Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Policy proposal to clarify the "directly related" principle

Editors should build an article by summarizing the sources available on the topic of the article. Any information added should therefore be based on reliable sources that present this information in direct connection with the article subject. In some cases, supplementary information from generic sources that cover a broader subject area than the specific article topic may be deemed to add value to an article, in order to clarify places, people or things mentioned in the article (WP:PCR). For example, an editor might want to add a detail from a reliable source that describes the historical context in which the subject of an article lived, even though the cited source does not mention the article subject. Any information that advances a position or point of view with respect to the article topic must be based on a source that presents this information in direct connection with the article topic, unless the information represents a mainstream view which is contrasted with a fringe or pseudo-scientific claim within the article. (WP:FRINGE)

--Phenylalanine (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss

  • The intent here appears to be to ask for an exception to SYN to account for the fact that many fringe views are so fringe that there aren't going to be mainstream rebuttals that discuss individual claims in the context of the fringe view. But before I issue an opinion, I'd like to hear from others how this clarification might be misused to wikilawyer WP:COATRACKs. I am particularly concerned about For example, an editor might want to add a detail from a reliable source that describes the historical context in which the subject of an article lived, even though the cited source does not mention the article subject. which may well become an exception that swallows the rule. THF (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. My proposal complements WP:SYN, it does not restrict its scope: if a source is used to make a claim which is not stated within that source, then that claim is OR. For example, in the Smith & Jones case, the conclusion that Jones committed plagiarism would still be original synthesis, but whether the definition of plagiarism, in itself, constitutes OR would depend on whether it represents a mainstream view and whether Smith is pushing a fringe view (we can all agree that, within the context of the article, this definition serves to advance a point of view on the smith & Jones dispute). In this case, Jones denies having committed plagiarism, so it may not be necessary to provide the definition after all, in order to uphold the NPOV. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an example of the part in bold? "Any information that advances a position or point of view with respect to the article topic must be based on a source that presents this information in direct connection with the article topic, unless the information represents a mainstream view which is contrasted with a fringe or pseudo-scientific claim within the article." --SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is a good example [1]. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Another example [2] --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal

I clarified the proposal to rule out any apparent conflict with WP:SYN:

Editors should build an article by summarizing the sources available on the topic of the article. Any information added should therefore be based on reliable sources that present this information in direct connection with the article subject. In some cases, supplementary information from generic sources that cover a broader subject area than the specific article topic may be deemed to add value to an article, in order to clarify places, people or things mentioned in the article (WP:PCR). For example, an editor might want to add a detail from a reliable source that describes the historical context in which the subject of an article lived, even though the cited source does not mention the article subject. Any information that advances a position or point of view with respect to the article topic must be based on a source that presents this information in direct connection with the article topic, unless the information represents a mainstream view which is contrasted with a fringe or pseudo-scientific claim within the article. (WP:FRINGE) Editors should, however, resist the temptation to add their own explanation of the discrepancy between the mainstream view and the fringe view. An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing the related facts in juxtaposition. (WP:SYN)

--Phenylalanine (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please make concise.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The revised version does not correct the concerns about making an exception from SYNTH. PCR does not support this change, as written. Even if it did, there's no way a style guideline should be used to justify exceptions to a content policy. Further, this proposal also crafts an exception to other policies. For example, it provides an exception to NPOV by denying that our coverage is determined by what reliable sources say about the topic (WP:UNDUE). If you have a solid debunking of a fringe theory, publish it; Wikipedia is not the place for such publications, nor waging a war against pseudoscience (WP:NOTOR, WP:SOAP). There are quite a number of reputable venues that accept such articles regularly, with a fair number of periodicals focused on exactly that purpose. There's also a fair chance that if the topic is actually notable that someone has already published a critical examination of the claims. Living near the Center for Inquiry and having a number of secular humanist friends, I am extremely skeptical (no pun) of the claim that critical sources do not exist and there are no reputable venues to publish critical responses. Even if it were true, it is counter to several principles of Wikipedia to try and "fix" the failings of real-world coverage. Vassyana (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Juxtaposing sourced facts (where the sources support the information as it is presented) is never synthesis; it can violate the "directly related" rule, but it cannot be synthesis. So, I can't see how this proposal allows an exception to WP:SYN. Perhaps you can clarify this point. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You said "this proposal also crafts an exception to other policies. For example, it provides an exception to NPOV by denying that our coverage is determined by what reliable sources say about the topic". I think your interpretation of the word "topic" far too narrow and goes against the intent of the NPOV policy. Broadly speaking, "topic" may simply refer to a point of view; it need not refer to the specific context in which that point of view arises (who holds the view, the specific dispute in which it arose, what is it trying to prove, etc). It's up to WP:NOR to decide how stringently to interpret the "topic", and, in this case, I believe we need to allow a certain amount of flexibility to accommodate the NPOV policy. So I am not crafting an exception to WP:NPOV; I am only clarifying the NOR policy so that it is consistent with the intent of the NPOV policy: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
Furthermore, my proposal does not violate WP:NOTOR or WP:SOAP. Organizing published facts and opinions—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research. (WP:NOTOR) --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The obvious intent of your proposal is to allow the debunking of claims where reliable sources have not done so. Just because the obvious conclusion of a juxtaposition is not explicitly stated does not mean that the restrictions (and spirit) of this policy do not apply. A generic example: An article that states Subject X, who is part of Agency A, says that he has never lied. It follows with a statement that respected Researcher Y, who is a department head at prestigious University B, says that Agency A requires all employees to undertake extensive deception training and mislead the public as to their line of business. One need not state that Subject X is a liar explicitly. The conclusion is quite obvious from the juxtaposition of facts. The argument that NOR has not been violated because the blatant conclusion is not stated runs counters to the spirit of this policy and borders on (if not outright crossing into) wikilawyering. The meaning of "topic" is straightforward, relying on standard English usage. For example, the topic of the article cold fusion is cold fusion. Your proposal is intended to encourage Wikipedia to be used as a platform for presenting a clear point of view (WP:SOAP) that is not represented in reliable sources about the article topic (WP:NOTOR). Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of implicit conclusions, I wrote an essay along the same lines (WP:NORDR), but editors here rejected it (here and here). My current proposal applies only to fringe claims, where no reliable sources are available to contrast such claims with the mainstream view. Here's an example from the article Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle:
Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle[1] was part of a North Korean government propaganda campaign promulgating grooming and dress standards. It was broadcast on the state-run Korean Central Television in the capital of Pyongyang. The television program claimed that hair length can affect human intelligence, in part because of the deprivation to the rest of the body of nutrients required for hair to grow. This is at odds with the mainstream medical understanding that hair growth is unaffected by the amount of previously grown hair that remains attached to the body.
After about 10 minutes of google searching, I was unable to find any specific rebuttal of the campaign message. It appears that media outlets take it for granted that readers know better. So, according to your interpretation, the rebuttal would be OR? --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a rebuttal not present in the reliable sources. Taken as such, it is clearly a violation of NOR and NPOV. Additionally, this topic relates to Jayjg's point below about notable fringe topics. The topic is barely notable, if at all. Vassyana (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
For the record on the NORDR note, I think you hit the nail on the head here. Vassyana (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and I still stand by what I said, but it's just that it doesn't seem fair to debunk certain fringe claims, but not others, simply because we can't find a specific rebuttal. I took a closer look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and WP:PARITY seems to largely address my concerns. If a claim is fringe, it will likely not have been made in a reliable source; so we can reference a blog or a website that criticizes that claim; we don't necessarily have to find a reliable source that debunks it, which is sometimes hard to find, as is the case here. In those exceptional cases where a fringe claim is published in a reliable source without any reliable rebuttals or when a fringe claim is made in a non-reliable source without any rebuttals at all, we can rely on WP:IAR and add a rebuttal. Fair enough? --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm ending my participation in this discussion now. --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that opens huge loopholes, rather than closing them - just the opposite of what is needed. And it's unclear why we need to provide our own "mainstream views" to debunk "fringe theories" - if the fringe theory is notable, a reliable source will have already debunked it. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You said "if the fringe theory is notable, a reliable source will have already debunked it". What are you suggesting? WP:NOTABILITY does not directly limit the content of articles. A notable author, for example, may have his own Wikipedia page, but even if his theories are not notable enough to have their own pages, they can and should still be described within the original article on the author. WP:Undue weight requires that "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
Jayjg, I agree with you that "directly related" is misleading well-meaning editors into believing that any relevant information is acceptable; I am only trying to tighten the wording in the policy so that there is no ambiguity: except for contrasting fringe claims with mainstream views, all points of view should refer to the narrow topic at hand. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do we need a special exception for "contrasting fringe views with mainstream views"? If OR is against policy, then it's against policy. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem, it's not clear whether my proposal violates the policy, in its current form. The policy simply states that sources must be directly related to the topic. There is ample room for interpretation (which I believe is one of your concerns). --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course it violates the policy in its current form. You are trying to say directly related should be interpreted narrowly except when it comes to "contrasting fringe claims with mainstream views"; in other words, a special exception so you can debunk fringe theories. However, fringe theories are already handled by WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. You don't need to create special loopholes in NOR to handle them too. And as I've said before, if David Icke says that George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie are reptilian, then we simply restrict that information to Icke's biography, rather than allowing it elsewhere. And even in Icke's biography we don't have to add a sentence to it stating "however, there is no evidence that their DNA is anything but 100% mammalian, human DNA". Icke's statements speak for themselves, and the ones that have not been debunked do not need us to debunk them. Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg. Sources must be explicitly related to the topic. Relaxing this to allow editors to contribute peripheral information for the purposes of describing historical context or "contrasting" views from the "mainstream" would not help the project - there's too much of this going on now that really needs to be cleaned up. I'm against any revision that would muddy the "directly related" rule. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm....I'm new to this aspect of NOR. The proposal is pointing out the obvious and as such I do agree with the sentiment. Many articles do put the subject matter in wider context, and the context information is not always cited to sources that are directly about the subject of the article. Done carefully and in small doses that can be okay, but not necessarily something we want to encourage. Articles written that way tend to sound essay-like, and are expositions about a subject matter rather than direct statements of the matter. As a case in point, I have contributed to a number of stub to B-class articles about Sourdough bread. Now, it is a given that sourdough bread involves a certain type of leavening agent and a bread starter. There is considerable scientific understanding behind how all this works. Yet there are many notable competitions, bakeries, bread schools, historical figures, bread styles, etc., for which one cannot find any of this background information presented in the context of that particular subject. The articles written about the subject assume the reader either knows, or does not care or need to know, how sourdough bread works. It would be unencyclopedic, and unverifiable, to insert into each bread-related article a long essay about bread science. On the other hand, inasmuch as the goal is to inform the reader, there is certain contextual information that is necessary to convey: bread is made of flour and yeast, yeast is a culture, etc. I tend to agree that we don't need a policy change to tell editors that - it would have the effect of turning the dial in the direction of less encyclopedic articles. Wikidemon (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If sources don't provide wider context, providing it goes against spirit of this policy. Also, contextual information is usually just a click away. -- Vision Thing -- 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal (2)

Would you support this:

Editors should build an article by summarizing the sources available on the topic of the article. Any information added should therefore be based on reliable sources that present this information in direct connection with the article subject. In some cases, supplementary information from generic sources that cover a broader subject area than the specific article topic may be deemed to add value to an article, in order to clarify places, people or things mentioned in the article. For example, an editor might want to add a detail from a reliable source that describes the historical context in which the subject of an article lived, even though the cited source does not mention the article subject. However, any information that advances a position or point of view with respect to the article topic must be based on a source that presents this information in direct connection with the article topic.

--Phenylalanine (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources exception proposal

Certain primary sources should be used - perhaps in preference to secondary sources - when refering to what the official position is of a government. For example, If the website of country XXX says that it has established diplomatic relations with Kosovo, is that not ipso facto sourcing that it has, even if no newspaper or scholarly journal has talked about it? Similarly, what a government says its official names, titles, administrative divisions, etc., are is probably of more value than what one finds in the newspaper. Similarly, the text of a country's laws is better sourced to the laws themselves than a Newspaper or Law Journal's interpretation (which could be digesting for its audience and leaving out details that may neither sell papers nor be of interest to the audience) - e.g., what exactly will be taxed in the US's "bonus tax" that just passed the House. Any way, some recognition that official works of governments in their governmental capacities are execptional primary sources that can be used on which to base an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for an exception. The Policy DOES NOT ban the use of primary sources. In fact, it specifically says that primary sources MAY be used.
However, it also tells people to do so with caution because it is very easy to misuse them in ways that constitute OR. Essentially, you have to be very careful not to interpret or analyze a primary source or draw conclusions from it. For interpretation, analysis and conclusions you need a secondary source. Since almost any good article will include some degree of interpretation, analysis or conclusion, the article has to rely primarily on secondary sources. But that does not mean it can not cite the primary source for blunt statements of fact where appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I would still be very wary of direct quotation of law as a source, especially without explanation of jargon. Legal language doesn't always say what a literal reading might imply. For example, "freedom of speech" is interpreted as "freedom of expression." "Person" includes corporations. "Competence" in a defendant is rarely evaluated in medical malpractice suits. Many laws are still "on the books" that are never enforced. The law is a primary source like any other: interpretation is best left to the experts. SDY (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find some help with an editor who doesn't seem to understand what synthesis is?

Hi. I've got an editor clearly using synthesis over at Thelema (Talk:Thelema) and I've tried to explain to them about it not being allowed, but they don't seem to get it. They are using a string of a dozen references and trying to make that support "most scholars ... consensus" when there are plenty of direct references which say that the topic is one of some disagreement and dispute. Where can I get help with this? Will in China (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and he (User:Dan) is also using 3 full revert per day to regress progress I am trying to make on the article. Will in China (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Post this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Could people please stop trying to change long-standing policy over objections? When I last checked Bob's version, it wasn't at all clear. If you can unambiguously improve any part of the policy, please do make a suggestion here, but change for change's sake isn't welcome. Policy needs to be stable, above all. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The new message box at the top of this talk page says, "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic." I'm sure you know that edit warring is not appropriate, and the there is no entitlement to 3 reverts. The only way to "break the cycle" here is for everyone to stop edit warring regardless whether they believe they are correct. That includes Bob, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg, and possibly other people. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
CBM, It seems odd that you are putting me in the same class as SlimVirgin. It was SlimVirgin who made the 3 reverts in 9 hours and hasn't discussed the issue in the relevant Talk page section for 17 days. Whereas I have had considerable discussions there, and I left her last revert stand voluntarily before you came on the scene, when I had reverts left that wouldn't violate 3rr. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, you were the guy trying to make changes to policy based on false claims of a "consensus", and then edit-warring to keep those changes in. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, can I ask for a group hug here? Examples shouldn't really set policy, they should just explain it. But whoever caused the edit war (and sorry for my piece of it) I do see now that the "simplified" example reflects a change in the current conception of policy, which as it now stands holds that adding 2 sourced but unrelated facts to imply a conclusion is a form of OR, whether or not that conclusion is stated explicitly. I don't really agree but that's how it stands now, and I don't think there is consensus to change it, so I don't think it's all that productive to hold out for a change. I do think the example can and should be improved, within its current scope, by...well...I won't repeat the arguments but Jayjg's proposal does it. Bob K, may I encourage you to table your concern and perhaps try to gain consensus separately if you wish for that change? Wikidemon (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm always available for a group hug. I'm not taking this as seriously as it may seem sometimes. Just trying to contribute my part here and there. My best to all of you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy on integration of policies

A discussion here deals with the question of whether the editing policy should recommend that editors remove material that "clearly fails" our content policies. Some input from editors with more experience of policy than I have would be appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

In hopes of getting some uninvolved administrators to look into the edit warring, I have left a note on ANI [[3]. Really, we all need to stop reverting, stop using edit summaries in lieu of the talk page, and work on improving good faith edits rather than reverting them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note the message that I left before CBM posted his message. [4]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
What we're seeing here, I think, is Jayjg (talk · contribs) trying to make his personal interpretation of WP:SYN (which he regularly uses to justify deletion of references he doesn't like as "original research") official policy. The basic problem revolves around this: "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." The classic WP:SYN policy only considers something to be "synthesis" if the editor explicitly draws a conclusion. Under the "Jayjg interpretation", a reference from a reliable source can be excluded if it encourages the reader to draw a conclusion. The classic rule is that "A and B, thus C" is original research if the editor came up with C. Under the Jayjg interpretation, "A and B", with no mention of "C", can be original research. Thus, under the Jayjg interpretation, reference B can be deleted. That's the issue, I think. --John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, John, the issue with your presence here is WP:HOUND, but in any event please Comment on content, not on the contributor.. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I too think that "unspoken" conclusions can be a form of OR. It really depends on how the article in question is worded. Articles should avoid unstated synthetic insinuations no less that stated synthetic conclusions. For example, I hope that everyone here would see how the following two sentences can form an unspoken (and improper) synthesis:
  • "Father O'Malley became a Roman Catholic priest in 1980 <citation>. During the last few decades of the 20th Century the Church faced a lot of criticism over the issue of pedofile priests <citation>."
In case you missed it, no direct conclusion has been stated, but placing these two sentences together insinuates that Father O'Malley was one of those pedofile priests, an insinuation that would not be justified without a source that says he was. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar, the issue you're raising is false implication. Just like you don't need WP:NOR to delete something that is simply false, you don't need WP:NOR to delete something that is a false implication. Also, please note that the "directly related" idea is more general than WP:SYNTH, since it appears in the lede and in the Reliable sources section of WP:NOR. John Nagle has the right understanding of SYNTH. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, John Nagle's understanding of WP:SYNTH is incorrect. One editor says the inclusion is a "false implication", another says it is "directly related" to the topic. How to keep it out? By enforcing WP:SYNTH, which is exactly what it's for. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the example is sheer poetry. Enjoy:
If Jones did not consult the original sources,
This would be contrary to the practice recommended,
In the Harvard Writing with Sources manual,
Which requires citation of the source actually consulted,
The Harvard manual does not,
Call violating this rule "plagiarism".
Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's,
Information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
Anyone can see what you like about it, but please, don't let that stop you from expressing yourself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Bob, you claimed that there was "considerable support for the new version that I included in WP:NOR". Can you quantify that please? Which editors, besides you, constituted that "considerable support"? Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Bob, been there, done that. Better things to do. Read it, it makes sense. Trust me. :-) (Seriously, it's late here.) Cheers, Jayen466 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Pleasant dreams. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed new version of the Smith and Jones example, and I oppose the attempt to install this new version by repeated reverts without following proper process. I support SlimVirgin's reverts back to the longstanding policy, yea even unto the third revert, and I thank SlimVirgin for doing so, even though I myself voluntarily follow 1RR and tend to oppose the action of reverting even when I support the substance (e.g.). I consider that that sort of change to this example consitutes a major change in policy; I suggest first getting consensus on this page, then putting up an RfC or notice at the Village Pump to see if there is broad community support for it. You haven't even gotten consensus on this page! Your proposed example suffers from exactly the same problem that I raised in my "weak oppose" above. I don't see any reply to my comment and I didn't notice any attempt to tweak the example to take my concern into account. (If I missed it, please point it out to me.) When editors raise objections, you need to either change the example to address those concerns, or at least explain why you think it's unnecessary or impractical to do so. Consensus doesn't have to mean everyone agrees, but it certainly does not mean that some editors' concerns are simply ignored. I feel I'm not being listened to. Editors such as myself who have expressed support for the longstanding policy should not have to constantly participate in lengthy discussions here just to keep the policy stable. I applaud your attempts to improve the example, which I find is the one difficult thing to read and understand in all the Wikipedia policies; but it may not be easy to find a new example that satisfies the various concerns. I myself tried two years ago here, and learned from the discussion. Discussion can continue and may eventually reach a consensus for a new example. By the way, the new example uses "them" to represent a singular thing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there are at least three types of SYN violation:
  • (1) Using material which is not directly related to the topic.
  • (2) Stating a conclusion which is not stated in the sources.
  • (3) Implying a conclusion which is not stated or implied in the sources.
For (1), I consider that the relevant thing is whether it's related to the topic being discussed at that moment, for example it could relate to the topic of a subsection of the article; it doesn't necessarily have to relate to the topic of the entire article. The reason for having this rule is not just for the sake of having a rule, but in order to help prevent the third kind of synthesis from happening, so some common sense needs to be applied: not every source usable in an article necessarily has to explicitly mention the topic of the article. (2) is the easiest to understand. (3) is illustrated by the current policy but is not illustrated by a proposed example by Jayjg above ("Proposed version that addresses both OR issues") which illustrates (1) and (2). Re (3): of course, readers may draw conclusions based on information they gather from Wikipedia articles, and that's OK; the problem is when the article appears to be written in such a way as to purposely lead the reader to a particular conclusion when that conclusion is not itself verifiable.
Jayjg, you said there was no evidence people didn't understand the current example: here's evidence ("I continue to disagree ..."); I believe Eubulides and I, after extensive discussion, still disagree fundamentally about what it means.
If there is more than one kind of SYN violation, I suggest having one simple example to illustrate each kind, or at least having each kind clearly explained in the explanation that follows the example. However, sometimes it's actually advantageous for a policy to be somewhat unclear: a clearly-stated policy may be over-applied without the use of sufficient doses of common sense. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your informative comments. Very informative. I looked at the link that you provided and it looks like your concerns about the example in WP:SYNTH were similar to my concerns now. Here's the lead sentence from your comments back then, "I think the whole plagiarism example is hard to understand and ambiguous." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a video that might give an idea about what's been happening during these discussions. Survey: Is the conclusion at the end of this instructional video right or wrong? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to change of policy for Primary sources

There's a phrase in the discussion of Primary Sources which I think could be improved:

For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

WP editors are adept at summarization of material from reliable sources. I don't think you can get very far in describing something without abbreviation and summarization. I think the policy would be more useful if "cite passages" were changed to "summarize passages":

For example, an article about a novel may summarize passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

Is this a reasonable change? cojoco (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's actually implicit, as "citing passages from a novel" is just an example of a valid use of a primary source. A brief and unchallenged summary would be another example of a valid use. WP:NOTPLOT is probably the other important policy bit for plot summaries. SDY (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
So if I understand you correctly, it would be OK to summarize the plot without using direct quotations? I guess my misunderstanding was that my interpretation of "cite" in this case was "quote verbatim", which may not be an accurate interpretation. cojoco (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, "cite" has a range of meanings. "summarize" is unambiguous and covers what is AFAIK the only situation where refs are anot required, plot summaries not containing quotes. --Philcha (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Cojoco, it's fine to quote, summarize, and describe (all of which can fall under "cite"). The thing that should be avoided is interpretation, which includes summarizing that is so selective and partial that it amounts to interpretation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but how can you summarize a 500-page novel into a paragraph without selection? cojoco (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, "partial" in the sense of being biased, is a WP:NPOV issue, not a WP:NOR issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
No, "partial" can be very much an OR issue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
??? ...... BTW Cojoco is still waiting for an answer from you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
"How can you summarize a 500-page novel into a paragraph without selection?"... the same way you make love to a porcupine... Very carefully.
Seriously... no one is saying writing a plot summary is going to be easy. It is understood that some novels have plots that are complex, and nearly impossible to summarize them without some degree of interpretation (Catch 22 comes to mind)... fine... you can include interpretation. The point that this policy is making is this: if you include interpretation or analysis find a source for that interpretation or analysis. But, if you can write a basic summary of a plot that mearly discribes the action and does not include interpretation or analysis, doing so is not OR. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, this has got a bit off-track: all I want to do is replace "cite" with "summarize" cojoco (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If one looks carefully, it looks like all the responses so far either don't object to the change or support it, even SlimVirgin's remark, "it's fine to quote, summarize, and describe". Also, the sentence says not to interpret, so that's not an issue with the change. The proposed change seems to clarify what some of the editors above believe that the sentence already states, although it may not, since the definition of cite does not seem to include summarize.[5] It seems like a good change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not say "summarize and cite"... in many cases this would be a citation to the novel itself, but if you include interpretation it would be a citation to some other work. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I like this "summarize and cite" suggestion, because it better describes the desired editing process without the ambiguity. cojoco (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody said you could summarize a novel in a paragraph without selection. What SlimVirgin said was: " ... so selective and partial that it amounts to interpretation." That is what one needs to avoid doing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree that the last part of the sentence addresses that? Here it is, "but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources/Literary Review

One ambiguous issue that we have not been able to solve is the use of primary sources such as journal articles. For instance, on the Tori Amos page, there has been an ongoing debate whether or not the "Academic Criticism" section belongs in the article. Basically, the section is summarizing two journal articles about Tori Amos's work. I feel allowing that onto pages could open the door for people to turn Wikipedia into a literary review, whether for music or for literature. I was hoping to get some feedback on this, and perhaps tidy up the guideline to clear up this issue. Angryapathy (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinion, as it affects the article: "History of IBM "

This post relates to Talk:History of IBM‎#IBM/Holocaust. I'm concerned that the discussion in this section and the related editing of the article History of IBM is being driven far too much by personal opinions about the subject matter.

To me, this bias is apparent from the discussion.

I have tried to make this case in the talk page, but I am failing miserably. I wonder if any other editors who are concerned about such matters can step into the breech. Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate forum needed in parallel with WikiPedia

I find it rather constraining that intelligent people who wish to expand upon (commercial) published sources (because commercial publishers maintain a stranglehold on information dissemination, and one of the liberating aspects of the InterNet is *supposed* to be that we can break away from that stranglehold to post new analysis of the current situation that aren't sanctioned by commercial interests)are prohibited from posting their expansions beyond commercial interest. I wish there were a Wiki-like system that allowed people to brainstorm ideas that go beyond the commercially published sources that are dominated by the military-industrial complex. At present, the only option for me is to *first* get my thesis accepted by a commercial publisher, and then after it appears in print I can finally post a summary in WikiPedia with citation to my published article. What's the chance that will ever happen? (When will the Sahara freeze over??)

I'm not talking about regular discussion forums, where people post articles and followups, chained together according to references per NNTP, nor to similar forums on Yahoo and other ISPs. I'm talking about something truly like a Wiki, where the organization is per heirarchial analysis of the topic rather than followup-chaining, where cooperative effort yields a meaningful end result.

Maybe there already is such a system, maybe even several such systems each for many of the popular WikiPedia topics, but if so there's no way to find it/them because WikiPedia wouldn't consider such a forum to be a valid published source, so it couldn't be cited or linked-to from WikiPedia. I propose this policy be changed, that each WikiPedia article can optionally include a section of links to brainstorm-Wiki-style Web sites on the specific topic. Perhaps this one section should be protected from direct edit, so that edit wars can't rearrange the sequence of links hour by hour, but instead formal computer-controlled concensus is required to establish ranking of links, the "best" links first, then lesser-quality links after them, then grossly bad sites after a disclaimer, then off-topic links forcibly moved to the correct WikiPedia page for their topic.

Strawman suggestion for name of this proposed new section: "Beyond WikiPedia, Wiki-style unpublished new research/brainstorming on this topic"

As an interim measure, until the official policy is changed to allow this new section (near the end of each article, near where citations and related-topic links etc. reside) and Wiki software is upgraded to provide a system for voting for concensus on sequence of links within this section, perhaps we it would be acceptable for anyone to start such a section within the discussion page? This is not a good permanent solution, because of the potential of edit-discussion-wars, so I'm still looking for management of WikiPedia to make a formal rule change to accomodate the section within the main artile, with software to manage it, per above proposal.

198.144.192.42 (talk) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

It does sounds like a nice idea, ideally we would be able to get a lot more information together without having to verify the sources to the Wikipedia degree. But your idea sounds like social utopianism: looks good on paper, never works in reality (at least on a large scale). I think you underestimate the amount of arguing we have on here regarding information gleaned from reliable sources. One of your solutions is computerized voting. Well, that would be great, but I've seen many articles where only a couple people weigh in on the subject. It wouldn't be majority rule or consensus rule, it would be, "whoever passed by at the moment" rule. I guess I fail to see what type of information is being held back by the rules regarding sources. Not that commercial publishing is perfect, far from it, but voting on sources would just create a horrible mess. The democratic process is nice if everyone participates. That doesn't always happen here. Angryapathy (talk)

00:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You (Angryapathy) "fail to see what type of information is being held back by the rules regarding sources." The main example I have in mind is the article on minimum wage, which has a section listing possible alternatives to minimum wage. I tried to offer the idea that government as employer of last resort would force regular employers to either meet the government pay rate or lose employees to government jobs, thus effectively establishing a minimum wage, where punishment for violation is loss of employees rather than fines or jail time. My item was deleted because I couldn't find any formally published source that substantuated it. I can't publish myself in a journal that specializes in economics because my degree is mathematics, not economics, and various Web pages on this topic are not acceptable by WikiPedia as references. 198.144.192.42 (talk) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info

You seem to be missing the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - you wouldn't expect to get Britannica to publish your ideas. Wikipedia articles are meant to report what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about a subject, not random editors' ideas. Without that, it would be just an elaborate blog. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikiversity ... offers a series of tutorials, or courses, ... rather than formal content." That's not at all what I propose. I want information organized into a heirarchial way, just like WikiPedia, preferably actually matching the specific topics of WikiPedia, but to include informally documented sources in addition to formally-published sources. Instead of using the mere fact of being in a published book/journal to validate an idea, some sort of "market" would be used to value each source and each specific information-item from said source.

Link deliberately broken to pass censors that discriminate against low-income disabled people who have only VT100/Unix/lynx: http colon slash slash www.wikinfo.org slash index.php slash Original_idea

"An Original idea is an Idea which one person thought up, wholly or partly, independently of other people." Yes, that's pretty much what I've been doing (the conceiving of new ideas, such as NewEco and HotNot) and what I seek (a forum for including these ideas right alongside more established ideas on the same topic).

But it begs a question and a problem:

(1) What if two or more people, brainstorming togehter, come up with a new idea. Typically they are thrashing back and forth trying to solve a problem, when one of them mentions something that triggers the other to vary the thought to produce a very crude idea for solution which the other then improves upon and after some further elaboration and amendment to the basic idea the two (or bunch) of people come up with an idea they agree is worth showing to somebody else. The description of "Original idea" in wikinfo doesn't seem to allow more than one person as originator of the idea. Is this an oversight in the wording, or a deliberate exclusion?

(2) If I post my analysis that government guaranteed "minimum wage" jobs would force other employers to match that or lose employers, in wikinfo, but all the more traditional alternatives to minimum wage are in WikiPedia, then all the possible alteratives (mine and traditional) are not residing in parallel in the same place, so most people reading the WikiPedia page would have no idea to look in some J. Random wikinfo article to find the rest of the list of alternatives to minimum wage.

By the way, it occurs to me just now for the first time that my proposed NewEco, whereby there's a barter market based on exchanging equal *time* rather than

  • money*, might in some vague way be yet another

nonstandard alternate to minimum wage. If there's no

  • wage* (money paid per unit time of labor) in the first

place, the need to establish a minimum wage may be moot. Thus making minimum wage moot is an alternative to any of the ways of establishing a minimum-wage or equivalent.

I'm being censored because I'm on VT100 dialup into Unix with lynx: 

  Your edit includes new external links. These may be much welcomed
  links to references. Please note that the nofollow HTML attribute is
  applied to external links in Wikipedia, instructing search engines to
  ignore these links when computing page ranks. For information on our
  standards for adding links, please see our External links Guideline.

  To help protect against automated spam, please enter the words that
  appear below in the box (more info):

  ____________________

On Vt100/Unix/lynx: There's no box, only text, so I can't see any words in any box, so I had to go back in my edit to break the link to pass the censor.

198.144.192.42 (talk) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

In other words, you want Wikipedia to change its rules so you can add your OR. Sorry... ain't going to happen. Suggest you find some other venue to publish in. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems as though you want to circumvent the normal routes of getting theories recognized and post them straight on Wikipedia. While the "commercial process" may seem cruel, it's there for a reason. And I really don't think you understand that your idea would end up getting lost in a sea of other ideas. If everyone could list the idea they feel is great and will change the world, it'd be an endless list, or a constant bickering over who's idea is best. Like Blueboar said, find another venue. And your idea has probably been thought of in some socialist texbook, BTW, or join/form a political party where you can talk about those ideas all you want. Angryapathy (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer some questions above about Wikinfo:

  1. It's open to pretty much anything, even advertising, so there should be no problem with collaborative OR;
  2. The way it deals with alternative views is by linking them at the tops of the pages.

Peter jackson (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN

Should be retracted. Nearly everything on Wikipedia is borderline original synthesis. 76.85.197.106 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is far too much borderline original sythesis in Wikipedia... but the solution to that is to correct the articles in question, not to get rid of the rule. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There is such a wide variety of articles, that a general statement like that is essentially meaningless. What specific article are you concerned about? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Given this spectrum from fully agreed-upon facts (if any, after all some religious groups still follow dogma that the Earth is the center of the Universe and does not orbit around the Sun), to wild speculation by cranks (such as Brad Guth claiming there is intelligent life on the planet Venus, or George W. Bush claiming there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), I think it would be better to recognize this spectrum and have WikiPedia et al respect this spectrum rather than have WikiPedia draw a firm threshold and say everything more sure is allowed and everything less sure is prohibited.

More specific proposal: It should be established as standard craft, maybe even supported by the Wiki engine, that whenever a section of the Discussion page refers specifically to a section of the corresponding main article, there would be direct links from each to the other, from individual section of main article to corresponding individual secition of discussion, and vice versa. This would at least allow the discussion section to serve as a temporary repository of pieces of per-topic speculative/advocacy content that would be more obviously in parallel with the main article, until such time as a more full-spectrum system would be implemented. Ultimately I would like to see each section in the main article to have not just the Edit link but also the Tutorial and Research and Ideas and Discussion links, where Tutorial link would go to a disambiguation page in WikiVersity that shows all tutorials/classes on that topic, Research link and/or Ideas link go to corresponding page in Wikiinfo, and as before the Discussion link would go to the specific section in the Discussion page regarding that section of the main article. If there are more than one discussion topics, they could be listed in sequence in a group, or could be moved to the appropriate sub-section or right in the middle of running text at the point of dispute.

For example, I could post my idea that government guarantee of employment effectively establishes a minimum wage to hold employees from quitting their jobs to take higher-paying government job in the Wikinfo, and the Ideas link from the section on alternatives to minimum wage in the WikiPedia "minimum wage" article would point there, so that people seeing the official WikiPedia published-sources list of alternatives to minimum wage would be able to instantly click over to see my new unpublished idea for yet another alternative. Later if anybody ever publishes my idea then the text could be moved from Wikinfo to WikiPedia with smooth transition that readers would be looking nearly the same place to find that info before and after the move.

198.144.192.42 (talk) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

Robert... you have recieved a clear answer on this... continuing to bring it up will just annoy people. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Do I correctly understand Robert as suggesting that WP articles should regularly include links to Wikinfo, perhaps with a warning that it doesn't necessarily satisfy WP's content criteria? This would at least satisfy reciprocity: Wikinfo regularly links to WP. As an aside, I might remind people that WP often doesn't satisfy its own content criteria, since it has no generally effective procedure for enforcing them. See links from top of my user page to various discussions of this point. Peter jackson (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a reason why "link reciprocity" should be a goal of Wikipedia. Axlrosen (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious primary sources

Is there anywhere an explicit policy saying the same as this, i.e. that primary religious sources "should never be used alone to support a statement of fact or, particularly, analysis.". Such errors are so extraordinarily common, so I need a WP:THISORTHAT shortcut to bonk in the head of evil offenders. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

By primary religious sources I assume you mean something like the Bible or the Koran? If so, then no... there is nothing specific. These should be treated no differently than any other primary source (as discussed at WP:PSTS). We can certainly quote them, and cite them for that quotation (noting which version is used if there are multiple versions, as is the case with the Bible)... but they should not be used for statements of analysis, interpretation or conclusion. For those kinds of statements we need to refer to the writings of biblical scholars.
An analogy is how we treat something like the US Constitution... we can quote the Second Amendment in an article that relates to the topic (say Gun control or Right to bear arms) and cite it for a statement as to its text... but for any statement as to what the Amendment means (ie how it is interpreted in connection to the topic) we need to cite constitutional scholars and other reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was what I was after. Although the misuse of 1ary sources is entire sections of an article claiming this-or-that, often weasely and very NPOVy statements, using Quraan or Bible only. WP:PSTS have to do for now, maybe it could be sharpened somewhat. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

syllogisms

i think simple syllogisms were once here as something not considered OR or synthesis, but now seem to be in the essay Wikipedia:NOTOR. firstly syllogisms are used all the time (usually unconsciously) and are fundamental to thinking, language, etc. so to ban them completely is absurd. secondly logical calculation is more primitive (and implicit in) the arithmetical calculation that is allowed by the OR guidelines.

what i'm less sure of is where to draw the line.--Mongreilf (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As the essay says, basic syllogisms (such as: some animals are cats, all cats have ears, thus some animals have ears) are not considered OR (thus the removal, since we want to focus on what is OR and not get into instruction creap by discussing the huge number of things that are not OR). That said... care must be taken to make sure that the logic of the syllogism is valid (invalid example: some animals are cats, most animals have tails, thus all cats have tails), and that the logical deduction is indeed basic (There is a fine line between more complex syllogisms and synthesis). Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the really problematic syllogisms, practically speaking, are those that are formally correct but connect correct sentences from different contexts. E.g.: Many doors have locks. All locks consist of hair. Therefore many doors have hair. There are two reasons why we can immediately see that this example is silly: The conclusion is obviously silly, and the two meanings of "lock" are mutually exclusive. But when one meaning is a special case of the other, then the conclusion is usually much more plausible and it looks like a valid argument. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
We also have to be careful not to form syllogisms with initial premises that are OR... take the syllogism: "All chickens are birds, and all birds have the newly discovered gene, thus all chickens have the newly discovered gene". As a syllogism this statement is logical and correct, but if the premise about birds having the new gene is OR, then so is the conclusion. This is why we have to limit the discussion to very basic syllogisms about uncontrovercial concepts.Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly not OR that chickens are bird, but the syllogism is still problematic. "All birds have the gene" probably means that for every species of bird where researchers tested for the gene, they found it in most individuals. It probably does not mean every single bird has the gene. But the conclusion talks about every single chicken. If the researchers haven't tested it in chicken yet (surely they have not tested it in all species), it's even more problematic. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
A practical, real-life example from Germany: According to our Supreme Court you are allowed to say: "Every soldier is a potential murderer." But if you say: "... You are a soldier. Therefore you are a potential murderer." Well, then you can get into trouble. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

i'm not concerned about poor logic, bad argument, etc. i'm worried about how good reasoning is considered OR

at the moment syllogisms could be considered OR by "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources", the first para of the synthesis section. reliable sources saying "all insects have six legs" and "ants are insects" would not be enough to assert in an article on ants that "ants have six legs".

now imagine a similar situation with less common knowledge than insects, ants and the number of legs they possess. the wikilawyering that that one sentence allows i believe is a hindrance to good editing.

remember these guidelines carry more force than the essay. so this first sentence being so explicit about reaching conclusions, which is EXACTLY what syllogisms do, is problematic.--Mongreilf (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely... so far we have been saying that very basic, uncontrovercial syllogisms (the linguistic equivalent to performing basic math) are allowed (things like using syllogistic logic to substitute one word for another... say having a source that says "canines have sharp teath", and writing "dogs" instead). But if there is any controversy, then of course you need a source. In fact, I would say that if there is any question as to whether you should find a source, you probably should. All our guidelines and policies can be taken to extremes by wikilawyers. We want to give our editors some wiggle room to write good articles, but we also don't want them to abuse that wiggle room. If we focus on the intent of this (or any) policy instead of getting all twisted up in the exact legalistic wording, things become much clearer. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that faulty reasoning often looks formally correct. Correct reasoning isn't just about following some formal rules, it requires extensive knowledge of the context. Formally correct syllogisms can be wrong, and when someone insists on using a faulty but formally correct syllogism, e.g. to say something negative about a BLP subject, we need a tool to stop that. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:View (Buddhism) for an example of the syllogism question. Peter jackson (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Constructing a fictional character's biography from only primary source - OR/SYN or not?

We have a discussion currently occurring at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Fiction and Primary Sources regarding the use of primary sources to construct, say, the "biography" of a fictional character that sources only from the primary source (the work of fiction itself). Clearly there are potential OR/SYN pitfalls that can occur but the point of contention is the question of whether the reconstruction the details of the work of fiction to create a fictional character's biography that otherwise completes stays to the facts and does not engage in OR/SYN can considered to be OR or SYN Most of us on that conversation feel this is not the case (as this is purely the act of summarizing sources for an encyclopedic article) but one editor believes this is the case, and demands that we must have secondary/third-party sources for these. (I acknowledge non-primary sources are encourages for these but are by no means required). --MASEM (t) 16:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as you stick to summarizing material clearly stated in the work of fiction, and avoid "reading between the lines" (as it were), I don't see any problem with constructing a very basic character bio based on the work itself. Essentially, such a bio is simply a form of plot summary (one focused purely on a given character).
That said, great care must be taken to not introduce any original analysis or interpretation of the character. For example we can not use the primary source to discuss how the "events" of the character's life influenced his/her actions in the story, unless the author included an explicit statement as to cause and effect in the story... without such an explicit statement of cause and effect, we need a reliable secondary source for such analysis or interpretation. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, I would classify the reading of a work of fiction as a primary source in order to summarize its content as to the characters contained therein, is a classic form of WP:OR. Whether you call that OR or not, it is widely tolerated, right? On the other hand articles about fictional characters based on OR can be among the most poorly written and most difficult to improve on the encyclopedia, particularly if written from an in-universe perspective. There are few characters like Hamlet, about whom so much has been written that one may write an entire article from secondary sources. For every Hamlet there are a dozen Pikachus. Wikidemon (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar is correct. OR occurs when an editor extrapolates from source(s). A faithful summary of content is not OR.
Moreover, OR is not in any way influenced by source type. It thus does not matter whether a summary is that of a primary, secondary or trillionthary source. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a reason why WP:PSTS is housed within WP:OR. That part of the OR policy specifically mentions works of fiction, and says we may cite passages from a novel to describe the plot, but not to interpret things. Whether you call the plot description allowable OR that is covered by an exception in the policy, or you call it something that is declared by the policy to simply not constitute OR, is a conceptual distinction but not a practical one. Whatever you call it, it is permitted by that policy.Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The "reason" why PSTS is housed within WP:OR has nothing whatsoever to do with OR. Instead, it is a shadow from the time before there was a separate RS policy. But certain editors have since then continued to insist that PSTS remain here. And so here it remains as a memorial to ignorance, ineptitude, pitiful prose, and as a "convenient" means to game the system.
Moreover, this policy does not need to define "exceptions" or to state what is "permitted". Like every other policy, NOR -- "No original research" -- defines duties, not rights. It is poorly formulated if it is coming across as anything else. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you think the policy page is ignorant, inept, etc., then I can't really help construct a reasonable interpretation of it. I believe it is useful conceptually to describe first person observation and reportage on anything, including the contents of a book, as falling within the conceptual framework of original research. Describing a book's content after reading it is a very different thing than citing the book to verify claims asserted in the book about some other subject. Either way there is a line to draw between merely describing and summarizing what is said in the work, versus interpreting what is said in the work. A secondary source that does either is far more useful because, among other things, it provides a basis for deciding which matters are worth noting and resolving any question or disagreement as to whether the description is a fair and accurate one. Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
A) You just equated PSTS with NOR. PSTS is not NOR.
B) NOR is really very, very simple.
The only conceptual framework related to sourcing is:
Wikipedia is not a publisher of your thoughts.
When applied to NOR, that concept translates to:
Everything you say must faithfully reflect what your sources(and not you) are saying.
In that very same conceptual framework, NOR is the building block between WP:V (everything you say must have been said before) and WP:RS (everything you say must be based on reliable sources).
That's it. Its not complicated. Like V, NOR applies to all sources equally, and has no need to distinguish between type, age, format, medium, authorship or anything else. The only "basis for deciding which matters are worth noting and resolving any question or disagreement as to whether the description is a fair and accurate one" is "Wikipedia is not a publisher of your thoughts". -- Fullstop (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, as you can tell, and think you'll find that many of the framers of this policy shared my opinion in setting it up. As much as one might want the issue to be simple, NOR is one of the most subtle areas of policy, as you can tell if you review the very intricate, long discussions here and in the archive. If you look at the discussion surrounding PSTS some felt it belonged here because basing article content on primary sources is a form of OR, and others felt the matter was entirely an RS issue. Further, there has been a great deal of debate over what is truly PS, and what is legitimate to gather from an RS. You could fit that even within the simple framework proposed above, by saying that we have no principle for verifying that an editor's plot summary faithfully reports the actual plot other than reading the book oneself, which becomes a circular exercise. Anybody's personal attempt to summarize a plot reflects an individual editor's opinion of what the book is about, not that of a reliable third party source. This does cause considerable trouble actually, particularly I have observed when people try to summarize films. Films are often deliberately ambiguous and people take many different things from the plot. What is a false lead, what is a dream sequence, what really happens offscreen, what is a central issue versus a side story? That's all a matter of personal interpretation. The weight / importance of various elements is sometimes impossible to agree on without recourse to a third party source. Wikidemon (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We are getting off track. I actually think both of Fullstop and Wikidemon are giving the same answer to the question posed (allbeit, perhaps for different reasons)... I think they agree that creating a character bio based upon the primary work of fiction is fine as long as you stick to things that are explicitly said in the work of fiction... but if you go into any sort of character analysis or interpretation you need a secondary source. In other words... A character bio might qualify as Original Research or it might not... it depends on what you say in it. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

As part of keeping policy short and to the point it is probably best not to include an attempt at a 3 paragraph summery in this page and leave the specific policy pages to do the talking.Geni 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is important to explain what a reliable source is in order to explain original research. While we want to be concise, new editors might get confused bouncing between guidelines in order to get a full understanding of the rules. Angryapathy (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please show that they get confused. A summery can never replace the full policy so they are going to have to read it anyway.Geni 00:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you feel there are disadvantages in having the current explanation? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, Please recall that you mentioned in your edit summary at 01:44, 15 April 2009, on the article's history page that, "I agree that this could be tightened significantly...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Angrypathy, I too would be interested to see you show that they get confused. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am speaking theoretically, I can't predict how people would get confused if we truncated the section. Obviously I would need to read the new section in order to do that. But I suppose you could remove the second and third paragraph, and just include a link in the first paragraph about verifiablity. I still think, however, that veteran editors seem to forget what it was like not to know the rules, where to find the rules, and how to apply them properly. Remember these guidelines are for the new as well as the "old". Angryapathy (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say more for the new editors than for the experienced ones. I also agree that some are hard to find - I'm still seeing WP:acronyms that are new to me. To me that suggests that new editors need a 1-page intro to be linked into (or even summarised in) the "welcome" template; possibly simple versions of the most important policies and guidelines; a good clear-out of the redundancy and overlap that exists at present. I've edited several articles on scientific subjects, and it looks to me like learning all WP's rules requires more research than 3 or 4 articles on scientific subjects - which is ridiculous. --Philcha (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Going a little off-topic, it annoys me when editors throw in an acronym for an essay when citing rules of WP. Angryapathy (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Angrypathy,
  1. Re "I am speaking theoretically, I can't predict how people would get confused if we truncated the section." - Ain't that the truth. Although comments like that can be useful, please be careful with speculations because they can be used, even in good faith, to exclude worthwhile edit contributions.
  2. Re "Obviously I would need to read the new section in order to do that." - Perhaps you weren't aware of the new section that was suggested. Look for Geni's last edit at 00:24, 15 April 2009, on the article's history page.
  3. Re "But I suppose you could remove the second and third paragraph, and just include a link in the first paragraph about verifiablity." Thank you for suggesting this possible improvement. Like you, Geni, and SlimVirgin, I agree that the section should be reduced.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that it should be reduced. It would benefit from tightening the writing, but not a substantial reduction. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Please specify the tightening that you would like to see. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be faster to do it than describe it. As I said, just some tightening of the writing. No substantive change. No removal of entire paragraphs. The current version is substantially fine as it is, and helpful to new editors. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, Re "It would be faster to do it than describe it." Then please do it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well SlimVirgin, It's been 3 or 4 days. It looks like it isn't faster to do it than describe it, LOL, at least for you. Perhaps you didn't mean what you wrote in the edit summary for one of your 2 reversions,
"I agree that this could be tightened significantly..."
nor your comments re "tightening" here, culminating in,
"It would be faster to do it than describe it. As I said, just some tightening of the writing."
Perhaps you should do some self-evaluation and decide whether you are cooperating with editors here as much as you should. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What is your suggestions for improvement, Bob? All I have seen so far is your picking apart the discussions regarding improvement, but not making suggestions towards improvement. If you think it could be better, it would be more productive if you actively participated. Currently you've offered nothing to this discussion except for condescending comments. Angryapathy (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Please review the record more carefully. I didn't pick any suggestions apart. I supported Geni's version. I was interested in seeing SlimVirgin's "tightening", and asked that editor to do just that, but that editor didn't do anything. Also, your version is acceptable to me, or at least a good start for improvement. Here's your suggestion.
"But I suppose you could remove the second and third paragraph, and just include a link in the first paragraph about verifiablity."
Me picking it apart? Quite the contrary. I encourage you to pursue it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have an observation. About a difference between Angrypathy's comment and SlimVirgin's comment. AP is calling attention to an effect on readers. SV is calling attention to a quality of the prose. These are two very different kinds of comments. Now, I happen to agree with both: I do not wish to confuse newbies, and I want to improve the text my removing any redundancies or unnecessary phrasing. That said, I also have an opinion: SV's objective is achievable, AP's is not (with all due respect). I have been around a long time and have seen some newbies confused by the simplest and most obvious things. And I have seen editors in good faith arguing over which o two completely different ways of phrasing something was clearer. I hve concluded that no one way of phrasing will please everyone, or be equally clear to all newbiews, let alone reflect fully our combined wisdom and experience. We can never predict the reader's future experience. We can only try to follow basic guidelines for style and then take th time to EXPLAIN to Newbies on a case-by-case basis what they do not get. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you're trying to do. I've commented before that WP has a habit of letting the best be the enemy of the good. In the case of WP:RS, an easy-to-understand intro like the following might help:

In order to remain neutral and to make its information as accurate as possible, Wikipedia requires that every statement that is not absolutely obvious must be supported by a reliable source (link to something helpful on how to cite, incl e.g. refTools). Some of the rules about what is a reliable source can seem complicated, because they were designed to deal with unusual and complicated situations. however the follwing simple rules will help you to avoid problems nealry all the time.

Articles in academic journals (which is just fancy talk for "magazines") are generally the best sources, because they are checked by other experts before they are published - this process is called "peer review". In addition you can see which other publications have cited these articles and what other academics thought of them, whether they ideas in the cited artciles have been widely accepted or are regarded as obsolote or mistakne, etc.

Books by authors who have published a good number of peer-reviewed articles are also almost always very good sources. In fact you will sometimes need to use textbooks to cover the basic points in a subject, because the journals usually only deal with advanced or controversial topics and with recent changes in experts' ideas.

Non-academic newspapers and magazines are a mixed bunch. Some are accurate and thoughtful, but some have very strong political, social or religious viewpoints which can distort what they publish; others are more interested in being sensational than in accuracy.

Non-academic books are also quite variable. Some are written by authors who have much the same level of expertise in and care for their subjects as academics, while others are dashed off to advertise a point of view or to make money out of a subject while it's still "hot".

Web pages are an even more mixed bunch. Some are maintained by recognised experts or by organisations that are centres of expertise, while others are worse than the worst newspapers.

If in doubt, ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and / or at the Talk page of a relevant Wikiproject. If you are logged in when you post the question, your watchlist will tell you when someone answers (explain or link to explanation of watchlist)

--Philcha (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This seems to relate more to WP:RS than to WP:NOR. Perhaps you should float it there. Another option would be to use it as the start of a general policy/guideline overview essay that new editors could be pointed to.Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

More about RS than OR in WP:NOR?

It seems that there is more discussion about reliable sources than original research in WP:NOR. This should be corrected, and where appropriate, some of the info should be moved to WP:RS.

Recently, an attempt was made to correct this with the edit of

00:24, 15 April 2009 Geni (talk | contribs) (21,532 bytes) (→Reliable sources: compress a lot. This is best delt with through the specific policy pages)
(See article's History page and talk page section Reliable sources.)

Unfortunately, nothing came of it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN

The entire Wikipedia project is original synthesis. Therefore it makes for policy to exclude original synthesis (as opposed to other kinds of OR) Textolicious (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And every encyclopedia in the world consists primarily of original synthesis. Textolicious (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Good, cite those encyclopedias. They were written by experts; we're written by anybody who has an Internet connection and time to spare. DurovaCharge! 16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of how WP:SYN is not clear enough to distinguish allowed synthesis from unallowed synthesis. The above comments should have been answered, but weren't, by the end of WP:SYN which states,

Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

The problem is, that in the poor language of WP:NOR, "synthesis" means unallowed synthesis. WP:NOR doesn't explicitly recognize that encyclopedias are put together by using synthesis, in the sense of the normal definition of synthesis, not the distorted definition that is used in WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is unable to follow the synthesis example (the one with Smith and Jones)? I really just can't understand the point it's trying to make. Axlrosen (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
He's pointing out that using other people's references in your own paper without crediting them is not plagiarism, according to the Harvard manual. Paradoctor (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
See comments at bad example for section Synthesis of published material that advances a position --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with WP:SYN is that its abbreviation hides a much longer and more complex title, "WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material that advances a position". Every encyclopedia synthesises, but the synthesis must not distort the intentions of the sources or appear to support a conclusion not supported by any of the sources individually. --Philcha (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not just the abbreviation WP:SYN but the use of the word "synthesis" in the section that is the problem. See the above excerpt from WP:SYN. In the first sentence it implies that "synthesis" is a bad thing, whereas in the next sentence it encourages what is called synthesis outside of Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

bad example for section Synthesis of published material that advances a position

The editor stated that "If Jones did not consult the original sources ...", so I don't quite see how this constitutes a statement about what Jones actually did. Presumably, the original article context provides support for this, but as presented, the example is not illustrative. Paradoctor (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about the following version?
Click on show to view the contents of this section

The following example is based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones.

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is not plagiarism, but acceptable scholarly practice to copy references from other people's books.[27]

Plagiarism in this case was defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.[28] Since Jones did not cite the book from which he obtained his references, but only listed the references themselves, he committed plagiarism.

Two parts of the above example are properly supported by sources, indicated by [27] and [28] respectively. The part highlighted in bold uses information from each of the previous two parts, to form a conclusion that is in neither of the sources. Furthermore, there is no other source indicated for the conclusion. It appears that the conclusion was conceived by the editor, and is thus original research prohibited by this policy.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

Thanks to Hans & AA for following the link above & commenting. I see the main page says sources should directly & explicitly support article statements. Would it be an appropriate formulation of the other side of the coin to say that statements in RSs are deemed to be facts unless they directly & explicitly contradict each other? Peter jackson (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a bad idea, but I think that contradicting info is more applicable to WP:NPOV in trying to establish the neutral point of view. This might be covered in one form or another in that guideline, or should be brought up on the discussion page there. Angryapathy (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there are 2 stages here.
  1. 1st you decide that 2 statements contradict each other
  2. then you worry about how to apply NPOV
NPOV isn't relevant if the statements are deemed not to contradict each other. In the particular example you responded to, both of you deemed there to be no contradiction. Question 2 obviously belongs to NPOV, but does 1 too? Peter jackson (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
We could probably do something like that, but I think a blanket statement that everything that appears in a reliable source (uncontradicted by others) is deemed a fact would be dangerous. Often it's not even clear what the "fact" is supposed to be. Or the "reliable source" isn't all that reliable, at least not for the specific type of statement. E.g. I would generally not trust local newspapers for anything that isn't a local matter. And if a local newspaper reports on the meeting of a club and says X is the president of the club, then I would trust any Wikipedia editor who plausibly claims to be a member of the club and who says that X is merely the person the reporter spoke to, but not at all the president. (This kind of thing happened to my father.) IMO absent anything fishy about this editor this would be sufficient to leave the information out of the article or at least not to state it as a fact; though of course we couldn't say that Y is the president of the club, based on what the editor says.
For this and similar reasons that I am sure we won't think of, I believe such a change should be discussed extensively before being implemented. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Peter, what would be the benefit of saying that anything in an RS that isn't contradicted is a fact? Are you referring to when we might not need in-text attribution, or something else? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
WP is supposed to be about verifiability, not truth. Personal knowledge of the sort Hans mentions is specifically excluded.
Certainly RS isn't an absolute term, & a source that's reliable on some things may not be on others. Such distinctions were implied in my wording.
Obviously I agree with Hans's last statement. I wasn't asking for a change to any policy, mere;y for clarification of what the policy already is.
SV, verifiability policy says anything should in principle be cited from a reliable source. That already implies that any statement in an RS is deemed to be a fact. The issue I'm raising is that policy gives little or no direct consideration to the question of RSs contradicting each other. I'm trying to deduce what the policy on this actually is by studying the various policy pages, comparing them, & posting queries in places like this. As I said briefly above, there seem to be 2 successive questions here:
  1. How is it decided whether or not 2 RSs actually do contradict each other? In the example I linked above, it seemed obvious to me there was a contradiction, but another local editor said no, as did 2 visitors from here.
  2. Assuming the result of the 1st consideration is that there is a contradiction, then
    1. in most cases NPOV applies,
    2. but in some cases common sense suggests that 1 source could be dismissed, after careful consideration, as out of date or non-specialist (this possibilty doesn't seem to be explicitly mentioned in policy, though statements about preference for some types of sources over others might be interpreted as implying something of the sort.
Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The last theoretical question that you asked here was really about a specific problem at Talk:View (Buddhism), and it turned out that the question had not relevance to the application (because it wasn't a syllogism in the first place).
Now I have looked at that talk page again and I am getting the impression that you are arguing that something must be said by the article just because some reliable source says it. Is that a correct description of your position?
It happens to be wrong. We, the community of editors, have no editorial discretion to say anything that is not backed by reliable sources. But once something is covered by reliable sources it becomes a matter of editorial discretion whether we want to mention it or not. Reasons not to mention something are not limited, and so they include: being contradicted by a reliable source, being contradicted by a credible but not technically reliable source, being contradicted by the personal knowledge of an editor whom the others trust, insufficient relevance, inclusion of a fact might lead to an article being vandalised, or it would give undue weight to a fringe position. If the last point is relevant in your case, read WP:UNDUE. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing for any specific proposal. What I was claiming was that the article violated NPOV by asserting as fact that the Buddha taught certain things, when there is no consensus among scholars as to what he taught. I was then asked for citations to support this, & supplied verbatim quotes from 12 different scholars (I limited it to 1 each; I could have added a few more by the same scholars). The relevance of the syllogistic question was that my argument was of the form
  1. there is no consensus on what he taught
  2. so there is no consensus on what he taught on this particular point
a simplified syllogism. Your argument against mine was a matter of precise analysis of terms, while AA simply rejected any such argument. Peter jackson (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here, Peter, is one that is mainly your confusion over what a "topic" is. (I mean this with absolutely no offense) You were attempting to introduce reliable information on Buddhism into an article that is about a aspect of Buddhism. The topic of the article was View (Buddhism), which was not mentioned in the sources. For an analogy, it's like someone trying to put criticism of the Ford Motor Company into the article on the Ford Focus; the topic of the article is the car itself, not the company. Unless the sources mentioned that car specifically, it should be excluded.

Again, I do not mean this as an attack, but I think the issue here is your inability to separate the two topics from one another. I can see how you thought syllogisms would allow the info into the article, but you need to remember that the source must directly mention the topic. Angryapathy (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To return tot he matter at hand: that something is a "fact" is itself a view. Now, if Peter Jackson is asking me whether there are some cases where everyone shares the view that x is a fact, I will agree with him: all biologists agree that evolution is a fact, for example. But I as a wikipedia user never introduced the word "fact" into this discussion - I can find numerous secondary sources that state that biologists view evolution as a fact. If peter jackson is asking if it is one of us Wikipedia editors who can make this determination (review sources, conclude that something is a fact) I feel strongly that the answer is no. it is not for us to include our own views in the article and the conclusion that x is a fact is a view. Let me turn it around: if there are NO reliable sources that atate that "x is a fact" or "it is a fact that x," why is this the case? I suppose there is some reason. it is not for us to argue against that reason even if we do not know what it is or do not understand it or do not agree with it. In short, I bet that in addition to all reliable sources saying the earth revolves around the sun, there i SOME reliable source that also says "this is a fact." let's cite that source when we say "it is a fect." If we cannot find that source, why do we even need to introduce the word fact? if no reliable source uses the word fact, why do we have to? Why not just report, "All notable sources agree that the earth revolves around the sun?" Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not deal in facts; it deals solely in information gleaned from reliable sources. Angryapathy (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's not worry about terminology. WP policy is that, in general, articles can assert things without qualification if they are so asserted in RSs. What I'm trying to get is clarification about exceptions to this. Plainly (I don't think even AA would disagree) there are cases where RSs contradict each other so blatantly that they cannot both be so asserted in the articles. What I'm asking about is the criterion for deciding whne this applies. This doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere. Peter jackson (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's supposed to be addressed in WP:RS, not NPOV or NOR. The idea that editors cannot make judgement calls about the quality of sources is a bad meme that has been going around for about two years; It's completely bunk. The RS guideline is supposed to lay this out explicitly, but fails to do so. For example, the word "accurate" is not used once in the entire guideline, which tells me there is a problem. Just because a reliable source makes an error, doesn't mean we reprint it. Frankly, the RS guideline fails on just about every level. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"the RS guideline fails on just about every level" (Viriditas, 08:40, 18 April 2009) is only a slight exaggeration. Its fundamental problem is that it tries to replace knowledge of the subject with bureaucratic process- and organisation-based criteria. Even the peer-reviewed journals publish the occasional rubbish article (I know of one by an author who's indef banned from en.WP for POV-pushing), and the majority of journal articles are refuted within 5 years (yes, I can provide a citation). Outside academic subjects, you need knowldge and judgement. For example big-name publications in chess and computer games have well-known weaknesses, and a lot of the good stuff is on web pages that WP:RS disdains. ---Philcha (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
For the most part, that dovetails nicely with what I'm saying. More to the point, just as most scholarly sources are refuted within a short period of time, so too our policies and guidelines. These things were not meant to be static documents, but as dynamic as the wiki. And yet, they have not changed all that much over the years, because several editors prevent others from making necessary modifications—changes that reflect the current culture; And so, they become outdated. Why is it that every standard textbook reference for identifying and using reliable sources doesn't remotely resemble the one on Wikipedia? Why is it that we are dealing with RS issues on a daily basis, when they can easily be solved simply by changing the guideline? The question Peter jackson raises comes up all the time. And if I try to address it on the RS page, I'll be instantly reverted by the same people and forced to hit my head against the wall on the talk page for nine months. This isn't the way things are supposed to be done. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Re "several editors prevent others from making necessary modifications". I've seen that at WP:NOR. Skill in manipulating the Wikipedia system for their own purposes is more powerful than editing competence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What changes do you have in mind, Viriditas? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to say, "I'm glad you asked" but I just don't have the necessary time at this moment to address my changes in full. For what it is worth, my comments above were mostly concerned with seeing Peter jackson's question about dueling sources (and using common sense to avoid adding erroneous material from a RS) answered in the RS guideline. I think it would be easy to do. But taking the big picture approach, what we really need is something more comprehensive. We have something now that we didn't have several years ago: We have actual data. First, we have all the policy and guideline discussion pages. With the use of archive indexing bots, we can view all topics, sort by related subjects, and view the number of replies, all from one page. We can then see which issues keep coming up, which have been addressed, and those that have been ignored. We can then take these results and compare them in the same way to the related noticeboard topics. We also have access to many different essays that discuss aspects of policies and guidelines that have never been unified into a cohesive whole. I think that some of these essays may represent the repeated failed attempts of editors who have tried to modify policies and guidelines unsuccessfully. It may be instructive to find out which essays are cited the most and think about raising their status by incorporating their fine points into the official pages they represent. One could even argue that we should start with the Wikipedia essays first. Lastly, we can mine the arbitration cases to see which policy and guideline issues keep arising and see what we are dealing with across the board. Any changes we propose should be based on an assessment of what we know and how Wikipedia works. Viriditas (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The idea of RS as a guideline was that it would expand on the sourcing policy, WP:V, and would give advice about exactly this kind of thing -- what to do when good sources contradict each other; where to look for the best sources etc. But every attempt to write something like that ended up not too brilliantly, with internal contradictions, and it led to lots of disputes, with some editors using it to show X and others using it to show the opposite. Perhaps now would be a good time to revisit it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, that was the idea behind Wikipedia:Attribution (ATT). ATT was a combination of V and NOR, then there was going to be an ATT/FAQ, which would expand on the details of sourcing issues. Perhaps we could start a V/FAQ. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me somewhat of a debate I had over at the Talk:Tori Amos page. I, among other editors, had constant arguments with another editor over the inclusion of peer-reviewed articles. His position was that all peer reviewed articles are inherently worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia due to the nature of the peer reviewed process, and thus all peer-reviewed academia should be summarized on Wikipedia. Whether or not I agree with that, there is nothing in the rules that dictates the inclusion specifically, and wiki-lawyering makes the issue similar to Dick Cheney's magic Office of the Vice President. I ended up resigning myself from the situation due to frustration with the issues. Sometimes the lines between a content guideline and a notability guideline get a little blurred and need some clarification. I do agree that the WP:RS needs work to clarify which sources need to be included, or at least do it somewhere. Angryapathy (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem with most attempts to "clarify" our policies and guidelines is that they attract the wikilaw-makers and quickly spin out of control. I am a great believer in following the advice of WP:The rules are principles. We want our policies and guidelines to be statements of broad intent, and leave the specifics up to those who know a topic and the sources best... ie those who are writing the article in question.
That said, I agree that many of our policies and guidelines have become overly complex. I would be in favor of a coordinated system wide simplification of all our policies and guidelines... to get us back to core principals. Unfortunately, any such attempt would probably result in panic and resistance by those who focus on exact language, instead of broad intent... those who fear that some clause that they consider vital to the project will dissapear. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I wish "the rules are principles" actually worked here. Maybe it did in the past, but now, they are necessary in keeping the peace. Ignore all rules pretty much never happens. But I don't know about simplifying rules; I think we ignore the amounts of debate that have been avoided because a rule (guideline) has been put in place. I know people are afraid of WP:CREEP, but rules exist because people are selfish and do what they feel is right, which leads to a messy, grabage-dump of an encyclopedia. But you can start by making a few suggestions as to what rules can be simplified, but upon doing that, you'll see the debate as to why it was put there in the first place. Angryapathy (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar, my proposal to clarify the rules relies on a methodological approach using the evidence we already have in the form of discussion topics, essays, and arbitration case results. Wikilawyers aren't needed nor would they have any role here. This stage is pure data collection. What we need is someone to analyze the data. If SlimVirgin was willing to use this type of evidence to support whatever unification proposals she had in mind, I think she would find many supporters. The problem isn't that most of our policies and guidelines are broad; it's that they no longer reflect the current culture and common problems faced by the average editor. Category:Wikipedia_essays lists at least 809 pages! Has anyone gone through this category and attempted to map out its connections to related policies and guidelines? And Blueboar, not to make this personal, but I've strongly disagreed with your interpretation of a number of policy issues in the past (Your tacit approval of the use of personal opinion and observations made by editors about film audio comes to mind) and I've found your approach way too permissive, to the point of allowing OR and the personal experience of editors to interfere with neutrality. When you say that you would "leave the specifics up to those who know a topic and the sources best... ie those who are writing the article in question", I fear that is one of the worst things we can do, and I would be strongly against it. We have peer review for a reason, but if those reviewers aren't clear about the rules, and the problems aren't caught at GAC or FAC, then those "specifics" can become glaring errors, biases, and OR that aren't caught and filtered out at the appropriate level; All because we should assume that the primary editor will not push their POV? While I think self-regulation is a lofty goal, we have mechanisms of review and criticism that override it. This is an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit (anonymously) and for that reason, I do not trust the editors writing it with also regulating themselves and keeping themselves in check. Let's not be pollyannaish about this; Past experience tells us it doesn't work. We need to look at the problem from the bottom up, and we all know that starts with RS. Self-published sources are finding their way into every GA and FA and nobody blinks an eye because they aren't willing to look at the problem. Even long term editors often use the worst sources imaginable, which means we probably shouldn't have an article on the topic in the first place. I don't see what this has to do with wikilaywering. This has to do with tightening the RS guideline and teaching editors how to use it. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AA, let me see whether I've correctly understood your position on topics, using an abstract hypothetical example. Suppose we have 3 different RSs saying respectively

  1. there are no As in country B
  2. there is an A in district C
  3. district C is in country B

If I've correctly understood your position, you'd say

  1. article on As should give statements 1 & 2 as rival POVs
  2. article on B should give statement 1 without qualification
  3. article on C should give statement 2 without qualification

Is that your position? If so, do others agree? Peter jackson (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As a very hypothetical example, I would say that is sort of right. But if there is disagreement between 1 and 2, one would have to reconcile where the divergences are. All I am really saying to don't bring discussions regarding a mother topic down to a daughter topic if the daughter topic isn't specifically named in the sources. I'm sure there are a multitude of sources that will states that Jesus Christ didn't exist, as well as many more saying he did. Do we include that debate in Eucharist article? No, because the sources do not mention the Eucharist. There is no need to say in the Eucharist article, "Jesus might not have existed," because that isn't the topic. Again, an article on Wikipedia isn't full of facts, it is full of information. Does that clear anything up? Angryapathy (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Now, to comment a bit on where the discussion has moved on to. One thing to bear in mind is that there is no generally effective procedure for enforcing policy anyway. Consensus, if any, can be enforced, I think, but if there is no consensus locally the only procedure available seems to be to ask the global community to join in and establish a consensus. the problem is that they generally decline to do so. No doubt if someone called an RfC on Obama hordes of people would turn up, but few people seem to be prepared to do so on topics they're not particularly interested in.
The other point I can think of right now is simply that the concept of verifiability is logically flawed. It's not just that false statements can be verifiable. The policy page accepts that up front. The real problem is that contradictory statements can be verifiable. They can be included in the articles depending on what people happen to come across, or what suits their POV. This problem the policy page doesn't seem to mention. It assumes that if someone challenges a statement & someone responds with a citation that's it, Roma locuta est. Peter jackson (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as Verifiability goes... yes, once someone responds with a citation that is it (assuming the citation does indeed back the statement). The issue of how to deal with verifiable but contradictary statements falls under WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I see on reading the whole V page again that it does briefly say that disagreement between RSs brings in NPOV. The question I was raising here was of the criteria for disagreement. In the page now linked below I thought there was a clear contradiction, but a local editor & 2 from here said no. It would seem this is taken much more strictly than I thought. Peter jackson (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I said above that verifiabilty is logically flawed. I might go further & say it's fraudulent. Readers are told they can verify that the source cited does indeed say what the article says it says, & so they can. What they cannot verify is that no other RS contradicts it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

proposed addition

This seems self-evident to me, but it might be worth including explicitly. basically, I'd like to add a line which points out that the purpose of a citation is not merely to point out that something has been said, but rather to show that a particular point is part of the conventional fabric of a scholarly discourse or debate. something to the following effect, maybe?

To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, that directly support the information as it is presented, and that lie within the conventional practices and/or debates of a related field.

comments on the idea itself, or on this particular wording? --Ludwigs2 16:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the first half is very good (and sort of ties into what peter jackson was asking), but the part that says, "that lie within the conventional practices and/or debates of a related field," seems either redundant, extraneous, or far too limiting in what sources can be used. Angryapathy (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why would a citation have to show that something is part of the "conventional fabric"? We have to be neutral, and this is in any event unconnected to OR, unless I'm missing the point. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
2 problems with the proposal:
  • "lie within the conventional practices and/or debates of a related field" looks like lawyer-fodder. To be honest, I don't even know what it means.
  • The addition of "that are directly related to the topic of the article" is unduly restrictive. If it's a good source and directly supports the article's text, that's good enough. A couple of examples:
    • In zoology some phyla receive relatively little attention, and a para that compares phylum X and phylum Y may be the best info available.
    • In popular culture, e.g. computer games, most of the coverage is of specific products and info about genres and other widely-understood concepts comes very largely in the form of asides in reviews of products. --Philcha (talk)
Isn't lying within conventional practices &c implied by the concept of RS? Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think he's trying to say that you should try and use articles from a medical journal for an article about medicine instead of using an article from an art magazine, although I think that issue is well covered by WP:RS. I personally think, "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and that directly support the information as it is presented," could be useful, as it seems to summarize the whole policy, but then again where would it go? In the intro? It seems to reiterate what is already said, but people seem to want to shrink policies and guidelines, not grow them. Angryapathy (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"directly related to the topic of the article" is ambiguous, it could mean a statement about phylum X (or some other WP article topic) can only be supported by an article about phylum X (or the relevant WP topic).
Angryapathy's concern about citing an article about medicine instead of using an article from an art magazine is valid, but legislating specifically against it looks like a recipe for trouble. For example a book might cover both biological and cultural aspects of an organism. The (vague) rules I work by include looking to see if the author is an expert in the domain (biology, art, whatever) of the statement, but formulating that into a rule introduces all sorts of complications, for example: whether this is a consensus view or an otherwise-reliable suthor has a bee in his/her bonnet; whether the author is an expert in the appropriate sub-domain, for example chess historians have severely criticised comments on chess history by notable players; I've seen a totally rubbish article in a good scientific journal, presenting a POV which the author later pushed so hard, verbosely and persistently on WP that he was indef banned. In this type of case there's no substitute for knowing the field and the players. --12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the directly related portion would refer to the issue that was had at Talk:View (Buddhism). In this case, an editor wanted to put information about Buddha/Buddhism into an article that describes an aspect of Buddhism. While they were reliable sources, they did not directly relate to the actual topic of article.
For the record, I do not feel that we would need to legislate that the source needs to "lie within the conventions of the related field." I think editors can wade through bad sources well enough. I was merely explaining what was intended by Ludwig's suggestions.
As the statement is (minus the portion I described earlier), I personally believe it could reduce some confusion, but I doubt it will be accepted into the policy. Angryapathy (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

first, let me note that the first half of what I gave here is already in the policy (I included it for context). the last phrase is what I proposed, and what I aiming for was mostly a reminder that a citation isn't really important in and of itself, but rather because it supposedly represents a position in a continuing discussion or practice in the field. not a huge issue, because other policies and guidelines get at it tangentially, but... does that make sense? --Ludwigs2 01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I think I understand what you are suggesting, but it is not at all clear from the wording you propose. In any case, I don't think it relates to the concept of original research. Perhaps it should be discussed at WP:V and WP:RS instead. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with AGF, I will assume AA simply hasn't read what I said. I wasn't trying to put information into the article. I was querying whether statements already there were acceptable, given that they appeared to contradict RSs of broader coverage. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not following the "conventional fabric" thing, Ludwig. Are you simply saying sources have to be reliable and not too whacky, or is there more to it? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
there's more to it, though I guess I'm not communicating it well. In academic writing, there are two basic reasons to use a citation:
  • you want to bring up a credible but more-or-less novel idea that another researcher is presenting so that you can critique/modify it
  • you want to highlight a long-standing understanding, or a long-standing debate - i.e., something that everyone in the discipline knows, but you need to mention it so you can move to the next point.
In academia, both are acceptable (because you only reference other scholars, and you're supposed to be doing original research). On wikipedia, though, we're really only supposed to be doing the second: any idea that hasn't entered in as a 'long-standing' idea or debate probably isn't encyclopedia material yet. Yet when we cite scholars (as a rule, though usually it's not a problem) we don't pay any attention to whether the scholar is engaged in the first or the second activity. Primary sources do the first all the time, secondary sources do it less (but more frequently than you might imagine), and of course the difference between primary and secondary sources is largely shades of gray anyway. basically I was trying to point this distinction out as something that needs to be considered, so that things which really shouldn't be in the encyclopedia don't sneak in through the back door (e.g., because some scholar is disposing of a newish theory on his way to making a different point, and the newish theory gets picked up on WP because that scholar happened to use it as a stalking horse). see what I mean? it's a subtle point, and not something that will have a dramatic impact, but it might clear up a few content disputes by making editors demonstrate that a particular citation or reference isn't just a one-off comment. --Ludwigs2 15:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The concern about citing some scholar who is disposing of a newish theory on his way to making a different point is valid... it goes to the idea of "context" (that we should not cherry pick information from sources or cite things out of their original context). But isn't all this covered under the existing language? Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I certainly think it's implied in the current language, and I suspect any editor who approaches the matter with care already considers this. I didn't think it was explicitly covered, though. I guess it's just a question of how direct we want to be on the point. is it worth making a change to the policy in order to make this more clear? --Ludwigs2 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I simplify your point to say that scholars frequently don't distinguish very clearly between accepted facts & their own personal opinions? Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
well, better would be: scholars frequently don't distinguish between established and innovative theories. Scholars will prefer an innovative theory to an established theory if the innovative theory seems to work better, and either way they will often refer to them interchangeably in an academic discussion. that's expected in the scholarly world, because the scholars evaluate the merits of theories as a profession. We can't really do that on wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, but how to avoid it if the scholars themselves don't make clear which is which? Peter jackson (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Reliable sources section should be removed.

Here's the last paragraph of the Reliable sources section:

"If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented in a reliable source, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability."

1st sentence - This sentence is out of place and is no more a reliable source issue than is any other original research that is discussed in the 1st paragraph of the section. I would suggest removing it and adding "proofs" to the following sentence in the lede, as indicated by the temporary bold font,

"This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, proofs or arguments."

2nd sentence - This sentence is trivial since that is the policy for everything that is in Wikipedia, not just proofs.

3rd sentence - The Verifiability policy link for reliable sources has already been given at the beginning of the section and the link to the whole Verifiability policy is already given in the Related policies section and three other places, including the lede.

Thus, the last paragraph of the Reliable sources section should be removed.

Thank you for considering this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to this provided we do add the word "proofs" to the lead. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I concur. The proposal above is sound but I also dont like the use of the word "proofs". It just gets people stirred up and looses focus on the question at hand.--RadioFan (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Would "conclusions" in concert with the existing "arguments" work better than "proofs", as in the following?
"This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Works for me Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I just added "conclusions" to that sentence on the project page. It seems to be clearly a good addition in any case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted the subject paragraph. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored. No consensus for removing this important concept from policy. Some Wikipedians do make discoveries worth publishing onsite, and the best metric for determining whether that belongs in Wikipedia is whether a reliable vetted source covers it first. This has been a very useful both as a screening factor and as an instruction to new users. DurovaCharge! 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Re "Some Wikipedians do make discoveries worth publishing onsite, and the best metric for determining whether that belongs in Wikipedia is whether a reliable vetted source covers it first." -
You seem to be saying that in the process of discussing a topic on an article's talk page, i.e. "onsite", editors may make a discovery through their original research in their discussion. And that this discovery cannot be put into an article unless it appears in a reliable source. Perhaps you also meant that this applies to any discovery made by a Wikipedian. I agree on both counts. That's simply the basic policy of WP:NOR.
But doesn't that apply to every editor's discovery, whether it be proofs or anything else? The 1st paragraph clearly states that, "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." It isn't clear why you think discoveries that are proofs, are any more a reliable source issue than is any other original research, and require special mention in the Reliable sources section. Could you please clarify? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
When an editor wants to publish an original discovery on Wikipedia the thing to do is remind them that they can seek publication elsewhere, in a vetted source, and then cite that reliable source here. Often it doesn't occur to new editors that they themselves could do this, as opposed to relying upon preexisting published information. Specifically noting that possibility a softer and more productive way to say no to original research: it offers a fair path into the encyclopedia for the few editors who really do have a noteworthy discovery and the initiative to pursue it, and filters out many others. It isn't such a good idea to renew the reliable sources issue separately within that discussion, because the second tack taken by some of these people is to attempt publication at another wiki or at a personal homepage. Just remind them (if it comes up) that the minimum standard for reliable sourcing is exactly the same as for them as for anybody else. DurovaCharge! 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In your response you didn't mention "proofs". It appears that you recognize that the subject is discoveries in general, rather than just proofs. Perhaps we are agreed in this regard?
I agree with having guidance that editors should first put their discoveries in a reliable publication. A related issue of self-publication was mentioned in the last sentence of the previous paragraph of WP:NOR's Reliable sources.
"Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see these sections of Verifiability for exceptions."
Perhaps the guidance re discoveries and the above sentence, could be combined in a paragraph to replace the last paragraph of the section? Here's a possibility.
If you have made a discovery that hasn't already been published by others, you can put it in a reliable publication and then add it to the Wikipedia, just like any discovery that appears in a reliable source. But note that material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, although there are exceptions as mentioned in these sections of Verifiability.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If you mean mathematical or logical proofs, then as with any other type of original thought Wikipedia does not have a vetting process. DurovaCharge! 01:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The "proofs" that I was referring to were those mentioned in the last paragraph of the present Reliable sources section of WP:NOR that we have been discussing. Do you feel that the term "discovery" that you used in your comments is better than the term "proof" that is presently used in the section? If so, I agree and that's one reason why I suggested the above replacement for the last paragraph of that section. Other reasons have been mentioned previously. I would be interested in your comments regarding the suggested replacement. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

True confessions

Need to unload your wiki-soul? Accepting OR confessions at my blog. Confidentiality assured.[8] DurovaCharge! 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Language

When I simplified "familiarize themselves with" to "get to know", it was reverted, with the claim that one "gets to know" a person, and not a policy. I have for the moment changed "familiarize" to "acquaint", but I think it would be wise for would-be reverters to be more careful. "Get to know" is by no means limited to people, Wiktionary aside. Dfeuer (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with familiarize? :-) It is more accurate that "acquaint," which needn't involve much familiarity. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It has three extra syllables with no added clarity. Would you prefer "study"? I still like "get to know", but I don't have a dictionary of idioms to prove my usage is acceptable (though it does appear in multiple definitions and quotations in the OED). Dfeuer (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
What section / passage is this about? --Philcha (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Third paragraph in the lede...
  • "No original research" is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. 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.
Dfeuer seems to not like the word "familiarize". Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
That is certainly true. I am personally opposed to long -ize forms. That is not, however, the only problem with the sentence. I don't see the advantage of using a reflexive construct with a prepositional phrase when a simpler structure is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfeuer (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a FAQ a Policy?

There is a dispute on the status of a "Frequently Asked Questions" page for a Policy: should the FAQ of a Policy be a Policy itself, or a Guideline to the relevant Policy. I've set up an RFC to discuss the issue on the disputed FAQ. The Policy is WP:NPOV and its FAQ is Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ. All input is definitely welcome! Dreadstar † 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dilbert, OR and wikipedia

Speaking of Original research, here is a dilbert strip that illustrates the point very well, can his image be added with fair use policy? --Nvineeth (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples --> General

I am currently reading James McClain's book Kanazawa: A Seventeenth-Century Japanese Castle Town (ISBN 0300027362). It is an excellent case study of one prominent Edo period castle town which is intended by its author, as is quite common in scholarship, to serve as an example from which the reader can extrapolate on castle towns in Edo period Japan more widely. There's tons of excellent material in here that I haven't seen in any other book which could prove amazingly useful for expanding and improving upon a number of Wiki articles on different aspects of Edo period society; the problem is, the book only explicitly refers to Kanazawa's case, and does not explicitly state generalities about castle towns throughout the country. One has to extrapolate, and make certain assumptions about the applicability of the information, in order to be able to apply it to the general case. While this is very much the intention of the book, and is a fully standard, accepted, mainstream, common practice in professional scholarship, I fear that it constitutes "original research" under Wikipedia's guidelines, thus rendering all of this wonderful material completely unusable.

Some examples:

  • Discussion of the phenomenon of kabukimono in early 17th century Kanazawa; information could be extrapolated and assumed to apply to a fair extent to other cities throughout the country, but this is not stated explicitly in the book, which only discusses the situation in Kanazawa. An especial shame, since the Wiki article on kabukimono is in sore need of improvement and references.
  • Material on early kabuki, and the extent to which they traveled to provincial cities such as Kanazawa. The vast majority of books on kabuki are devoted exclusively to activity in Edo, Osaka, and Kyoto, making only the tiniest passing mention of troupes traveling the provinces.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Is this material completely unusable in these general articles about kabukimono, kabuki, etc. because the general case is not explicitly addressed by McClain?

Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Have other scholars cited McClain's book in works on other towns and castles? If so... then I think we are justified in saying that his work relating to Kanazawa has general relevance to other towns and castles and could be used for a generalized statement. But, if not... then we have to pause and ask ourselves: "why not?" It may be that his theories are not accepted, or it may be that scholars think they only relate to Kanazawa. The point is that unless other scholars cite him, we probably can not use him for a Generalized statement. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That is an excellent point, Blueboar. I had not thought of that. I'll have to go look into it. LordAmeth (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Would a section of Kabukimono titled Kabukimono in Kanazawa be OK? It might even prompt other editors to contribute info about other cities too. It's a relatively new article so it has possibilities for growth and I expect your contribution would be welcomed to Wikipedia if it stuck to sourced material, rather than generalizations that aren't sourced. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
At some point, when I feel I have the time, I intend to overhaul that article, anyway (unless someone else beats me to it). It is in serious need of some help. I think I can incorporate the Kanazawa stuff by just saying, "In Kanazawa, ...." and allowing the reader to extrapolate whatever they feel like about how relevant that is to other cities. There isn't quite enough here for a full section on Kanazawa, anyway. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. LordAmeth (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis issue?

  • copied from my Talk page:

That guideline says, "Plot summaries do not normally require citations", but other sections do. The sections with the "accuracy" analyses are not part of a film article's Plot description, so any material must be cited. Validation of the contents of a Plot section is performed differently than for other sections (consensus). More importantly, the section is comparing two works; WP editors cannot do the comaprison. It must be done by a reliable source, such as a reviewer or critic. So, a reliable source who makes the comaparison between the numbers of escapees in the film versus reality must be found, otherwise it's WP:SYN.HaroldPGuy (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A careful reading of WP:SYN suggests otherwise; the two examples shown there, and commentary thereon, lead to the conclusion that we may state X and Y as properly sourced facts; what we may not do is state "X and Y, therefore Z". If we merely state X and Y, the reader may draw Z as a conclusion, but us doing so is a synthesis. Rodhullandemu 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"The plan was to get 200 men out of the camp (not the 250 stated in the movie)."[9]
P.S. Issues like yours are more appropriately discussed at the noticeboard WP:NORN, rather than here. Also, I would suggest you discuss the article on the article's talk page, rather than your user talk pages.
Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of plot summaries was that they were a special exception to the synthesis rule. As a number of editors might work on different aspects of an article, they are all going to come across the plot summary. The version which survives the inevitable trimming and expansion will result in a format that neatly summarizes the plot sans editorial interpretation. Its a sort of editing Darwinism that evolves the summary into a form that a consensus can agree with. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Citing oneself

I made this change because good-faith additions of uncited material aren't exactly "prohibited" (except in certain BLP cases) and are often simply tagged as "citation needed" (as per WP:BOP: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them"). The previous wording suggested that stricter standards somehow apply to specialists or experts, and I don't think that's quite what the passage was intended to communicate. But perhaps the problem lies with the phrase, "drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." Well, isn't that precisely what countless editors have done in order to earn those citation-needed tags (which often last until someone simply identifies and cites a plausible source of the editor's knowledge)? Everyone has "personal knowledge" that can be verified, even if they don't precisely know how they know what they know. But if "personal knowledge" in this context refers to knowledge that is relatively unique to editors who are, moreover, fairly certain that they cannot back themselves up with reliable citations, then of course the addition of that knowledge should be prohibited, because it violates the very heart of NOR. In any case, we just don't want to imply that a double-standard is enforced for specialists and non-specialists. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As you say... "... if "personal knowledge" in this context refers to knowledge that is relatively unique to editors who are, moreover, fairly certain that they cannot back themselves up with reliable citations, then of course the addition of that knowledge should be prohibited, because it violates the very heart of NOR." Exactly... The point of this section is to prohibit editors from making an addition based purely on personal information that can not be verified. For example, you can not write that an event happened and justify it with "I know because I was there". It is also to prevent editors from playing the "expert" card... ("Trust me, I am an expert... I know this occured the way I say it did"). Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the sentence under discussion,
This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.
I think the problem is that the sentence is unclear because the meaning and difference of the terms "specialist knowledge" and "personal knowledge" is unclear. This lack of clarity seems evident from the previous two messages above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. But on the other hand, it would be a radical broadening of NOR to proclaim that editors cannot cite sources they have written when those sources qualify as reliable sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Phil, Thanks. Regarding the broadening, I don't think anyone's suggesting that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I would summarize the problem as lying in a progression of generality from "citing oneself" to "specialist knowledge" and finally to "personal knowledge", such that by the time the first sentence is complete, it seems to suggest that those who've made original contributions to a topic are "prohibited" (whereas other editors are simply discouraged, in non-BLP cases anyway) from adding any unsourced information that they "personally know" about the topic. "Specialist knowledge" might still be in the ballpark, but "personal knowledge" is just too vague. How about replacing "personal knowledge" with something like "personal research" (or even "original research", given that's what the policy is called in the first place), so it's clearer that the body of the "citing oneself" section isn't trying to overstep its title? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to take a crack at showing a proposed rewrite here? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of something like, "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their own research without citing their sources", or better yet, "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their own research if this research has not been published in reliable sources." I think the second version (or something like it) might be better because, although it may be unusual or in poor taste for editors to add research of their own that can be located in reliable sources (while neglecting to provide those sources on their own), the real crux of the section seems to be that any given editor's expertise doesn't trump the community's ability to verify things. Come to think of it, maybe something like the following would be best: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their own research if this research has not been published in reliable sources, and it strongly encourages them to cite their sources when they add information stemming from their research." I think that it's clear and comprehsive, and that it distinguishes between the OR that this policy can obviously "prohibit" and the Wikiquette that it can only "strongly encourage" without testing the boundaries of WP:BOP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What about: "This policy is not intended to prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from contributing to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from adding their own unpublished research and conclusions." Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like both Cosmic Latte and Blueboar eliminated the troublesome phrase "personal knowledge". BB's version seems to have evolved from CL's versions and I think it would work.
Here's how the section would look with the version from BB's message.

Citing oneself

Shortcut

This policy is not intended to prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from contributing to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from adding their own unpublished research and conclusions. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

This version of the section seems to fit well with the section title "Citing oneself". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Discomfort re NOR

The indentation of this section has been chaotic. I've made a sincere effort make sense of it, but i can't always read minds very well. If i've misrepresented what you were talking about, please fix the indentation of your contrib, and those that are before the first equally or less indented contrib below yours, and summarize your edit "Fixed indent: I was responding to ___."
In fact, this section has exceeded 75% of the recommend size limit of a page, which is an even more urgent limit for a section. Subdivision will also aid readability.--Jerzy•t 04:44 & 05:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NOR... Why not?

No Original Research is a good policy, a way to keep lies, inaccuracy, and mistakes out of articles. For example, I could tell you that I had personally found an artifact that ties Adolf Hitler to President Barack Obama. Obviously a lie, and should be kept out.
HOWEVER. Not all original research is bad. (I am using an example that I am somewhat of an expert in, freshwater aquariums) I could write an artical about the fish "chinese algae eater" saying that this fish is commonly accepted as a very docile fish, however I have raised many to adulthood and have found them caught in the act of eating another fish. I have pictures of this happening, and documented this phenomena very well. Since it is not an single specimen it cannot be said to be the behavioral quirks of the fish. Furthermore, the only reason they are considered docile is because most chinese algae eaters in dealers tanks die or are bought before they reach maturity and aggresiveness.
Sorry, I kind of went off on a tangent there. But you see my point. If original research can be verified it should be allowed. If a peron has originl research and can provide photos and other documentation that can validate their claims it should be allowed.
--Drew R. Smith (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. First publish it in a reliable publication, such as a scientific journal, and then it will be welcomed in the Wikipedia. We don't have the means to determine the validity of your work, and that's how unpublished original research came to be prohibited.
Here's how the founder of Wikipedia put it:
"The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide." [10]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
So for the sake of convenience we are squelching Original thought?(Which unfortunatly is already rare these days...) Many people have no way to publish in a reliable publication. Some are too young. Others are too old. Others have such radical ideas that no reliable publication would take them. But it doesnt mean they should be squashed. At the very least we should have a section where original thought is allowed- but controlled. In this section articals arent deleted for lack of sources. Instead they are scrutinized by other readers and editors. If there isnt enough proof, ask for it. If proof isnt given, then delete it. Give original thought a chance. You say wikipedia is not the place for original thought, but I think it can be. Keep the encyclopedia portion of wikipedia how it is. But add a whole new portion where original thought, new ideas, and true intelligence can flourish. I'm hoping this can be a place where anyone can publish their ideas, and amatures and experts alike can point out the flaws in other peoples research.
I could keep ranting all day, but I think I've made my point... Drew R. Smith (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You might find what you want at Wikinfo. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Drew... I'll probably get lynched for saying this out loud, but the standard on wikipedia (currently) is "if no one objects..." If you added something like you outlined above, the most likely occurrence is that it would sit around for a bit until someone who knows something about fish noticed it and questioned it. then you and she would discuss the matter (probably after a few reverts) and decide whether on balance it would be better to leave it in or take it out. in this case, since it's almost literally original research, it would likely get excluded, but I can easily imagine an experienced fish-dude thinking to himself 'well, yeah, those little suckers probably do do that' and deciding to let it slide. a lot of things that are technically original research are present on wikipedia because they're common-sensical and/or unobjectionable; a lot of things that aren't OR are excluded because they give some editor(s) a headache. an odd assortment of topics on wikipedia have someone prone to getting headaches over them.
read wp:bold, take it to heart, and trust that some other wikipedian will bring you back in line if you step over the boundaries. and don't get upset when they do, because that's part of the process. at the end of an infinite series, consensus=truth, at least when consensus is done honestly. so...
--Ludwigs2 06:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know we were telling people to break the rules now. On that note, you should also stuff beans up your nose. Sarcasm aside, aggression as those fish mature does get a bit mention in this source. Since the fish is mentioned in at least a few dozen books on fish care, there's probably more it out there. And this part of why I personally don't think there is ever a good reason to let NOR be violated - with the millions of potential sources out there, I simply have a hard time believing a significant fact managed to escape mention on even a decent blog somewher...The other reason is that I don't think anyone should trust a random person on the internet, and we should not ask our readers to either (not that I doubt your observations). Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
lol - we've been telling them that since wp:IAR was invented. Rules are nice, but Wikipedia ain't about dem rules. don't get me wrong: I love sources (almost literally - I've nearly broken up with girlfriends because I wanted more time to read). but (a) I'm a pragmatist, and (b) I like consensus. it's a fact that this is the way it works; might as well make the best of it. --Ludwigs2 07:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Dramatic removal of unannounced outdent made here.
In practice, if there's a consensus, after posting RfCs in all relevant places, to ignore policy, or twist it while pretending to follow it, then administrators & arbitrators seem not to be authorized to enforce policy. This means all sorts of things can happen in out-of-the-way, specialized articles that few people are interested in. Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The following contrib seems like a non-sequitur where its author placed it (just after the 22:09, 25 April 2009 one, and as if responding to the 12:27, 25 April 2009 one); it is moved (along with a response to it) and indented to the same level as the 10:17, 25 April 2009 on, it appears more likely they are both responding to the 07:04, 25 April 2009 one.--Jerzy•t 04:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
that things can happen in out of the way articles does not mean they should happen. It means we needs increased activity in checking the older articles to remove OR, and spam, and update inadequate material. DGG (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but how do you get a lot more people joining in? Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Drew states that we are "squelching original thought"... the answer to that is: No, we are not. All we are saying is that Wikipedia is not the first place to publish original thought. Explore, experiment, think, reach new conclusions and challenge existing ones! Then go publish your ideas in something we can cite, and we can include it here. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think people sometimes forget that Wikipedia isn't the last place that information can be placed. There are other options. Heck, if you really want to tell people that the fish is aggressive, start a website about them. Wikipedia has never been a place for Original Thought, hence it has never meant to "squelch" it. People just want to put original thoughts on WP because of its popularity, and if they get their info on Wikipedia, then they feel justified. Don't let Wikipedia be the only place you feel you can get your thoughts published. Look for other options. Angryapathy (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos

I wonder if posting a photo to Wikipedia demonstrating something that's never been described before would be accused of OR. Although if I had such a photo, it would probably be more useful and perhaps profitable to seek its publication elsewhere. Шизомби (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Funny you should ask. As a lot of people around here know, I do historic image restorations. Once in a blue moon that uncovers information which was faded and forgotten. There happens to something on my computer right now of that sort and if it checks out it would be publication-worthy. Quite intriguing actually: it pertains to a minor part of a very important historic event everybody has heard about and so far every historian I've encountered has been interpreting written accounts rather than visual evidence of the particular moment, possibly because this image had decayed to the point where it was barely recognizable and the bibliographic notes were vague. This ought to have expert eyes on it and I'm not qualified to be certain of its significance; it may come to nothing. One thing I will not do is attempt to use Wikipedia as a first point of publication. It wouldn't carry any weight or credibility to come directly here, and frankly I wouldn't mind a little compensation for the effort. ;) DurovaCharge! 16:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiction an exception?

One problem I have with this policy is that it sometimes makes no sense. When dealing, for example, with fictional matter, what constitutes an "official source"? If one is adding something to an entry on Star Trek about Warp Drive, where, then is one to find the "Journal of FTL Physics" one is to cite from? Certainly, there are some things which are sources of canon, but there is hardly a place to cite which constitutes a reliable source other than that. By that criteria, half the stuff about fictional materials would have to be removed if it was actually applied. Movies and Comics are a similar arena. A huge percentage of the material herein on comics might be verifiable by reading a specific issue, but if one is noting conflicting answers, there is no likely official source which details such and can thus be referenced. I think this qualifies as an area of somewhat softer application -- when dealing with fictional universes and detailing information about them, it should be something one can verify, certainly, but requiring a full "reliable source" for the information seems both inappropriate and impractical. I think if NOR is taken to a logical conclusion whole swathes of greatly appreciated parts of Wikipedia regarding comics and other fictional universes such as Star Trek would have to be tossed. And at its heart, it is overkill. If someone says something erroneous about Star Trek, that sits there for a month before someone notices, is someone going to fall into a black hole as a result? I think not. I concur that for hard information the standard makes a great deal of sense -- but at the least, Wiki should consider setting up a place for "publishing" papers about such as a subsegment of the system, and, after they've been on view for a time and had opportunities to be disputed and reviewed, such entries can be used as references in Wiki, assuming they meet a "consensus" of validity. That could become incestuous, but I'm speaking specifically of things which are not subject to normal peer-reviewed scholarly procedures only, such as things about fictional universes, not more serious, deeply scholarly pursuits. OBloodyHell (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is, Wikipeida is not the place to publish your novel theory as to how Warp Drive in the Star Trek Universe works. We have to stick to reporting what published sources say on the topic. In the case of Star Trek, thankfully, there are actual scientific papers that have been written about such stuff (not to mention the stuff that is in the various "Tech Manuals" that were written by the people who worked on the TV shows and movies). For other works of fiction we may be limited to citing the actual work of fiction itself. (If issue 23 of SuperDuper Comics shows the Amazing Amaze-o Man catching a bullet in his teeth, then we can cite issue 23 of SuperDuper Comics for the fact that Amaze-o Man can do this in our article on Amaze-o Man). Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has some strident policies about what constitutes original research, verifiability and reliable sources. If you want to write an article that doesn't fit in with Wikipedia, there are other Wiki's you can try. For Star Trek, you might want to check the Star Trek Wiki to see what their policies and guidelines are. I know that there are Wiki's for Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Lost, Heroes and probably others that I am not aware of that might allow original research. There are also Wiki's that allow original research such as Wikademia. Wikipedia just isn't one of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
After further research, apparently there are thousands of Wikis devoted to content on fiction, including comics.[11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The following enboxed contribution is the result of three edits spanning 6 minutes, as reflected by the strike-thru (replaced text) and green text (new). The initial 'graph, both indented & italicized, truncates the material it is quoting, and ellipsis has been added; it is presumably the previously contributed material being commented on, so the indentation of the entire contrib is now changed accordingly).--Jerzy•t 04:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The point is, Wikipeida is not the place to publish your novel theory as to how Warp Drive in the Star Trek Universe works. We have to stick to reporting what published sources say on the topic. In the case of Star Trek, thankfully, there are actual scientific papers that have been written about such stuff (not to mention the stuff that is in the various "Tech Manuals" that were written by the people who worked on the TV shows and movies)....

I'm not talking about "theory" -- I'm talking about readily, factually verifiable data which has no "reliable source" in which one COULD publish such information to qualify as "peer reviewed research" by this criteria. If one is writing about a gaff in a specific episode but -- the actual, readily verified FACTS are that the events in question literally could not have taken place (no different, say, from an episode describing 'Alpha Centauri' as a blue-white star, but slightly less obvious) then how does one distinctify "original research" from such? The gaff is there, it's highly relevant to anyone interested in information about both the specific epidsode AND Star Trek, and it's applicable all around to the concept of Wikipedia. It's a fictional flinkin' universe. There are no peer-reviewed resources for putting forth some blatant, indisputable error:

Fact: Episode 'A' takes place "here".
Fact: Episode 'B' takes place "there".
Fact: 'B' states the length of time between 'A' and 'B'.
Fact: It is impossible at the definition of maximum warp for the ship to get from "here" to "there", by known factual stellar distances, in the specified time period.
QED: There is a notable and substantial continuity gaff.

This is no different from "Alpha Centauri is a blue-white variable" yet probably constitutes "original research" because it can't be cited like the sequence/color of A-C is. Where is one supposed to put out for others to "review" this readily verified set of information before identifying them someplace like the entry for an ST episode? The fact that an episode has a HUGE continuity problem IS appropriate for Wikipedia to mention, particularly for something like ST/SpecFic where such things are considered significant. But by this constraint, Wiki's principles wind up at odds with its purpose. Ergo -- Wiki has a need, if it wishes to enforce this principle for semi-scholarly entries, to set up criteria for such review (only!) where no reasonable scholarly review forum exists (i.e., I'm not talking physics theories, here!!). It might be an independent-from-Wiki arena/forum for such, but should exist and, if something is suitably agreed upon as "demonstrated/believed" accurate (come up with your own criteria for this), be includable/citable in Wikipedia. Such things may change -- someone may cite for Wikipedia an entry in our "WikiRef" and that calls to the attention of someone with a good counter-argument, which may then change the perception of the truth value of something (see "Michelson-Morley Experiment"), but Wiki's insistence on peer-reviewed, "reliable" information should lead to the existence of a place for providing such to typically non-reviewed semi-scholarly topics. OBloodyHell (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I see two problems with your example... first is that I don't think continuity errors occuring in works of fiction are appropriate for Wikipedia to mention. They are considered Trivia... and we discourage Trivia. The second problem (and the one that concerns this policy) is that our readers need to be able to verify that the continuity error actually exists. Unfortunately, it relies on your own original analysis of stellar distances and Star Trek's stated "maximum warp". As far as this policy goes, it does not matter whether your analysis is based on "facts" or not... what matters is that a Wikipedian was the first person to make this analysis. Wikipeidia should never be the first place of publication for any analysis. Wikiversity, on the other hand, might be a good place to publish your analysis. Alternatively, you can post it to a fan forum, create your own webpage, write a book, or a lettter to the creators of Star Trek. You have a host of options to let people know that you have analyzed the "facts" and found a flaw. All we are saying is that Wikipedia is not the correct venue to do this. And who knows... if your analysis gets published in a source we can cite, it might end up in Wikipedia after all. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I see three problems with your complaint. The first is that apparently one heck of a lot of people disagree with you about minutia regarding any kind of SF -- and "errors" are the biggest sort of minutia. Continuity errors, deviations from canon, etc., are a key flaw in any SF series. Too many, or too largely overt discrepancies, is the difference between "SF" and "Sci-Fi". And if you don't understand that difference you need to go speak to someone who is deeply steeped in SF culture to explain to you the significance of it before you argue that point further. Deviations from canon and known factual information is hardly insignificant where SF is concerned. Secondly, as I already note above, if you're going to take this tack then a vast array of existing Wiki material needs to be summarily purged. Oh, and by the way - details of ANY kind about "fictional material" inarguably count as "trivia". I'd suggest you go look at how much extensively detailed information there is in Wiki about the comic book character Wolverine. A lot of people still find such information useful to have on hand, and a lot of other people than you have spent a good while entering such "trivial" information into Wiki. So I would suspect your own analysis of the place of such "trivia" is the thing which is clearly original research, and faulty at that. Thirdly, "it relies on your own original analysis of stellar distances" -- No, it relies on verifiable sources of stellar distances -- As I said, the episode in question explicitly states the KNOWN star, with a KNOWN distance from earth, that the episode occurs at. This isn't some "fictional" place (e.g., "Cardassia"), but a real, factual place, listed in any number of readily available stellar cartography listings. And the actual speed one might travel at given the definition of "Warp Factor" is a trivial mathematical formula -- (W^3)/365 == Light Years Per Day. Divide the time period defined by that number, and you get the number of days to make the trip, which is a straightforward, factually, and readily verifiable calculation. "You have a host of options to let people know that you have analyzed the "facts" and found a flaw." And these are all going to qualify as reputable sources for Wiki by this definition HOW? This simple calculation isn't going to get "published" in any sense by a refereed journal or media outlet. It's too small to get large attention (hence its qualification as a "gaff"). So it's not going to get "published" in a manner matching the definition of a reliable source of first publication. And, just to add a fourth comment, I'd point out I'm not saying Wiki MUST be the place for such -- I'm just saying that there needs to be consideration for a place of where such must be placed AND criteria for acceptable time for refutation, IF you're going to be stringent about such in the case of smaller ideas in realms not covered by historically refereed sources. OBloodyHell (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Unannounced, and premature, out-dent removed here.
Sorry, but if it originates with a wikipedia editor, it is still OR. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikiuniversity exists for stuff like this. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Re simple calculations about warp factor, etc., that all the editors involved in the discussion of that issue on the article's talk page, recognize are obviously correct - It might be allowed according to the Routine calculations section of WP:NOR, or use WP:IAR and boldly go where no editor has gone before. But if it's anything more than simple calculations, the Wikipedia engines won't hold Captain! --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Cropped images = Original Research?

Hi there. There's a lively debate going on in Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Guidelines - Possible conflict with WP:NOR, in which a user contends that the use of cropped images of box art for video games (where we use the common portion of the box art shown on multiple releases of a game, but crop out the logos for a specific console) constitutes original research. Many of us in the project disagree, but now it's turning into a discussion about official policy, so I felt it might be good to ask this question here.

If you have time, please review the discussion at the link above and feel free to respond either here or there. I will try to help facilitate the discussion. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is more appropriately discussed at the noticeboard WP:NORN, rather than here? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I'll take it there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
<Edit conflict> Actually, I was going to undo my message because I noticed afterward that you mentioned discussion of official policy. It might be discussed in both places. Good luck. Sorry if I screwed things up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, certainly doesn't hurt - if nothing else, we'll get more eyes on the discussion this way. It's sort of a "how to interpret policy" question at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Cropping photos is not original research. It's like just quoting part of a book or part of a journal article. Cropping could, however, be non-neutral. COGDEN 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
For normal photos (of buildings for example, say, The White House) I would agree cropping may be acceptable (within reason), but for something claiming to be "box art", as in the case here for videogames, it seems disingenuous to claim it is still the box art when identifying markings have been cropped off. My thinking is that it constitutes OR as it no longer accurately represents what it claims to. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's an excerpt from WP:OI.
Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such.
Would the cropped images be acceptable if the requirement specified in the above excerpt was followed? For example, there could be added to the disputed material, "and the editing of the cover picture should be noted in a console-neutral way", i.e.,
If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without the console's identification can be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a console-neutral picture, and the editing of the cover picture should be noted in a console-neutral way.
-Bob K31416 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see that that would be necessary. The point isn't that we're representing one specific version or release of the game in this case - we're representing the game as a whole. Fair Use allows us to do pretty much exactly that, so long as the image in question is still representative of the concept or property. I've made the argument in several places now that cropping the image does not alter it in any way except to remove the parts of the image that were cropped. So the question becomes whether or not the remaining portion of the image presents the proper context to accurately identify the property being represented. It's just like how you can take a quote out of context. But at some point, I'd think common sense would determine what's appropriate and what not.
Also, in the interest of consensus, I will point out that Locke appears to be the only person here who's opposed to the current way of doing things, and IMO, he has not presented a compelling enough argument for the consensus to change. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Complying with one of the core policies of Wikipedia isn't compelling enough? The images have been modified and no longer represent what they often profess to represent ("box art"). You are right, I'm the only one opposed so far, but that's usually how discussions start: one person objects, others consider the issue and weigh in. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Two points: One, I believe the majority of the people in this discussion have considered the issue and weighed in, and the consensus seems to have stayed the same. Two, according to people both in WP:VG and here, there does not appear to be anything going on in the current practice that violates this policy or any others. When I said I don't think you've presented a compelling argument that the consensus should be changed, I was referring to the fact that your only argument against the current practice has been that you don't think a cropped image represents the original - that it somehow represents something different and therefore alters history. I see ample evidence that it's not just myself that disagrees with you on that point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for Locke: Is the problem really that we're cropping a box-art image and still saying it is the box art? Would it make you happier if we said it was a portion of the box art? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It could be a workable compromise, though as a text purporting to present history I'd just assume we showed the whole thing. I don't care which console is pictured (so long as a neutral way to choose one is found), unlike some here (ironically this issue cropped up because Blackwatch21 (talk · contribs) uploaded an XBox 360 specific image for Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix, and that image was later cropped to be "neutral"). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
KieferSkunk, (Here's my reply to your response to me above.)
But by noting that the platform identification has been edited out, wouldn't the reader be informed that a platform identification appears on the cover? It seems like that information would be useful to the reader. Just a suggestion and anything you folks, who are more familiar with the needs of your subject area, work out amongst yourselves is OK with me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The platforms are already identified on the infobox a bit lower down so even if it is not listed on the box art they can be found easily. The section is also clearly marked. If you look at the Street Fighter IV article you can see they are hard to miss. Also since we are usually only allowled to have one box art per article (due to fair use rules)we would only be able to identify one platform using box arts and since some game are on muliple platforms it would not a very useful method for platform identification.--76.69.165.51 (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, but that wasn't the type of info that I was referring to. For example, suppose a reader was researching the subject in Wikipedia so that they could write an article on the subject somewhere else, like a newsletter. Maybe they're writing a guide for buying the game. With the platform info cropped out of the image, and no mention made that it was cropped, they wouldn't know that the platform info is on the cover. So they wouldn't know to advise their readers that the platform info may be easily found on the cover, as a customer browses a store shelf.
I'm not suggesting that the platform info shouldn't be cropped. On the contrary, for a console-neutral presentation I think it should be cropped. I'm only suggesting that it should be noted that platform info was cropped, like in my suggested edit in one of my previous messages here. Is that clearer? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A quick note on the image description page should happily deal with that then. -- Sabre (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If by "image description page" you mean the page you get to when you click on the image, I don't think that would help much. I suspect that the vast majority of Wikipedia readers don't click on the image, and that most don't know that there is such a page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've always seen the image description page as being the image equivalent of a citation. A place you go to to get information about the image, full name, description, source etc. I've always thought that links to images used in an article should be listed in the References section along with the text based citaions, that way more users would become aware of the existence of the image description page. - X201 (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You could easily pick a console-neutral approach and use the image caption to mention any cropping/alteration. - Liontamer (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Potentially a slippery slope, though. What if that also led to us having to mention that the image's resolution was reduced? That the colors differ somewhat from the printed version? Or what if a decision was made that said we had to specify the source of the image in the pages where it's used, instead of just on the image page where all of this information is specified now? That would become unwieldy, and I purport that it would go against the spirit of WP:AGF - like I said earlier, at some point, common sense has to win out. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that any of the slippery slope issues that you just mentioned are connected to the issue we are discussing. Please recall that we are discussing the issue of cropping out the console's identification, not the issues you mentioned of resolution, colors, etc. Here's what we are discussing, which is in the section Screen shots and cover art of the WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines.
If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without the console's identification can be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a console-neutral picture.
I am only reminding you that the game guidelines should follow WP:OI policy, for example by adding to the end of the above, "and the editing of the cover picture should be noted in a console-neutral way". (Please see example in my reply to Avenue below.)
--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Cropping images is not, in and of itself, original research. In fact, I would say digital manipulation, for the purpose of restoration, is not original research either. What is original research would be using an image (cropped or not) with a caption indicating an original theory; or adding/superimposing elements in a way meant to advance a particular original theory. Dcoetzee 07:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
In support of the above remark, here's an excerpt from WP:OI,
Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.
But I should reiterate my previous mention of another excerpt from WP:OI, that pertains to cropping off the platform information,
Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Would noting that it was cropped in the caption (e.g. saying "Box art (cropped)") be enough, if the extent and reasons for the cropping are covered on the image description page? I think that cropping is a minimal form of image manipulation, at least in this context, and so should only require a brief prominent note. -- Avenue (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
By just mentioning "cropped" the reader still would not be aware that the console identification has been removed. It would only seem that the image was made smaller without removing text. Here's a possibility for a satisfactory brief note in the caption, "Box art (console ID removed)". --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I still think this proposal to note in every use of a cropped box-art image that the image has cropped out console identifications is patently unnecessary. People can figure it out - we should not assume that our readers are too stupid to understand this. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
KieferSkunk, With your last remarks, it looks like this is the end of the discussion between you and me. It's unfortunate that this discussion hasn't been more helpful to you. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, didn't mean to make it seem like I wasn't open to further discussion on this. I'm not trying to just dig in my heels and say no to everything, but I do believe we don't have to hold the reader's hand through everything. That's all I'm trying to say - I think that if a person is going to not understand that an image on a Wikipedia page doesn't look exactly like its real-life counterpart, adding extra text to the caption isn't necessarily going to help them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh heavens, if cropping an image is original research then I've violated policy hundreds of times. Worse, my OR runs on the main page. Ban me! ;) DurovaCharge! 16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it may depend on the subject matter. In this case we're talking about box art, in particular box art for video games (though the issue could apply to box art for any type of product). A fair use image (such as a publicity photo from a movie, or a photo of a band or something similar) could reasonably be cropped because it's not professing to represent something specific (like box art). Does that make sense? I'm not saying all cropping is necessarily OR, but that certain types of images should be preserved. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
What makes any image OR?... it is OR when it illustrates or introduces unpublished ideas or arguments. If cropping changes the image to the point where it illustrates or introduces unpublished ideas or arguments, then croppin is OR. If cropping does not do so, then it isn't OR. In other words, it depends on what is cropped and why it was cropped. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Durova, That's not the remaining issue. In my opinion, it's already been established here that cropping, "in and of itself" as Dcoetze put it, isn't a violation of WP:NOR. Please see the message of Dcoetze above and my message just after it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this issue is partially a question of what the image applies to, as well. As I've mentioned before, if the image is about a particular game that has been released on multiple platforms and is virtually identical on each platform, then a platform-neutral image is the most desirable. I maintain that putting an image up that includes information for any single console puts the image in danger of putting undue weight on that one platform, and that it's more difficult to prove that the image is neutral than if there's no skewing information in the image to begin with. However, if the image is meant to represent a specific version of the game, it would be more than appropriate to include the platform's identity in the image. If we have an article specifically about the 360 version of, say, Super Street Fighter 4, or if an image is being used in a section specifically about that release, then we SHOULD use the full, unedited 360 version of that box art image, console logos and all. This is rarely the case with multi-platform games, though - much more commonly, there's no reason for a console-specific article or section, and there's no discernable difference in the box art between versions other than the console logos and, in some cases, the form factor (a Nintendo DS cart box is shaped differently than a 360 DVD case). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll add, btw, that in cases where a game has been released on only one platform, we should use the full box art (logos and all) for that release, since there are no questions of neutrality in that case. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Secondary source definition

Wouldn't it be prudent to give at least one example of what a secondary source is here? E.g., "Literature reviews or meta-analyses summing up the peer-reviewed research on a subject are the most common secondary sources in science and medicine." Otherwise the beginning reader isn't likely to know what a secondary is, given the current state of WP:PSTS. 75.36.154.125 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a reason we don't give examples... you see different accademic fields have different definitions of what primary and secondary sources are... so an example that covers one field might not apply to another. In other words adding an example would actually confuse the issue and lead to arguments of the "hey, this is wrong... that isn't a secondary source in my field of study!" variety. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of specific examples for primary and tertiary sources, and they are all specific to their disciplines. Are there any reasons that secondary sources should be any more confusing? Is there any actual evidence that editors sophisticated enough to consult this policy are actually in danger of being misled by an example pertaining to another field? 75.36.154.125 (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Example in "Synthesis of published material that advances a position"

I think the example in this section is too long, too complex, and so doesn't really help understand what is meant by synthesis. Would anybody have any objection if I remove the current example and provide a more straightforwards one? I would suggest something like:

  1. Source A says X
  2. Source B says Y
  3. An editor claims that since X and Y are true, one can deduce a new statement Z

(I'll replace X, Y and Z by actual examples). What do you think? Laurent (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with providing a more basic example ... however, I would not replace the current one. I would include both. We need a straitforward basic example for those who don't even get the basic concept, and a complex example to show that synthesis can sometimes be complex and hard to detect (and yet still be synthesis). Essentially, by giving both a simple and a complex example we would be demonstrating the two extremes of the problem. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Those are good ideas. By having the clearer example added, at least the reader will have one example that is understandable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I would love it if we could replace the current example with a simpler one. I personally find the current example so hard to understand that it's useless. I think having 2 examples would just make this article even longer and more complex than it is now. Axlrosen (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On Definition of "Routine Calculation"

I recommend that the exception for "routine calculations" be given some clarification on two fronts: 1) How is it decided that something is "routine"?, and 2) It should be explicit that purely arithmetical results, though they may not be ascribed meaning without a source, may be included in articles without a source if the article is of an elementary-mathematics sort.

The specific example I cite is the recently raised (resolved through sourcing in any case) question of whether the fact that pi^4+pi^5~=e^6 may be included in an article on mathematical coincidences. I also point the reader/adjudicator to the recent history of the "History" section of Numerology and the debate that ensued in the talk there, my own chain of contributions and responses, and my user sub-page 365.25.Julzes (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not what we mean by "routine calculation"... we mean you can do simple uncontrovercial arithmetic like figuring out how old someone was when they died based upon a cited birth and death date, or converting kilometers into miles. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, right. But what about things in the area of mathematics education? Once one has set a standard for what can be assumed of the reader, I would assume "new" facts could be established in an article, but it obviously needs to be clarified.Julzes (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
For instance, it is doubtful anyone has ever multiplied 73298356 and 11867537, but calculator use shows it to be 869870951869172. Some interpret this sort of thing as original research. Others would obviously make the claim that it is not notable, while it could be part of an educational argument in some way.Julzes (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
One might be able to include calculations like or in some article. It would depend on how a consensus of editors involved in the article interpret "routine calculations". That's not the most problematical aspect of your inquiry.
The greater problem with respect to WP:NOR is the finding and discovery these two calculations, that are related by , exist. If you found that relation yourself, and you're the first, that's a good original discovery! But unfortunately it is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia because it has not been published in a reliable source. On the other hand, if you didn't discover it yourself, and you got it from a source, just cite the source and put it in the Wikipedia. From the section Reliable sources of WP:NOR,
If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a discovery.
But there is the policy WP:IAR which would've helped in a case like this if there weren't any objections from any other editors,
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
Unfortunately, in your case there apparently were objections, since it tends to go against the basic purpose of Wikipedia of only reporting existing published ideas, rather than creating new ideas, so you couldn't use this.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, but it has been a little disturbing to see other old and non-sourceable results like the fact that removed from the mathematical coincidence article, even if it is trivially meaningless.Julzes (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem you may have is that the result appears somewhere in a reliable source, but you are unable to find the source. You might mention that to the other editors and ask them to put up a [citation needed] instead of deleting the relation, so that you have time to find the source. You might ask for their help in finding a source too. Also, you might check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and ask for help at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I just noticed that there was a notice placed at the top of the page in June 2006 requesting that citations be added. Seems like the article has been neglected in that regard. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I still have a policy problem, since the original intent to be found here says "we don't have the resources to check...". It seems that asking the reader to check for him or her self in the introduction might be a reasonable way to handle this specific case (in terms of verifiability, though perhaps not notability unless also a good standard or set of standards is set forth).Julzes (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Think of all the times that readers of the article would have to check the same calculation just because a few editors of the article weren't diligent enough to cite a source. Seems like a waste and an attempt to shift the responsibility from the editors to the readers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The quality of the citations have to be checked by them, so why not simple calculations, and anyway once an article has a good history it meets both objections to a fair degree.Julzes (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Re citations, I considered that. It's a matter of degree of reliability. Material without citations can come from anywhere, even vandalism. There's less need to check or question material that has a citation, compared to material that doesn't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't disagree.Julzes (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Interviews and re NOR

When writing an article about living persons mentioned already in existing Wikipedia articles, it seems that quotations from an original interview of the subject by the article's author could be easily verified (even if they were not published elsewhere) by including the date/location of the interview and the contact information of the subject. --Demcaps•t -- 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a reply for this user on his talk page, but to sum up what I said there: This would likely violate several policies, including WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:V, and it may indirectly cause Wikipedia to refer to itself. Additionally, there would be nothing to stop someone from completely fabricating an interview, giving contact information, and relying on it being somewhat unlikely that anyone would actually follow up with the subject to see if that's what he or she said. (Also, publishing a subject's contact information would likely violate that person's privacy to a great degree.) Nice idea in theory, but there are a lot of problems with it.
The crux of the NOR policy, as I understand it, is that information (especially with regards to WP:BLP) must be verifiable and published in reliable sources. Wikipedia editors in general are not, in and of themselves, reliable sources (in fact, editors who are published are not usually eligible to cite their own works). So by extension, conducting your own interview and posting it as a reference is not sufficient. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.

If the information about a country comes from its own official government website, shouldn't that count as a legitimate source of information? If a government is lying, then someone else will publish something to counter it, and that can be added to the article. There are AFD where people complain that the information on treaties aren't valid, because it doesn't come from a third party source, but the official government websites for the two nations involved! So a change is surely needed. And what about character articles, episode articles and every list article out there? Should you delete List_of_South_Park_characters and other such list, because some characters aren't mentioned anywhere other than the primary source? I suggest changing the policy to read:

If no reliable sources can be found on an article's topic, and the information is in doubt, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.

By doing it this way, you prevent pointless AFD from people who try to delete an article, or information within, which no one is in doubt of. Dream Focus 02:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Complete oppose such a change. If the only "reliable sources" are primary sources, it isn't a notable topic. Otherwise anyone can make a source and claim it can have an article just because it exists. Such a change would go against multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't notable to you, of course. You've previously argued to delete a bestselling novel, simply because it wasn't reviewed anywhere. Most people fortunately agreed that being a bestseller made it notable, even if there was not a single review of it anywhere at all. And the Wikipedia guidelines and policies are constantly changing, depending on whoever is around at the time to notice and argue back and forth. Having someone else tell you something is notable(by mentioning it in a magazine, book, or newspaper), instead of thinking for yourself and using common sense, is not the way to do things. We need a proper set of rules that make sense. Such as:

An article may exists if any of the following are met

  1. If the article subject has received third party media reviews
  2. If the article subject has confirmable high sales figures, or viewers/readers.
  3. If the article subject is a side page of a series already established as notable(list of characters, list of episodes, etc.) Dream Focus 03:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you are once again forum shopping to try to get your view of things approved, despite having been shut out in multiple places for the same proposals. Suspected as much, but thanks for confirming. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
First... let's not conflate two different issues here. There is a difference between citing a fact and sourcing an article. Individual facts within an article can be cited to primary (first party) sources. However, when we talk about entire articles however, we must demonstrate that the topic is notable, and to do that we must cite reliable third party sources. Every single one of our notability guidelines repeats the concept that for something to be notable, it must have been discussed by at least one reliable source that is independant of the subject. To put it another way... If no one except those involved with the topic has ever discussed the topic, then the topic it is not notable. I strongly oppose any change to this concept.
Second, I need to address some specifics of what Dream Focus has argued:
  • "If the information about a country comes from its own official government website, shouldn't that count as a legitimate source of information?" - Since every single country in the world is discussed by multiple third party sources, and not just by government websites this example is a red-herring. And by the way... Individual facts may be sourced to the government's website. Government sources are considered a legitimate, primary source for information.
  • "There are AFD where people complain that the information on treaties aren't valid, because it doesn't come from a third party source, but the official government websites for the two nations involved!" - Again, a red herring... I find it highly unlikely that there is any treaty between two nations has never recieved at least some media coverage.
  • "And what about character articles, episode articles and every list article out there? Should you delete List_of_South_Park_characters and other such list, because some characters aren't mentioned anywhere other than the primary source?" This is at least pink and smells of fish... First, the fact that some characters may not be mentioned is not enough to meet the "wikipedia should not have an article" bar. As long as the show and perhaps the main characters are discussed, we can cite the primary source for lesser ones. Second, South Park, and its main Characters have been discussed by in multiple media sources. However, there are books, TV shows, movies, video games, etc. that have not been discussed beyond the primary source. And I would say that if not one single reliable third party source has ever mentioned the show or its characters, then no, we shouldn't have an article on it. It isn't notable. Blueboar (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not forum shopping, this is the place to discuss such a thing. Stop making your usual bad faith accusations towards me. And there are no red herrings. In many articles based on the relationship between two nations, some argue to delete stating the government websites on the treaties aren't valid references. As you pointed out though, there should be news articles somewhere about any treaty, although not always in English, so hard to find. Another argument to delete the many bilateral nation arguments, has been that a relationship between nations isn't worth having an article about, even if the government websites say the relationship is notable, you need a third party media source apparently specifically saying it is notable. The argument is that saying the relationship between two nations is notable enough for an article, is original research, despite the nations involved in wars together, having treaties, state visits, and being major trading partners towards each other. Dream Focus 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
DF, can you point to an example of an AfD where these arguments are being (or have been) made? Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
[12] Here is one. Search for the word "government" and find the issue mentioned throughout the article. This article was Keep, but some were against that, and sent it to a deletion review [13] here, where I for one brought up the government reference and had someone else say they didn't trust the government. It pops up elsewhere, quite often. Dream Focus 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a perfect example of why we need articles to have reliable sources or they need to be deleted, not a reason to change policy just so you can keep articles that do not deserve to belong here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life

It seems to me that since I last looked in detail at WP:PSTS changes have taken place that I do not agree with.

Those familiar with previous discussion on this will recognise "The nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life" as an analysis of the Battle of Waterloo by Wellington. In this version of the page from 16:11, 31 July 2008 (Picked because it was 1000 edits ago) said

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, any reasonable, educated person who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

That is very different from what the current wording says:

Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. ...

I think that these changes are not for the better because it is quite possible for primary sources to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative statements, and there is no reason such statements should not be quoted. What is not acceptable is to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source as that is original research. The wording from last summer made that clear.

The current wording would exclude any quote from a primary source (not published in a secondary source), but nevertheless reliably published that make a "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim". For example quoting a ministerial statement from Hansard, or a fact from The Blue Book, or an ICTY judgment at the Hague, or UN resolutions etc, etc.

So I think we need to go back to the older wording. --PBS (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Philip, I don't agree... The current wording doesn't "exclude any quote from a primary soruce". It does not even exclude quoting analytical statements found in primary sources. The quote simply needs to be discussed in our article within the context of a descriptive comment. For example, it is fine to say: "After the battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington remarked that it was 'The nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life'.<cite to Wellington>" This is a discriptive statement about what Wellington said. Blueboar (talk)
I disagree with what you say about "It does not even exclude quoting analytical statements found in primary sources." because it states "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." The Wellington quote is well known, so there are lots of secondary sources that use it, so one could argue that it fits into "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources", but suppose it was a statement by the UN Secretary General about a diplomatic incident in a report published on the UN web site? IE a primary source not published in a secondary source.--PBS (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
A quote is always best sourced directly to the original.Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The passage you point to is not talking about direct quotes... it is talking about analytical claims we (wikipedia editors) make. It is saying that we should not make claims based on Primary sources. To give an example using the Wellington quote: We can say: "According to Wellington, the battle was 'the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life' (cite to Wellington)"... the claim being that Wellington said this (which is not an analytical or conclusionary claim). What we can not say is something like: "No other battle was as near run as Watterloo (cite to Wellington)". In this example we are making the analysis and reaching a conclusion based upon what Wellington said. Does that clarify my view of things for you? Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are claiming, but I think you are misreading the current text so that it conforms with the older wording. "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." does not say that quotes are exempted, and it does not say it is referring to what an editor writes. The previous wording "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." said what you are suggesting the current wording says. -PBS (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If you take that one single sentence from the policy and quote it out of context (a form of Wikilawyering), then I suppose it might possible to read it the way you are suggesting. However, if you place it in the context of the entire policy (especially given what is said in the paragrpah on Pirmary sources that immediately follows it) then I think it is clear that what in intended is what I am suggesting. But I am always willing to bow to consensus... so lets see what others have to say. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I see Philip's point. At best, it's too easy to interpret out of context. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
OK... given that taken out of context it might be mis-interpreted, and that we want to avoid this possibility, I will relent and agree that there could be confusion on this. On thinking about it a bit more, I have what I hope is a very simple solution. What if we simply remove the word "only". The sentence under discussion would then read:
  • "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if such claims have been published by a reliable secondary source."
I suggest this because the sentence under discussion is contained in the sub-secton on Secondary sources, and not in the section on Teriary or Primary sources. By removing the word "only" we refocus the sentence so that it is discussing what we may do using Secondary sources, as opposed to discussing what we may not do using any other type of source (such restrictions should be outlined in the sub-section on those other types.) Does this clarify the intent of the policy? Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Y'know, I think that simply putting the very concrete example you two have been discussing here into the policy to serve as clarification would do wonders. The policy is a bit wordy and cumbersomely written, and I think people could become easily confused about what's allowable from primary sources even if they read the entire thing and have all the context there. The Waterloo/Wellington passage is an excellent example of how to use a primary source both properly and improperly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on PBS's comments: I think that the current wording of the policy says almost exactly the same thing as the older wording, but in a different way, and I think that the older wording was easier to follow and understand at the outset. My opinion is that policies should be precise, concrete and easy to understand, and the current wording assumes a fair amount of advanced knowledge and critical thinking on the part of WP editors. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of very good WP editors who, in perfectly good faith, would have a very hard time understanding the policy as written right now.

I've helped in some areas of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, which are based on WP's policies, and over time I think they've become easier to understand partly because of the use of detailed examples, which help readers understand not just what the guideline is, but how it can and cannot be applied. (This is also useful for pointing out good exceptions when they exist.) I think that if we spent a bit of time doing the same sort of thing to the policies, we could make the policies much easier for the average joe to understand without changing them in any way. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

NOR: Synthesis of published material that advances a position

"Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources."

1) [Specific conceptual problem (in example form)] As far as I can see, if I have two sources which list persons relevant to an article, one of which gives X (arbitrary number of) names, and the other gives Y names, I cannot state in the article that X+Y people were involved unless one of the sources has said so.

2) [Related specific problem with text of policy page] - Example given is either incorrect, or supports point 1:

In the example given, the synthesis alleged is in the sentence "If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted."

This is not synthesis, due to the conditionality (if); it is a logical statement which is either true or false (the validity of which can be established by Wikipedian consensus in the usual way) in the same way as the statement as is "If two things and another two things, when taken together, make four things, then these two groups of two things each total to four things".

The alternative is that it is considered synthesis, in which case it supports my point 1, above, that the ban on synthesis is overly restrictive.

The last sentence in the paragraph - "Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them" - does, however, contain a synthesis: the word "instead", which, one would assume, is not stated in the source.

3) [General musings on whether synthesis is an inherent part of Wikipedianing] The example could be restructured as follows to avoid conflicting with the "no synthesis" rule, but there is a problem:

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
The Harvard Writing with Sources manual requires citation of the source actually consulted, but does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

The problem is that the information, although presented as a series of unlinked statements, is only arranged in that way to make the same synthesised point, albeit non-explicitly stated. The synthesis is still there, but it becomes implicit rather than explicit. Without the synthesis, how does the information given become relevant? It requires synthesis to write, and synthesis to read and understand.

Another similar problem is that, when one writes an article, one is supposed to balance opposing voices; what is that if not synthesis?

4) Should I be adding a tag to this page saying the topic is under discussion?

92.234.8.173 (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

What is prohibited is synthesis that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. Saying 2 people plus 2 people adds up to 4 people doesn't do that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't it? I can't seem to point out that you didn't give a reason without sounding sarcastic and rather rude, which isn't my intention, but could you possibly explain why you say that?
It seems to me that there are two ideas there - that there were two people involved in an event, and that there were another two people separately involved - and then a synthesis is performed when you put them together and make the new idea - that there were four people involved. It's an obvious consequence of the first two ideas, but it's synthesis as I understand the term to be defined on the page in question. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Josh
What position is it advancing that's not advanced by the sources? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As I said, the idea that there are four people involved. Perhaps it's clearer if I make that five people in three and two. It is a synthesis of three ideas: that 2+3=5; that 2 things are involved; that another 3 things are involved. It produces the fourth idea: that we have five things, because 2+3=5, and we have 2, and we have 3 as well. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Josh
I think "position" here means "(controversial) point of view". If the fact that 5 people were involved is not a contentious point, then saying that 5 people were involved is fine. If it is a contentious point, then it's not. Axlrosen (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

5) One more thing: I've posted on the Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability page about verifying sources by finding other sources that say the same thing; the judgement that the sources agree is also a synthesis (of three ideas), of the sort 'If A and B say the same thing, they agree; A says A, B also says A; therefore A agrees with B'. Unless A specifically stated that it agreed with B, that would be forbidden synthesis (and you'd also need a reference for the claim that two articles agree if their content is the same, because we're not free to make that claim otherwise, obvious as it is). I really think there is a major problem here, because most (all?) human thought is synthesis by the definition given. This suggests that starting again from scratch, and constructing a policy to fulfil the same intentions whilst avoiding the term synthesis, might be necessary. Alternatively, maybe we could just get away with narrowing the types of synthesis that we wish to prohibit?

Otherwise, what needs to be done is something similar to what Bertrand Russell attempted to do with mathematics - to build it all up from first principles, so it was proven rather than assumed - for every Wikipedia article. I suspect the outcome is the same, and that's provably impossible in a theoretical, let alone practical, sense. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

Maybe I can summarise all this by saying that sometimes it's not only necessary, but acceptable, to state the bloody obvious without referencing it, because people tend not to state blatantly obvious things in any form that would serve as a reference -- but that's synthesis, according to Wikipedia.

An example: Football_(soccer) states "Football is played in accordance with a set of rules known as the Laws of the Game." The LOTG are cited as a reference for the article, but nowhere in them does it state that they are the rules for football. It's just too obvious. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

As I mention above, we're primarily worried about controversial or contentious statements here. If everyone agrees with X, then go ahead and state X. Non-controversial statements aren't even required to be sourced (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Axlrosen (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense, but the synthesis rules don't have a similar common-sense get-out written in, do they? The example given in the policy is directly counter to common-sense, reinforcing that impression. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Josh
Then don't think of them as rules. I mean, really, we're supposed to ignore them when they don't make sense anyway. I tend to think of "rules" rather as tools to help improve the encyclopedia. The synthesis "rule" helps to quickly shut down a particular type of disruption, just like verifiability, NPOV, and most everything else does. Just don't let it scare you out of using common sense for non-controversial content. I see the proof in the pudding use of the policy: It's generally for the betterment of Wikipedia, so people are probably interpreting it in a good way (i.e. no need to reword it). Someguy1221 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
All our policies assume that people will use their common sense, Josh. That's why we can't have things highly algorithmic, as you seem to be advocating, because we need to allow editors to use their editorial judgment. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems a strange assumption to make, and entirely unjustified under the circumstances. Wikipedia is a common-sense free zone, in my experience. Still, that's your call to make. Shouldn't it say something somewhere, though, about the rules being guidelines, governed by common sense, rather than the concrete laws of behaviour they seem to be treated as?
Someguy1221> Does the example given in the policy meet the common-sense non-controversial criteria? If not, why not?
Having slept on it, maybe I can be a bit clearer about the problem with banning synthesis. In normal writing, a paragraph has a sentence at the start or end saying what idea the paragraph is supposed to put across. That sentence is forbidden on Wikipedia by the synthesis rules, although the synthesis will (and should) still be present implicitly. Is this common-sense? The only result is to make paragraphs sound disjointed and badly written.
Random example from Lane_splitting: "Unlike typical developed nations that have only a handful of vehicle types on their roads, many types of transport will share the same roads as cars and trucks; this diversity is extreme in Delhi, India, where more than 40 modes of transportation regularly use the roads. In contrast, New York City, for example, has perhaps 5, and the American midwest where you are often unlikely to see anything but two types of vehicles on the road, cars and trucks.[10] It has been suggested that highly diverse and adaptive modes of road use are capable of moving very large numbers of people in a given space compared with cars and trucks remaining within the bounds of marked lanes.[11][12] Looked at a different way, the motorcycles, mopeds and bicycles clogging the space between cars is in fact a main cause of traffic congestion, particularly for the cars.[13]"
The meaning of the paragraph is plain: that there are advantages and disadvantages to the system discussed, depending on circumstances. In normal writing, that would be explicitly stated to aid the reader. It is still implicit in the paragraph, but the simple linking sentence that should introduce the paragraph is missing. 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.8.173 (talk)
I interpret No Original Research, Citing Sources, and Verifiability, as including a blanket rule that obvious, common sense, uncontroversial statements are fine anywhere. This is stated a couple of times in these different articles; but it is not re-mentioned for every single guideline (such as the Synthesis section) because that would just be too wordy and repetitive. So I think adding the kind of statements that you're talking about is fine (and encouraged). If you can find a way to make this clear, without making the guidelines cumbersome/wordy/repetitive, please have at it. Axlrosen (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"No original research" is one of three core content policies. -- would it be going too far to make that "one of four core content policies [... existing policies ...] and the application of common sense at all times"? I'm even tempted to suggest a change to the policy-page template where it says "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors" to add in "moderated by common-sense at all times".
Without meaning to be rude, I have to admit that I'm quite surprised by the answer I got from you, because I was expecting a debate on minutiae and semantics; I'll freely admit to not having noticed policies like IAR before this discussion, but I had formed the view that Wikipedia as a community was distinctly lacking in common-sense, and certain articles were becoming the background for a game of Wikipedianing, rather than a true collaborative effort to improve them. I'm pleased to read your views and find them so sensible, but I really think that a lot of people on here need to have them drummed in. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

Original research and images

I am currently involved in a debate at Talk:Rorschach_test#And_now_for_something_completely_different.... One party thinks that showing images of the Rorschach inkblots will cause those who view it to give invalid results if they ever take the test. Because of this they want to create a fake inkblot themselves and use that instead. I have suggested that making up a new inkblot instead of using one of the existing published inkblots is a case of original research. Keep in mind that this test is composed of a specific set of inkblots and this test is never done with homemade inkblots.

My basis for calling this original research is that instead of using existing verifiable information some new and previously unpublished alternate information is being invented to replace it, and it is meant to not be a faithful representation. To me this is a clear example of original research. They have counter argued that we make special exceptions for images in the area of original research. I believe this exception is to work around copyright and hard to find images, not to suppress real information with made up information due to some sort of outside objection. In this case we do have a free and accurate image of the inkblot so I don't think this exception applies. From this policy: "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed".

They also argue that if there is consensus do use such a fake image then it would not be original research, "if we as editors agreed to create an inkblot and add it to the article (with or without a Rorschach inkblot), it would not be orginal(sic) research." I would say that any consensus to use original research is in violation of our core policies. As far as I know we can't decide not to be neutral or to use original research, these are our core goals and m:foundation issues.

It is possible I have not fully represented the arguments being made, or that I have misinterpreted. Please check out the linked debate for full coverage. Due to the limited number of people currently involved in this debate I wish to seek further input. Does making up a fake image(that is intentionally meant to not look like the real thing) because the real image is in some way upsetting to particular group constitute original research? Chillum 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting debate. Ideally, images should never be used as source on their own, but as illustrations of what is stated in the text (and that text needs to adhere to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc). Thus, we have to ask how to illustrate the text of the article on the Rorschach Test. The best way, of course, is to use images of inkblots that are actually used in the Test. From a pure policy standpoint, the fact that showing such images might cause those who view them to give invalid results if they ever take the test is not Wikipedia's worry. However, I do appreciate the concern, and if the consensus of editors at the article is to use a "pseudo-Rorschach blot" to represent the actual ones, I don't think there is an OR problem in doing so. I would make it clear to readers (in the image caption) that the self-created blot being pictured is representative and is not one acutally used in the test itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps unintentionally, Chillum has somewhat misstated the issue. In this particular point of discussion, I have separated the issue of whether the article should or should not contain an actual Rorschach image from the issue of whether a fake inkblot is original research. My point (completely apart from whether there should be a real Rorschach inkblot in the article), is that if editors agreed to create an inkblot and add it to the article (with or without a Rorschach inkblot), it would not be orginal research as long as it is made clear that this inkblot is not a Rorschach inkblot. Wikipedia, in fact, encourages creation of appropriate images if they enhance an article; from WP:OI: "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles". As an example, flag images are frequently computer-generated by Wikipedia users even though other freely available images are available. Creation of an inkblot, properly labelled so that it is clear that it is not an actual Rorschach inkblot, is not original research. If you look at this issue in more depth, it actually can be quite absurd to argue against use of a user-created inkblot per se. Many other encyclopedias, such as Encarta and Britannica, created their own inkblots to use in their Rorschach articles. If we obtained permission to reproduce those here, it would be considered perfectly acceptable to use them. But Chillum's argument is that if we created our own inkblot, using the very same method used by the other encyclopedias, we could not use it. Ward3001 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as the image caption makes it clear that the inkblot is not an actual Rorschach inkblot, it is not OR to create such an image. It would be OR if we said such an image was part of the test, or if we implied that it was by not placing any disclaimer in the caption. It would also be OR if we created an inkblot, and then explained how Rorschach test results are interpreted, using that self created inkblot or something like that... but I agree that it is not OR to include a picture of an inkblot, with a clear caption such as: "An inkblot (not one used in the Rorschach Test)". 17:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
To anyone asserting that making an inkblot and putting it in Wikipedia violates WP:NOR, please specify the excerpt of WP:NOR that supports that assertion. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It's standard practice that Wikipedians create maps to illustrate an article. Except in the simplest cases (where it's just about highlighting a city or a country) I would consider this to be much more problematic, but OK when done well. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
But in that case we try to be as accurate as possible. What's being proposed is to make representations of the inkblots that are intentionally and explicitly different from the actual Rorschach inkblots. An analogy to maps might be if some group of people felt strongly that the true shape of Florida should not be publicly displayed and suggested that the article on Florida should have a map of some other peninsula with a completely made-up coastline. Bryan Derksen (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure which position you are taking Bryan Derksen, but my point is that a user-generated inkblot is not intended to look like a Rorschach inkblot, and I don't think it should be represented as a Rorschach inkblot. Unlike the Florida map analogy, I am not arguing about whether a user-created inkblot is intended to be a representation of a Rorschach inkblot. I am saying that use of a user-created inkblot, if accurately described (i.e., not a Rorschach inkblot) is not original research. Ward3001 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, on that criterion alone, I'd agree that it's not inherently original research. I can imagine using a novel user-created map for an article such as peninsula or island as an example of what a generic peninsula or island is like. The problem here, IMO, is that the article Rorschach test is about specific inkblots, not generic ones, just as the article Florida is about a specific peninsula and not just any old generic one. That's where I believe 'originality' becomes a problem - not so much because it's a violation of the fundamental NOR rule itself, but because in context it becomes either a misrepresentation of the article's subject or a simply irrelevant addition (like adding "Florida is a peninsula, much like this hypothetical landform: [fake map]" to Florida's article). Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It's really not a misrepresentation as long as it is not presented as such (i.e., as long as it is clear that it is not a Rorschach inkblot). As for irrelevance, that is a matter of opinion. The issue of using an actual Rorschach inkblot has been a very contentious issue for over two years, which is beyond the scope of the current discussion (see the Rorschach talk page and archives). Various alternatives have been suggested, including a user-made inkblot (with an appropriate description), which is how we arrived at this discussion. Thanks for your comments. Ward3001 (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the key issue here for me is that the proposed image is meant to not look like the real inkblots. Chillum 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

An inkblot that is user-created is a real inkblot. It's not a Rorschach inkblot, but it's an inkblot. The inkblots created by Encarta and Brittanica are real inkblots, but not Rorschach inkblots; those images could be used here without an OR challenge if we had permission from the copyright holders and made it clear that they are not Rorschach inkblots. The issue of whether to use a Rorschach inkblot is a matter that is decided at Talk:Rorschach test, not here. The issue of whether a user-created inkblot is original research is appropriately discussed either here or on that talk page. Let's please try to keep the two issues separate. Ward3001 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Although an inkblot created by an editor doesn't appear to be an NOR violation, any connection made in the text or caption, between that inkblot and the actual Rorschach inkblots would probably be an NOR violation, e.g. "This inkblot is similar to the Rorschach inkblots." However, if one used non-Rorschach inkblots from a source and used material from that source to make the connection with the Rorschach inkblots, then that would be OK. Or maybe just use common sense and use an editor's inkblot and make the connection. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
And just curious about the point made that people who are about to take the test shouldn't see an inkblot from the test in the wiki. Perhaps they shouldn't read the article either? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point, Bob, and those of us who argue that a user-created inkblot is not OR would never try to represent such an inkblot as a Rorschach inkblot.
"Perhaps they shouldn't read the article either": Very well-intentioned comment. The battle over the blot has raged for over two years. Without getting into the gory details (see the talk page and archives for those) the idea has been suggested at least two or three times that those who should not see the inkblot should not read the article. It has been countered that someone with a mild interest in the Rorschach because he/she has been told he will take the test soon may not be expecting to see an actual Rorschach image when he/she goes to read a few paragraphs; and that many people don't know that seeing the image could invalidate the test. This has been batted back and forth ad nauseam. Ward3001 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Claims that seeing the image invalidate the test are outside concerns not relevant to Wikipedia, and caving into those concerns would be pushing a POV against our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new inkblot is not original research, but it's completely pointless for the article when we can show a real one, and there is no valid reason to not show real ones there. The argument that an inkblot is a real inkblot is pointless because the article in question talks about a test using SPECIFIC inkblots. That's like someone drawing their own image of a cartoon poodle and putting it in the Scooby Doo article because they want an image there but don't want one that looks like the real Scooby Doo because they heard that'd be a copyright violation. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for discussing whether the Rorschach article should have an actual Rorschach image. Take that up at Talk:Rorschach. This page is for discussing whether user-created inkblots are original research. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
And the talk page there confirmed the strong consensus to have genuine Rorschach test images, so this entire conversation is a waste of everyone's time. Conversations here on Wikipedia are not in a vacuum... if someone is asking a question that's irrelevant for reasons other than the very specific way in which they phrased the question, it's pretty backward to insist that the only answer anyone is allowed to give is the one about the out of context question. That would seem to be a form of gaming the system. DreamGuy (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Get your facts straight before slinging around accusations, DreamGuy. I never said "that the only answer anyone is allowed to give is the one about the out of context question". I simply said that discussions about images and OR are appropriate here, and discussions about use of Rorschach images belong on the Rorschach talk page. Anyone can easily read discussions on either page, and anyone is welcome to express an opinion on either page. Ward3001 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ 北, 장발족 또 공개망신, 2005-03-06, Yonhap (Korean)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_44&oldid=1115493413"