlier theory influenced Einstein must be sourced, not every source used in the article to describe the earlier theory has to mention Einstein. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The example you bring up doesn't strike me as at all potentially problematic. Assuming for the moment that there weren't any sources discussing Maxwell's theories in reference to Einstein, except to point out that they influenced him, then it would seem to me so insignificant that it deserves no greater a mention in Einstein's own article. We can still satisfy the curious by linking to some appropriate articles on James Clerk Maxwell or Maxwell's equations. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The key point is that it's really not up to Wikipedia editors to decide which (if any) of Maxwell's theories are relevant to Einstein's. Instead, we let reliable sources make those connections. And if reliable sources haven't made those specific connections, then we shouldn't be doing so either - that's the very essence of Original Research. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I find it interesting that, with examples of "reasonable synthesis" such as this, it is likely that a reliable source has already performed that synthesis. So instead of worrying about how to exclude crank syntheses while allowing sensible ones (which is practically an impossible problem), we substitute a much simpler test: can we cite a reliable source that has already performed the synthesis? It may seem like muzzling, but in practise it usually just encourages good sourcing. Jakew (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree it has to be more than "directly related", but I don't think there has to be a direct reference, necessarily. All we need is that it be verifiably related--which usually means a direct reference, but there could be exceptions. For example, suppose we cite Jackson Pollock in an article about abstract expressionism, even though Pollock didn't actually use the term abstract expressionism in every paragraph he spoke. Everybody in the art community knows that Pollock is the quintessential abstract expressionist, so citing him for thoughts on the subject could very well be "verifiably related". COGDEN 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gerry, I think you are doing yourself a disservice when you declare that Jayjg's proposal = "let's muzzle everything that may be a problem." It sounds like you are complaining about being censored. But you know that Wikipedia is not a blog or chatroom or any kind of a space where you or any other editor has a right to express whatever they think. This is an encyclopedia and we need some form of accountability, some way to ensure the quality of the articles and the information they contain. The main way we ensure this accountability is that any editor can edit, e.g. delete, anything they think is wrong. Anyone can delete anything you, I, Jayjg, or anyone else adds to any article. That is what makes this a "wiki." But people need some kind of guideline as to what to delete. Surely you do not want people just deleting anything they happen not to agree with! Surely you do not want that? So we have a WP:V policy; all material that represents a notable point of view and comes from a reliable source can stay. Jayjg is correctly assuming that the claim that x is related to y is a verifiable view. If it is, then there is a source one can peg it to and it stays. But if there is no source that supports this view, i.e. no source that says that x is related to y, well, then, there is nothing to prevent an editor from deleting it. This is not "muzzling" you, this is editing an article to ensure quality and it is what Wikipedia is all about. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole crowd wants to muzzle everybody! I am removing this policy from my watchlist; I'm done discussing with this crowd. I will follow what I consider to be the basic principle of no original research, but will ignore the specific wording of the policy, because I do not accept the thinking processes of those who shape the specific wording. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Crowd?" Gerry, WP:AGF!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Gerry on this one. If anything we need to loosen up the language in that part of the policy. People are taking it too literally, and it's making it too difficult to include background information. For instance, if I'm editing an article about Mr. X who was accused of crime C in state X, I wouldn't be able to cite the laws of state X to explain the penalties of crime C. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not. Thankfully, that information will no doubt already be included in the available reliable sources, if relevant. Dlabtot (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It happens quite often that the article on Mr. X won't include the background information. There is nothing wrong with citing the background information, as long as it isn't used to support statements like "Mr. X must be innoncent because the law says this..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we still need to think about what "directly related" means. To my mind, it makes little sense for it to mean "the editor inserting the material thinks that it is directly related", because I'm fairly confident that all editors inserting material think that it is related. It makes more sense to understand it as meaning that others should be able to verify that the material is directly related. As such, I think that this proposal is largely a clarification rather than a change to existing policy. But I may be wrong: what do others think? Jakew (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Very often, the problem is that editors see a connection between two things, but do not bother to establish that they are directly related. If you want to discuss X in an article about Y, try finding a source that connects X to Y... then you can go on to discuss X. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I won't argue that some editors try to cram unrelated facts into articles where they don't belong, but I think the OR policy should be about WP:OR, and not try to also be WP:RS, WP:COATRACK, WP:RELEVANCE, WP:CRUFT, and so on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but a lot of NOR violations involve synthesis - arguing a connection between two unconnected things. Jagz just wants to clarify a vague aspect of this policy. and of course any fix is likely to point to V or RS because the opposite of original research is research that uses sources appropriately; to explain what we mean by research that violates this policy, it might be very constructive to explain what kind of research would not violate this policy!! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the wording change. Many people fervently believe that certain things are "directly related" because they've gone over it so much in their minds that to them, they are. Jayjg's proposal will help reduce OR.Windy Wanderer (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to support Gerry's point of view on this. "Refer directly" is too strict, and policies should always be conservative. While connections between topics should always be sourced, once they have been sourced there's no reason that the source that made the connection should be preferred over a better reference for the related topic. For example, in an article about a song about the Titanic, we might say that it's about the Titanic, source this fact, link RMS Titanic, and briefly explain the parts of its history that are relevant to the song; but the overstrict wording "refer directly" would unintentionally exclude these last facts. Dcoetzee 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Once another source has made the connection, then the connection is not "original", and information from a more detailed source should be admissible. The Wikipedian, in this situation, isn't performing the basic act of synthesis: someone else did that, our guy is just filling in more details. --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So it is, but that doesn't diminish the value of Jayjg's clarification. As Rob Stevens notes, policy would not fetter the editor when someone else has made the connection. Consequently, Gerry's Maxwell/Einstein projection wouldn't actually happen. Moreover, no one is actually going to waste time arguing that X is not related to Y unless he/she had good reason to. But Gerry appears to think that throwing a wrench into the works is everyone's popular pastime, which in my experience is neither true, nor (given AGF) is it a good assumption.
On the other hand, in a dispute -- and this is where policy actually kicks in -- Jayjg's "if the sources cited do not refer directly to the subject" is simply a logical continuation of what policy already says: Don't yourself construct connections.
-- Fullstop (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, the existing policy IS in fact fettering editors. And surely policies kick in when disputes occur? So, given the latest example: if someone else has their own strange theory regarding the "real meaning" of the lyrics of the song about the Titanic, they could (and will) insist that the second and more detailed Titanic reference be excluded. Out of spite? Yes, possibly, but thanks to AGF we can't say so: they're just "enforcing Wikipedia policy". --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've revived this section to see if there's a consensus for the the change, as I've just come across another example of the problem. For over a year now an editor has been inserting this "Criticism" paragraph into the article on Honest Reporting:

The issue of perceptions of media bias has been the subject of experimental studies. In 1985 one such study first demonstrated the existence of what has come to be known as the Hostile media effect [2], where partisans of a particular cause display a marked tendency to see news coverage as being biased against their position. Not only do they see news coverage as biased, but are also more likely to explain the perceived bias as due to malign intent. Numerous subsequent studies have confirmed the existence of the phenomenon. [3] [4] [5]

When you repeatedly point out to him that the section is a synthesis and original research, and that the sources nowhere mention "Honest Reporting", he responds:

You are reading "directly related" as "directly referenced". The published research on HME is nothing but "directly related" to a group that deals exclusively with claims of media bias. Asking that it mentions Honest Reporting by name is demanding "referenced" not "related", which is not in keeping with WP:NOR.

This "nothing is Original Research if I say it's directly related to the article" is exactly the problem I am trying to avoid with the wording change. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I will once aain state my support for Jayjg's proposal. Let me make it clear that my support of this idea is very strong. I just do not find the opposition convincing. (On the contrary, they reinforce my belief in the need for this policy as a whole and this change in particular.) Supporting and illustrative information is perfectly fine, but the allowance thereof should be carefully limited. Using the example about a song, it would be perfectly fine to have a few short statements about the specific correlation mentioned by reliable sources. It would be wandering into coatrack and synthesis territory to add "background" details that are not even referenced in passing in the reliable source(s) making the connection. Another way this comes into play is when a single source makes a claim, perhaps supporting one or two statements in article, and then paragraphs of "background" material are added (making it both a synthesis and due weight issue). Such approaches are a common sort of coatracking and synthesis, and so it is an important issue to address appropriately in policy.) Vassyana (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I too remain convinced that Jayjg's suggestion is sound. In the described case, the other editor is quite obviously wikilawyering -- going by the letter and not by the spirit. The spirit of "directly related" is that the cited material be on the topic of the article, and not orthogonal to it. This is not to say that tangentially related content (with sources) cannot also be in the same article, but the off-topic source must be properly contextualized, and should not be framed as if it were co-eval with an on-topic source. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Any other thoughts on the subject? Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana and Fullstop have expressed my views on the subject perfectly. Although it's illogical to assume that "directly related" means "I think it's related" (since in effect it would mean nothing whatsoever), it is apparent that it is sometimes misinterpreted that way, so I think clarification is called for. Jakew (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree we need to address the problem here, but I want to urge caution. What we need to do is to prevent people from inserting information into articles which people writing in the field would not consider germane to the subject matter. Stylistic and article-size considerations aside, I think the addition of material to an article is always okay so long as that material is sometimes linked to the subject matter within the verifiable literature. Does that mean that before you can cite a source, the source has to specifically reference the subject matter? I don't think so. That goes too far. So long as the source is at least sometimes cited by authoritative authors in the field when they talk about the subject matter, I can't see how that is original research. The source itself doesn't have to refer to the subject matter, but a (relatively) secondary source, at the very least, has to make that connection between the source and the subject matter. COGDEN 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see some potential problems there. To explain, here are some hypothetical examples of original research using indirectly-linked sources:
  • When the indirectly-linked source contains multiple claims: (the subject is electromagnetism) "In A highly reliable guide to physics, Prof Reliable remarks that a little-known 1930s book by Dr Variable entitled Musings on pressure waves in air provides 'valuable insights' into the behaviour of electromagnetic radiation, noting the value of Variable's novel 'wave graphs'. Variable's mathematical model of the wave is particularly interesting, because... [not stated: Variable's mathematical model has not been linked to electromagnetism in any reliable source, and/or has been rejected by the scientific community]"
  • Using the indirectly-linked source to contradict the directly-related source: (the subject is the nutritional value of grapefruit) "Highly reliable nutrition organisation notes that grapefruit contains veryrareenzyme, which they state is 'essential to the body', citing influential study of rare enzymes. Yet influential study actually reported that..."
Jakew (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Citation depends upon the context in which it is cited. There is no automatic rule, and material is not either relevant or non-relevant, but of various degree of relevance. Academic authors often go very far afield in discussions--journals vary in their willingness to permit this. further, people in a given field are not necessarily sophisticated or accurate in evaluating work in related fields. A fairly good rule of thumb is that a single citation proves very little, especially if the matter is controversial. As an hypothetical example in my subject, an article on the molecular biology of an organism may say something about the biological classification of the organism--this may or may not reflect the actual state of the current taxonomy. Similarly, biomedical authors (& editors) are notorious for not taking care with the citation of the actually correct chemical registry number; this is a large part of the reason why Chemical Abstracts Service was willing recently to agree to undertake the validation of the registry numbers cited in wikipedia articles--many of them were taken from PubMed, which uncritically reports whichever the journal happened to say. A historian quoting nutritional information may well be 50 years behind the scientific consensus. Just as people in wikipedia often use old textbooks, sometimes Those who ought to know better do the like. DGG (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this change. "Directly referenced" is perfectly clear, and accurate for the common case. Certainly the existing language is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Nandesuka (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like this change, and it's clear that there is no consensus here. Directly refer has the problems which Gerry, Robert, and others have pointed out above. Sources will often not explicitly point out things which are obviously related -- that doesn't mean that these things do not belong in the same article. This would be an unbelievable shackle on editors' discretion in writing quality articles. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis issue

Hi, we have an issue of Synthesis over at orthomolecular medicine. OM defines itself as using nutrition to treat disease, it was founded by biochemical researchers, and draws heavily from mainstream literature. Thus mainstream studies are included in the article. A couple people are trying to claim that doing so is synthetic original research. The most recent discussion is here. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that discussion treats editor works of volunteers as bureaucratic rules of what is allowed and not allowed. IMHO that is a faulty WP culture, I've made some wrestling on sv.wikipedia against such monstrous behaviors. I think the basis is 1. politeness: the other guy is a smart collaborator, 2. community: we need some general consensus to make our (mine plus your, plus his, her its) best possible WP, 3. the WP:NOR policy is a guideline that describes some quality of the ultimate ultraphantastique end-of-time-Wikipedia, not a prohibition system for hindering the development of WP, 4. the collaborative work can temporarily allow bad quality sources, if the article is properly marked as not-up-to perfection, 5. bad quality sources may be of future interest, especially if debunked by other sources - we have an external debate that may be a topic. The discussions on Orthomolecular_medicine should collect more data, and not try to reach a consensus about outside source qualities too fast. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutronium: Something odd here

I'm raising a topic where I think the policy may fail. See Neutronium#Neutronium and the periodic table and then Talk:Neutronium#Neutrality issue?. The article seems to contain a section of indisputable perfectly acceptable original research that none is willing to challenge. Such as 1+1=2[citation needed], just on a higher level. I believe the current state of OR too much reflects topics (mostly social science) where the number of common-sensus-not-mentionable-and-so-not-verifiable are few. This doesn't fit very well into the science article reality, or worse the mathematical article reality, where these kind of unmentioned self-evident truths are many. WP:OR needs enhancements, so one can evaluate (by consensus) whether a statement is a self-evident truth or an unsupported-jump-to-a-conclusion. After all WP:OR works best if it is an active valuation tool, not just a thump-in-the-other-guys head weapon. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Same for fiction where truth per se is of little interest, except of course the truths around constructing this fiction. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
In general:
  • if it's that obvious, someone will have said it already.
  • If it's not that obvious, the topic may simply not be notable.
  • If it really is as simple as "1+1=2" give 1[1] and 1[2] and let the reader "do the math."
As for {{fact}} issues with the article, the first-after-HSK claim should be cited, the source of the various and sundry information about forms less than pentaneutron (such as the half-life of free neutrons) should be cited, etc... As one of the comments on the talk page says, the scientific information is under separate topics, since Neutronium generally refers to Unobtainium with no pretense at hard science. "Neutron-as-element" is WP:FRINGE at this point. The refimprove flag and the OR problems for the article are legitimate objections. Somedumbyankee (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell clause

WT:V suggests two clauses might be near consensus as policy: (1) changing the nutshell clause here slightly to "All factual claims in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to reliable, published sources"; (2) adding in the nutshell, or elsewhere in the article, the important balancer, "in practice not all material is attributed". The nutshell clause originally came from WP:A in Jan and was widely approved in the archive here. Wikidemo recently proposed the first change to it, because that would exclude things like whether template claims need sourcing and whether images must be actually created by reliable sources, as well as matter-of-factly excluding nonmainspace. (The BLP exception does apply to all spaces, but is properly explained elsewhere.) The second clause came from WP:A and has been widely recognized at WT:V as obvious; the question is whether it needs to be stated explicitly to counterweight potential implications of "cite everything". I'd ordinarily WP:BOLD those two here myself, but there is just enough hesitation at WT:V to make me ask for additional consensus here. JJB 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Both (1) and (2) are incorrect assumtions.

(1) per the lead: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Thus "All factual claims" is incorrect.
(2) "in practice not all material is attributed" is in reference to citing sources, and should be covered on WP:V, not here.

Brimba (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mm-hmm, but WP does not publish arguments, speculation, or nonfact ideas; it publishes factual claims as to who made the arguments, speculation, or ideas, and those claims must be attributed. "Y says Z.<ref>Y, p. 1.</ref>" As I said, "all material" is also an incorrect statement. I don't mind splitting the difference and working on the first clause here and reintroducing the second clause there. You OK with "All material in Wikipedia articles", addition of only one word? If so, shouldn't it be said later that material here excludes transclusions like templates and images, but includes transclusions like categories? JJB 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
WP publishes arguments all of the time; what we do not do is publish the arguments that originate with Wikipedia editors. It also publishes opinions and theories, aka “speculation”, of prominent experts in various fields. “it publishes factual claims as to who made the arguments, speculation, or ideas, and those claims must be attributed.” Yes, but you don’t see Einstein’s name add directly to the prose every time the Theory of Relativity is mentioned, and there is no expectation that it would be.
Images, charts, graphs, so forth and so on are all covered by NOR (in particular think Photoshop). The word article “articles” implies limitations to the policy. As long as we use, to mention only one example, wording such as “Direct quotes may be posted on the article's talk page for evaluation—they need not be added to the article.” Then the statement “all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable” is clearly not correct. There are cases in which NOR is valid outside of article spaces.
Am I ok with "All material in Wikipedia articles"? No simply because NOR sometimes extends beyond strait article space. Brimba (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't think we "publish opinions" et al.; we state facts about opinions, not the opinions themselves, remember? And you're saying the statement is incorrect only because you are inferring from it that "all material in Wikipedia besides articles need not be attributable", which is not a logical implication. But whatever wording we use, the concern I am seeking to address is that "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to reliable sources" is false. Images need not be attributable to reliable sources, only the factual claims they are used to present; images of and by Wikipedians are created fresh all the time with no attributability to RS whatsoever. Templates need not be attributable to reliable sources for factual claims such as "this section is disputed" and "citation needed". Talk need not be attributable, though sometimes it is attributable, just like sometimes templates and images are; and when talk purports to support an article claim, it must be attributable of course as you say. BLP material must be attributable in any space. Categories must be attributable. Programming code need not be attributable. But we can't get all that in the nutshell. What's wrong with the nutshell saying "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable" (which is true and, I think, not misleading), as long as the full article also specifies taht some Wikipedia material besides articles must also be attributable? And if you prefer "material" to "factual claims", just how does one attribute a sentence in a template, or a photo of a Wikipedian, to a reliable source when challenged for their right to appear in mainspace? Thank you for your consideration. JJB 05:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Author A's idea of darkness.
Actually, we publish opinions all the time. If we didn't we wouldn't need NPOV policy. "Author A thinks foo, but author B thinks bar." No biggie.
And drawing a distinction between "in Wikipedia" and "in Wikipedia articles" is called wikilawyering. You might want to sue the foundation over the fact that the date at the bottom of every page article is not attributable to a reliable source.
Btw, the world is not going to end even if your name was really John J. Bulten.
-- Fullstop (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Fullstop, I appreciate your didactic style, and I hope I got your point. Recall that NPOV policy itself says we don't assert opinions; I suppose what we do might be called publishing attributed opinions, but those are facts about opinions, everyone agrees that all facts in articles must be attributable. We also seem to agree that, commonsensically, not all material anywhere in WP needs to be attributable. So perhaps "all factual claims in Wikipedia articles" is too weak. My question is, what exactly is a succinct description of the class of material that needs no attribution? It includes at least images, templates, code, and skin material like dates and usernames. The class that always needs attribution includes at least facts, attributed opinions (speculations, arguments), categories, portals (noted by Philip Baird Shearer at WT:V), and BLP material anywhere. How do we say that? "All material in Wikipedia" is just as inaccurate as the alternatives. JJB 14:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

I've seen a bit of what I consider to be a problem around some articles in wikipedia. Many users are quick to call many horrendous acts "terrorism" but not provide reliable sources that call these acts terrorism.

My question is: if no reliable sources have called an act as "terrorism" (or a synonym of the word), can we call it "terrorism" because one or more wikipedians believe it fits the definition?

My inclination is to say no, because the term is very contentious (see Allegations of state terrorism by the United States), and only reliable sources can make the call which acts constitute as terrorism and which don't.Bless sins (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your inclination is correct. See this. Crum375 (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fake images in aviation accident articles

I have a problem with an editor who creates fake images using computer rendering software, and then adds them into aviation accident articles, where the specifics and details of what exactly happened are in heated dispute, and often in litigation. The editor feels that, since he bases his imaginary computerized creations on existing bits of evidence as he understands them, he is not taking sides or creating anything new and that this practice is even "encouraged". I feel that when we create computerized images in disputed cases out of our imagination, even when "based on" our understanding of the various sources, it is an original interpretation nonetheless, making a definitive statement about many of the disputed issues (e.g. was there icing visible on the airframe? were the engines experiencing a visible compressor stall? was there a visible fire or explosion prior to impact? was the attitude or angle of attack abnormal?). I believe our goal on Wikipedia is to present reliably published material neutrally. For a Wikipedian to create a fake image which effectively takes a position on disputed issues and to aggressively force it into the article (in the latest case by violating WP:3RR) violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Uninvolved opinions are welcome on this issue. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link or two so we can see what you are referring to? Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Here and here are the current talk page threads, but the issue is generic, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
NOR in images is something that has been discussed recently here. There's a bit of a conundrum for the project in that pictures are good, but very few pictures are in the public domain. I believe that pictures should be evaluated in the same way as any other content. WP:UNDUE may really be the objection in this particular case rather than WP:NOR, as the contested item (on a brief glance-through) is supported by at least one plausible theory supported by a reliable source. The caption to the picture should clearly identify it as a reconstruction based on those sources rather than "the truth", though. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
One problem with "reconstructed" images is that, unlike photographs, they always reflect a specific interpretation of the facts. So in the case of an aviation accident, especially for a trained eye, they tend to introduce manufactured evidence. This would be a source of endless debate, because unlike words in a text, which can be tweaked by anyone, an image is much harder to modify by the average editor, so the wiki concept is mostly gone. I agree that photos are virtually always welcome, as well as images, maps or illustrations in non-controversial cases. It is when we produce a fictitious image in a hotly disputed event that we end up taking sides on specific issues, and that violates the letter and spirit of our NPOV and NOR policies. I think we must emphasize in both NPOV and NOR that fictitious or doctored images may only be used in non-disputed cases. Crum375 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The same problem exists with a picture or diagram that wasn't created by a Wikipedia user. I don't see a problem with "possibly POV" pictures or diagrams as long as they:
  • Clearly state that they are a reconstruction.
  • Clearly state the source that they are based on per WP:NOR.
  • Are consistent with a reasonable point of view per WP:UNDUE.
I don't see a problem with well-sourced and reasonable diagrams so long as any bias is obvious from the caption. For balance it might be best to include equivalent diagrams for all major theories.
The Arrow Air case mentioned, however, has nothing to do with this issue. The edit war is about a user generated CGI image that doesn't make any claims whatsoever about the incident as opposed to a real picture of a different plane. It's a matter of style and not of substance. The caption's "orange glow" should either be removed or have a reference, but the caption is easily edited by any user when the page isn't locked.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a significant difference between material created by a Wikipedian vs. that reliably published. We can only create our own material in limited cases, and then only as long as it carefully conforms to NPOV and NOR. In the case of hotly disputed aviation accidents, every imaginary image creates "evidence", although that may be obvious to a lay person. For example, in the Arrow Air case, the current image (it keeps changing unfortunately) shows the aircraft presumably before the crash. If so, it does not show icing on the leading edges, which would strengthen one side in the debate. It also does not show any orange glow, which would contradict some witnesses. If it did show it, its exact location would be crucial, as it could be due to explosion, fire or engine stall, all of which would appear differently. The exact angle of attack or attitude is also important, as it could be the difference between an explosion or fire vs. aerodynamic stall. In short, an image speaks volumes to investigators or knowledgeable readers, and in this case there was no real image available. If we create a fictitious one, we are advancing one position or another regarding each disputed issue, and that would violate NPOV and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposed "other DC-8" image doesn't show any of these things either. The CGI image doesn't purport to show the aircraft in flight, crashing, exploding or being whacked by a WP:TROUT. It's just a picture with the correct livery based on a reference photo (a non-free image linked in older versions of the page). Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposed fake image keeps changing, because the wiki process allows it to be replaced by totally different versions, even when the article is protected. So it is a moving target — the original version was very different. But even now, it depends on how we use the image. If we just want to show the color scheme, we can use it as such in principle, but in my opinion what is more important is to show a real aircraft of the type, since that would be identical except for colors, and we do have a freely available real photo of a real aircraft of the the same type. Crum375 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

<silly>Maybe this is the image we should be using?</silly> Seriously, I'd have to say Crum375's objections here are mistaken. Wikipedia, like pretty much any other comparable publication, frequently uses "artists' conceptions" to illustrate topics for which an actual photograph is either not available or would not, for one reason or another, properly illustrate the relevant issues. Such illustrations do not "serve to advance a position"; they serve to illustrate one. Problems only arise if such images are captioned or otherwise presented as being more authoritative than they are. In this particular instance, captioning the image "Arrow Air Flight 1285 taking off" would be inappropriate; captioning it "an artist's conception of Arrow Air Flight 1285 taking off, based on the CASB majority report of the events, with some artistic license" would not.

Incidentally, I think the ideal illustration for this article would be a diagram showing the sequence of events, to the extend it can be reliably determined. For something vaguely like what I have in mind, see e.g. Image:Tenerife 747 Crash.png (the closest example I could find with some quick browsing on Commons). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For an incident that is disputed, and for which no original images exist, it would be OR for a Wikipedian to create an image based on his understanding of what some of the reliable sources believe happened. Imagine an article about someone accused of a bank robbery. The police say he did it; he denies it. Based on the police's description as published by reliable sources, a Wikipedian creates an image of the man robbing the bank, and we publish it as the lead image in that man's bio. That would violate BLP (for obvious reasons), NOR (because we'd be promoting an imaginary scene created by a Wikipedian), and it could be argued that it violates UNDUE (because we'd be prioritizing one POV over all the others). The aircraft accident image has a similar NOR problem, and perhaps UNDUE too. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Your hypothetical article on the suspected bank robber would seem to be a violation of WP:BLP1E anyway. However, if we did have an article on the robbery, and if the police had released a detailed enough description of the events to allow someone to draw a reconstruction of the scene, I see no reason why we shouldn't use it if it helps the reader to understand the article. Obviously such an image, like any summarization of a source, must be subject to verification by other editors to ensure that it accurately depicts what the source actually says. Also obviously, the image should not depict a specific recognizable person as the robber unless they've actually been convicted: that would be neither appropriate use of the person's likeness, nor in any way necessary to illustrate the subject.
The point being that every sentence in every Wikipedia article (except for direct quotes, which can only be used sparingly due to copyright) is "based on [some Wikipedian's] understanding of what some of the reliable sources believe". The summarization may be wrong, humans often being fallible, which is why we require that others should be able to verify it; but we can't forbid such summarization, since otherwise we wouldn't have an encyclopedia but a mere collection of quotes. That being the case, it seems absurd to hold graphical contributions to a higher standard here than textual ones.
As for the Arrow Air Flight 1285 article, I'm not sure it needs an image at all; certainly none of the ones suggested so far seem particularly illustrative. The generic picture of a DC-8 championed by Crum375 belongs on the DC-8 page if anywhere; on the Flight 1285 page it's hardly more relevant than the "Xenu space plane" image I mentioned above. (That's a DC-8 too!) As for the latest version of the rendered image by Anynobody, all it shows is the aircraft's paint job, which is frankly of absolutely no relevance to the accident. About the only image proposed so far that actually illustrated any aspect of the accident itself was the previous version of Anynobody's image, which at least showed the "orange glow" mentioned in some of the eyewitness reports — and apparently it's been questioned whether that was really depicted accurately. So, setting aside the general issue of how NOR should apply to images, in this specific instance I'd say the best and simplest solution might well be to have no image at all, at least until and unless someone comes up with an illustration that actually provides the reader with some useful information about the accident. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ilmari, regarding your point about police releasing details of a robbery — if those details are disputed, we can't slap a reconstruction at the top of the page created by a Wikipedian and based only on his understanding of what the police have said, as though it is the truth. In the case of an aircraft accident, where what happened is disputed, it's even more important not to do that, because the tiniest details out of place will give a very misleading impression to anyone who knows about aircraft accidents. The reconstruction of an aircraft's behavior leading up to and during an incident is a highly complex issue requiring particular skills. If we want to use such a reconstruction, we need to get one that reliable sources, preferably air accident investigators, have created. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am going to toss out a radical idea here... what if we include several user generated images? ... an image to illustrate each of the varoious theories as to what happened and what people saw. Don't put these images at the top of the page... tie them to the appropriate sections of the article. That way there is no NPOV issue. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar, I think you are missing a critical point here. In disputed aviation accidents such as this one, every tiny detail counts. It's not as it you have black vs. white — there are myriads of nuances and pieces of evidence, the totality of which contributes to the accident's investigation and determining what really happened and why. When there is a heated dispute, it's not as if we can create two images to represent "the sides" — we'd need to create many images, with many combinations of possible parameters (was the "orange glow" coming from the engines? the fuselage? not there at all, just a reflection of some other light? was the icing visible on the leading edges? the top of the wings? was the attitude near-stall or normal? and so on and so on). Once a wikipedian creates an image, or multiple images, he is taking a stand on "historical" issues that are in doubt and in dispute. If this were a reliable source doing it, we could include the image, and say: "this is Aviation Safety's artist's rendition of the accident" (assuming it were freely licensed, which is unlikely). In this case, we can't really say "this is an anonymous Wikipedian's rendition of the accident", because the entire concept of Wikipedia is that we follow reliable sources, and we try to avoid our own interpretations of historical events and disputes like the plague. Using our self-made fake images in a hotly disputed accident would fly in the face of our WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies and the spirit of this project, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No one is going to use a CGI picture off a wikipedia page for an authoritative investigation of the incident. If it helps the "lay" reader, is based on reasonable interpretation of reliable and cited sources, and does not claim to be more authoritative than it is, I see no reason to exclude it. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
SDY, how is taking one specific slant of a hotly disputed case, by a random Wikipedian rendering an image which is supporting or refuting some of the theories, "helping" anyone? The entire concept of Wikipedia is that we don't take sides, and don't invent things, and here we are taking sides and manufacturing evidence in a dispute. This is exactly what the core policies of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV were designed to prevent. Crum375 (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Some sort of image is helpful, actually, since it gives people an idea of what kind of plane crashed. DC-8's aren't exactly a common airplane these days. I think either image that's been used recently is fine for that purpose. Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We all agree with that point, SDY. And in this specific case, we have a nice freely licensed image showing an identical aircraft of the same type, so it's exactly the same as the accident aircraft except for the paint scheme. We also have a photo of the specific accident aircraft, actual paint scheme and all, before the accident, but that image requires a single click, since it's non-free. So the issue is that some people feel that showing the reader the actual paint scheme embedded in the article (as opposed to a click away for the paint scheme in this case, plus an identical type embedded) is so important that we should create a fake image of the aircraft ourselves and include it in the lead. Prior to this, they were trying to include a fake image of the aircraft just seconds before crashing, showing (or not showing) various disputed aspects. I feel that we need to stick to reliable sources as much as we can, even for images, especially in contentious cases, and if there is a freely licensed published photo of the same aircraft type (i.e. identical shape-wise) we should use that in lieu of our creative imagination, especially when the actual accident aircraft is one click away. Crum375 (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article ?

I wish that this policy page be better structured and written, so that the policy is more clearly stated. Am I the only one to think that ? Would the page get a "good article" status if such an assessment was possible for policy page ? Isn't it of lower quality than the WP:V and WP:NPOV pages ? I find the NPOV page a very good example to follow.

Here are some improvements I suggest (there may be many others):

Any thoughts ? Pcarbonn (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Move the WP:PSTS section to the WP:V page ?

I find it strange that half of the page is devoted to "reliable sources" : shouldn't this be documented in WP:V ? Any thoughts ? What's the point of defining primary, secondary and tertiary sources if these words are not used at all in the policies (I checked !) ?? Maybe this should be moved elsewhere... The WP:OR page would gain a lot in clarity. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Another option would be to place it on a page of its own. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have looked at past archives, and I see the point of describing PSTS here. However, the section intro is misleading, as it says that it is followed by a definition. In fact, the definition also includes the policy, which should be better separated. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Pandora's box. Do not open. Eeevil. No touchee. No touchee. Its safer to let your eyes glaze over when you see the term 'PSTS'. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, this would make more sense to be in WP:V. I'm not sure if it should go onto its own page, though, since it's part of official policy. --Explodicle (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This was argued extensively about a year ago... and was a very controvercial suggestion. If you wish to raise the issue again, you will probably find both strong support and strong opposition. The last time it was suggested, there was a solid block of editors who felt stongly that the section is vital to Wikipedia, and to this policy in particular. There was also a solid block of editors thought the section should be moved. The end result was no consensus either way... and defaulted to keeping things as they are. You are welcome to try again if you wish, but don't expect to reach a consensus quickly.
To inform the discussion: some background on the section ... the term "Primary source" entered this policy through the statement that "Wikipedia should not be the primary source for information"... in other words, information should not originate on Wikipedia (which was firmly in line with the intent of the policy). That led to the need to define what we mean by "primary source". THAT lead to defining "secondary" and "teritary" ... somewhere along the line the original intent (don't make Wikipedia the primary source for information) got lost in the shuffle. Over time, the focus shifted to the fact that primary sources can be misused to form OR, and how we prefer Secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see where the obstacle towards consensus would lay. In my opinion, primary sources are best left tied in to policy on original research rather than verifiability. Although primary sources can occasionally be used to verify statements (ie, population census figures), they often need to be interpreted. What we're trying to avoid, then, is the risk of misinterpretation though original research. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
After further review, I'm now fine with keeping this section here. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess I would have been in the "move" camp, but where exactly we keep it doesn't really matter so long as it means the same thing. --Explodicle (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute regarding PSTS

I'm involved in a dispute with other editors regarding the use of primary sources in our article on beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The article relies almost entirely on The Watchtower and Awake! for sources, and we have a fundamental disagreement as to whether or not this is acceptable. The dispute resolution procedure suggested that I ask here for a few outside perspectives. --Explodicle (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to further explain the situation, the most recent debate is whether The Watchtower and Awake! are primary or secondary sources. There have also been debates over the suitability of the two sources based on WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB (point #7) but those have been/will be addressed separately from the issue of possible original research. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If the argument is that the article can not cite The Watchtower and Awake! because they are primary sources, this is a misreading of the policy... PSTS states clearly that primary sources can be used (they just have to be used with care). Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would say it depends on the issue being discussed. I think these publications are clearly primary sources, and in general, primary sources are acceptable for non-controversial information. They should not be used to promote or disparage the person or organisation under discussion, nor to make exceptional claims which are unsupported or contradicted by reputable secondary sources. If there is any doubt, interpretation of primary sources by reputable secondary sources is needed. Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course. I'm not saying we shouldn't use primary sources at all; I just don't think we should rely on them as the primary basis for the article. --Explodicle (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My argument was that the Watchtower and Awake! are not primary sources, rather that they are secondary sources. In my opinion, the primary source for Christian doctrine of all denominations would be the Bible - different interpretations of the Bible are what lead to different religious doctrines accross different denominations. According to my understanding of WP:PSTS, I believe that The Watchtower and Awake! are secondary sources because they make analytic or synthetic claims of the information in the Bible which is the primary source because it is a religious scripture. I think the Watchtower and Awake! are one step removed from the primary source and, therefore, the use of those two publications would not constitute original research because the synthesis was already presented and published outside of the primary source (Bible). SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the topic. The magazines would be secondary sources for a discussion of the Bible, but they would be primary sources for a discussion of the JWs. Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Merging the two topics then, could the two magazines be considered as secondary sources for a discussion of the JWs' view of the Bible? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that it matters... since the article is about the JWs beliefs, and the two magazines are published by the JWs, they are appropriate sources for statements as to those beliefs.... no matter whether they are considered Primary or Secondary. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I completely agree about the suitability of the two publications for the purpose of discussing their belief system. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That said... remember to stick to what the sources say and not to go beyond that. Don't use either magazine for an interpretation as to what the JWs believe about the Bible, unless the magazine explicitly contains that interpretation. This can be tricky. Just take care. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Since they are promotional in nature, these sources are questionable, and should not be the primary basis for any article. I believe "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so". By relying on primary sources, this article has become a bloated statement of faith without mention of what the rest of the world thinks. If everything in there is noteworthy, then I want to see some proof. --Explodicle (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Re the claim that "this article has become a bloated statement of faith without mention of what the rest of the world thinks": To be honest, I'd not noticed the link to the article on controversies from the main "Beliefs" page and I think Explodicle makes a good point. The "beliefs" page should at the very least refer to the controversies in in an expanded intro, or more appropriately, include the controversies, along with references, in the main article. It makes no sense for these two articles to be running in parallel when they are covering some common ground; indeed choosing not to merge content pretty well precludes the use of any sources other than the Watchtower Society publications. LTSally (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a point of note: Don't invoke PSTS when what you really want is WP:RS. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed... It seems as if the article might have issues with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and perhaps even WP:V ... but it does not seem as if the article has issues with WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The impression I've gotten is that PSTS touches on a number of policies, and for the sake of organization (and lack of consensus to move it elsewhere) it is just kept here. --Explodicle (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Material serving to advance a position"

I would propose to reword "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" into "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". The reason is that we need to assume good faith. Also, there is no way to show that a synthesis has been done with the purpose to advance a position. We can however say that it advances a position (or not). This is prompted by a recent discussion on the cold fusion article. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has not been challenged, so I go ahead and make the change. Please discuss your rationale if you do not like it. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I would propose to go further and remove any reference to "which advances a position". Any original synthesis is contrary to the policy, whether it advances a position or not. Actually, any statements advance a position, doesn't it ? Pcarbonn (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I have now checked archive 32 and 33, which have some discussions on this topic. In particular, it says:
  • A<citation> + B<citation> = C ... where C is an editor's conclusion
Is a clearly form of OR and is not acceptable.
While
  • A<citation> + B<citation> = C<citation> ... where the citations are to different sources
Might be a form of OR and might not be... it depends on whether C draws it's conclusion directly from A and B.
Whereas...
  • (A + B = C)<citation>
is clearly not a form of OR and is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In the first formula, I don't see why we need to say that C is the editor's conclusion. It should suffice to say that it is an unpublished conclusion. As some people have said, this case is already covered by OR in general, anyway. So WP:SYN is really about formula 2, I would think. There again, I see no need to say "to advance a position". Pcarbonn (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I see a need for "serves to advance" when dealing with people who think it's OK to do A + B and just make C really obvious without actually saying it. In nearly all such cases, the need for sources to be directly related to the topic of an article would nix those sorts of statements where they constitute original research, but it's fairly annoying to deal with in any event. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, and I can imagine such situations. In some ways, this is covered by "sources not directly related to the subject of the article" in WP:SYN. On the other hand, I could also imagine someone stating A with appropriate sources that are not related to the subject of the article, with the purpose of advancing a position. In other words, the issue you raise does not apply only to new synthesis, but to any single sources as well. So it may be better to write a separate section on this issue, saying that citing any source that is not related to the topic of an article is OR.Pcarbonn (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The "policy in a nutshell" would then become this:

  • (Not changed:) Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
  • (New:) Articles many not contain statements from sources that are not directly related to the topic of the article.
  • (Modified:) Articles may not contain any original analysis or synthesis of material from any source.

Note that the first bullet point repeats the WP:V policy, and could be dropped, IMHO. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If editors can not synthesis material, i.e., write an accurate summary of what he sources say, then how can we build an encyclopedia? You are left with only material that is directly attributed to the sources used and/or copyvios. Brimba (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that you are confusing summarizing and synthesizing. The distinction is clearly made in the article: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis". Editors are allowed to summarize, i.e. "write an accurate summary of what he sources say", but not to synthesize. So, I don't see the issue you are raising once the meanings of words are made clear, and I maintain my request to change the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In either case the point is that if it properly represents what the sources say, its fine. If it is being used to advance a position (by default the editors position) inconsistent with the sources used, then it violates NOR. Brimba (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If an edit does not properly represent what the source says, then the "policy in a nutshell" above would be enough to revert it. Can you think of a case where they would not be enough ? We should avoid the need to make a judgement call of whether "it advances a position". Again, let's assume good faith. The wording "Advance a position" supposes the possibility to determine the goal behind the edit, which in practice we cannot. We need a more objective criteria.
I have seen many disputes where editors were accusing each other of OR and POV. This is the consequence of a criteria based on a judgement call: it encourages editors to accuse each other. We could avoid silly battles and save a lot of time if we had an objective criteria of OR. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You are using word definitions as opposed to defining how sources are being used. Wikipedia is by and large does not use the best possible English as it is a work developed over time with the input of many people. The wiki format is both a strength and a weakness. You would redefine the policy in terms of words instead of usage. “Articles may not contain any original analysis or synthesis of material from any source.” Is there anything in currently in Wikipedia that I could not remove under this? I think not. Not that I would get very far, I would simply get an edit war going with more fair minded editors.
If I enter a statement into WP, no mater how mundane, I am taking a position as an editor that what I am entering is a statement of fact. If I say “Monday always follows Sunday” have I not taken a position or put forward an opinion? Where is the bad faith? We define things by how the sources are used, not by labels. Thus “Synthesis of published material which advances a position” and not “Synthesis vs. Summary”. The whole point of your edits seems to be to sidestep this. The focus is on how we use sources, not upon what we call the process. Brimba (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I miss your point. You are saying that any statement entered by an editor, now matter how mundane, is advancing an opinion. That's exactly what I said: the policy as you want it stated would apply to all edits. The policy I propose, if we make the distinction between synthesis and summary, does not have this problem. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
@Pcarbonn: The "advancing a position" is indeed superfluous to the spirit of the statement and of the policy.
@Brimba: "advancing a position" wasn't conceived as an escape hatch for mundane edits: "Monday always follows Sunday" won't be sourced anyway, and besides there is no "thus" inherent to such a statement, and thats where SYNTH kicks in.
Think about it this way: Policy wasn't designed to hamper you, its assuming good faith. And policy is only invoked by an editor peering at someone else's edits. Under those circumstances, "advancing a position" is really providing every editor with a back door -- he/she can then simply wikilawyer that SYNTH doesn't apply to him/her because his synthesis (the one OR policy is being invoked for) doesn't advance a position.
So, however you cut it, its wikilawyering. The spirit of the statement doesn't need the "advancing a position" clause. We don't need it if we do assume good faith, and its blowback if the good faith turns out to have been misplaced. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I probably could have worded that better, sorry. Part of what I am saying is, even in the case of very mundane things, items that would for obvious reasons never be challenged and never require a source, we as editors are still using our own inherit judgment when we edit. You can call that advancing an opinion if you wish or the more common term would be exercising editorial judgment. No one edits in a vacuum, they review what the sources say, and then enter a summery of the information into WP. That summery is the position the editor takes. Hopefully it matches the sources, holds true to NPOV, etc. Often times even when the material violates WP:SYN the conclusions are valid, but its not for us to make that determination or to be a publisher of such material. In either case saying that someone has taken a position is in no way a violation of AGF. For better or worse they have acted as an editor, nothing more and nothing less. When the sources used back the editors conclusion/summery that is good, when they fail to do so that is bad, but pointing that out does not violate AGF. You have to have reasoned discussion and editors have to be free to express an opinion. I don’t know if that helps any, I hope so. Brimba (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Your argument says that adding "to advance a position" does not hurt the policy. It does not say why it would have to be there in the first place. So, let's remove it. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"to advance a position" is policy and has been for a long time. If that is in error as you are insisting, please build a clear consensus per WP:CON “In the case of policy and process pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages.” Brimba (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it is in error, because it does not assume good faith, and is subjective. Please provide a reason to keep it, so that we can resolve this issue. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that John J. Bulten supports the change (see diff comment), and Fullstop (see his comments in this thread).
You are concerned that the new phrasing would apply to any edit. Please provide an edit where you think it would erroneously apply, so that we can discuss it. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that a policy statement that does not reflect a consensus should be removed, as you rightly suggest. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to have time tonight to get into details, but I will repost some parts of two past discussions. Please note that there is additional discussion in both cases, and that the issue has been discussed at other times in other places within the achieve, I simply pulled from two where from the title used it was clear that the subject was discussed.

From Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 31# query on "to advance a position":

Are there syntheses, previously unpublished, which do not advance a position and which Wikipedia would therefore publish? In other words, is "to advance a position" a superfluous phrase that could be deleted? Or, is it helpful because any article written is, to some extent, a previously unpublished synthesis, albeit only in the sense that it is a new tertiary source; obviously it must not advance positions or novel ideas. ? --Lquilter (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not superfluous but crucial. All Wikipedia articles are previously unpublished syntheses. What's not allowed is for a position to be advanced via synthesis. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 33#Synthesis vs. synthesis advancing a position:

I take exception to this [12] edit by Slrubenstein because it no longer makes it clear that it is synthesis advancing an unpublished position that is prohibited, and not all synthesis. Synthesis that serves to summarize and organize published material is acceptable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And this is a case of changing long-standing policy without discussion as well. Dhaluza (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thee is no change of policy. And there was considerable discussion concerning revising the nutshell, ove a period of weeks. As for the specifics: the version I restored makes it clear that syntheses need to be backed up by sources, which is what our policy requires. The prior version makes it sound like no synthesis, even one from a reliable secondary source, is permitted. That violates our policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC) :::Your definition of synthesis is too narrow. Straightforward organizing of published material, without introducing new ideas, can be considered synthesis too. But many would read the changed policy as prohibiting this. The reaction might be either to obey the overly broad policy, or more likely, regard it as absurd and ignore the entire policy. --Gerry Ashton (talk)

04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your use of synthesis is wrong. From the Wiktionary: Synthesis, Noun: the formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things. That is all synthesis means for the purposes of this policy. That is all it will ever mean. The word has a clearly established definition which should not and will not be changed just for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have it's own newspeak. What your edit did in effect was suggest that the combination of any two sources anywhere within an article, even in separate sections, was prohibited. That is why the qualifier "that serves to advance a position" is added to the end of any mention of synthesis, because every article on Wikipedia is a synthesis. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Brimba (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brimba for this detailed answer. It looks to me that the word "synthesis" is the source of the problem, because of its different meaning. One of the meaning given by Merriam Webster is "deductive reasoning". So one option would be to say : "articles may not contain any new deductive reasoning". Would this create a better consensus than any of the current proposals ? Or are there other forms of synthesis than deductive reasoning that we want to prevent ? Please give an example if it is so. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, please clarify: does "to advance a position" apply to any edit, or only to some edits. You seem to be ambivalent on this one. If it applies only to some edits, how does it assume good faith ? If it applies to all, why should we include it in the policy ? Pcarbonn (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pcarbonn, just wanted to leave a quick note so you did not think I had abandoned the discussion. My short wikibreak may run through tomorrow, with luck though I will have time tonight to add to the discussion. In a very short answer, "to advance a position" would be the editor’s position, not the sources. 99 times out of 100 or more is done in good faith, and much of the time the editor is correct in his/her assumptions. Only if someone was intentionally trying to use WP for propaganda purposes or vandalize etc would it be bad faith. “why should we include it in the policy ?” because is a correct description of what is occurring, and describing it as such makes it easy to identify. I don’t see the conflict with AGF, I see it in the same class as a statement such as “Mark walked through the door”, I do not see it as a statement implying motive to why they are advancing the position, simply that they are doing it. I guess that is what I am missing; I don’t see how it implies motive and therefore I don’t see how it conflicts with AGF. Well, now I have written more then two sentencesJ Anyway I will try to be back in the conversation soon. Brimba (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Brimba. I'll be happy to read you later. I can't believe that synthesis of published material "that serves to advance a position" is not describing the intent of such synthesis, but I'll wait for your explanation of what it really is. (I agree that it does not describe why they want to advance such a position, but every motive has itself another motive, in an (in)finite recursion, hasn't it ?)
Here is what AGF says: "countermeasures (like reverting or blocking) are performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent". Because "that serve to advance a position" describes an intent, IMHO, one cannot use it as a criteria to apply countermeasures, and thus, it can't be part of this policy. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally made it back. I have been trying to think of a concise way of putting this, and have decided to fall back on a sports analogy. Sorry. In sports you often have lines drawn on a fielded that define the size and shape of the area where players can legitimately compete. When players cross those lines they are “out of bounds”. Such lines are clear because they exist in a real three-dimensional world. Existing in the real world means that they can be precisely drawn and colored so that anyone can readily see exactly where they are.
We unfortunately do not have the benefit of being able to draw lines on solid ground. We have to define what is allowed and what is not, without being as precise as we would like to be. This is because we use words and words have slightly different meanings from one person to the next. Sometime the words are interrupted in completely different ways from one editor to the next which is partially why we have discussion pages. Our rules will never be bullet-proof. The wording "that serve to advance a position "is used as such a line to establish when an “editor is engaged in original research.” It was not reached on a whim, and there was a large amount of discussion on the subject. I am not going to say that it is perfect, but was best that anyone one came up with at the time.
One of the problems that we have in this discussion is you see motive or intent being described while I do not. Imagine that Wikipedia exist on two separate but identical planes or dimensions. In one an editor combines two sources together to reach a logical conclusion and then enters that conclusion into Wikipedia. In doing so he has not done anything morally or ethically wrong, in fact his conclusion was correct. However, he still combined sources together to advance a position, even though he was correct in his conclusion. He in essence went “out of bounds”. If you enter material into Wikipedia, you as an editor are responsible for making sure that material is directly backed by a source, even if you are correct and have the best of possible intentions or no intentions at all. Now imagine that on the other plane, an editor enters in the exact same conclusion using the exact same wording, only this time he has a source that directly supports his conclusion, meaning in this context it is not the editors own conclusion, but it is instead a conclusion reached by a reliable published source. Therefore it was not used to advance the editors position, because it was a conclusion or position that existed independent of the editor. Neither editor was acting in bad faith, nor was there ever any reason to assume such. One crossed the line as we define it; however, the line that was crossed was not a moral or ethical line, it was simply a technical line that was established to show as best as we could what is or is not acceptable sourcing. Both editors in this example where attempting to improve Wikipedia. That’s probably enough for tonight. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Brimba. If I follow your example properly, you say that original research was done in the first case, but not in the second. I would agree. The main reason you give is that no source existed to support the conclusion in the first case, while there was one in the second case. So why not give this as the criteria for OR ! NOR would then mean that you cannot insert original deductive reasoning, i.e. deductive reasoning that has not been published a source related to the topic of the article. Wouldn't this wording exactly represent your view ? Why do you see a need to add "that serves to advance a position", which grammatically is a clear description of intent, and can certainly be interpreted as such ? Let's avoid the confusion if we can.
You say: the current wording is a result of many debates. Was the "Assume good faith" argument presented before? I don't think so, but let me know otherwise. While I agree that policies should be as stable as possible, it is wikipedia's philosophy that any page can always be improved. I see a clear case for doing it here. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this page as it stands, but the proposals don't sound very good either. Frankly OR requires some discretion; it's hard to describe exactly. We should certainly be able to put together a fundamentally disparate yet connected set of facts -- this is exactly what building an article is about. Yet some people will try to claim that is OR. Sometimes these sets of facts will incline themselves to a position -- and I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of in that. Let us not pretend that we edit articles out of pure randomness; we are all connected to the articles that we are writing -- we all have something that we want known about them. Anyway, as far as changing this page: if you want to make a major change, you ought to do a formal Request for Comment. Otherwise, I don't think you can make a case for actually having a consensus. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

It appears that after a long but failed effort to adopt Wikipedia:Attribution the proponents have devised a new and confusing custom tag to legitimize the instructions as a "summary" of other processes. This lacks the consensus to be anything other than Essay status and should be so tagged. While I don't specifically oppose or support ATT, I don't think that we need to confuse the issue with a new process category which is not described at WP:Policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the WP:ATT effort results from dissatisfaction with the quality of the WP:OR page. I share this dissatisfaction. See my comment in the previous thread. If WP:ATT is rejected, I would propose to improve the WP:OR article, eg. by reusing some material from WP:ATT. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that the summary tag has been on that page since at least last June (although not without some opposition)... I think it is hardly a "new" tag, and does have some degree of consensus. It developed out of discusions that several editors had with Jimbo, all the way back during the debate over merging NOR and V. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OK... it is time this on-going debate was settled... please opine at WT:Attribution#RfC - Status?, thanks. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Various OR questions.

  1. Some en.WP (possibly other) editors object to untranslated citations and references. When dealing with areas where English scholarship is very limited, this represents major gaps in what may be cited, if we are limited solely to published works in English. I am sure this issue has been raised before, but couldn't see anything on the main page. The question is - should I cite the original text (which would not be OR) or should I translate it - without publication or peer review?
  2. And does the latter really not consist of OR?
  3. On a separate issue, especially in Africa and Asia there are oral traditions for which there are no published works. Are these traditions barred from disclosure on Wikipedia, on the basis that they don't meet the OR / WP:V ruleset?
  4. What about direct personal experience? If I know of an incident in a great amount of detail, and also know that the primary published works have made a mistake regarding that incident, is my mouth sealed?
  5. Arguing with those on WP who won't rely upon anything other than what is published is now futile. Moreover, published works are far from fact, though the modern focus on 'cite' means that there are many articles that do not refer to those texts as offering views, but as offering facts about the subject. Take the article of the day ( Durian ) for a (random) example. Citations from ISBN 92-9043-318-3 are embedded into the article as declarations of fact. Now, in this case, it may well be that the book is a well-known, peer reviewed reliable source - but there's no evidence for that on WP. Here is a specific example that caused me a headache a while ago - mandala#Tibetan_Vajrayana has many cites and references - but for anyone who has 20+ years of experience with the traditions of the Tibetan Vajrayana (notoriously unpublished and primarily oral lineages) about half the text is pure speculation, based upon a collection of texts which include art books, 'tibetologists' who depend upon their own theories more than anything else, random web pages of pure speculative OR - and even dead links. Yet it LOOKs like it is well referenced.

Therefore, cites are relying upon the authority of published works which themselves are not subject to any check for reliability on WP.
It was in light of these issues that I ceased being an editor for two years. (20040302 (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Okay, I know see that some of these questions are at least half-answered on WP:V (20040302 (talk))
Okay, glad you saw them. To confirm what you have already learned, #1 and #2 are questions I myself have run into, in the Fitna film article. There were citations in Dutch which proved rather helpful in resolving a heated debate. Wikipedia is graced with having some fairly smart people in it. Many of them speak more than one language. We are allowed to interpret for the basic reason that any misinterpretations are going to get called out as such pretty darn quick. Granted, if you speak Tuvan or some such esoteric language, a misinterpretation might go unnoticed for a while, but with as many people reading Wikipedia as there are, smeone's eventually going to notice. Translations sort themselves out much like plot summaries to films and such, through an agreed-upon consensus that it is accurate.
You probably also know that - even if you are famous - you cannot really cite yourself (actually, that is not precisely true, but there are special rules in place for that sort of thing). Sources are Wikipedia's way of staying above the fray and remaining true to one of the Five Pillars - neutrality.
In the case of the oral history unpublished in written works, I think you've got yourself a fine idea for a book. Now go find a publisher and make a lot of money by writing such a book. Don't forget your new friend Arcayne when it comes time to cash that first advance check. Seriously, though, I understand the lamentable situation this represents, but until someone creates references (be they books or documentary films or television programs - such as has been done about the likely extinction of the aforementioned Tuvan language), Wikipedia's hands are relatively tied.
Lastly, welcome back to the Project. I urge you to use that great big head of experience you have to help remove all of those dead links you find in articles that interest you (as well as any OR that happens to have been tied to them). Cite the statements which you think require citation, and recognize that your knowledge cannot be added to that article as a counterweight to incorrect info. If its wrong, some expert in the field, somewhere, has likely said so. Lies are very hard things to preserve in the internet age.
Again, welcome back, 2040302! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What to do about serious editors with legitimate OR.

I suggest an interwiki link to Wikiversity:Research or Wikiversity:Original research; the policy there is still a work in progress. Bwrs (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, are you suggesting to add interwikilinks into the policy? While this may be a good idea to channel the energy of OR from wikipedia to somewhere else, is it OK for wikipedia policy to promote other websites? If it was not your meaning, please explain. Mukadderat (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussing Primary/Secondary sources

{{RFCpolicy|section=WT:OR#Discussing Primary/Secondary sources !! reason=Primary scientific literature reviews prior literature, making it a secondary source. !! time=06:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)}} It seems to me that the PSTS deserves to be fleshed out and perhaps changed. A review of the literature on a broad topic will list and briefly describe the findings of certain studies. In some cases, after lengthy studies, a systematic review of a specialized topic will be made -- but most often not, even when the topic is important. It seems that for interpreting a study itself, it is often best to go to the discussion section of primary sources themselves. Subsequent papers on a topic will review prior literature, and often write in clear language. Thus, for specialized research, primary sources by specialists are sometimes preferable to reviews of the literature, especially when they are more comprehensive and more up to date. Note also that technically a primary article is a secondary source for information about prior studies. I believe that there are 3 invalid generalizations about "reviews": that reviews put things in context whereas primary studies don't; that reviews are easier to read; and that reviews are "less biased". I've provided a counterexample comparing PMID 17305757 and Complications of coeliac disease: are all patients at risk?. There's another issue, where some editors believe that if something has not been published in a review, it is not admissible into an article. Or, if a single study has been covered in a review, but the review mentions no other studies, it is not admissible. This is the study bringing this up, cited in the prior mentioned "Complications" review and objected to by SandyGeorgia here. This position effectively prevents WP from covering breaking scientific research in important areas, which I think is rather harmful. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How is an encyclopedia editor supposed to place studies in context? If there is no review on a specialised topic available, perhaps it is not suitable for discussion in a general encyclopedia. Primary sources can be cited, but only if they are sufficiently placed in context by additional material. Oh, and the "discussion" section of primary sources is not necessarily an unbiased account; these sections have a habit of emphasising particular points from the study and finding parallels in the literature while often ignoring conflicting reports. Systematic reviews don't suffer from this problem. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Most research papers put their research into context by citing related studies. If you believe that they present a biased view of the literature, I can't solve your lack of faith in scientists -- but reviews are not necessarily free from this problem. Non-rhetorical question: why do you think that they are free from this bias? Reviews are not comprehensive. Review is a broad term. Certain "systematic reviews" may be attempt to be as comprehensive as possible, but even they are rarely comprehensive. Specific example: Tim pointed us to Complications of coeliac disease: are all patients at risk?. For quality of life, this paper mentions 5 studies; there had been a fair bit more than 5 as of 2006, several of them quite important. It provides very little analysis -- it simply reports findings. In fact, citing it for an assertion is possibly poor form, as it is probably better to cite the source. It makes no mention of the discrepancy between the European and American findings. PMID 17305757 notes the discrepancy in its introduction/discussion (if you need the paper, let me know). It is a primary study, but is more current and more focused upon the quality of life literature, which presumably its authors are specialists in. The author of the review may not be a specialist in this particular area of coeliac disease. PMID 17305757, in fact, also a secondary source on prior studies -- but I don't think its primary findings should be weighted less heavily than the previous studies which it reports on. If you disagree, please explain why -- but I don't understand why a primary study in 2007 is less relevant than the prior reviews which that primary study cites. The aggregate is what matters. Why should we consider the author of a review a more credible source for the aggregate -- especially when the review misses so many things? Also, Sandy seems to think that things which are relatively unstudied and thus not noted in a review should be kept out of the encyclopedia, as she took issue with my addition of this study. If only one study has been done on an important topic, then it is best to cite that study, and look for the follow-ups -- not leave it out until there have been several follow-ups, and then even wait even longer until someone has collected all those follow-ups in one paper. People should be able to understand that there's only been one study and react accordingly.
The broad generalization that reviews are better than primary studies, or, worse, that reviews are the only admissible evidence is based on invalid logical assumptions: that reviews are easier to read, less biased, and more comprehensive. None of these are necessarily true. The goal is to get as good of a picture of the relevant literature as possible, and in some cases recent "primary" studies are the best sources for this. And if reviews aren't available, as they usually are not, then we certainly shouldn't censor breaking science out of the encyclopedia. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are interviews primary or secondary sources?

Per WP:PSTS, are published interviews primary or secondary sources? They customarily go under the byline of the interviewer (making them appear, at least superficially, to be secondary sources), but the information contained in them is primarily provided by the interviewee -- particularly where the interviewer takes the role of facilitator not inquisitor. I have seen two forms of writeups of such interviews:

  1. Straight transcripts -- these would appear to be unambiguously primary sources, as the words are the interviewee's own.
  2. 'As told to me by...' writeups, where the wording is the interviewer's, but the information is explicitly described as being provided by the interviewee -- this is somewhat greyer, but still arguably a source "very close to the origin of a particular topic".

Most common use of such interviews is in articles about the interviewee. HrafnTalkStalk 05:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is: As to what was said in the interview, it the edited and published version is a secondary source. The primary source being a recording of the interview or, absent that, the notes of the note-taker. As to the subject which was being discussed, it is nothing, i.e. not a reliable source. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree... Interviews are primary sources, in that they do not provide analysis or conclusions about what is stated. A secondary source would be one that drew upon the interview and expanded on it to reach conclusions. Remember that primary sources can be reliable... in this case that usually depends on who conducts the interview and where it was published. If the venue of publication is reliable (ie has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy), an interview it publishes should be considered reliable as well. That said... as with any reliable primary source, we must take care not include our own analysis or state conclusions based upon what is stated in the interview. Keep to the source and attribute any statements so that readers know who said what. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
By which token some magazine articles that call themselves "interviews" are largely secondary, as they make analytical points based on what the interviewee said, and quote their interview (without the full transcript). An interview as broadcast on TV or radio will usually be a primary source, but that does depend on what you're using it to source. SamBC(talk) 19:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sciences:

"Articles that quote researchers from oral interviews are secondary sources. The researchers being quoted publish their written work in primary research articles." [13]

Hyacinth (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

my very well-informed colleague at SJSU is clearly writing about a different context entirely, based on the introduction to the page quoted--that when a student is asked to prepare a paper based upon the primary sources in a scientific subject, they are expected to use the actual research papers, not reports of them elsewhere that merely quote them or discuss them. The actual usefulness in a WP context is different--if the interview actually discusses the work from an independent point of view, it's a usable secondary source at Wikipedia. If it merely repeats the position of the investigator, it is not.We can if we choose say its because it isnt independent, but it is also because it is an excerpt from the primary source. Students writing about research in an academic context are supposed to learn how to evaluate the research themselves, not take some else['s word for it. At Wikipedia, we do just the opposite--we base our articles on what other people say, not what the investigator says, and evaluation of the validity of scientific research is OR in our sense of the word--we do not do it. DGG (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And this change in context changes the definition of primary and secondary? Hyacinth (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary: they are not close enough to primary sources to be used as such in academic writing; they are too close to it to be used as sources in WP. DGG (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


In order to editorially judge the claims given in an interview it's valuable to remember what the implications are between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources of this sort (as opposed primary sources such as fossil remains or BAC results) are so-so sources of claims or statements so long as editors remain mindful of the particular context in which the interview was given. The implications, notability or interpretation from everyone else besides the author of the primary source are best left to secondary sources to describe, especially if it's not self-evident or disputed. The editing that may or may not come after the interview could be a significant factor in how to weigh claims made in the interview. The editorial or publisher review is complicated when it comes to interviews, so in some ways it's even more of a "primary" source requiring even more care from wp editors than a book written by the same individual interviewed. (That the subject is seen worthy to interview helps in assessing notability of the individual interviewed, but not every claim made by that individual in the interview.) Interviewees can misspeak, they can be quoted out of context-and the interviewees' opportunities to correct either are very different than is the case with articles or books they've authored and published. I don't think there can be a simple straightforward rule to go by in dealing with interviews. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Since Prof. M mentions notability, I just want to add more explicitly that I think it is particularly important that interviews not be used to establish the notability of the article's subject: they just don't count as the significant coverage that guideline requires. I am inclined to see them as primary sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Professor marginalia- Given our context can you point to materials which define primary and secondary sources? Hyacinth (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki's OR policy has disturbing side effects

Since about a month ago, I have been editing the articles on thermal and statistical physics on wikipedia. I had noticed before that some articles contained false or misleading information but I never had taken a close look at all the articles. A month ago, I found out that the problem was not limited to just one or two articles but that a large fraction of all the articles contained serious mistakes. These mistakes have existed for quite a few years, so the contents of these flawed wiki articles have spread all over the internet.

I have corrected most of the errors by rewriting these articles since then. But the question remains: How could this have happened? I think that the wiki policy regarding OR is a major factor here, as I explained here.

What happens is that when people who are not experts (in the sense that they don't deal with the fundamentals of this subject on a regular basis, but who may have studied this subject and may know quite a lot about the subject even use it regularly) write about a technical subject like this, they can very easily make errors that they can only spot by sitting down with paper and pencil and deriving the formulas from first principles. Many editors do not have access to the cited textbooks and even if they had a copy, they would not read it in detail and be able to see the error.

The way around this problem is to discuss the fundamentals of the topic on the talk page. This is similar to what students, Professors etc. at university do all the time. Even when the subject is something very elementary, you cannot settle a discussion by saying that Book X says Y, so Y is the answer. If you know why Y is the answer and can explain that, you wouldn't need the book. So, if your best argument is like that, then you haven't understood it.

Now the OR policy doesn't exactly encourage technical discussions on the talk page. I have indeed seen that there was hardly any technical discussion going on on the talk pages of the flawed articles on thermal physics.

Not so long ago, such technical discussions prevented Ed Gerck from editing nonsense into the special relativity article. Of course, we could simply have reverted Ed without discussion. But then the reason why we could have done that is because we are experts in the first place. But then experts tend not to shy away from technical discussions. If the regular editors had less expertise, then Ed could have convinced them, pointing to a source here and there and some flawed reasoning. The regulars would have been none the wiser except if they decided to do some computations for themselves to see if Ed was saying is really true.

If Wiki policies were to encourage such technical discussions instead of emphasizing the need to provide a source to back up your point, that would actually lead to editors seeking help from other more knowledgeable experts. Of course, OR should not be allowed in the article itself and sources must be provided there. But they can be quite worthless if the editors are not able or willing to discuss the subject at the fundamental level. Count Iblis (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Were these articles that had been edited by User:Sadi Carnot? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having technical discussions on the article talk page... sometimes you have to go into the realm of OR in discussing a contentious edit. The trick is not to put that OR into the article itself. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Part of a disturbing trend at Wikipedia is the demands for more leniency for those who peddle nonsense. There are a growing number of "friendlies" as some call them, who are only on Wikipedia for socializing and for conducting "warfare" against other groups. They do not care about the content on Wikipedia. They do not care about reliability of the information. They do not care about standards. And any action taken against those who want to push nonsense is met with fierce aggressive protests by the "friendlies" who percieve any such dispute as an opportunity for them to mount battles against their assorted "enemies" on Wikipedia. And this sort of behavior goes on over and over and over. And this makes it far harder to get rid of the kind of misinformation you found, and far easier for it to be created and protected on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Filll, I agree 100%. What makes thi sproblem worse than the usual pseudoscience cases is that many students may have read the flawed version of aticles thermal physics and now they have to "unlearn" it.
Blueboar, I think that wiki guidelines should perhaps mention that it is preferable that editors have mastered the topics they write about, i.e. that they are experts on the subject. Technical debates on the talk page should be encouraged. The fact that you need to provide for a souce in the article is often used already in the talk page debates to end the discussion prematurely.
If almost all editors are experts and you have an lay quack then it is all too convenient to end the discusion pematurely. But in the thermal physics articles I've been working on the situation was the other way around. Many of the editors were chemists and engineers. So, they are not complete lay persons. However, they often don't have a deep understanding of thermal and statistical physics. Count Iblis (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Reply to Tim:

Yes, some of these articles were also edited by Sadi Carnot. When his problematic editing was uncovered last year, I actually wrote that the wikiproject physics and chemistry were to blame. We cannot simply put the blame on a single editor, ban him and then petend that all is well. Why did no one else correct the articles in a timely manner? So, the problem can occur again if we don't scrutinize the articles better
Now, at that time I was not involved in editing the thermal and statistical physics articles. As I wrote above, I only really started to get involved last month. I guess that the problems I corrected show that I was right about Sadi Carnot; the problem was indeed a lack of professional scrutiny which in many cases really involves sitting down with paper and pencil and veryfying what is written is true.
If we promote such an attitude then that will make less knowledgable editors who can only argue that "but my book says X", to be taken less serious. What matters in these techical subjects is why a certain statement is true. If a book says X, then you would really have to read the entire book which would include the "small print" assumed about statement X.
Today I happened I was involved in some limited edit wars see here In case of the Joule Thomson article, user Headbomb helkped me out wit a quote from F. Reif. The situation at "isenthalpic process" looks more bleak, because the editor there supports a statement that is obviously false in the general context.
Now these are just problems with editing that you may see at manyother wiki articles. What makes these cases special is that the flawed statements are backed up (allegedly) by sources and to see through that you need to have mastered the subject to a high degree so that you are actually able to derive the things that are written from first principles. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Count Iblis, your work on these articles is greatly welcome. The problem to a large extent is due to the difficulty in dealing with pov pushers like user:Sadi Carnot who make it extremely hard for genuine experts to make progress, and the tendency for articles to slip back into incoherence as seems to have happened at entropy. There, two educators with a background in chemistry made sterling efforts despite the difficulties, but once again misinformation like equating entropy to "disorder" or dodgy statements like it "is a measure of the randomness of molecules in a system" have returned to the fore. If someone professional can look it over that would be greatly appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"and the tendency for articles to slip back into incoherence as seems to have happened at entropy." LoL. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there are serious problems with the entropy article and I tried to get some points across on the talk page. The problem is not just with users like Sadi, but there are also a few chemists who want to keep the level of the article dumbed down because they are used to teaching it that way to their chemistry students.
One strategy to make improvements is to do a complete rewrite instead of small gradual changes as these small changes would be reverted. But it's still a risky strategy as you would need to invest quite some time and it could all be for nothing if the chemists and engineers don't like it. Count Iblis (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
We should not be too technical; the primary audience for our articles will be those who do not already know the stuff. Actual practicing chemists will have better sources, which will always be more reliable than we are; they should go there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article should be accessible to lay persons. However, you can then still choose to give a dumbed down explanation or to explain the concept in the way it is understood by scientists. The chemists don't think that's possible. They insist that you must explain entropy only in terms of heat, work and temperature. Any mention of information theoretical concepts would scare the readers away. I don't think that's true at all. I was even requested to provide a source for my assertion that an information theoretical approach could be easier to understand. Count Iblis (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
As an ignorant layman with a bias towards the heat, work and temperature approach I think it's still important to appreciate the significance of the statistical approach, though the maths is beyond me. Information theory may have the difficulty that "information entropy" differs significantly from thermal entropy, not least because there's no equivalent of the second law. So, both approaches are worth showing, but my suspicion is that the information approach will suit other more advanced students. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has a simple system for avoiding error: that articles should cite reliable sources which verify their content. The problem seems to be that scientists and mathematicians, like most editors, are too lazy to do this (you get what you pay for), and the rest of the community doesn't have the gumption to call them on this, preferring to challenge the sourcing for such important topics as Pokémon instead. The result is that an article on popular culture will tend to have better sources than a scientific article - see Jaws, for example. As an example of this disgraceful state of affairs, see First law of thermodynamics which has no sources despite being created 5 years ago. The answer is not for some select body of editors to be given a licence to indulge in OR. Instead, the fanatical defenders of scientific orthodoxy should stop wasting endless hours edit-warring over fringe topics like Homeopathy and attend to the basics. Only when they have put their own house in order, should they go chastising others. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you've put your finger on the problem. I'm strictly a humanities editor (albeit with a strong interest in the sciences), but I'm constantly struck by the lack of sourcing in many science articles. Specialised or obscure points may be referenced, but not the basic stuff. It's not necessary to reference specialist works for basic points - just ordinary text books will do in many cases. I wonder if this might be a result of an assumption on the part of the writers that "everyone knows the basics", which obviously isn't the case. Whatever the reason, we certainly need to do a better job of ensuring that everything we add is properly referenced, no matter how basic it may seem to someone familiar with the topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • See WP:WHEN. Referencing everyhting is expressly not required even for FA (this is what WP:WIAFA cites as its rules on when to cite).
  • In particular, stuff that genuinely everbody knows, and is not likely to be challenged, does not require citation; neither do tautologies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I've also edited plenty of physics articles with big errors. It sounds like people with mediocre knowledge of their fundamental thermodynamics were editing these articles. This is something that is bound to happen on Wikipedia. The solution is to wait for people like you with good knowledge of their fundamental thermodynamics to fix the articles. It also sounds like you've had edits reverted on the basis of people citing sources which they don't fully understand. I understand that that's frustrating, but it's really not that hard to find an appropriate passage supporting your contention in a good thermodynamics textbook, is it?

If you look at Talk:Centrifugal force, Talk:Lorentz force, or many other such articles, you'll see the best argument against your proposal. Not all technical discussions are productive technical discussions: Some people with poor understanding of math and physics will engage in endless "technical discussions" attempting to "derive" and "prove" their original and incorrect research. As you can see on those talk pages, these people can be extremely difficult and time-consuming to deal with under current Wikipedia policies; with your proposed changes, it would become practically impossible. Wikipedia policies should not leave any wiggle-room for people to justify pushing their fringe theories (even on talk pages), just because they think they can defend these theories from first principles.

Technical discussions already happen all the time in math and hard-science article talk pages. When good-faith, competent editors engage in these discussions, it can be very productive, and lead to more clear and accurate articles. But as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned, I don't think it makes sense to encourage it beyond what happens naturally. Instead, the solution to crappy technical articles is to hope that more and better editors come fix them sooner or later, and to remind your friends and family not to take Wikipedia's article content as infallible truth. :-) --Steve (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ChrisO makes a good point... I think those who edit in the sciences often have different takes on how to impliment the policies and guidelines than those who edit articles in the humanities. Science editors tend to assume that a lot of things fall into the "stuff everybody knows" category, when they really are talking about "stuff every scientist knows"... there is a bit of a difference. In general, humanities articles are overly cited, while science articles are under cited. Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a secondary point that could be added. Wikipedia was never intended to be the final word on a topic - the point of adding references isn't simply to ensure that content is verifiable, it's to provide the reader with links to fuller explanations of the topic at hand. Thus an article about an ancient Roman waste dump provides what you might call an abstract of the key points, while the reader wanting to read more can consult the references and continue on from there. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with Steve on this. Technical discussions between collaborators can be very productive, but disputes ultimately have to be resolved by appeal to reliable sources. Of course, even interpreting and representing the sources can be problematic, particularly given the multitude of pedagogical choices made in elementary textbooks, but I think it's the best that can be done given Wikipedia's democratic principles. Gnixon (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • This topic was started by Count Iblis. He is aware of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability but he appears to have contempt for it. He seems to be advocating that experts should use Talk pages to derive things from first principles, and then paste them into the main article, without the irritation of having to cite a source. Editors who hold this view should write their own articles for publication in a scientific journal, not a publicly editable document like Wikipedia. Count Iblis's approach appears to be incompatible with Wikipedia and its policy of verifiability. I have seen quite a bit of Count Iblis's work on Wikipedia and I have not seen one reference or citation that he has inserted. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong.) Count Iblis also advocates that experts should do the editing, not laymen. This is an elitist approach that is not compatible with what Wikipedia stands for. Editors should be judged on the quality of their writing, not their credentials.
WP:Verifiability states an important principle that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dolphin, you are advocating putting the cart before the horse. Now, I can go back to all my edits and put a source, say, F. Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal physics in there. I'm not going to do that, because that's not an urgent matter for now.

Do I have contempt for the wiki rules? Well, yes, in the sense I don't like the fact that many editors use the wiki rules in the same way as fundamentalist muslims use the Koran. verifiability, not truth was never meant to lead to "False, but Well Sourced" in a systematic way.

I can use Dolphin's bahavior on the isenthalpic process talk page to point out what is wrong. He wants to include a sourced statement in the article, which could well be a literal quote from a textbook. However, that statement taken at face value is trivially false. How can that be the case? This is because there is a lot of small print that you need to assume before the statement becomes true. I explained why that statement is false, but Dolphin wants me to quote a source that I'm right.

But you won't find a source debunking every stupidity. The sources assume that your understanding of the topic is of sufficient level. This problem cannot be repaired until Dolphin picks up his books and starts to write down all of the assumptions and defines all the concepts. In practice this may involve picking up the textbook and paper and pencil and working through some stuff just like students do. Reading textbooks properly does often involve some learning and the frase "literature research" is not an exaggeration.

Now, the fact that I have a dispute with Dolphin is not the problem. It is actually a very good thing, because I managed to keep a flawed but sourced statement out of the article, because I was able to see through that statement and recognize that it was false. Had I not visited that article, that statement would have stood there for who knows how many years. Of course, what happened was formally against the wiki rules, because you could accuse me of OR or at least Synthesis to overrule an exact quote from a textbook.

I'm not saying that only people with my expertise should edit these articles. What I'm saying is that editors like Dolphin should change their behavior, recognize that they collectively were responsible for for not just one or two flawed articles, but for a whole host of them. Recognize that they were not able to stop Sadi Carnot from editing nonsense in the articles for many years (because they didn't see that it was nonsense in the first place, Sadi sourced his statements well, didn't he) etc. etc.

What do I exactly mean with "change their behavior"? What I mean is what Steve said he is sometimes irritated about: Discuss the fundamentals of the topic on the talk page. Yes, sometimes a quack will come along and engage in techincal discussions in which he is proved wrong and still continues. Then you want to say: "Please give a source or go away". But if you look at the articles Steve is talking about, they are high quality articles. If you look at the talk page, you see a lot of technical discussions going on about the edits.

If you look at the talk page history of the thermal physics articles, you see that very little technical discussions have happened. Especially when the editors are not the big experts (they may be engineers or chemists who use some thermal physics concepts), then it is all the more important to discuss the edits on a technical level. If you are the only editor it is adviced to read the textbook you are using like a student would do, i.e. with paper and pencil. Failing to do so will lead to the "lesser experts" to fail to notice problems.

Count Iblis (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're looking for advice, but here's mine: Instead of attempting to resolve such a debate one-on-one, try to involve more voices who are knowledgeable enough to assess the arguments. "That quote is taken out of context" may be a valid complaint, and it's non-trivial to assess by appeal to sources. Without an authority to make a ruling, if you can't convince the other guy directly, the best you can do is to convince everyone else and hope he'll bow to consensus. Obviously technical discussions will be required in the process, and it won't be possible to resolve technical disputes unless there is a group of editors qualified to discuss things at a technical level. Gnixon (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually Dolfin has just now provided the requested "small print". So, I would say that my approached has worked. You are right about trying to get more editors involved. But then, Dolphin is not really a lay person. He has access to technical books. If Dolphin had not provided the exact citation, someone else would have to do that. So, it does take someone to put in the necessary effort, be it going to the library and reading the text in detail, do some computations yourself, etc. etc. Without this attitude mistakes will not be noted and corrected. Count Iblis (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Gnixon (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Count Iblis, I think your analogy with fundamentalist Muslim's use of the Koran is probably a good one. Although, I draw a somewhat different conclusion from it. I cannot speak about either fundamentalist Muslims or the Koran. I do have experience with some Christians (who are not all fundamentalists) who use the Bible similar to the way I think you are describing, though. The problem I experience with these Christians is not that the Bible is wrong nor that it should not be cited as an authority. The problem is that they misuse the Bible. They take quotations out of context and ignore the quotations that don't agree with what they believe. They use it for things it was not intended to do (such as predict the future or serve as a science text or even as a historical text). Further they use it as a way to shut their ears to anything they do not want to hear. (But John ... says.) The problem with these Christians is not that the cite the Bible nor that they rely on it as a source of authority. The problem is that they use it wrong. The same is true here, I think. The problem is not in the OR policy but that it is being used incorrectly in some cases. Further, even if we got rid of OR the same people who are using it wrongly as a weapon will only find another policy to use as a weapon instead.TStein (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm made uneasy by the arguments above which appear to promote an alternate world in which qualifications are proven by an unwillingness to cite sources and or show familiarity with them while proof of ignorance is taken to be a willingness to discuss things and cite sources. Hyacinth (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There should never be an unwillingness to cite sources. We should never lose sight of the fact that we're writing a general encyclopedia for a general audience - you simply can't assume that they know what you know. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I like ChrisO's view of the matter: There should never an unwillingness to cite sources. At WP:Verifiability there is the sentence: Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. I'm sure most of us have had experiences of writing something that we assume is totally reasonable, and that no-one would challenge, but then a User writes back and asks for a source to be cited. We need to be gracious about that and either provide a source or delete what we wrote. Having a policy of citing sources does not lead to a perfect on-line encyclopedia, but it sure is a long way ahead of not having sources cited.
PS On this talk thread I see some evidence of people assuming the Muslims and fundamentalists are the bad guys. Wikipedia crosses all national borders and cultural divides. It is available for readers of all nations, credes and religions so it doesn't presume to know who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Dolphin, the problem with the thermal physics articles is precisely that flawed or misleading information was not challenged for many years. Editors did not bother to critically evaluate the contents of the article. If an expert like me or someone else then comes along and rewrites stuff or points out that things are wrong and then dicussions start, then the usual wiki procedures will lead to the article being improved. Whether or not I like put in citations for my edits at this stage is completely besides the point.
So, what I'm saying is that the errors and misleading texts should have been corrected much earlier by the editors. The fact that they did not note that there was a problem, means that the attitude of editors should change from merely being satisfied that a text is cited to a more active attitude where you study the topic in detail.
If you give a citation to some technical book, but that citation is written up in a misleading or flawed way, then it is very unlikely that someone will note this error by reading that book. It is far more likely to happen if someone with the knowledge of the topic sees that the statement is not plausible. And that, in turn, is more likely to happen if editors study the topic they are writing about as students do or as professors who prepare to give a lecture to students do.
So, the editors need to have a "reseach" attitude. Of course, OR is not allowed. But this NOR attitude must not lead to a dumbing down of the discourse on talk pages where every technical discussion is shot down by the demand to give a source. Count Iblis (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Re, technical subjects being incorrectly written. Two issues persist. Part of the problem is associated with the fact that many editors are so eager to help that they contribute light-weight or incorrect material. The comment, often attributed to Jimbo Wales, that errors are rapidly corrected in Wikipedia is a sad joke in technical themes. Second, editors who seek to advance fringe perspectives are motivated by passionate views, whereas most scientists who know the hard stuff have less time and less patience. Water fluoridation, for example, is mainly edited by someone who opposes the practice. Few editors choose to do battle with such persistent, litigious, attentive advocates. Similarly with cold fusion, one gets the feedback that this innovative technology is suppressed by scientific conformism.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Count Iblis. I am in complete agreement with you that Wikipedia articles should be better than they are at present; and editors should be more diligent than they are at present; and editors should display a more research-orientated attitude. I doubt anyone would object to any of these laudable objectives. You haven't presented a persuasive argument as to why not citing sources would lead to an improvement in Wikipedia. My experience of your writing is that you don't cite sources, despite the undeniable fact that it is Wikipedia policy that this should be done. Some of your additions have been conspicuously in error, despite your expert status, and your non-citing of sources.
Wikipedia has now been in operation for at least 4 years. It has always had policies of "anyone can edit" and "sources must be cited". Anyone who doesn't like these policies, or is not willing to abide by them, should not work as a Wiki-editor. Such people should write for some other document - possibly Scientific American or some other journal where members of the public can't meddle with the work, and where such a strict policy of citing sources doesn't exist. People should only play if they are prepared to play by the rules.
You seem to have launched on a campaign to overturn the policy on citing of sources, or at least have it diluted. Similarly you seem to be advocating that only experts should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, not the general public. I doubt you will be successful with either. Why not accept Wikipedia as it is, warts and all. It isn't perfect but it is something we can all live with. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Dolphin, I do usually cite sources when necessary. Just look at the first article I wrote on wikipedia. I just follow the usual conventions for scientific writing. That means that when you give a mathematical derivation from first principles you don't need to give a citation for verifiability purposes. That would be completely besides the point. A citation can be given to point the reader to other similar derivations, to point to derivations of some steps that you are skipping etc. etc. Or, if you almost literally copy a derivation from some source, you must acknowledge the source, otherwise it would be plagiarism.
Now, in my recent work on the thermal physics articles I have decided not to give a source for the derivations. This is why:
If I give a source, then that would be misleading because the mathematical derivations were not literally copied from any source. The derivations that I give contain more steps and more explanations than what you find in statistical mechanics books, because the derivation has to be more or less self contained. You can give a few wiki links to other articles, but that's it. Also, if you do that, you are constrained by what is in those other wiki articles, while the book will typically refer to some previous chapter in the book.
Suppose that some reader notices something that looks like an error. If I give a source, then that reader might think: "Never mind, a source is given, so it is correct". I would rather have that the reader mentions the problem on the talk page. It may be a real error, it may be that something is explained in an awkward way, leading to misinterpretations, who knows?
So, basically, the whole point about giving a derivation is to make something verifiable from first principles. The derivation itself is not meant to be used as a decoration you can hang on your wall without understanding it as if it were some painting with the source playing the role of Rembrandt's signature. Count Iblis (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Count Iblis. I acknowledge that you have cited sources on Wikipedia. You have given reasons for not citing sources for your derivations in various articles on thermal physics. My concern is primarily the absence of a source for your additions that were prose, not derivations. If you delete someone else's work, even though it is supported by a citation, and replace it with your own text unsupported by any citation, as you did in Isenthalpic process recently, you will not win any friends - especially when your replacement is not sound. My view is that the discipline that comes from citing sources has many more advantages than disadvantages. Happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is everyone familiar with Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines ? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


I have come across similar problems occasionally. Not every published material (even if peer-reviewed) will undergo sufficient scrutinity or attraction; there is simply too much of it and "publish or perish" attitudes, though sometimes overstated, do have left their mark on scientific publishing. Errors due to hasty publication and overbearing claims are usually minor, but sometimes in the scope of Wikipedia they are not. "Uncontroversial knowledge" it is not, either; rather, this whole thread is about sources that make claims that run contrary to what would usually be cited as "uncontroversial knowledge" (i.e. textbook knowledge etc) and are not addressed because they are too specific or too new.

So what to do if you have authors jumping to conclusions and getting away with this because their research is deemed inconsequential to the science at large (and besides, criticizing colleagues for essentially not sticking to the scientific method is a thorny business)? I'd guess that some 5% of publications in my particular field - evolutionary biology - are at least somewhat "shallow" in their interpretation of the results, but 90% of these are never commented upon but simply not promoted and left to eventual oblivion (the usual way, according to my experience, that the natural sciences respond to studies that are not outrageously false but merely of low quality in some aspect or another). WP SOP would result in an article that either lacks the particular source (if the flawed interpretation is considered to be too much of a burden to warrant the source of inclusion), or in an article that makes claims that are, to any specialist, obviously premature or even outright false.

The consequences are that there is a considerable number of sources which for their content would warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, but due to their lack of research standards would (from a scientist's standpoint) cannot be permitted without a caveat emptor. How to deal with such cases? "Verifiability not truth" was arguably much infuenced by the social sciences/humanities, there the concept of "truth" is often very much in the eye of the beholder. But in the natural sciences, though we might not be able that something is "true", we usually can say when something is "wrong" - and that results in a number of sources which are wrong at least in the totality of their conclusions, in confusing "might be" with "is" by failing to properly explore all reasonably parsimonious interpretations of the data.

We had a recent case where a group of birds was proposed ("Metaves"), based on the assumption that the methodology used in the original study was more reliable than it actually is, and at least in the case of sandgrouse (IIRC) roundly ignoring an alternative explanation that was more parsimonious (convergent evolution). But until, after 6 years, the original proposal was refuted in a dedicated study, it was just languishing around (cited about 8 times per year and only discussed in detail in one or two studies until the refutation), while evidence was accumulating that the means to "discover" the "Metaves" had error rates of at least 25% - but none of these studies dealt with birds, and none addressed the "Metaves" case specifically. And all the while, the "Metaves" were reported as fact in some Wikipedia articles, and not as a proposal against which there was a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence (unreliable methodology, missing fossil record, biogeographic implausibility etc). Because the idea was so new, so specific, and so lacking of dedicated study, to say anything against it would be impossible, if WP:SYN would be followed to the letter. The issue of sandgrouse has, IIRC, not been dealt with specifically, but the case for convergent evolution is as clear as it gets. Every biologist would immediately recognize it as what it is after reading the original paper and its refutation. But strictly following the rules, any attempt to put up this information (which is actually rather fascinating and interesting) would run afoul of WP:SYN.

It's basically the same thing like with studies that claim to show a promising approach to an AIDS vaccine/cure for cancer/cure for the common cold etc. Today, such claims get rarely scrutinized except when it's about embryonic stem cell research (the topic du jour), but as anyone who has ever worked in the field knows, funding is a critical issue and "sexing up" your studies has in some particularly competitive and expensive fields (molecular medicine, nuclear physics etc) become a necessity. Every worker in the field knows that results are regularly over-interpreted to make them "sellable", and as a study's results filter down through to the public media, "might eventually ... in 10 years or so" often becomes "will". Sure one could say "that claim is not being made in the actual study", but such claims are at least technically possible (if overblown) because such studies do deal with matter related to the "sexy" medical condition.

It boils down to the need to be able to say, in some cases, "the claims of this-and-that study are not well-supported by what the underlying science tells us", in the absence of a source explicitly saying so in reference to the original work. If the present policy is being followed to the letter, all sorts of "lunatic fringe" theories that are too kooky for mainstream science's attraction and too fringe to gather public interest (either of which would provoke a detailed refutation) would require to be discussed on Wikipedia as if they were factual truth: any rebuttal of such claims would violate either WP:NOR or WP:SYN, which (wrongly) assume that any dubious statement is going to be swiftly dealt with in a respectable/peer-reviewed secondary/tertiary source.

So in the social sciences, the "verifiability not truth" policy usually is crucial to ensure quality on WP, but in the natural sciences, it can undermine quality. Physicists, chemists, biologists, geoscientists etc would usually able to stick to a (superior) policy "verifiability AND truth", or perhaps better - and at least philosophically probably the highest possible standard - "verifiability and falsificationism". If data directly connected to/underlying but not explicitly liked to some study's results contradicts either the results or their interpretation, there must be a way to remark upon this. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of your concerns don't need to be address by exceptions to this policy, as your message would imply. Current policy is sufficient to deal with your worries. The prohibition on "undue weight" should already address your principal concerns, if applied and enforced.
A paper advancing a new thought that is not put forward by any other scientists and/or reliable sources is quite obviously an extreme minority opinion. A paper that languishes in oblivion is a similar set of claims that should be excluded based on NPOV. In the case of "Metaves", if the coverage and adoption is that lacking, it similarly should considered an extreme minority opinion.
The "Metaves" - and for the record, I would not count them 100% out. 95% yes - were a technically valid proposal based in inference of data. It was not exactly a fringe issue, but had profound implications for bird evolution (article needs overhaul!).
There were no dedicated sources suggesting against it, and since the guys who proposed the taxa generally deliver quality research, every scientist in the field was generally entitled to accept the proposal unless falsified.
But if you had cited a paleogeographic atlas, 5+ checklists of prehistoric birds (Tyberg, Brodkorb, Hope, Feduccia, Milkovsky etc) and 2-3 tracts about molecular phylogeny and evolution, it would be pretty clear that the interpretation of the data was not very parsimonious. But then, a restudy of the original data confirmed the results. It was certainly not a fringe opinion (a large proportion of the published works mentioned it, but rarely with further comment), and if you had not read close what set the "Metaves" and "Coronaves" apart and how it behaved when aligned with other data like the existence of say Quipollornis and Protocypselomorphus, you would have thought "yes, they're for real". The "Metaves" had left one hell of a scratch mark in one section of the avian genome, but nothing at all in the rest of the world.
So essentially this is what to do with nontrivial but little-studied issues that are controversial. Not every disputed claim makes a controversy. Most simply get a mercy killing after years to decades of most people except sometimes the original claimants and a few friends:

Recently, Fain & Houde (2004) provided evidence for two major clades of Neoaves, Metaves and Coronaves, each of which constitute major parallel radiations. While there are many other suggestive monophyletic groups in the avian tree at this time, on the whole the assertion that ‘…Neoavian relationships… are decidedly uncertain’ (Cracraft et al. 2004, p. 483) represents a view with which most avian systematists would agree.

(Typical 2005 "discussion" of the issue. Until early 2008, everyone was just happy to stick with Cracraft et al (2004) until someone bothered to check upon the "Metaves")
Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
On the issue of "sexy" studies, when they draw the attention of the media, they usually also draw the attention of other scientists and the popular scientific press. Additionally, reliable sourcing should be considered and on scientific subjects, or really any detailed scholarly subject, news media is among the lower rungs, and certainly not a high-quality source for the subject. Touching back on undue weight, "sexy" studies are usually fairly alone in their claims and the vast majority of them should probably not even be mentioned in a Wikipedia article about the broader subject. Even assuming a few newswire articles and a solid handful copycat articles in local newspapers, we're talking about a drop in the bucket of the general body of reputable sources exclusively in the lower classes of references. In such a situation, it should be difficult to argue for the inclusion of "sexy" claims.
This cannot be stated more often: Cite good, solid scientific research if you can! Peer review is hardly ever a bad thing, but even if only reviewed by the editor(s), these sources are usually worth the effort and should always be preferred to newscasts.
But consider the time to restudy/refute in molbio to be say 2 years on average. In "slower" biosciences, more like 5. Non-resource intensive fields however, more like 1. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding fringe claims, if they've failed to attract general interest, the attention of skeptics or the notice of scientists, it's highly unlikely that there are enough sources for an article. Fringe subjects (both in terms of being "out there" and being on the fringes of science) that have enough attention devoted to them for articles, also have plenty of criticism and debunking directed towards them in the body of reliable sources. If a fringe subject is truly so obscure that sources are lacking this is not the place for it, whether as an article or a cited claim. Vassyana (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"Cannot be falsified" is a real problem for wikipedia, because it puts the burden of evidence on people removing information. This can lead to some problems with cutting edge or fringe science. Take, for example, a recent study of a heart medication that helped the benchmarks that we usually associate with heart attacks (cholesterol, for example). A recent study showed that it didn't reduce the risk of heart attacks (an unexpected result, see also the history of HRT). Does that mean that reducing cholesterol is no longer relevant for heart attack prevention or just that the drug doesn't work? I wouldn't modify any statements in Wikipedia just yet (other than that the drug flunked an important study), but there is a reasonable (albeit distant for now) doubt about the link and a rigorous use of "cannot be falsified" will lead to Wikipedia contradicting reliable sources. Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"Cannot be falsified" is a real problem for wikipedia, because it puts the burden of evidence on people removing information. This can lead to some problems with cutting edge or fringe science. Take, for example, a recent study of a heart medication that helped the benchmarks that we usually associate with heart attacks (cholesterol, for example). A recent study showed that it didn't reduce the risk of heart attacks (an unexpected result, see also the history of HRT). Does that mean that reducing cholesterol is no longer relevant for heart attack prevention or just that the drug doesn't work? I wouldn't modify any statements in Wikipedia just yet (other than that the drug flunked an important study), but there is a reasonable (albeit distant for now) doubt about the link and a rigorous use of "cannot be falsified" will lead to Wikipedia contradicting reliable sources. Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
IMHO the problem with the articles Count Iblis complains about has nothing to do with the OR policy. It is caused by the fact that these are "basic topics", sometimes mentioned even at the high school level. The result is that many people who are barely being introduced to the topic are editing the articles, which inevitably intruduces inaccuracies. As a consequence, most expert editors get frustrated and ignore these articles, preferring to focus their attention on more obscure topics that are safer from "meddling kids". Except for a few cases where we do have dedicated and very patient experts constantly monitoring the basic articles, the rule is that the articles on basic scientific topics are generally much more inaccurate than those on more advanced topics. Note that by "basic" I don't mean necessarily simple or easy to understand, but just use it as a shorthand for "age at which topic is first encountered".
Another problem is that there is a tension between rigor and readability, especially for basic topics. It takes an excellent science writer (not me) to achieve both goals at the same time. And that is the issue under discussion at Talk:Entropy. I think you misunderstand us "dumb chemists". At least in my case, I'm not saying the article needs to be dumbed down. I'm just saying that the lead, especially the first paragraph, needs to be at least somewhat intelligible to someone who doesn't know information theory. I'm also saying that as an encyclopedia that attempts to target a general audience, the article, or at least the beginning of the article, should look like something you would find in Encyclopaedia Britannica and not in an encyclopedia of thermal physics. --Itub (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Another case, shorter and perhaps hypothetical. There is a recent paper about Kelenken guillermoi, the "largest bird skull ever". Over at Birds we're suspicious about that statement. It has good odds to be wrong, but if so, there is no source explicitly stating it to be wrong. One would have to reference a list of large prehistoric birds, a few papers giving measurement details, and still be likely to violate WP:SYN (AFAIK it is the longest bird skull ever found in a fairly complete state, and if you subtract the bill perhaps the largest ever. But that is also not said in any available source).

Ornithologists know that it's not the size of the skull that counts, so it's very very unlikely that someone will formally rebuke this claim. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Toonzone: "The Terror Beyond"
  2. ^ Vallone, R.P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.
  3. ^ Perloff, R.M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.
  4. ^ Gunther, A.C., Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. The Journal of Communication, 54(1), 55.
  5. ^ Price, V. (1989). Social identification and public opinion: Effects of communicating group conflict. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 197-224.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_35&oldid=1137427450"