Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Synthesis of published material examples format

The current format of the examples is misleading, specially in the case of the complex one. It's supposed to represent one single example with two paragraphs. It seems however like two variations on the same paragraph, one fine and the other wrong. The original format, like it was in 2012 for example, is much clearer. So I made a new version.

Current

Here are two sentences showing simple examples of improper editorial synthesis: In this first sentence, both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. In this second sentence, the opposite is implied using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to: N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world. Here are two paragraphs showing more complex examples of editorial synthesis. They are based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. This first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute: Y Smith stated 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. This second paragraph demonstrates improper editorial synthesis: N 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. The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

Proposal

Simple example of original research by synthesis: The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. Although no conclusion is drawn and both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how material can easily be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to: The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world. More complex example of original research by synthesis: The following is a more complex example of original synthesis, based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. The first paragraph is fine and properly sourced: Smith stated 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. Now comes the original synthesis: 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. The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

Same content, just a clearer format. Would anyone object? Atón (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, other than it should use {{xt}} and {{!xt}} markup to make it clear which examples are acceptable and which objectionable (respectively), and to not abuse boldfacing. It's also not helpful to center this material; doing so is really annoying on a wide monitor. And it shouldn't be using {{quote box}}, since these are not quotations. Try:

Reformatted version

Simple example of original research by synthesis: The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. Although no conclusion is drawn and both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how material can easily be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to: The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world. More complex example of original research by synthesis: The following is a more complex example of original synthesis, based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. The first paragraph is fine and properly sourced: Smith stated 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. Now comes the original synthesis: 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. The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Much better! I'll implement the reformatted version. Atón (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material redundant wording

The introduction to synthesis of published material repeats the same thing several times, making it unnecesary long and wordy. Some redundant phrases could be removed.

Current

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

Proposal

Do not combine material from one or multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Exactly the same information, just easier for the reader. Would anyone object? Atón (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The proposed is much easier to read, and thus more likely to be read. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Atón, regarding this, it makes more sense to me to keep the "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." piece since we keep the "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." part. But I realize that it can be considered redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's redundant because it adds no new information and it's not very clarifying either. I would actually get rid of the 'A and B, therefore C' sentence as well. The two first sentences are clear enough, and the second example already illustrates and explains that an argument needs to be published by a reliable source before it can be published here. Atón (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this page is primarily intended for people with no experience of editing WP at all and no sense of its rules or why any of them exist. Some extra explanation that seems tedious to decade-experienced editors saves us a great deal of time and trouble with well-meaning and "journalistically sensible" writing (including from professional writers dabbling here) that is nevertheless flat-out impermissible on Wikipedia, and often very difficult to detect without poring over paper books obtained through inter-library loan or at direct personal expense. A few extra words of clarity are well worth it. And the "A, B, C" stuff in the later passage will be confusing and without a clear referent if the earlier material laying out the lettered scenario is deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose and I understand that prevention is better than cure. I think however that do not combine material from multiple sources (or different parts of one source) to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is a very clear statement, and besides there are two examples to illustrate it in practice. The A, B, C stuff is tedious to read and just repeats what has already been said and exemplified without really clarifying it further, so I would remove it altogether. I might be wrong, but in a policy page less is more. Atón (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC). PD: Would this be a bad compromise?

Do not combine material from multiple sources (or different parts of one source) to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. For example: if one source says A, and another says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

Atón (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish about keeping the A and B stuff. It's pretty much what I was going to argue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As for your proposal, probably best to retain the reliable source aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the text as in the proposal above with a link to wp:identifying reliable sources, see diff. Atón (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the version I'm seeing now says "For example, if one reliable source says A, and another says B, do not combine A and B to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.", and that seems clear enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Counter Proposal: How about we use the text "do not combine material from multiple sources (or different parts of one source) to reach or imply ...." instead of "do not combine material from one or multiple sources to reach or imply ....". This keeps it closer to the intent of the original text. LK (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I like that better, and it is in fact "safer", given the frequency with which editors attempt to perform SYNTH with unrelated statements in the same source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a fair proposal, but since this is a policy page, I'd recommend making an RfC to gain consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyediting that doesn't substantively change the meaning doesn't need an RfC, and this proposal thread serves the same purpose as one. We have too many RfCs about trivia as it is, and it creates a big backlog, which is often months behind (WP:ANRFC).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I like it better as well, I'll make the change. Atón (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The new proposal drastically weakens SYN policy. For example, "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Editors are still violating this policy even after telling them about the policy. Policy has been weakened. We should be doing the opposite since editors are still violating policy. QuackGuru (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  @QuckGuru: Do you mean the original proposal at the top, or the counter proposal near-immediately above your post, or both? In the original proposal, "do not combine material from one or multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" is retained in its entirety. The later version tweaks this to "do not combine material from multiple sources (or different parts of one source) to reach or imply ...", which does not change the meaning just makes it easier to parse. In neither case does it seem to weaken the instructions in any way; if anything it's stronger now in being more direct and less rambly, thus less likely to be misinterpreted, ignored, or lawyered about. I think everyone here shares your concerns that this policy is too frequently ignored, so if there's a way in which the contemplated changes would actually worsen that problem, then it should certainly be addressed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I oppose both proposals. The edits weakened policy. The wording is not more direct. It over simplified the issue. The changes to nutshell were also major changes made without consensus. See earlier this year versus current version for comparison. QuackGuru (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Images

I sincerely hope that this does not contravene Wikipedia:Canvassing, but there's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II#RfC about the photos of Queen Elizabeth II where different editors, myself included, have different interpretations of WP:OI and I'd appreciate some clarification by an experienced editor. Specifically, I'd like to know what constitutes "distort[ing] the facts or position illustrated by an image" and "present[ing] the subject in a false or disparaging light", and I'd appreciate it if somebody could weigh in there regarding the specific images in question. I should add that I'm certainly not asking anybody to take my side, I simply want to know which of us is interpreting the guideline properly, and I can't think of a better way than simply asking those who helped to pen the guidelines. Cheers. nagualdesign 02:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think a mistake you are making is reading Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images (WP:OI) as encouraging the creation of a derivative work, such an an "improved" derivative work. No, it does not. WP:OI encourages you to make and upload your own images, created, drawn, or photographed by yourself. Of course you may make derivatives of free works, but this policy does not speak to that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Photographs of the queen are not easy to come by, unfortunately. I didn't think that WP:OI encourages derivatives. All I want to know is whether this particular derivative, or the derivative which it's intended as a replacement for, constitute a distortion of the facts or present the subject in a false or disparaging light. More to the point, does increasing the exposure of an underexposed photograph, reducing the saturation to a more normal level, and reducing digital noise (while retaining the detail) fall foul of WP:OI. See before and after. nagualdesign 03:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think: No. It is not a WP:NOR issue. It is an editorial decision. There are probably image polices and guidelines that offer advice, but WP:OI doesn't speak to this one, except that it is allowed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreed with SmokeyJoe. There is no WP:OI violation. It's an editorial issue that needs to be sorted out. It's perfectly allowable by OI. Also, it's perfectly fine to post a notice about the discussion to seek uninvolved editor input. That's not canvassing at all. Leaving a message on the talk page of a user you believe is "on your side" would be a good example of canvassing. Huggums537 (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that improving an image by changing the exposure, colour balance, contrast, sharpness, etc. is not a violation of WP:OI. No image is ever an exact representation in terms of these parameters; all digital equipment, from cameras to screens, imposes a degree of adjustment. More tricky can be processing that removes some of the background. I do this sometimes to images of organisms, where there is, say, a distracting white pebble in an image. The issue is whether the change alters the interpretation of the image – thus doctoring an image of a plant growing in a pot to imply that it was growing in the ground is not acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Outside of crops and rotation (which do not affect the colors or details of the original images), image modifications that change the appearance should be avoided. I know the example is not going as far as this but File:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.jpg should be a strong reminder that changing these elements can drastically alter the impression of an image. --Masem (t) 15:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing the impression of an image is clearly wrong, but that's not what we're talking about. Digital cameras get exposures wrong, produce colour casts, etc., and these all need to be cleaned up. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

However, I'd argue in the case of the Queen photo, the "cleaned up" image makes her look more youthful. We should be sticking to the choices made by the photographer that published the image freely. --Masem (t) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No-one disagrees that changes that alter the interpretation of an image are wrong. But always sticking to the uploaded image is just not sensible given that so many uploaded images are of poor quality and can easily be improved. It's particularly important when there are few images to choose from, sometimes only one. Compare File:Whf purple 45 lightened.jpg to File:Whf purple 45.jpg, or File:Rebutia flavistylus 2 rev.jpg to File:Rebutia flavistylus 2.jpg, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with all those who see the practice for what it is, i.e. blatant original work. We are not here to improve old or modern photos of "poor quality". Moreover, the kind of beautification under question here is full of personal points of view. User:nagualdesign seems to be en expert in the field of "improvement" (for others: "manipulation") of photographs, but technical competency is not the issue here. -The Gnome (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback. @The Gnome: As you can see with my latest upload, comparing the before and after, I haven't done any sort or beautification whatsoever. The only changes are literally those listed in the file history. Though in my opinion, and I think others will agree, it has had the unwanted effect of reducing the specular highlights, which gives her skin a smoother appearance. Arguably this is the real deal, since the adjustments are purely algorithmic, whereas with my previous upload I'd used my own judgement to retain some of the apparent blemishes as I thought it was more realistic. But let's not discuss such things here that ought to be discussed at the RfC.

@Peter coxhead: Regarding distracting backgrounds, I often like to use Lens Blur like in these images: File:SharleenSpiteriAvent.jpg, File:Terry St Clair 2008.jpg, File:Machulski Juliusz.jpg and File:Antony Armstrong-Jones 1965 (cropped).jpg. The masking is pretty tricky and takes some practice. If you'd ever like me to do any for you feel free to drop a note on my talk page. nagualdesign 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: of course it's "blatant original work". Making images has to be original work, otherwise the author of the image couldn't upload it with the appropriate copyright. An image derived from another Commons image is absolutely no different in this respect; all images in Commons are necessarily "blatant original work", unless their copyright has expired. That's why the normal restrictions of WP:OR don't apply to images. Have you actually read WP:OI? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I actually have read the pertinent rule. It's not hard to understand: "Because of copyright laws in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia," the rule says, which kinda makes it obvious that, unlike the use of that other carrier of information, i.e. the written word, the use of images is treated far more strictly in Wikipedia. So, yes, your tautology is correct - every image is an original work (!) but Wikipedia places severe, very severe, restrictions on how we use the original work of others. Now, about our own work, the work done by Wikipedia editors.

"Editors are encouraged," by the rule, "to upload their own images," with the usual release caveats. In other words, an editor can snap a picture of Her Majesty, release it for use in Wikipedia, upload it, and hey, presto, we have a legitimate pic in the article about the British monarch. Nowhere in this encyclopaedia would you find a rule or a hint that encourages or allows editors to alter images created by others; and that's irrespective of copyright status. The road towards distortion begins with intentions of improvement.

Do I have the right to snap a pic of the Queen and then alter that pic (the one I myself took) in a manner attempted by the professional expert here, nagualdesign? Well, that would depend on the extent to which I alter it. If it changes in a material manner the extant information imparted by a typical picture of the Queen, then I'm engaging in original work and expressing personal ideas! To better see why the latter applies here, think cover image on that well-known Sex Pistols' single - an evident case of imparting opinion through the use of image. End note: From what we see, user nagualdesign knows technically what he's doing and has the best of intentions. But that is not the point. -The Gnome (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, we have a "rule" right here in WP:OI which is more than a hint: "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such." Huggums537 (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Re. "Nowhere in this encyclopaedia would you find a rule or a hint that encourages or allows editors to alter images created by others; and that's irrespective of copyright status." Well, there's Photography workshop for one: The Graphics Lab is a project to improve the graphical content of the Wikimedia projects. Requests for image improvements can be added to the workshop pages: Illustrations, Photographs and Maps. ... This specific page is the requests page for the photography workshop. Anyone can make a request for a photograph to be improved for a Wikipedia article. The standard format for making a request is shown below, along with general advice, and should be followed. ... Please make sure your request is "legitimate" by copyright. If the image(s) are in the public domain or freely licensed, you are fine... It even goes on to provide instructions for editing non-free images. In short, anyone is free to edit anyone else's images (provided that they follow WP:OI, of course). Having said that I agree with you somewhat that the guidelines are a little opaque and they should probably be tightened up. Not in the sense that they should be made more restrictive, but they should simply be clearer so that people like yourself aren't given the wrong impression. nagualdesign 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Go to the workshop and ask, as if you were an editor who cannot work on images, for the exact same "improvements" you made to the Queen's face. I'll bet it'd be instructive to see the response you get.

I will admit that my statement about Wikipedia rules on photo "improvements" was too broad - but look more carefully: "If the image(s) are 'Fair use', there are only certain things we can do with them." I insist that, in my humble opinion, your work on the Queen's face has been a blatant case of original work, irrespective of your good intentions or professional expertise. In this forum, I submit that "improvements" on photographs that not our own are to be strictly prohibited and/or policed. -The Gnome (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any money on that if I were you. I've spent untold hours working at the Photography workshop and edited dozens of images there, perhaps a hundred or more. A few hours ago I fulfilled this request, removing a large suspended streetlamp that was obscuring the view of the monastery. You might argue that this misrepresents reality, since the lamp and the wires that hold it up are really there, but in an encyclopaedic article about Mekhitarist Monastery nobody is interested in looking at the streetlight. Your view of how things work around here is somewhat lacking, I'm afraid. I get where you're coming from, but a lot of this is about editors' intentions and the impression that our images give to our readers, and has nothing to do with the slippery slopes you're so worried about. nagualdesign 10:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm a bit flabbergasted at the notion that some editors consider adjustments such as these to constitute original work. As someone who has been commissioned to paint photorealistic paintings, to colorize black and white photographs, to restore old photographs and to make adjustments like this, I can assure you that you are very, very wrong.

The gulf between original (such as creating new digital paintings) or derivative works (such as colorizing black and white photographs without comprehensive color references) and photo correction is simply enormous, and not simply one of degrees. Yes, both processes require good judgement and can be a bit subjective. But original and derivative works require an immense amount of creativity and the end result cannot be predicted in any meaningful way. Improving photographs, including by restoring old photos or even by colorizing black and white photographs with comprehensive color references can be done by expertly following a series of predetermined steps, and the end result can be known to the person doing it before the process even begins. I have recorded macros that will make adjustment like those in the example image the OP gave with a single button click. Even the more complex ones where adjustments depend on the initial features of the image, I have been able to program my computer to make the determination of how to proceed by itself. And I can assure you that the programming I did was neither groundbreaking nor particularly difficult.

Creating original and derivative images is an art form. It requires both skill and talent. Adjusting and improving photographs such as these is a trade and requires only skill. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that there are some adjustments of color/tint/etc. do not necessarily affect the image, but there's clearly a point where a line can be crossed, as per the OJ image above. Where's the line to be at? It's impossible to tell, whether it is a single bump up in all RGB values by 1, or something more massive.

Thinking about it more, I think what has to be clear is that if you provide a modified image of an existing uploaded image, it should still be treated as a derivative work, and with a link back to the original image (this is already sort of a requirement), and ideally some description of color/tint corrections made to get to the product image. Color/tinting should not be considered as the same as cropping, resizing, or other more mechanical transformations that would be ineligible for copyright. Now whether that presented image becomes original research or not, that should be determined by consensus similar to how the Queen's picture was done, in that if the editors determining which image is better, they should also make sure that the image does not significantly change the subject ala the OJ situation. --Masem (t) 22:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say that even the OJ image doesn't represent an original work, or at least that it's not clearly such. Instead, I would consider that an example of deceptive framing of the original work. The key here being the intent to deceive the audience by changing how the image is viewed from a bright, flat and rather monotonous booking photo to a dark and ominous one. The edits to it consist of adjusting the levels and adding a vignette. They didn't alter OJ's features into a scowl, or add hints of blood spatter to his shirt. They didn't try to change what the image was, but to change how it was viewed.

And I agree; that sort of editing is absolutely unacceptable for WP. But the editing to the example photos provided by Nagual and Peter are very, very different. They don't change how you see the image, they change how well you can make out the details of the image. As for the mention of it making the Queen look younger, I don't believe it makes her look any younger than she might look in comparable lighting with your own eyes. We've all (presumably) noticed that some people can look older indoors than outdoors, due to harsh lighting. The edits to this picture (which don't make her look any younger to me, personally, but I'm assuming they do to others for the sake of argument) aren't any different from that.

So all in all yes, I agree that there are some forms of enhancement or improvement that should be off-limits, and in those cases, it's a matter of degrees. If someone performs "enhancements" to an image that make a person look villainous, or which changes their expression, or makes them appear to be in a different location or anything that appreciably affects the emotional impact of a photo, then it should not be used. But the suggestion that the edits to the Queen photo here are in the same ballpark, let alone the suggestion that they constitute an original work, are almost offensively inaccurate to someone who's worked in this field for a long time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, I'm backing off my stance that adjustments are immediately a problem, only that editors should be aware that adjustments taken too far can be seen as OR, and consensus decisions on image choices or the like should keep this in mind if the adjustments do affect the image in an OR-ish way. It should be treated case-by-case, basically --Masem (t) 22:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That sums up my thoughts rather nicely on the core issue as well, except that I would say it's more of a WP:NPOV violation than an WP:OR violation to edit images in a manner similar to that OJ photo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. nagualdesign 00:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can I please make a very simple request? This is not about technical expertise - or the lack of it. This is not about how good an editor is in "adjusting" a photograph. The issue here is whether or not we, Wikipedia editors, should start fumbling around with extant images and photographs (beyond mere cropping or rotating) for some noble reason or other, e.g. improving the color on the Queen's cheeks. Because User:MPants at work "has been commissioned to paint photorealistic paintings, to colorize black and white photographs," etc, he finds it "offensive" that editors, e.g. me, would suggest that such "adjustments" constitute original work. User:nagualdesign's followed the same road. But, fellow editors, technical expertise in a field does not make one's opinion about the application of Wikipedia rules any more valid. (And that goes for lawyers even!) If I'm a Nobel laureate in literature, I'm no more knowledgeable by that fact about Wiki rules on literature articles than the next editor. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely. I have at no point "improved the colour of the queen's cheeks", I've simply used the colour information in the original image file that had previously been deliberately discarded by another editor. Somebody deliberately made her look pallid because they didn't like the "panda eyes" and thought she looked too orange, when the fact of the matter is that she did have a rather rosy complexion on that day (as well as the "panda eyes"). And nobody here is trying to claim that their expertise should be deferred to, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it. nagualdesign 09:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You invoked your expertise in the original debate in the article's talk page. Now, User:MPants at work did it, too. That is all. And I must ask what on Earth is the basis for your claim that someone deliberately made the Queen "look pallid". You do remember the pic came from Her Majesty's own Ministry of Defence, I suppose? I mean, horror of horrors, I can see the headlines! "Wikipedia Triggers Investigation in MoD". :-) The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Come on, play fair. You already asked me about that and I clarified it. The basis of my claim is what's written in the many edit summaries on the image file page, and what Firebrace was saying at the RfC. I didn't pull it out of my hat. And the MoD has made it quite clear that anyone can do whatever they want with the image, we're only restricted here by WP policies (and rightly so, I should add). nagualdesign 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing "unfair" from me. The diffs to which you referred me do not justify your claim that the British Ministry of Defence deliberately made the face of Her Majesty to "look pallid"! How on Earth could you know? I suggest using expressions such as "someone in the MoD, with possibly good intentions, mangled things up," would better express what you're trying to say. But this is not the gist of the issue; just a funny collateral.

As to MoD Rules allowing go-to-town with their images: Do not forget that Wikipedia does not operate under MoD rules. The MoD could have dictated that we always show Her Majesty's full body and never a cropped image - but the MoD dictat would carry zero weight here. (Think my example is far fetched? Think North Korean rules about depicting the nation's leader in images.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you're really not getting this at all! Perhaps explaining using bullet points may help:

• You wrote, "You invoked your expertise in the original debate...", when in fact, at the RfC, I'd written "I'm not sure what else to say really, other than trust me, I know what I'm doing, but Wikipedia is all about consensus so here we are." To which you replied, "this is hardly an argument". My response to that, linked to in the diff, was, "I wasn't suggesting that anyone defer to me, only that what I'd written immediately above was and is entirely factual." If you bring up my expertise as being beside the point again (which of course it is) I'm going to assume you're being deliberately obtuse.
• The Ministry of Defence are not responsible for making the face of Her Majesty look pallid, Wikipedia editors are. In case it has somehow completely escaped your attention, despite it being mentioned multiple times in the RfC, the current version of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg (ie, the current infobox image) is not the original photograph. The original photograph looks like this.
• As I've already mentioned, the edit summaries on the image file page record how several editors thought she looked "too orange" and "like Donald Trump". Visit the page, scroll down and read it for yourself. And Firebrace, who I believe may be the person responsible for that edit, now supports its replacement, and agrees that he "made her look too pale" (his words, not mine).
• The MoD originally released the image with an OGL v.3 license, meaning that you can do whatever the Hell you want with it. This is not North Korea. Evidently the MoD tried to change the license at some point, but OGL is perpetual and irrevocable. And as I've already stated, we are only limited here by Wikipedia's policies, and "rightfully so".
• If I understand it correctly you've spent this entire time arguing vehemently to keep using an image that is entirely at odds with the rationales you have been providing. Despite myself and other editors trying to explain things to you, you've remained steadfast, and now it seems that the reason being is that you haven't really been paying attention!
• I urge you to click some of the links you've been provided with, and to stop providing your own links to irrelevant articles like 8 Days in North Korea: Welcome to the World’s Most Isolated Civilization. This RfC has been arduous enough without having to endlessly drift off-topic.

Does that clarify things? nagualdesign 09:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC) PS. I didn't use the word "unfair" so, by your own strict standards, you shouldn't have made that appear to be a quote. I actually wrote, "Come on, play fair." You made a number of points, then I made a number of counterpoints in the same order.

Again, the fact that the MoD allows us to go to town with their image (and it is their image you/others are using as a template) does not mean much as far as altering an image for publication in Wikipedia is concerned. (The mention of North Korean rules was meant to make that clearer.) As to how I spend my time, nope, I'm not enamored with the current image, no! I made it clear from my very first post on the subject, when I also congratulated you on a personal level for your good work on it - it's alright if you forgotten about this. All I have been saying from the start is that we should get a new image (from a legitimate source, such as a WP contributor snapping a pic of the Queen) and that we should refrain from altering the content of the image ourselves.

I will take a (not so wild) guess and predict that the day here will be carried by the resident experts on image manipulation. Especially if these experts are really good at what they do, because their passion usually carries over into desire to show and share their work. All very admirable, yet I find the road about to be taken on the subject as quite outside Wikipedia's basic tenets. So, I do not think I'll contribute much more to this discussion. Let it take its fair course. -The Gnome (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Again with the "resident experts on image manipulation"! No, I haven't forgotten your previous compliment but the more you harp on the more it sounds rather backhanded, to be honest. I don't think SmokeyJoe, Huggums537, Peter coxhead or Masem profess to be experts on image manipulation, but they do have an understanding of Wikipedia's policies, and nobody is taking us down a road outside Wikipedia's basic tenets. Since you're failing to get the point I think it's probably for the best that you don't wish to offer any more contributions. All the best. nagualdesign 11:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Illustrative example: A reliable source publishes the contents of a recently discovered paper written by physicist Fermi. In it, the author writes, "In his old age, Ainstein once said," and so on. Now, the way Fermi wrote the name of Albert Einstein is quite obviously wrong. But now the text legitimately makes its way into Wikipedia. Should we correct the orthographical error? Of course not; the only thing that we are allowed to do is place the notation "[sic]" next to it. Note, please, that the term "sic" does not indicate an error. We are not judging the way Fermi wrote Einstein's name to be erroneous - we merely indicate to the reader that we are quoting the text as it has been written. (The Latin word "sic" signifies "as is", "as it was written.") End of story; end of our involvement. Fermi could have meant his use of "A" instead of "E" as a joke, as an esoteric reference to something, as a code, etc - or he was just being careless. Not only do we not know, not only is it not our place to judge, but by "improving" the text, we risk of losing information that lies in it. The same principles (more severely, if anything per WP:OI) apply to photographs in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What has any of that got to do with the price of fish? nagualdesign 09:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Images impart information. I would expect that you, an expert in the field of images, would understand that notion better than the rest of us. As an image changes, the information changes too. And this is just a basic description of signifiers. By the way, I've taken enough space here, so I'll abscond for a few, allow others have their say. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If it misrepresented Her Majesty you'd have a point, but it doesn't. I know we're on opposite sides of the table here but I do genuinely appreciate your input. I'll be popping off shortly too, but I hope we can continue to have a reasonable discussion. Sincerely, nagualdesign 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think The Gnome raises an interesting and legitimate question here. Why not just use the original if it's better than the "pale" version and you are working so hard to remain true to the original version? Huggums537 (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Because it's severely underexposed and oversaturated. See for yourself. nagualdesign 11:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, do you have a reliable source for the original? Huggums537 (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything's fully documented at File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015 by Joel Rouse (MoD).jpg. nagualdesign 12:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

While I still support your nomination, I'm afraid the sourcing is a bit suspect since the link is unavailable. The source is currently dead. Huggums537 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... The metadata also seems to have lost a few things compared to that at File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg, which is where I sourced the original. I should have a look at my Photoshop save settings. Digging a little deeper, I found this deletion discussion, which should clarify things. Between that and the information in the metadata we can at least be confident that it's properly sourced and is indeed OGL v.3. I hope that helps. nagualdesign 19:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to why the metadata was lost actually, since all I did to begin with was download the original from File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg then upload it as File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015 by Joel Rouse (MoD).jpg without alteration, which I would have expected to contain the same data. My subsequent upload was processed in Photoshop, which could have curtailed the metadata, but that shouldn't have affected the metadata showing on the image file page on Commons. Do you have any ideas, MjolnirPants? nagualdesign 19:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The file is now available here, and I've updated all 3 image file descriptions. nagualdesign 19:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I still use CS6, so if it's Photoshop, I'm probably not going to be able to help. But one thing I know is that the wiki software handles file transfers a little strangely. See WP:GL/P#Potentially quick crop where I encountered some weirdness with a jpeg file. Both my and another editor's browser (and I verified this in Edge, Firefox and Chrome, using Windows 10, Ubuntu and Windows 7) shows 50% grey in all the previews where the file was corrupted, but pure white when viewing the file directly. And when I downloaded the file, the actual hex data showed 8X16 blocks of pure white, and it rendered white in those areas. So I think this is a wiki thing. I believe the wiki software creates a new file header from a template, then streams data from the original to it whenever you copy a file. That would explain both the missing metadata and the problems in that thread (the file, notably, has no metadata except what was added when I cropped it in GIMP). I've noticed missing metadata in files I've downloaded before as well, but that was using GIMP so I just assumed it was that software. It seems I may have been wrong about that assumption. I would advise double checking metadata, as we're unlikely to get WMF to change something so fundamental as how file transfers are handled. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, MjolnirPants. For the record, I still use CS5. (And I have socks and other items of clothing that are older than my nieces and nephews!) nagualdesign 20:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I still have Photoshop 7 installed because I could perfectly configure it for drawing (as opposed to digital painting or image manip), and because versions that old still let you map your zoom level to your mouse wheel. Let me tell you: keeping multiple versions of photoshop installed without using a VM is a nightmare. I use CS6 for most of my 'shop work, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• @The Gnome: Your characterization of everything Nagual and I have said is entirely inaccurate. Your characterization of what Nagual has done to the Queen image is also entirely inaccurate. I'm not entirely sure why this is so, but it seems true that you are not getting what anyone has said or done here. I don't want to write a novel correcting every mistake you seem to have made, however I will happily address any specific questions you wish to ask to better clarify what has been said here and done. I'm quite sure Nagual will be happy to answer such questions as well. So please, in the future ask questions instead of presuming to know what we meant.

Your characterization of how we must treat direct quotes is also inaccurate. In fact, we absolutely can correct the spelling of a quote, so long as we indicate clearly that we have done so. "In his old age, [Einstein] once said," is a perfectly acceptable way of quoting Fermi in that instance, because the brackets indicated that the word was inserted into the quote, or replaced an existing word within it, and because the alteration did not change the meaning of the quote at all. Now, if we were quoting that passage to give an example of how Fermi frequently misspelled words, we would not do that. But if we were trying to simply convey what Fermi wrote about Einstein, then correcting the spelling is not a problem in any way. We, as editors, are expected to find the meaning of the source material, and then to convey that meaning over to WP. This includes directs quotes, though obviously there is less room for leeway there.

But of course, it remains true that quotes and images are very different things. Quotes are linear expressions of ideas. Images are non-linear expressions of moments that frequently also convey events, actions, locations, people, objects, and ideas. Photographs, furthermore, are presumed to be objective and entirely based in reality. Furthermore, the use of images here on WP is different than quotes. In the vast majority of cases, the purpose of an image on WP is to illustrate something; to give the reader a mental image which helps them better understand the subject. Quotes in no way do that, but merely convey exactly what a person said.

In the end, the question of meaning is what it boils down to. The edits Masem cited to the OJ image changed the meaning of that image significantly. Hence, we should never make such edits here. The changes Nagual made to the Queen image did not, in any way, change the meaning of the image. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You demand that I ask specific questions, but why would I? I have simply stated what I believe about the practice of such substantial altering of images we do not own (e.g. them being under Fair Use status). I claimed that it constitutes original work and tried to elaborate why and support the claim. I have no questions to ask you or anyone else.

On the issue of images versus text: IMVHO, you are somewhat wrong in your assessments. ("Quotes are linear expressions of ideas." No, they're not! And thank heavens they aren't. Have you missed the entire, 20th-century exploration of text and language and meaning and significance? "Photographs...are presumed to be objective and entirely based in reality." In our day and age, I would consider this to be a very tricky claim.) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the ultimate purpose of an image on WP is to "better understand the subject", to use your own words - which is exactly what "quotes" are meant to do also, and not just "merely convey exactly what a person said". Conveying text carries significance (consequently, understanding); a text is not something neutral, practically ever.

About the example of Ainstein: You missed the point. We are meant to use the correct word (in brackets) in lieu of a false one, only in a case where we know with absolute certainty that there was purely and simply an error (of language, of syntax, etc), one which must be corrected so as to preserve the intended meaning. ("Intended" as trivially verified in third-party sources.) I used the name of Fermi on purpose to show that a world class physicist using a seemingly wrong word may have been doing it on purpose. We would not dare replace a symbol in a Fermi paper - not unless yer ol' reliable sources state the need for replacement. My little example tried to illustrate the care I personally place in altering what we present to the Wiki audience, including that most tricky of evidence, photographs, and that is all. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You demand that I ask specific questions, but why would I? Because you quite clearly do not understand what was said to you. It's not at all unreasonable to expect someone to ask questions about something they don't understand, rather than plow ahead with incorrect assumptions. Indeed, it's quite unreasonable to suggest that plowing ahead with incorrect assumptions is reasonable. And I did not, in any way "demand" that you ask questions. I didn't even "ask" you to ask specific questions, I politely informed you that I would be happy to answer any specific questions you did ask.

I claimed that it constitutes original work and tried to elaborate why and support the claim. Yes, and I responded to your elaborations and explained the fundamentally important aspects of this issue which you did not show any understanding of; namely the difference between creation and alteration. Your argument is akin to suggesting that someone who buys and installs an after market part on their vehicle has invented a new vehicle, which you may recognize as a rather ridiculous conclusion.

About the example of Ainstein: You missed the point. No, I didn't. The next part of your comment that I quote (immediately below this line) shows that you found my response appropriate, given that you're responding to the substance of it. If I missed the point, your response would have been to clarify your point, or to ignore my response.

We are meant to use the correct word (in brackets) in lieu of a false one, only in a case where we know with absolute certainty that there was purely and simply an error That is not even remotely true. We regularly substitute names for indefinite articles, insert names or titles where necessary for clarity and make other such additions. It's not only WP that does this; it is an extremely common practice in academic writing. It is a well-accepted fact that as long as such alterations of quotes are minimal and do not change the meaning, they are perfectly acceptable. And I believe you have completely failed to respond to the massive differences between quotes and images which I pointed out, which I will take as an inability to rebut. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I take the last comment you made as insulting. You have no right to assume anything about me. Whether I'm "unable to rebut" or not is not up to you to say. Same goes for your assumption that I should be "asking questions" since, as you go on to claim, I'm unable to understand, etc. Aren't you bored by such irrelevancies? Let's try to remain civilised and assume good faith about each other's intentions. I'm not here to insult, nor to comment on anyone's personal abilities.

As to the rest of your comments, my take on the difference between images and text was actually made explicit in the very post to which you respond. Perhaps you missed it. The use of corrective text inside brackets happens to be quite known; yet, that was not the issue. Once again, you are missing it. Apparent errors can sometimes be not errors; hence, the need for being thorough, etc.

I have to wonder if this is turning into some kind of "struggle" between "photo experts" and plain ol' editors here. You wrote, "Creating original and derivative images is an art form" - well, sincere congratulations on your artistry. But, again, technical expertise in a certain field does not provide any kind of superior understanding of wiki rules. -The Gnome (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think you're beginning to let your emotions get in the way of your reasoning somewhat. This isn't a struggle between photo experts and plain ol' editors, it's just a debate about WP:OI. A lot of your comments have been helpful so far, even those that are a little adversarial, but if you're going to get your hackles up I suggest you take a breather and try to return with fresh eyes. nagualdesign 10:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Another editor claims I'm unable to rebut his arguments (I have other things to do in life, too, comrades!) and I respond that the claim is insulting. Yet, I'm the one who gets emotional and has to take a break?! :-) Don't worry, I've been on Wikipedia long enough (not too long, but long enough) to see when a discussion nears degeneration. I already said I'm taking a break; so, thanks for the fair pointer I should make haste. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You have time enough to make multiple comments here and at the RfC yet you offer no rebuttal? In terms of a debate that usually implies some sort of concession. That's hardly an insult, but never mind. nagualdesign 11:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't responded with anything meaningful, despite making multiple comments since. And of course, I'm neither the only one to notice this nor even the first to point that out. The point that you didn't respond to (that quotes and images are very different beasts) was far more important than the correction I offered you on how quotes can be altered without violating policy or academic best practices.

I'm also in agreement with Nagual that you seem to be more emotive than is conducive to civil discourse ("Insulted" is an emotional state, after all). This is not a battle. Nothing I said was meant to "toot my own horn" when I mentioned artwork, but rather to try to help you understand the difference between creation and modification. The same is true of my comment about asking questions: I am trying to make sure you understand what I am saying, but you seem to be taking it as an insulting or belittling remark, devoid of any meaning other than the insult. And this is after I've already stated my intentions clearly once, and later corrected you on my intentions. I've said it twice before now, but you don't seem to have gotten that my remark wasn't meant as an insult.

But there's a problem here. We've gone from discussing the issue to discussing your feelings, or Nagual's and my behavior. That is a giant red flag that it's time to step back from a discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Original research authors hb quoted in the article.

Pls point to unquoted sentences so that authors cb inserted. JSuring (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Emperor's New Clothes ?

I would like to propose a leniency and decency clause to the NOR policy with regards to things that are readily observable, and so obvious that a reference to a bona fide published source really shouldn't be necessary. For instance, do we need a published source to establish that water is generally wet ?
At the very least, when in doubt whether something is sufficiently obvious by simple observation, I would like to prescribe a policy recommendation to add a citation needed inline tag, rather than hitting the "Undo" button while shouting "WP:OR violation". --GeeTeeBee (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose We have an essay about the sky being blue. I have found that good-faith editors don't ask for citations for plainly-true things. Regardless, I don't want a carve-out for un-supported assertions lest we begin to argue about what's plainly true. If you have a tendentious editor asking for citations, I think WP:DISPUTE is where to go. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose If it was impossible to find a source that water is wet (such as a dictionary) then it wouldn't be allowed. However, the requirement that a source must exist does not imply that we have to put it in the article. We are only required to give a source in the article for "an inline citation [or] anything challenged or likely to be challenged". Someone who adds a citation for "water is wet", and equally someone who removes "water is wet" on account of lack of citation, are not enforcing the rules but just being silly. Zero^talk 11:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Is “water is wet” likely to be challenged? No... so we are not required to cite it... UNLESS someone actually does challenge it. At that point we have a choice: A) we can spend hours and hours arguing about why the statement should or shouldn’t be cited or B) we can spend two minutes finding a source and cite it... thus allowing the other guy to “win”, and ending the debate.

I always prefer “B” because it requires the least amount of effort and disruption. I call it the “let the Wookiee win” principle.

Now, if having a citation for “water is wet” in an article really bothers me... I simply wait a few days. At that point the “Wookiee” (having “won”) is likely to have moved on to other articles, and I can quietly remove the unnecessary citation once he does. Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is not so much about claims for which one can find a source within two minutes, but about things so obvious, that no-one would even think to bother writing about it, and therefore sources may be surprisingly difficult to find, and yet everyone can see it if they're willing to use their own eyes. And I would like to reiterate my request for an explicit policy recommendation to begin with adding a citation needed inline tag, rather than immediately hitting the "Undo" button while shouting "WP:OR violation". --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Such a recommendation already appears in the Verifiability policy, see WP:CHALLENGE. I've never much liked the way it is written though. I'm my view it gives too much support for pov-pushers who use the lack of a citation as an excuse to remove things that they know to be true and easily sourced. But the problem is that we can't force editors to provide citations for other editors' text. Discussion of the wording should probably be at WT:V rather than here. Zero^talk 12:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: "things so obvious, that no-one would even think to bother writing about it" First, there are very few things that are so "obvious" that no one has written about it. Hell, academics love arguing about "obvious" things. No, if something is "obvious" there is a very strong likelihood that someone has written about it, and you just need to search for it. Second... if no one has written about it, then neither should we (Wikipedia should never be the first venue to present anything... doing so would make Wikipedia the primary source for the information, and we define ourselves as a tertiary source). Finally, remember that what is "obvious" to you may not be so "obvious" to someone else. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The things that don't get written about tend to be things that have the following shape:

They tend to take the form: X is a Y.

They tend to be exceptions to commonly held rules of thumb.

They tend to be extremely well known and written about by experts in subject Z (which studies X's and Y's), precisely because they're exceptions.

Because they're extremely well known and written about, there's no controversy among experts in subject Z about whether or not X really is a Y. Everybody knows that X is a Y, and it's trivial to prove, so why bother?

X is of little or no interest to the general population.

X is of relatively major interest to a small subset of the population.

The best example of this is the assertion that any argument which resembles an informal fallacy is one. It's not. An appeal to authority is perfectly valid when the authority is an authority on the subject of discussion. An appeal to popularity is perfectly valid when one is discussing popularity or consensus or aspects of demographics. The problem is that some types of arguments share names with informal fallacies. But even though I've searched long and hard, and found plenty of sources explicitly stating that it's not always a fallacy to use an argument that has the same name as an informal fallacy, I've yet to find even the barest hint of one that discusses the common misconception that all appeals to authority are fallacies, for example.

Things which are obvious don't usually fall into this category. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Major revision for Wikipedia: OR: obscure reference, not 'original research'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Instead of 'original research', couldn't/shouldn't it be OR: obscure reference? Rarely, if ever, do people actually publish there original research; they attempt to 'post' without a reference, that is the problem, not research or even originality, only so far as references being hidden, lacking or 'obscure'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:A340:AE00:6012:183A:AAE3:53AB (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That probably falls more under Verifyability; anything we published should be sourced to something. Original research is when WP editors, with or without sources, attempt to come to a conclusion not explicitly stated in sources. --Masem (t) 16:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We routinely revert editors that attempt to add content without a reference. So long as a reference is reliable we accept it, regardless of how "obscure" it is. The problem is that we get cranks asserting something to be true without any allowable source. Often, Wikipedia attracts frustrated academics who try to use Wikipedia to publish their original thoughts as if we were a scientific journal. In fact, Wikipedia has reached deals with the holders of reference info so that Wikipedians can utilize sources that are normally pay-walled. Obscurity isn't the problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'll jump in too with another take, it should be noted that WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:NOR need to be taken together -- given the 'spirit' of NOR it is perhaps understandable to see elevating the "obscure" to the same emphasis as the not obscure in a given topic can sometimes be seen as OR, that is "originally" presenting a topic not as sources do but as (some) editors would like using obscurities, but look more to NPOV policy on this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

These policies (as well WP:RS which would be in my view the more relevant guideline to use as benchmark for obscure sources) are often taken together; and are from time to time confused in discussion. However they deal with somewhat different problems. For example, synthesis where based on two facts a fetched conclusion is reached is original research, but does not obviously violate wp:v (as all new facts are sourced), it may also not violate WP:NPOV as the conclusion may be neutral and not clearly biased or at least not intentionally (an example I recently encountered was the following: 75% of religion in the Netherlands is Christianity (REF), Population of the Netherlands = 16 Million (REF): In in the Netherlands there are 12 million Christians (and that was the synthesis/original research as the majority of the Netherlands is irreligious which does not feature in the first number but does in the second). So I would keep them apart and leave as is. Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I understand the point you're making, however your example is more one of an outright logical fallacy (by not making the distinction between inhabitants and believers), than of reaching a logically correct, but nevertheless new, and therefore original conclusion, based on two properly identified (and if necessary sourced) facts.

On a related note, I would like to ask to what extent it is allowed to include comparative facts, while abstaining from drawing conclusions ? — To what extent is it allowable to be original in the comparisons or the presentation of contrasting information in any article ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And – while we're at it – if it's out of bounds to draw perfectly logical (but original) conclusions, what about instead raising questions, to spur further research, so that wikipedia can have a stimulating effect on those consulting WP ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We don't spur research. We should not be asking questions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course. But the very encyclopedia article itself — in the lead no less — states: "The appearance of digital and open-source versions in the 20th century has vastly expanded the (...) authorship, (...) and variety of encyclopedia entries and called into question the idea of what an encyclopedia is and the relevance of applying to such dynamic productions the traditional criteria for assembling and evaluating print encyclopedias." — So how about a little bit more WP:BOLDness in thinking here ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. If you want to change what we're doing here, raise the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me repeat: the WP article on encyclopedia — in the lead — raises a question (".. called into question the idea of what an encyclopedia is .."), and by the way without sourcing, and this also doesn't summarize what is elaborated further down the prose... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That passage doesn't invite the reader to wonder what an encyclopedia is, but informs the reader that some are questioning the nature of encyclopedias. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A-ha, so that's the magical formula then — stating that some are questioning such and such, and then it's okay ? — Interesting ... And what about my other question: To what extent is it allowed to include comparative facts, while abstaining from drawing conclusions ? — To what extent is it allowable to be original in the comparisons or the presentation of contrasting information in any article ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If two different reliable sources are saying two different things about the same subject, then we as editors are expected to represent both views in the article about the subject. That's an element of WP:NPOV, not a question of original research.

And it's not a formula: When I said that the passage doesn't invite the reader to wonder, but merely informs them that some wonder, there was no "wink wink, nudge nudge" in there. I was being completely earnest. There is a fundamental difference between saying "You should do X" and "Some people are doing X", even if you know that saying the latter will encourage the person whom you are speaking to to do X. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You are either a politician or a lawyer. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as you're concerned, I am a Wikipedian and nothing else. And you have been here long enough to know better than to attempt to personalize a discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Then please prove me wrong, and answer my question about making comparisons --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This is increasingly looking like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Please get back to writing the encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

NONSENSE. – Both of you have been here long enough to understand I'm not actually making a personal attack, but the level of rigidity and political correctness, and consistently avoiding the slightest amount of imaginative thinking in the answers I'm getting DOES strike me as a personal attack on my intelligence...
You should be FIRMLY ashamed of your remark, because the problem is not, that I'm not here to help build an encyclopedia (I've been at it since 2007, and a high percentage of my edits are still up) – but instead the insensitivity to the fact that some people have bigger dreams, and see bigger potential for wikipedia than yourselves. Your blinkered answers will not deter me, but they might repel others, and therefore severely disappoint, if not disgust me. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You accused me of not answering your question by accusing me of being one of two professions frequently derided and demonized in public consciousness because you couldn't bother to read the first fucking paragraph of my response. And you think that's not a personal attack? I agree with Chris. You need to drop the stick before you stir up more shit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You're personalizing this even further now — contradicting your own advice — and what you read into the professions I used for comparison also says a lot about you .. If you dish out by brushing people off with pedantic and patronizing (never mind disappointingly unimaginative) responses, you must also take the punch-back like a man. If you don't like my remarks, then don't respond to them. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Making comparisons ?

I would like to ask to what extent it is allowed to include comparative facts, while abstaining from drawing conclusions ? — To what extent is it allowable to be original in the comparisons or the presentation of contrasting information in any article ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A lot depends on exactly how you write it... if the novel conclusion is clearly IMPLIED: “A+B=(Nudge nudge, wink wink... read between the lines)” then even just stating A and B in close proximity can be deemed a WP:NOR violation. We want to avoid having Wikipedia become a primary source... ie the first source to ever put A and B in a comparison. Blueboar (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you, that's a very clear answer.

But also a missed opportunity, I would like to argue. In the spirit of what it says in the lead of the encyclopedia article, "called into question the idea of what an encyclopedia is and the relevance of applying to such dynamic productions the traditional criteria for assembling and evaluating print encyclopedias" — and by its very nature, being a place where information about a topic – preferably from various angles – is aggregated, bundled and summarized, it's virtually unavoidable that an encyclopedia ends up being the first place where A and B are put together, from time to time. And what's the harm ? Why would one consider this undesirable ? Why not consider this a great opportunity in which the encyclopedia can bring added value to the world, science and information ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is written by dilettantes. We have no verified accounts for actual academics. We don't require proof of an education in order to edit. For that reason, we don't put A and B together, because no one here is qualified to do so. After ten years, are you telling me you don't understand how Wikipedia works or are you suggesting that we do something different? If the former, shame on you. If the latter, take it up with Jimbo Wales. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, that I should take my recent questions up with someone other than you. You keep telling me, in various wordings, that I should know better after all these years. And, in a way, maybe you're right. After so many years I feel I have learned more about critical thinking, and have every right to question and put to debate certain guidelines. I put to question the boundaries and the rigidity of application of the NOR policy. So, to begin with: you should know better too — one of the 5 WP pillars is: "Wikipedia has no firm rules" ! — and to "be bold" is still a central part of it. No firm rules — but in the last week I've been getting answers from you (and I DO thank you for responding – by the way) like: "We don't spur research. We should not be asking questions." (1st March), and now: "we don't put A and B together". Your POV seems completely categorical to me, and doesn't seem to be infused with the "no firm rules" core pillar notion at all...

Also your explanation that WP is purely written by dilettantes is a choice of words that doesn't feel like you assume a lot of good faith in WP's editors. You don't have to remind me that WP operates without verified accounts for academics. On the contrary, I'm getting the feeling that I should remind you, that anyone with a functioning brain can make a valid point. The beauty of WP is that it must not matter who makes the point, but what the point is. Anyone capable enough of editing WP, and applying basic logic, should be considered capable of putting two and two together (Good faith !). I happen to be an academic myself, but I'm appalled at the suggestion, that only academics are capable of applying logic... I'm appalled at your POV that "no one here is qualified to do so'... — Just like any other kind of WP edit — if it's no good, it will be reverted !

Also your answer fails to truly face what I consider to be a reality: WP pages bring together knowledge about topics that wasn't previously combined, on a daily basis. We shouldn't be frightened of the possibilities this implies, but see it as a way in which WP contributes to the world.

And finally: why should I have to take this to the village pump, Jimbo Wales, or any other place then right here ??? — THIS is the talk page about what it must say in the NOR policy page !! — If you feel in any way unconfident or unqualified to engage in this, please just leave it to others to engage ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No, this is a talk page for discussing changes to the article which contains the policy. To change the policy, you need a broad-ranging community consensus, which you won't get here. You need to go to the village pump policy subpage or Jimbo's talk page in order to find enough editors to come to a policy decision. If you continue to argue against the policy here, you are likely to be blocked from editing to put a stop to your disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Disruption ?? — Wow — I don't believe this ... Would you please explain to me what I'm disrupting ?? — My edits on regular pages comply with WP policies, save the odd mistake; I have a low revert percentage — but given this reply, I'm feeling more and more that I'm caught up in a version of Fahrenheit 451... — I'm NOT arguing to change the policy — but discussing on its talk page how it is worded, asking questions about its interpretation and application, and simply pointing out that by its very nature, (and precisely because editors apply a neutral POV, and include info from various angles and sources) WP DOES combine information on topics that wasn't previously combined that way... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK your disruption is wasting other Wikipedian's time in this talk page with your attempts to change the most fundamental Axiom of Wikipedia: we do not know who we are, with an immediate Corollary: we do not trust ourselves. You may want to try Everipedia for a change. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

To change the policy... -- What is the difference between changing the policy and changing the page (not "article", btw.) which contains the policy? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit like painting over a road sign with a different speed limit without consulting the local authority. Policy changes have to be coordinated across multiple pages, so you can't just change them by fudging it.

As for "Wikipedia has no firm rules", in fact it has a number of very firm rules, some of which are based in law, not just policies or guidelines. WP:NOR is a policy, not a guideline. Blueboar spelled it out perfectly at the top of this section, and even GeeTeeBee replied, "OK, thank you, that's a very clear answer." It isn't rocket surgery. nagualdesign 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit like painting.. -- Sorry, you did not answer my question (namely, what is the difference...). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Policies are principles of action agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. Policy pages are a public declaration of the agreed upon policies. Changing the wording of the latter does not change the former if there has been no prior agreement on the changes. nagualdesign 00:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed amendment on SYNTH

I am proposing to amend first two sentences of WP:SYNTH into "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, unless there is absolutely no other conclusion available. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source, unless there is absolutely no other conclusion available." What do you think? Erkinalp9035 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Opposed - The entire point of this policy is that we should not include our own conclusions... ever. No need for exceptions... no “unless” this, or “unless” that. If a source does not explicitly state the conclusion, neither should we. Period. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Opposed - I agree with Blueboar and was about to write a similar comment. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Proposer's idea - This "only direcly obvious conclusion" amendment would expand the subject range to be on par with paper encyclopedias. Currently there are facts that exist but cannot be included in Wikipedia without referring to "ignore all rules". We should not refer to WP:IAR unless absolutely no other way. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • expand the subject range to be on par with paper -- Huh? If it is in paper encyclopedia, then just bring it into Wikipedia, for it to be on par and beyond. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable sources

I am working on a specific medical article on a somewhat obscure condition. I've been a minor WP editor since mid-2013, taken on a few projects and a lot of little stuff -- punctuation grammar et cetera. I've not edited a lot of med stuff and with my limited time and slow production speed this won't change. Anyway, since no one else is taking this topic on I will continue to work on Monomelic amyotrophy. The article is both better (improved content and citations) and worse (in layout it has been reduced to a stub). And I have questions.

1) One reference I used was published in a foreign medical journal that is NOT indexed by PubMed, and using the reference was overruled because of that. The journal seems fully credible, the article seems well researched, and it has a DOI. Is a med reference article automatically overruled if it is not indexed in PubMed? The guidelines I read were not that that explicit -- and it is strange that there is so little tolerance for diversity.

2) Some primary references -- case studies -- begin and/or conclude with sizable well written overviews, so that while a case study paper may look at one to three cases, the author(s) adjunct materials have considerable well-referenced background materials. I think that I chose carefully and avoid emphasizing the individual cases, instead focusing on the excellent background material presented along with the cases, and yet these references are consistently shot down. Are all case studies automatically excluded from consideration?

3) When is a tertiary reference with a summary list of research acceptable, such as at John Hopkins Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man® https://omim.org/? It compiles multiple articles but conclusive language is minimal.

4) Tangential, are there any research privileges for WP editors that allows full text access to journal articles, or do I need to go through library loan processes to procure a full article? Presently on-line is hit and miss.

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We have to be especially careful with sourcing obscure things. The very fact of obscurity means that peer review may be insufficient. That said, each contested reference must be discussed in its own merits. For example, sizable well written overviews -- Which ref you have in mind? Does this overview have references for the overviewed material? Is the author a recongized expert or a random postgrad? etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Staszek. There are degrees of obscure. There are several hundred described cases of Monomelic Amyotrophy and it was first described (though not so named) almost 60 years back. Compared to heart disease or diabetes, this is obscure. But because it gets confused for ALS, there may be more cases than suspected.

I wanted to open this to broader conversation, but think the right thing is for me to shift further discussion to Talk:Monomelic amyotrophy. Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) To your first question and more generally. Inclusion in a specific library collection / database, such as Pubmed tells us that the editors of the database have screened the journal to eliminate the worst crap. Nevertheless such databases contain many substandard papers and journals, so it is not in itself a guarantee for decent quality. Also note that databases tend to dominant in their own country of origin. For Pubmed this is the US. So we would expect many more US journals to be listed including mediocre and even poor journals, while for foreign journals only the absolute top journals will even be submitted for inclusion. So in short, rejecting a foreign journal as not reliable only because it not being listed in Pubmed seems to me unwarranted (and an example of the US bias that Wikipedia has). The paper should (as Staszek Lem states) be judged on its own merits.

(2) To your second question. In fact the content of those overviews (if decently sourced) would be preferred over the cases studies themselves. The overview is a secondary analysis of the reviewed sources (secondary reference); while the case study analysis itself may be much more likely to be a primary analysis of the author.

(3) I doubt I would call such a list tertiary at all. But do not know enough of the specific case.

(4) Cannot help you there, I think there are some initiatives. If you want to avoid paying library fees (if that is asked for) another option is to write a polite email to the corresponding author (their email address should be listed and (if the paper is not too old) fairly up to date). Many authors are honoured to share a pdf of their papers with interested readers. But don't be pushy and if they do not answer just accept that (many authors are overburdened by research, grant application and course work). Hope this helps. Hope this helps. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Nationality of television series

The current consensus of the TV wikiproject is that the nationality of a tv series is identified from the production companies listed in its credits, establishing the nationality of each from reliable sources, and determining sole or multi-nationality accordingly. There is a proposal to replace this with direct referencing of nationality from reliable sources. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Proposed MoS change: Nationality MapReader (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am hoping that among watchers of this page there might be an experienced editor or two who is used to dealing with questions of synthesis, who might be able to comment on whether or not there is an issue here? MapReader (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Primary Sources and COI

Wikipedia's guidelines says that primary sources and self citing hurts the integerty of the encyclopedia and should be limited. Have you ever done a poll to see what kind of encyclopedia people want? I think that instead of focusing on what the editors think (age sex and race distrubution of Wikipedia editors is very different from the general population, according to statistics) Wiki should focus on what rules READERS think would improve the encyclopedia. That would make Wikipedia a better and more reliable encyclopeia. ............ Wikipedia has been losing editors for quite a while now, according to statistics and it seems like many people are blaming it on some of the guidelines. If there ever was a poll asking readers what they think would make Wiki a better encyclopedia that I don't know about, please let me know.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

All I know is that Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the Web, and many people I know turn to Wikipedia first when they want to find out about something, so we seem to be doing something right. (Note the warning that Wikipedia should never be taken as gospel, but only as a starting point in research.) If we were to drop those guidelines that you seem to dislike, Wikipedia would become a giant multi-editor blog, with constant arguments over whose version of the description of a topic was correct, and full of hoaxes, attacks, advertisements, articles about real or imagined subjects that no one but the author cares about, etc. I think that would result in Wikipedia withering away very quickly. If someone wants to write about something on the Web without having to adhere to those pesky guidelines, they can write a blog. I occasionally blog, and offer speculation and opinions in blog posts, but I make clear what is supported by reliable sources, and what is my personal observation, speculation and opinion. - Donald Albury 17:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC) (Edited to add to comment.) - Donald Albury 17:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Worse, if we turned it into a content popularity contest and actually gave people what they [think they] want, then we would not have an encyclopedia at all. What people want (respond to) on a short-term basis on the Internet is mostly clickbait: scandals, exaggerated claims, nudity, explosion, cute pets, and highly-PoV socio-political ranting. Part of our "job" is providing a rational oasis in that desert, whether people understand that they need it or not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I just personally think that a lot of information about certain subjects considered "fringe" is being held back, and that most people would have more faith in Wikipedia if more of these subjects were included in articles. For example, due to my intest in physics theories, I am learning a lot of info about Superfluid vacuum theory and Pilot wave theory and how these could possibly explain the EM drive. But maybe that is just me, and most others disagree with me. In any case, there needs to be a way to attract more non-hoaxing and non-vandalizing editors.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

We do have articles on those subjects. We even have an article about the Dean drive, of which I have fond memories from my youth. The issue is how much weight do we give to accounts of theories that have not been covered in reliable sources. - Donald Albury 21:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't seem to be a valid complaint when it's all blue-linked.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Primary source VS secondary source

What if there is a contradiction between primary source and secondary source? Common logic says to prefer primary source but wiki policy seems to have no rule regarding this issue. Should we not have it? There may be small or big inaccuracies or differences between primary and secondary sources. --88.231.135.73 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we need more information. Are you talking about conflict between the actual text of the two sources (for example the primary saying “red” and the secondary saying “blue”)... or something else? Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed this may be largely case dependent. In general I would say a literal, proven, record of a primary source (saying "red") is to be preferred over a secondary source claiming that the primary source reported "blue". Yet (to take the example a bit further) a primary colourblind source claiming something IS actually red should not be necessarily be used as superior to a secondary source who concludes based on analysis of all evidence that the object was in fact "blue". Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly; the primary source may be colorblind or even deliberately deceiving, for instance in the case of the primary source being someone / a company / a political party wanting to paint a rosy picture of themselves, and in that case the primary source should not be trusted and secondary sources likely be trusted more (if they are trustworthy, did their analysis of all evidence, etc.). --Jhertel (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

So I thought about this for a while, and I think the only time there's a clear-cut answer is when the secondary source is talking about the primary source. If a newspaper writes that Bob Johnson said so and so during his senate testimony, but watching the video of the testimony proves that so and so was never said by anyone, or was said by someone else, we ignore the newspaper. What is put in place of that statement, or whether it is removed entirely, would have to be decided on a case by case basis. And anything further from that type of scenario also, I think, doesn't have a simple rule you could apply. But even then, you have to be careful of whether the secondary source is referring to a different version of the primary source than you're looking at, or maybe is just being figurative. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

To take the question from a different angle: It's common for secondary sources to weigh what primary sources A, B, and C say, then provide conclusion X that is a synthesis/analysis, and this may conflict with, say, primary source C because C was wrong/outdated/speculative. So, yes, "this may be largely case-dependent". It can also be context-sensitive. Two examples: WP:ABOUTSELF is important: We trust what a person says about their beliefs, self-identity, etc. far more than we trust what a newspaper says that person thinks/feels. Second, when it comes to technical topics, secondary sources way below the level of a systematic review may be farcically incorrect in their understanding of what a journal paper says and means and even what the terminology used in it refers to. Newspaper and magazine journalists get scientific stuff flat wrong very frequently, and are also apt to leap for grossly exaggeratory assumptions about the implications of or claims made in a research paper. Not all secondary sources are equal, and the gulf widens the more technical the material is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant page elsewhere.

For your reading pleasure or displeasure: Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy.

Originated as a WP:Village pump (policy) post, now developed into an essay. Reception has been uniformly positive so far, though it's a bit of a mix of a list of issues and recommendations of what to do about them. I might split off the latter material to a userspace page at some point, especially if a key boldfaced item gets resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Trypophobia article -- using wording from quoted text

Opinions are needed at Talk:Trypophobia#Latest changes. The discussion concerns whether or not it is fine to quote this source as much as desired without the use of quotation marks, and whether or not we should always use a source's exact words. Regarding the latter, the question is whether it's WP:Original research to use our own wording as opposed to a source's exact words and whether wording like this needs to be tagged as WP:Weasel. The discussion additionally concerns stating things in Wikipedia's voice when sources disagree, the research is new, and/or there is no consensus in the literature on the matter.

On a side note: The Trypophobia article contains an image that some find distressing. So a heads up on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur that this article and its talk page need attention from NOR patrollers. It's largely been a two-editor dispute, and circular. Some RfCs have drawn additional eyes there, but they're not well-constructed RfCs, so they're not resolving much. One of central issues is the wholesale copying of Creative Commons text from a source and presenting it in Wikipedia's own voice; while this may be legal (there's some debate about the license compatibility) this doesn't seem like proper Wikipedian practice. There are also at least two other NOR-related issues going on, including the other F22R mentions (insistence against paraphrasing), plus another: the supposition that if a sentence with two claims cites 2+ sources at the end that every one of these sources must be sources for both claims in the sentence, otherwise they can be deleted or tagged with {{failed verification}}. It's rising to WP:TE levels. (From the other side, there are also some WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS concerns.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Third-party vs. independent

Dayirmiter, I'm somewhat unclear on why you made this edit. It's why I reverted. What is your concern about tertiary sources in relation to this? And does your view align with what the WP:PSTS section states? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

They're the same page. Why are we using a redirect, and a term we don't normally use like "third-party sources"? We call them independent sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then. Yeah, let's go with "independent sources." I was wondering why Dayirmiter changed the article on what seems to be a tertiary sources basis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

My concern is primarily with the vagueness of the term "third-party". "Independent" appears to me much clearer and is the term used in the title of the article linked to.

Also, it seems to me possible that a person unfamiliar with and trying to understand the concepts on this page might surmise some relation between the terms "third-party" and "tertiary" that doesn't actually exist and thereby become confused, so better to just use "independent".

Dayirmiter (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly concur. I think we've been using "independent" for this very reason all along.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think "independent" is better than "third party". "Third party" could be interpreted in a strict sense that isn't really intended. For example, a current article written by US government employees, written in the course of their duties, about something the US government did 200 years ago. Presumably they would have no axe to grind about something that happened that long ago, but technically they're a first-party source. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

My theory is that "third party" originated as a technical term of law, was taken up in colloquial speech as a kind of shorthand for "independent" or "disinterested", and from there was pressed into service of the conceptual structure of Wikipedia without sufficient consideration of its technical suitability in this context.

Although the term appears in policy, guideline, supplemental, and other Wikipedia structural documents, I believe it is misapplied to the interests of an encyclopedia. Instead of clarifying those interests, it actually rather muddies them. In my opinion, it would significantly simplify Wikipedia's self-defining documents to in almost every instance replace "third-party" with "independent". The exception would be where the term is used in the colloquial, and not in a technical sense.

Given the apparent support for doing so in this thread, I've reinstated the changes to this article which elicited it. Given also the reading and thinking I've done in consequence, I'm inclined to carry this through to the essays linked from where I've deleted "third-party" here. I see some of you have long-standing involvement in this area and I would welcome comment. In absence of same, I'll just try poking the beast and see what happens.

Dayirmiter (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

was taken up in colloquial speech as a kind of shorthand for "independent" -- Can you cite dictionaries which give such definition? I looked up wiktionary and dictionary.com and do not see this meaning. If there is indeed none, then it is wikipedia slang and we better get rid of it in the policies, to prevent confusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I did look at some dictionaries and I will look at them some more but I think it perhaps is, as you suggest, a kind of slang - journalistic slang, I'm guessing. Please see comments here, which I hope may help to clarify the problem. Dayirmiter (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Third-party and independent are two different measures. You can have a dependent third-party source: for example, within the Disney umbrella, ABC would be a third-party to anything Lucasarts related, but there is financial dependency due to Disney's ownership. Third-party is necessary to pass WP:V but when it comes to making contestable claims that would fall under OR, we'd want independent sources. --Masem (t) 17:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Masem, please see my comments here. My point is basically that in order for "third party" to have any meaning there must first be a clearly defined "first party" and a clearly defined "second party". This is so in litigation, for example, but I do not think it is so in relation to information sources, and this makes the term inherently confusing in that context. Dayirmiter (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this too synthetic?

Please look at James A. Baker (born 1857)#Career. This appears to splice together single statements from a handful of thin sources (one or two paragraphs about the subject in almost all cases). Does this pass the threshold into OR? If so, is there a remedy? I am preparing to expand the article based on a full-length biography and I would like to know the best approach to this. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

cutting link boxes

This edit 05:48, 31 July 2018‎ by SmokeyJoe is sloppy - if you remove a shortcut, please clean up your mess. Now the section tag for WP:AEIS leads nowhere. CapnZapp (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Remedy for WP:PRIMARY?

The article Julia Scott Reed uses mostly primary sources and appears to be mostly OR. What is the remedy? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Burn it to the ground and start over? Maybe after a new draft exists. I would make the same recommendation about anything: Find good sources first, then write the article. Surely there are obituaries on Reed? Are there books about here? Writeups from her own lifetime? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Expert Knowledge vs Original Research - A Question

I'm sure in the long history of this Original Research discussion, someone has asked this question. But, in searching for the answer in the archived discussions, I'm not really finding what I'm looking for, so I'd like to ask here (is this the appropriate place?) for help... My apologies if I am opening an old wound.

I've worked in the telecom field for 40 years. I've worked my way through the industry in many positions from the bottom as a technician to near the top of corporate management. I've run my own consulting business for just over 12 years now, and I'm fairly well respected for my knowledge of the industry, both in the technologies used as well as the business side of things. What I'd like to add to Wikipedia articles concerning telecom is not so much "original research" considering I haven't "researched" or experimented on these things as much as I've gained knowledge through working with others. There is very little published information about telecom that is useful as the industry changes so quickly.

When I served at the 55th Wing several decades ago, there were 3 maintenance organizations assigned to the wing. These 3 organizations are not listed on the article for the 55th Wing, and USAF Fact Sheets do not cover history to that degree. I have personal knowledge of their existence, and can be backed up by literally thousands of people that were assigned to these units over time... But, I can't add that information based on this idea of original research.

So my question, is expert knowledge of any given topic just as evil on Wikipedia as original research? If so, there is an entire universe of information that is being denied light of day. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Super evil. The evilest. Damned straight to the lowest circle of — no seriously, the main problem here is the lack of publication, though proportion also matters. We can't use "Tad Stirkland said so" as a citation, since the point of a citation is to allow readers to follow the source and confirm to their own satisfaction. So a source absolutely must be published in some kind of reproducible fashion to even be in the running for a reliable source. It doesn't have to be online, free, or easily accessible, but it must be theoretically possible for someone to check the source. So this would disqualify personal experience and also possibly internal documents that were never published to the outside world. Now, if you were to have a blog or something where you wrote down all of your knowledge, that would at least be considered "published." The source to be cited would be the blog, and not literally your memories. If you are a recognized expert in the relevant field, it may satisfy as a reliable source under WP:SPS for uncontroversial statements. Recognized expert usually means that someone has previously published peer reviewed or otherwise well-regarded work. Though if the content to be written is non-technical, there could be a lower bar. In any case, you come back to the problem of proportion. There is a general assumption that if no reliable source has ever mentioned something, there is no need for that thing to be mentioned on Wikipedia. This counts for both entire subjects, as well as specific aspects of broader subjects. That is, we don't decide entirely on our own what is important about a subject, we let the sources guide us. tldr: it has to be published in some fashion (outside of Wikipedia) that others can check it out without literally talking to you; there needs to be some way of knowing the author has the relevant experience or expertise; and even then it might be considered disproportionate. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Thanks for that. It was far more well thought out and civil than I expected, and I really appreciate that. I see what you said here as incredibly limiting what could ever appear on WP as far as useful knowledge. It's as if, instead of being encyclopedic (comprehensive in terms of information), it is more like a compendium (a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication). I guess I came into this wishing for more of an encyclopedic approach. Ok... I get it. Thanks you again. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 02:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is always a brief summary of knowledge, limited in coverage and depth. Wikipedia is much more expansive than traditional encyclopedias, but still limited in what it can include. The policies that information presented in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable, published sources are to insure that what you read in Wikipedia is more reliable than the majority of what appears on the Internet, although we try to make it clear that readers should not rely on what they read in Wikipedia for real life decisions. While our policies may prevent someone such as you from sharing your hard-won knowledge in Wikipedia, they help protect Wikipedia from being flooded with personal interpretations outside of mainstream opinion, undocumented theories, minor legends, self promotion, hoaxes, and other questionable material. Contributing to Wikipedia is constraining. My academic training was in linguistics, and I worked 20 years with computers, but I almost entirely avoid those subjects in Wikipedia because I cannot use my (rather dated) personal knowledge without searching for appropriate published sources to support what I would write, and there are plenty of students and recent graduates editing in those fields. I have worked on a couple of blogs, writing about things I have learned that are not appropriate for Wikipedia. You may find that writing a blog is a satisfying way to share your knowledge. - Donald Albury 12:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Tad, I would suggest that with your qualifications, you could get much of your knowledge published (probably not about the Air Force so much, though you might be able to get some memoirs published). Once that was done, a review of your qualifications as well as the practices of whomever published your knowledge could be sufficient to establish it as an RS. While you would certainly have a COI with inserting such information yourself, no-one should have a problem with you pointing a few of your fellow editors to that published material as a potential source, so long as you were open about having written it yourself. Then they could look at it, determine that it was reliable and use it.

Alternatively, you could skip the publishing route, and self-publish, making sure to establish your credentials beyond any reasonable doubt, per WP:SPS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Mpants at work I’m actually working on a book now. Thanks for the feedback. Instead of staying completely away from the topics, I’ll rely heavily on citing anything I contribute. Thank you everyone. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 15:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Rfc on How we interpret "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[Please excuse the length ... the topic is complicated] This post concerns the lede sentence:

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

It arose in Gaza beach explosion (2006) - Talk - section "3. Article Improvement Discussions", with discussions regarding the addressing of events in Gaza prior to beach explosions which all but wiped out an extended Palestinian family and sent shockwaves through the media. As with many of the Israel-Palestine conflicts (perhaps even 'all') the climax event, from which the name of the article is usually derived, hardly ever occurs randomly out of the blue with no prior build-up. Israel does not invade Gaza without militants from the Strip first having fired rockets at the southern Negev. Militants rarely do that out of pure spite, but because Israel has done something to prejudice their lives, like the assassination of a senior official, a crippling blockade, the killing of civilians near the border zone, etc. And those in turn have their antecedents also; the murder of teenagers, etc. This is not a new issue, and one related question goes - "How far back does one go? To the apple in the garden?" A few years ago KingsIndian (talk · contribs), fully aware of this issue, made what was accepted at the time as a very reasonable suggestion. Why not go back to a level playing field when all parties agreed to a cessation of hostilities, or to some informal but significant period of mutual calm - what I think he called a "blank slate". In that way we can avoid having an article "XXX event" and a separate article "Origin of the XXX Event" by including the prequel development of tensions between a cessation of hostilities (e.g. as a result of the ceasefire/truce) and the next bellicose flurry.

The above applies to less than epic "events". The prelude to the Six Day War for instance, would be as long as the rest of the article, which would be cumbersome. A brief flurry of a few days or even weeks might warrant having the prelude included in the main article. [I have no idea how one reasonably chooses how to make that split - a future topic]

So to get to the essence: Many events in the prelude of, say, the Gaza War (2008–09), have sources which never contemplated the future climactic war - Operation Cast Lead (OCL). The source on Arafat's death, that for the details of the understanding of the June 2008 ceasefire terms; the breaking of the ceasefire on 4 November 2008; the subsequent hail of rockets on Israel, many of the authors of the provided sources had no idea that OCL was soon to take place. To apply the WP:OR policy that sources must be directly related to the topic (the 2008/09 war - OCL) therefore usually requires some degree of subjective interpretation ... dangerous!! Yet a sequence of reliable sources may show that one individual event triggered the next. HOWEVER, there are VERY few quality sources that stitch all of these events together, and even more rarely, do so in Wiki-acceptable detail. Alternatively there are almost no sources that deny causal chains. Instead, one may appeal to "the sky is blue" principle that if A led to B, and B led to C, then A and C are part of the same sequence or chain. Sadly this process is usually interrupted by lengthy edit wars.

My proposal is that in the seemingly never-ending series of bellicose events, the preludes - the history of tension building - is encylopedically relevant to the climactic straw, and should be welcomed. But were sources to be disallowed that did not directly link the individual events in the chain to the breaking of the camel's back, (according to the Wiki condition quoted at the start), then this valuable chain of causative information would be excluded from Wiki. I am too much of a n000b to dredge Wiki protocol for a solution, so I look to more experienced peers. Maybe the solution is as simple as changing the article name from "Gaza beach explosion (2006)" to "Gaza beach explosion (2006) and its origin". Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that just is OR. There's no way around that. Wikipedia is not Truth, nor here to Right the Great Wrongs. This consequently – necessarily – means that on current and even quasi-recent events, we do not have or provide all the answers. We have to wait for multiple, independent reliable sources to provide to us the scholarly consensus. That can take years. Even decades. And that off-site consensus can change, and our coverage changes to go along with it. WP's basic purpose isn't injecting perfect understanding of reality into people's brains, it's providing an overview, and sources that are a good starting point for their own further reading.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

So, if a RS source like the Journal of Palestine Affairs (UCLA) published the sequence/chain of events, that would NOT be OR and would be RS? The essence is that an editor should not string the events together, ... do I interpret that correctly? Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• The key is that we need a reliable source to connect the various events... to establish that event A is actually relevant to event B. Without such sources, linking the events is original research. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Calm down. When contemporary high quality reliable sources aren't adequate wait. In the meantime let partisan "editors" destroy themselves. And if you want a bloody history of the incident, wait 25 years. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Sorry, no - what you are describing is the very essence of synthesis and original research. Until solid reliable sources trace the chain you are describing, and other similarly reliable sources refine and criticize this conclusion, we must remain silent. Remember, we are under no deadline; there is no harm done if scholarship takes a few years to come to any conclusions about causation. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless sources about an event mention another event as a cause, it has no place in an article. That is not an onerous requirement. Sources routinely mention causes, although they may differ on what they are or their relative significance. And some sources will discuss how different views have been received, which assists in providing weight. TFD (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for all of the above.

But on to the main question - what about the bit where WP:OR says that all sources must directly link to the topic, and one of the sub-topics in any particular article is "Prelude" or "Background"? I have seen dozens of Wiki articles in my areas of interest where WWW sources in such sub-sections do not directly address the topic in question, and even more commonly, in cases where books are cited, the author does not specifically link what is stated in the text to the topic of the article, exactly what has been discussed above. Some examples include the Iraq War, 1948 Palestine war, the Vietnam War, the October Revolution, the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, the Great Trek and Invasion of Quebec (1775). I am sure that there are hundreds more examples. Sometimes one can spot the non-compliant citation because its date is before the event of the article, but not always. Up until now this has not drawn my attention simply because I viewed such citations as part of "Background" or "Prelude" (setting the influencing environment), which by definition predates the main event. Now it seems there may be massive non-compliance, perhaps not only in topics involving tension and conflict. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

yes the encyclopaedia generally has a massive WEIGHT problem due to editors SYNTHesising original research as to causes or processes in humanities and social science articles. WP:HISTRS is one essay trying to address this. The kudos from review processes like FAC or MILHIST-A also help as these editorial communities have a strong bias towards high quality reliable sources as the basis for not only claims but structure organisation and weight. Leading by example is the only real option, and even then it doesn't help in areas of political religious or ethno/national contention. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. The picture is clear. I will make sure that precursor links are clearly established by cited resources, otherwise refrain from producing text. I will wait for learned tomes to be produced, but am not holding my breath. After 13 years not much tying the entire picture together, has emerged. Thanks again. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Finding an area to edit in where people have a genuine commitment to a high quality encyclopaedia based on high quality secondary consensuses helps. Don't let the turkeys get you down. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• No. We stick to what sources provide as background. In current events (particularly in high profile ones such as ARBPIA) the media at the time will usually provide context to half-interested world audiences which can be used for our own background. For events that are already 10+ years old - one should expect scholarship (book or journal articles) to have emerged which should generally replace the news-org sources used in the article back when it was in "current affairs mode" - and those sources should have a background section.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just follow the cites - say 'background' or 'setting' or 'cause' or whatever only if the external analysis says so. Trying to derive a cause seems a fraught question, because things are often too complicated for a simple causality, and because it can easily lead into 'blame' and POV positions. So I'll suggest that a historical sequence would want to usually portray a Background for context, but that articles should only convey what the sources say. It should not be trying to find 'causes', because while a Context or Background is always going to be available, trying to find 'causes' seems forcing a frame that the situations may just not be able to provide. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Use the sources that specifically mention subject. Otherwise, it's easy to get into OR/SYNTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're making it more difficult than it needs to be. I'm just echoing others, but we let reliable sources decide which past events are relevant. The end. If you want readers to have more background, that's what wikilinks are for. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• The source must make any 'connections', not the article. Unless a source cites specifically a connection between event A and B, wikipedia cannot.TP ✎ ✓ 04:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Unarchived and added {{Do not archive until}} tag. Discussion has been added by User:Cunard to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure on August 12, and the discussion has not yet been closed. To closer: Please remove this tag after closing the discussion.— Newslinger talk 18:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should reviews and databases be considered secondary or tertiary sources?

I've just realised that the current policy is not completely clear about review articles published in scientific/scholarly journals and about databases that summarise the data from research articles. From one hand, they are not dealing with primary sources, so they cannot be considered as secondary sources. From another hands, they are not encyclopedias, and they have some traits of research articles, although the subject of their research are other secondary sources. I am inclined to consider them tertiary sources, and to add that in the policy. What do you think?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Using the "tranformative" character of secondary sources, most reviews I've seen would be secondary, identify key papers, history, a logical presentation of work done, core conclusions, and speculation of where the topic is heading and future research. Part of a good review article will be more textbook like and thus somewhat tertiary, but it goes beyond teaching the topic and explains the state of the state of research on the topic, so would ultimately be secondary. Secondary does not require only pulling from primary sources, only that it makes a transformative step from the sources of does pull from. --Masem (t) 13:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I think, you "transformative" needs further explanation. When some scientist or a scholar writes a monograph that is based on several secondary sources, indeed, the conclusions this author makes or theory they develop are their own conclusions, so this source is definitely a secondary source as soon as we are discussing author's own contributions. However, what about the facts the author obtained from other secondary sources? Should the source that just cites or reproduces some fact taken from another secondary source be considered a secondary source for this fact? I strongly disagree with that.

I can explain why. I am frequently facing a situation when Wikipedia articles provide multiple independent secondary sources to support some statement, however, a careful analysis demonstrates that overwhelming majority of those sources just cite the fact A taken from a single secondary source. They do not do any research or analysis, they just cite the fact. This results in a weird situation when a network of cross-references creates an impression that the fact A has been independently established by several researchers.

Let me give you just one example. The Gas van article was citing many secondary sources, mostly the books published by reputable scholars, that described the facts of usage of gas vans by Soviet secret police during Great Purge. This story was described by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and several Western scholars and several Russian journalists. However, when I performed detailed analysis, I found that all these books and articles cited either the article published in one Russian tabloid, or another book that cited this tabloid (Few other sources contained no reference list, which added no credibility to them, but I am pretty sure they also used the same source, because the wording was pretty much the same). What do we have as a result? A story written by one journalist based on the document he (according to his own words) "happened to see in 1990" is presented as several independent facts discovered by one Nobel prize winner and several reputable Western scholars. And all of that is in accordance with WP:PSTS.

This story is not unique. I see many examples of that kind, and, to make Wikipedia more trustworthy, I think the policy should be changed by adding a reservation that the source that just cites some fact or figure found in another secondary source should be considered a tertiary source for this fact: if some secondary source X cites the fact A found in another secondary source Y and supplements it with some analysis, this source is a secondary source for the analysis, but a tertiary source for the fact A.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I can agree that there are different quality of reviews out there. One that simply summarizes work to date in a paper is likely tertiary. But one that goes into more analysis and broader discussion towards the state of the art on the topic is that not directly pulled from the summarized papers, that's secondary. Most reviews I have encountered fall into the latter, but I have seen those that would only tertiary. Hence just concerned of broadly classifying these. --Masem (t) 19:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction between what you and I say. The problem is that many secondary sources (which are good in many aspects) may reproduce some data or facts found in other secondary sources, and that may add a undue weight to some information. Consider the following case:

Authors A, B, C, D, E, and F discuss, for example, Battle of Borodino, and each of them provide their own estimate of the number of French and Russian troops (that is a real case, this table can be found there). Now imagine some author X decided to calculate the estimate of French and Russian troop number as a median value of figures obtained in A - C (for some reason, he left D and F beyond the scope). And the author Y writes a book about the same battle and takes the figures found in X. In connection to that, should the Wikipedia article cite A, B, C, D, E, F, X, Y as secondary sources? In my opinion, no. Only A-F are secondary source. X is a secondary source for the statement "the median value of troops number published in A-C was "aaa", according to X", but the figure "aaa" should not be treated in the same way as the figures presented by A-F. The source Y (which is a secondary source for the Battle of Borodino in general) is not a secondary source for the Battle of Borodino figures.

In my opinion, that is how it should work. However, according to the current policy, all sources A-F, X, Y, are considered equal, and all of them are secondary for figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I am reminded of "The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone" by Stephen Jay Gould. - Donald Albury 22:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Review articles have elements of both. Like tertiary sources they can be used to establish the weight for facts and opinions in a Wikipedia article. Like secondary sources, they are ideal for sourcing those facts and opinions. The problem with tertiary sources such as standard encyclopedias abd introductory level textbooks is that they may oversimply facts and they lack footnotes. If one disputes a fact in academic papers, one can follow the use the footnote to determine if a claim is accurate. This is especially useful for misattributed statements.

The problem in the article gas van is that it combines sources about Nazi gas vans with passing references to gas vans in some books about the Soviet Union. There is no sources about gas vans globally and of course no way to determine weight. Without that, combining the two topics is synthesis. A reliable source on the global topic might also tell us if other countries used them.

TFD (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The actual problem of the gas van article was that each source that took a single fact from the tabloid was considered as a secondary source, although it added no information or non-trivial analysis (beyond addition of totally fictitious details). Even worse, the sources that cited those sources were also considered secondary sources (equally trustworthy). Than is exactly how urban legends are formed.

In other words, the current formulation of the policy makes Wikipedia a potential soil for creation of urban legends. That is dangerous.

In connection to that, it is quite desirable to add a reservation that

• any source can be simultaneously primary, secondary and tertiary for different types of information it contains; it can be a reliable source for one type of information and unreliable for another;
• only those sources can be considered secondary, without any reservations, that perform analysis of primary sources; in all other cases, a burden of proof rests with those who adds the text.
• if more than one secondary source relies on the same primary source, they should not be used simultaneously as independent sources.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Both of the English language sources are secondary. They were written by experts in Russian history who relied on sources that would not be considered reliable. But experts are supposed to know whether the claims are credible. But this problem only arises since both no synthesis and weight have been violated. Failing that, you could have the text removed per "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". In this case we have "important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources." It is unlikely that every major scholar on Stalinist purges or the Holocaust would fail to mention that gas vans were pioneered by the Soviet Union if it were true or even plausible. TFD (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Cannot agree. That article was presenting the data in such a way that a reader got an impression that 8 (eight) independent sources described different examples of usage of these vans. However, each of them cite (directly or indirectly) only a single source, Komsomolskaya pravda, October 28, 1990.

Saying that it is covered in multiple sources is not correct when not one book or article about gas vans mentions it, nor does one single leading expert on Stalinist killings. Furthermore, Balancing aspects says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." In this case that means none. And WP:TERTIARY:Tertiary sources says, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." In this case, no tertiary sources have mentioned it. "But it's sourced!" is not a valid reason for inclusion. Of course policy-based arguments don't work with some editors, but that would be the same whatever those policies were. TFD (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I got an idea how this particular problem can be resolved: [1]. Removal of those sources is not the best option, because the more references are available to a reader the better. Instead of removal, I combined all references in a single footnote, added the original source all other sources cite (the tabloid article) and added an explanation that all sources used this article as a source. In my opinion, that should be a universal rule: if many sources cite a single primary/secondary source it is necessary to inform a reader about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting opinions on Dark wave and potential SYNTH concerns

TL;DR:

• Every time I add cleanup tags such as {{verification needed}} or {{cite-check}} to this article's German book citations, it has resulted in an edit war.
• I don't speak German so I can't properly verify the sources myself.
• The only other editor who owns these books, has knowledge of the subject, and is fluent in English and German refuses my requests for direct quotes from the challenged sources (WP:OWNERSHIP?).
• On the few occasions direct quotes were supplied, it seems like Google Translate tells a different story.

Please consider voting on this RfC. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a little bit of German and I went through a goth stage in my youth. I'll take a look. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Legal Requirements

It would seem that at least for the English version of Wikipedia, that this policy must be read to allow the use of primary sources where the subject matter requires it in order to comply with the editor's legal obligations, such as that not to practice law. Notably, the use of secondary sources (i.e. sources other than a court's own quotes from an opinion) would constitute the practice of law in several states in the United States. I would propose an exception to the rule for this, as such reading is mandated by the several state bars, to include the Texas Bar. USN007 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. I have warned the editor about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. Edits to articles on the basis of this nonsense may trigger me to seek higher level dispute resolution. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The use of secondary sources in an encyclopedia does not generally constitute the practice of law. Famspear (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

If this were true, no one could write on the law on or off Wikipedia, because they would all be "practicing law", which as noted by others is just nonsense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Indeed, if the mere use of secondary sources constituted the "practice of law," that would also mean that oral statements about secondary sources of law would also constitute the practice of law. And, if the use of secondary sources in a document constituted the "practice of law", then the publication of thousands upon thousands of law review articles would constitute the practice of law (whether authored by a lawyer or not).

By the way, the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit the use of primary sources (although some editors seem to labor under the mistaken belief that they do). In Wikipedia, an article should usually be based mainly on secondary and tertiary sources -- but there is no general flat ban on the use of primary sources altogether. Famspear (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer myself (but have worked with law professors on behavioural law studies) and what constitutes practice of law is less straightforward than I thought at first.

As far as I understand them, view publishing of a scientific paper on a legal topic in a specialised and bar-association recognised law journal may be considered providing an argument that can be used in court and hence me contribute to jurisprudence (which may or may not be practicing law, I really have no idea).

The condition that the publication should be in a bar-association recognised law journal is important though. I somehow seriously doubt that Wikipedia is explicitly recognised as a specialised law journal by any bar-association and thus I would assume that whatever we write here is probably not practice of law. (And if a bar-association would recognise Wikipedia as such, it would in my view be up to them to fit Wikipedia into their system rather than asking Wikipedia to change). So indeed, I see little value of the suggestions above. Arnoutf (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This is correct, and is responsible for the cultural meme of the "Well, I'm not a lawyer, but.." statements people often make before dispensing their best guess at good legal advice, and the "This statement does not constitute legal advice." disclaimers that appear on more professional publications when they discuss legal matters. There is no firm definition of "legal advice" and I've actually gotten scolded by a judge for explaining how a lawsuit I'd previously been involved in went down to an associate who was currently involved in a similar case without making it clear that I wasn't offering legal advice. I was explicitly told that, absent such a disclaimer, my lack of bar recognition could expose me to civil action or even criminal prosecution. It is a mistake I will not make again.

That being said, the descriptive nature of WP means that policy-guided content creation could never be viewed as legal advice, and thus normal editing here could never be construed as practicing law. Since the OP's arguments rest upon the premise that editing here constitutes the practice of law, I would have to disagree with their conclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. Quoting from secondary sources is not practising law. FOARP (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Usage of maps

As per Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_41#Using_maps_to_determine_the_actual_location_of_a_place I wonder if it's a good idea to clarify too that using maps to piece info together (say the actual location of a place) would not necessarily be SYNTH (so long as the maps are understood by the users). For example, many places in the U.S. have a postal address giving one city name, but it's in another city and/or in an unincorporated area. Also such a clause would be useful for school district boundary info. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This page should make it explicit that OR can be grounds for page deletion

I've seen it said a number of times in AfD that OR was not a reason for deleting a page, merely for improving it with reliable sources. However, there are some occasions in which the entire premise of a page is OR - the one that comes to mind are lists where the inclusion criteria are created by the editors themselves without reference to an external source. Surely, where that is the case, OR can lead to deletion where no reliable source supporting the inclusions criteria (or any inclusion criteria corresponding to anything like the title) can be found? Otherwise the page can never be deleted, and never be fixed either. FOARP (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If it is editors' OR, then the topic lacks notability, which is the major reason for deletion of articles. TFD (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Already allowed per Wikipedia:BLANK: " If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion." If from flawed, OR premises only flawed, non-useful content is produced, it can be deleted for that reason. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a dumb policy

You don’t need to answer me, I know it’s not going to change, but I feel I must add my 2¢. From my perspective this prohibition does more harm than good. For example, I am prevented from citing change.org to show how many petitions a cause has received because that would constitute original research. There was another case in which an author could not say what was in his own book, somebody else had to say it. That’s stupid as well as time-consuming, and makes Wikipedia poorer instead of better. I know there are tons of cases in which original research would be a self-serving disaster. I don’t need examples. But “reliable” published sources are not a panacea, and what constitutes “reliable” is a value judgment. Many still believe (all Haredi Jews and Seventh-day Adventists, among others) that the Bible is a reliable historical source. And how many times have reliable sources been wrong? Many scientific discoveries, recoveries from “fatal” illnesses, and even athletic records, were described as impossible in prior reliable sources. Well, I wanted to say this. deisenbe (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Clearly you wasted your time typing this, but I'll disabuse you of your misguided ideas. Any editor who thinks they need to cite change.org is clearly invested in a narrative, in violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a fun website for you to write what you want people to see. This is an encyclopedia written by dilettantes. None of us are empowered to analyze sources and perform research the way a journalist or academic would. I recommend you try writing for a magazine willing to publish your ideas. Our job on Wikipedia is to collate what reliable sources say. Are the sources sometimes wrong? Yes. Should we allow editors to perform research? Absolutely not. Wikipedia has essentially no content evaluation system and allowing editors to perform research would create the requirement for the aggregate to judge and analyze to ensure accuracy and reliability. Wikipedia is not poorer for eliminating the nonsense for which you advocate. I'm disappointed that an editor with your longevity hasn't already learned what I'm explaining. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on Wikipedia:Interviews

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay:

1. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
2. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
3. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
4. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
5. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#RfC: Explanatory supplement and links from policies and guidelines. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 18:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This request for comment has been withdrawn. Thank you for your feedback. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018

HOSIE DINKINS (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done since no actionable request was made. zchrykng (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

When does a news article become a secondary source

I'd appreciate input on whether articles in the Boston Globe (and similar publications) should be considered ipso facto secondary sources.

Please note that I am not disputing the close or the move in which this issue arose. There were two support !votes and no opposes, so it's a good consensus close, and the move (while premature IMO) does no damage whatsoever in terms of reader experience.

But what concerns me is the claim that the article (and a few others but this was the focus of the discussion) is a quintessential secondary source. [2] [3] The article in question [4] is IMO borderline, but that is not the problem I see here. What concerns me is the assumption that, just because an article appears in a respected newspaper, that makes the article itself a secondary source. It’s ridiculous that you don’t accept the Boston Herald, The Boston Globe, WCVB and US News to be reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. They are the epitome of such. If you’re dismissing them, I’m speechless. A reliable source publishing an article based on a primary source like a press release is the quintessential secondary source. (diff given above)

As I said, the Globe article is IMO borderline, so perhaps it would be clearer looking at https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/simmons-university-2208 which was another source cited in the discussion as a quintessential secondary source, on the same basis. But I don't think there's any doubt that this is a primary source, and if I'm wrong in this then again comments appreciated.

My position is, the policy requires us to look at the articles individually, rather than just assess the place in which they are published. Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say that a newspaper article becomes a secondary source when it includes an analysis or summary of primary source material. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the policy as I understand it too. But the problem is, we often don't have access to the primary source material, so how do we tell?

And in the case of the US News article [5] it reads so much like an advert that I can't see how anyone can say that the copy came from a source one step removed from the topic. But they did, and rather emphatically. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The annual US News school rankings would be, to me, a tertiary source. While the work has some subjection determinations on ranking, the information it provides about each school borders on primary (non-transformative), but because its part of the larger ranking system, better to consider it a tertiary source. --Masem (t) 21:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The particular page cited is not actually the rankings, but an overview page describing the institution. It reads in part Outside the classroom, students can join more than 50 clubs or play for the Simmons Sharks varsity sports teams, which mainly compete in the NCAA Division III Great Northeast Athletic Conference. Students can also make friends by visiting the 15 colleges that are within walking distance of the Simmons campus, including Northeastern University, Emmanuel College and the Massachusetts College of Art and Design. Boston can also be an exciting escape from studies, with professional sports, museums and music festivals nearby for students to enjoy. That seems to me to be a primary source. But yes, if we consider the whole website, or even the pages related to this one, there's possibly tertiary source material there. Interesting observation.

But even if we do consider this page a tertiary source, it still wouldn't be terribly relevant to an RM, as I read the policy. Perhaps it should be? Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That blurb reads as brochure filler for the school, certainly. The blurb certainly does not talk to why it is on the list as by the editors at US News (especially when I can find close enough matches elsewhere). Random spotchecks suggest all of the blurbs are provided by the school to US News. So for a specific page, should be treated as a primary source. --Masem (t) 01:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for the detailed research. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"Secondary" is structural and unrelated to how established or respected the source is. The person you quoted more or less conflated 3 attributes in one sentence....secondary, wp:reliable and reliability. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Well put.

And so far we seem agreed that however well respected a source may be, it may still contain articles that fail wp:primary. Thank you!

But specifically, I've said I think the Us News article [6] is clearly primary, and the Boston Globe article [7] borderline in that we can't really tell. I thought of asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it's not an RS issue at all IMO, despite vigorous attempts to make it one. Andrewa (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to be aware of the context in which this issue was raised and the quote above was made, by yours truly. This was not an issue of using sources for article content. It was about looking at usage in sources to determine the most common name for a title decision. Some years ago the guideline was modified to refer to using reliable sources for determining the most common name. The idea is that we shouldn't be going with usage on blogs, Twitter and Facebook (or MySpace back then). So we look at usage in "secondary sources". For common-name-determining purposes even brochure-like language in respected publications qualifies, I think, as legitimate source to consider in how something is named. --В²C ☎ 22:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Provide "Copy and Paste" Hotlink Text of This (and Other) Wikipedia Policies

This and other Wikipedia Articles would be improved if it provided the New Editor with a copyable/pastable text that can be copied and pasted directly from here to elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a New Editor, I have read and get a general "feel" for "OR" (and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines), but when I want to reference it in Discussions, the big hurdle is taking the hot-link in the upper right corner and putting it into a Discussion. I've been doing this for a couple of weeks or so, and still haven't decoded the HTML/mark-up formula behind the hotlinks. I know it involves hard double brackets "[[", and the "WP:" preface, but putting them together so that the pasted text actually "hits" (or connects) to a Wikipedia "policy" Article (like this one) is the hurdle. Note I'm not asking "me specific" help learning this; I'm stating that making this text available to New Editors would improve the quality of this, and other Articles, by accelerating the learning curve of New Editors.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Help:Link may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Islamophobia bar chart feedback requested

Your feedback regarding a possible SYNTH issue in a bar chart in the article Islamophobia is requested; please see Talk:Islamophobia#Bar chart. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"Instrumentalism" as original research.

Has the author violated NOR protocol?

In 2014, I replaced the article “Instrumentalism” claiming that it ignored significant events determining the modern meaning of the school. Starting in October 2018, my article was replaced, essentially, by the article I had replaced. I was charged with violating WP protocols in this (and other) articles, including NOR. I welcome the opportunity to show why these charges are mistaken. All the elements of my case appear in the “Instrumentalism” lede, which now replaces my article, restoring the status quo ante 2014.

The present lede defines instrumentalism as an “interpretation” or “theory” that “scientific theory is merely a tool” of prediction that says nothing about unobservable reality. It claims this proposition was introduced by Duhem in 1906, and is the prevailing theory-of-theory in physics today. It then states that instrumentalism is a form of anti-realism—the “demise” of which is claimed in the historical discussion that follows. Thus INSTRUMENTALISM IS BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD—a paradox stated as a fact. This characterization of instrumentalism in the original and present article is inaccurate, which explains my decision to replace. See details at “Instrumentalism” talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBR-qed (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

SYNTH

I think SYNTH is only bad if it's particularly dubious. Sometimes, there isn't a source that says exactly everything that'd be good to say, but it is nevertheless otherwise well documented. Benjamin (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: are you clear what SYNTH is? There's no problem with merely combining information from many sources; that's the essence of a tertiary publication like an encyclopedia. So whatever is well documented can be paraphrased here. SYNTH means combining sources to reach conclusions not stated in any of those sources, which is a different matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not clear what it is, but I think reaching conclusions should be okay unless particularly dubious. Benjamin (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

But one editor's "particularly dubious conclusion" is another's "perfectly obvious conclusion", which is why such subjective judgements can't be allowed. The only cases that are acceptable are those that involve no editorial judgement, like simple and obvious calculations (e.g. calculating a percentage from published data). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement is okay; that's why we have consensus. Benjamin (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

And consensus is that we don’t allow SYNTH. Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus can change. The fact that consensus is currently in favor of a policy isn't actually an argument, in itself, for that policy. Benjamin (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion is to change policy. I can think of two good reasons not too. First, most readers are interested in conclusions that appear in reliable sources, not our conclusions and want to know the degree of acceptance of them. Secondly, there would be no way to resolve disputes between editors. Encyclopedias that allow synthesis, such as Conservapedia, resolve that problem by recruiting editors that represent a narrow range of opinions and having a chief editor who rules on disputes. TFD (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

How can you be so sure readers wouldn't be interested? Disputes can be resolved by consensus, and by evaluating the merit of arguments. I don't see why that's such an impossible task. As it currently is, the wiki functions just fine, even though not everybody always agrees. Benjamin (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No, readers of wikipedia are supposed to be interested in reliable conclusions. Part of the function of Wikipedia is educate people to look for reliable information and not trust what they read in random sites, and teach how to verify information (by tracing supplied references). If they are interested in conclusion of random guys off Zimbabwe or Apopka Hills, there are plenty of discussion sites all over the internets on all possible subjects. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

evaluating the merit of arguments - yes we do evaluate merits of arguments in disputes, but arguments should come from reliable sources, not off our heads. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No, not just any old random ideas, but conclusions based on the sources. Benjamin (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about random guys (and everything coming from their keyboards, not just ideas). It seems it takes you too hard to understand that this part of the policy will not be changed. Period. Of course, we also have a rule WP:COMMON, applicable in specific cases, because sometimes it is hard to draw a line between summarizing and drawing original conclusions. That said, please tell us what specific disagreement you have in mind? Did you discuss it in article talk page? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? Of course policy can change. Consensus can change. Specifically, I run into this problem when dealing with common misconceptions. Often, the underlying facts of the matter are well documented, and the fact that it is a misconception if readily apparently, but not stated outright. Benjamin (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course this clause can change.... with a chance of a snowball in hell. In order to change the policy, please make a specific proposal and call RFC. Wikipedia talk pages are not soapboxen to chat at will. I asked you two very specific questions. Did you see the question marks? For the second time you cannot read what I write. Don't bother to answer me further. May be somebody else chimes in. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's not very nice. Am I doing something wrong here? Am I not allowed to discuss policy? To be clear, I'm not suggesting any major change, just that the parameters be adjusted slightly in favor of drawing such conclusions. Benjamin (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Where the hell did I tell you not to discuss it? I even suggested how to do it properly. I even suggested someone more patient may chime in. You really have problem with reading comprehension, colleague. Strike three for me, bye. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to upset you... Benjamin (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"most readers are interested in..." I've long wondered about this. What is the goal of Wikipedia? Is it for the benefit of readers? Should it include what a reader would want? What they would find interesting or useful? Surely, many deleted pages would be found to be more interesting to readers than many obscure pages that are clearly notable. Benjamin (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to write an free encyclopedia based on reliable sources. I daresay there are pages that have been deleted from Wikipedia that some readers would find interesting, but "interesting" articles do not necessarily equate to articles about notable subjects based on reliable sources. There are plenty of other venues on the Internet hosting articles that do not cite reliable sources. - Donald Albury 16:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Allowing synth would be a basic change in the nature of Wikipedia. But this is pointless, it isn't going to happen. Please drop it. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

no one here thinks for themselves we have experts or consensus!

Nice of you to be so clear its a big role playing game to you. Sometimes people don't see it as necessary to spell out obvious shit and falling on the consensus of editors is a really shit way to get science right, ask Planck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.168.165 (talk • contribs) 13:06, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

We are not scientists. We dont do science. We report science. When scientists get their story straight, we report mainstream scientific consensus as reported in reliable sources. The consensus of editors has no direct correspondence to scientific consensus. Wikipedians seek consensus on whether they properly summarize what is reported in peer-reviewed secondary sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we do allow original research. In order to get your original research included in this project, all you have to do is get it published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal with a big enough impact factor and have it then get reported on by secondary sources who will then do any analysis we need. So go on; get to researching. You've got a lot of work ahead of you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, in the context of Wikipedia "We" means "We as Wikipedians". Of course we all have real life. A good nitpicking catch, though. In the future I will never use "unqualified 'We' ". I guess to be a good Wikipedian one has to have mutiple personality disorder, to cleanly separate "real life" and "wikilife" :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually (and you should picture the comic book store guy from The Simpsons saying that word because I'm really only saying this to be funny, not pedantic), I'd bet good money that some of the citations at Reliability of Wikipedia were based on research done by logged-in Wikipedians. :) Okay, I'm done being a pain in the ass, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually you nailed a real problem. wikipedians doing research of wikipedia, no matter who summarised it later, is in a grave WP:COI akin to tobacco companies sponsoring medical research (which wikipedia article discuss this? Please add a link) So I am wondering, do these researchers of Wikipedia declare the degree of affiliation with Wikipedia? As for reliability of wikipedia, do we have reliability ranking of language Wikipedias? By the way, I have a strong suspicion that the article Reliability of Wikipedia should in fact be Reliability of English Wikipedia. Because reliabilities of e.g., Ukrainian Wikipedia and Croatian Wikipedia are below the ground level, and the article 'RoW' does not seem to cover this. And if Ukrainian Wikipedians do research on Ukrainian Wikipedia, then we will reliably learn that Trawniki men were selflessly struggling with Stalin and OUN/UPA massacring Poles are national heroes. And of course they are. In modern Ukraine. We know that reliably, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree that that is a problem. My first draft of my last comment here ended with "And they should be ashamed of themselves," and in retrospect, I now regret erasing that before posting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What if there are no sources but I know something to be true?

Can I still make the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerouac's socks (talk • contribs) 10:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Kerouac's socks - No. Per Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, all articles and content added to Wikipedia must be either attributable to a secondary reliable source that is independent of the subject, or directly attributed (cited) to a reliable source (as explained above). Creating an article or adding content that does not have any sources at all and that's based only on information within your knowledge is pretty-much exactly what original research is defined as, and is not allowed on Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Kerouac's socks, how do you know it to be true, then? Benjamin (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This sounds fairly ridiculous. Can you provide an example of this? Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

From a pure notability standpoint, we generally define notability to be subjects that are well-covered in third-party reliable sources. Original research aside, that hurdle would have to be overcome as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting and informative answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerouac's socks (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Quotation overuse? Original Research? Please give your advice!

Hello everyone, I would like to hear your improvement suggestions and opinions about my law quotations in foreign languages (!) in my article User:C-Kobold/EU_parliament_national_election_systems. Is it WP:QUOTEFARM? Is it WP:NOR? Please also consider why I made these long quotations from foreign laws and did not just quote (scientific) research papers or newspaper articles:

• to make the statements in the table easily verifiable with e.g. Google Translate and
• to make the statements in the table easily updateable: if the laws change, the content behind the links changes as well and the table can get updated easily. Scientific research papers or newspaper articles do not get updated however when laws change, so references to them are useless in the near future C-Kobold (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't obiter dictum a secondary source?

A Virginia Law Review article points out that in law, obiter dicta is a secondary source: “But there is a large and constantly increasing mass of so-called authority, avouched as evidence of the unwritten law, which we may designate as secondary authority. This class includes all extra-judicial efforts at legal exposition-such as text-books, encyclopedias, editorial annotations, obiter dicta of the courts, digests, etc.”

Examples of Obiter dictum are dissents. The majority opinion of a court is clearly a primary source for the legal effect that it has. But dissents or concurrences have no legal effect, so how are those any different from a law review article? Swood100 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Swood100: You seem confused. This is not a court. obiter dictum are primary sources; an academic article is a secondary source if it performs secondary source analysis. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I read your comment as far as "This is not a court". What is not a court? I can't comprehend your comment. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: A majority opinion is a primary source as to the law that it creates. But a dissenting opinion is not creating any law. It is arguing and complaining that the law shouldn’t have been created in that way. It doesn’t have any more authority than a law review article. What is a dissenting opinion a primary source as to? Itself? Then why wouldn't the same dissent placed in a law review article be a primary source as to itself? Swood100 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Swood100 (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

One could argue that a dissenting opinion is in effect a vote against the opinion that prevailed, so it's a primary source in the same sense that a "no" ballot is a primary source even though "yes" carried the day. But everyone agrees that Obiter dictum does not affect the outcome of the case that the judge has authority to decide (either by herself, or as part of a panel) so there is a much better argument that Obiter dictum is secondary. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Swood100 is conflating legal authorities and Wikipedia's sourcing. This isn't a court and we don't care if obiter dicta are "secondary authorities". Documents generated in legal processes are primary sources to the contemporary times and events. Academic articles in law journals might be secondary sources if they analyze past events beyond just another assertion of opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, I suggest you are conflating primary sources with self-published sources. A court decision is self-published because it is published by order of the people who wrote the opinion. A court decision is primary with respect to the decision because, by law (or strong custom in the case of stare decisis) it imposes consequences on the parties, and other similarly situated entities. This makes the court an actor in the situation, and writings of actors are always primary sources.

But when the court engages in secondary analysis and makes comments that do not influence the case, that would make it a secondary source for those comments. If the events being commented upon are recent, one could argue the comments are nonetheless primary because they are close in time to the events, but if the events are long past, the comments are secondary. The fact that they are self-published does not make them primary. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It was written by a key participant at the time of the event--that is the usual definition of primary source. The comments DO influence the judges and lawyers who read them. Rjensen (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If a 21st century judge comments on an 19th century as dicta, she isn't a participant in the 19th century events or decision. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

She is commenting on the law as it is currently interpreted in 2019. She would use a law journal to make a historical analysis. Rjensen (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to settle for the source you can find, rather that the source you wish someone wrote (especially if you aren't a student or professor at some big university that subscribes to every journal on the planet). It's a secondary source, and this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just mega-university faculty and students. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rjensen: But what is the “event”? Isn’t it the legal effect that the majority opinion has? Does a dissenting opinion participate in the majority opinion or in the creation of legal precedent in that case? No, it opposes creation of that legal precedent. Yes, dissents influence people but no more than a law review article written by the same person would. What is a statement without legal effect a primary source as to? (It would be a primary source as to its own reasoning, using the book review model. See below.) Swood100 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's start with the Wiki rule: WP:PRIMARY Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. I think all parts of a court decision fit here. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Suppose a dissent says “The majority opinion had legal effect X.” This statement is not at all considered, by subsequent courts, to necessarily be a reliable interpretation of the majority opinion. Dissents often are thought to misstate the legal effect of the majority opinion. A dissent has no precedential value and is no part of the primary source, which is a statement of legal precedent. On the other hand suppose a majority opinion interprets its own previous majority opinion, saying “It had legal effect X.” This statement has precedential value and is a primary source as to the legal effect of the previous opinion.

My question is this: if a dissent says that the majority opinion said X, what is the dissent a primary source as to? Certainly not that the majority opinion said X, and certainly not that X is the law. What is it a primary source as to, why would the identical opinion in a law review article not be a primary source, and what is the practical reason for the different treatment? Swood100 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Different fields have different meanings for "secondary source". You can start reading about it at Secondary source, including Secondary source#Law. Wikipedia belongs to the field of historiography, and in historiography the meaning of "secondary source" is not the same as in science, journalism, or law. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure I follow the distinction you’re making between secondary sources in historiography vs. secondary sources in science, journalism or law.

One useful definition at Secondary source#Science, technology, and medicine was this:

A book review that contains the judgment of the reviewer about the book is a primary source for the reviewer's opinion, and a secondary source for the contents of the book. A summary of the book within a review is a secondary source.

Following this model, the dissenting opinion would be a secondary source as to the dissenting judge’s explanation or summary of the majority opinion and a primary source as to the dissent’s criticism of the majority opinion. Under this approach if the dissent said "The majority opinion said X" that would be a secondary source as to the holding of the majority opinion. However, if the dissent said "The majority opinion is flawed because of Y" that would be a primary source as to the reasoning of the dissent. Sound reasonable? Swood100 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess the bottom line, then, would be that (a) differentiating traditional obiter dictum in a majority, dissenting or concurring opinion (i.e. statements not necessary to the conclusion made in the opinion) would require a secondary source, (b) statements in concurrences and dissents as to the contents of and actual legal effect of the majority opinion or of another court opinion or of a statute or of an executive order would be secondary sources interpreting those other writings (similar to a law review article), and (c) statements in concurrences and dissents evaluating the majority or any other opinion (i.e. saying that it is right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional) would be primary sources as to that evaluation. Thoughts? Swood100 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Swood100 (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You are mixing different meanings from different fields. Doing so, it is easy to create an illusion of contradiction. The answer to your posts is mu. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Mu is not very helpful. Swood100 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

To the extent that court opinions, including majority and dissenting views, individual opinions and dicta report facts or describe what other judges have said, they could be seen as secondary sources. For example in the case D.C. v. Heller 2008, the judges outlined the history of gun control in the U.S. However, there is very little reason to use these sources instead of legal textbooks. The actual opinions expressed in opinions are primary sources for the opinions of their writers. TFD (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Referring to a dissenting opinion as a secondary source for the information in the majority opinion is to mix terms up and will confuse both you and anyone who listens to you. :: SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that because a summary of the majority holding in a dissent must be considered unreliable? Swood100 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't conflate primary with unreliable. A summary of the majority holding by a dissent is a primary source (in the Wikipedia sense) because the judge who wrote the dissent had an active role in deciding the case, that is, was close to the events. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: How does the element of creating precedent or having a legal effect impact whether or not a court opinion is a primary or a secondary source for purposes of citation within Wikipedia? For example, an opinion can describe what other judges have said for the purpose of clarifying and solidifying the precedent that was established in that other opinion. Secondary source as to what the other judge said? Also, does it require a secondary source to distinguish dicta? Swood100 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Typically opinions will summarize the facts, summarize the law, including its history, then provide an analysis and decision. In D.C. v. Heller, Scalia observed, "Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights....Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues.” That's a secondary source for what states adopted constitutional protections for the right to keep and bear arms. The individual state constitutions are primary sources for what rights they protected. The interpretation of the law based on this information is a primary source for the judge's opinion. In practice however, it would make more sense to use a legal textbook for the history of constitutionally protected rights. TFD (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Seems clear to me that the quote that started this off's use of "secondary authority" is not at all the same as our use of "secondary". What they meant by "secondary authority" is, it is not the most authoritative, which makes sense, obiter dicta is not seen as controlling, but people still use it to persuade. What we mean by "secondary" is generally that a qualified commenting source has used "primary" sources it did not create to come to an understanding of a topic, and it is more authoritative on their meaning. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the legal view of primary authority as being synonymous with controlling precedent is not the same as the rules that govern whether a source is seen as primary or secondary for purposes of citation Wikipedia, and that the quote that started this all off was misleading to the extent that it conflated the two. However, are we saying that whether or not a court’s opinion constitutes precedent is utterly irrelevant to whether or not the opinion is deemed to be a primary or secondary source for purposes of citation within Wikipedia? Doesn’t a majority opinion that interprets and summarizes another primary source (say a statute) fit your definition of a secondary source? What is it that makes it a primary source in Wikipedia, where the same text by the same author in a law review article would not be? Swood100 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Q. ”Doesn’t a majority opinion that interprets and summarizes another primary source (say a statute) fit your definition of a secondary source?”

A. Short answer, it does. Interprets and summarizes means the content includes creative content, more than mere repetition, transformative change to the informations. Longer answer: It is not a good secondary source for many useful purposes. It is very close in both time and space. It is not independent, these people are too close. Source typing depends on how the source is to be used. How do you see these sources being used? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker and SmokeyJoe that obiter dicta, even when sometimes described as a "secondary" authority in the context of law, are not "secondary sources" in the Wikipedian sense of that phrase any more than majority opinions/rulings are. But whether a court opinion (be it a majority opinion or a dissenting opinion, obiter dictum, etc) is a primary or secondary source may depend on what it's being used as a source for. For most things that it could conceivably be used as a source for (e.g., how many states adopted Second Amendment analogues in the period before the federal Second Amendment, to use the example another user brought up), other sources would be preferable, although I concede that sometimes, as Jc3s5h mentioned, one uses what one needs must. -sche (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is a summary within a book review a primary or a secondary source?

It says in Secondary source#Science, technology, and medicine that a summary of a book within a book review is a secondary source:

A book review that contains the judgment of the reviewer about the book is a primary source for the reviewer's opinion, and a secondary source for the contents of the book. A summary of the book within a review is a secondary source.

However it says in WP:USINGPRIMARY that a summary of a book within a book review is a primary source:

Book reviews are generally secondary sources if they provide information beyond a basic description of the book's contents. Book reviews are often a mix of primary and secondary material: e.g., an analysis of some aspect of the book (secondary) plus the reviewer's rating or opinion about the book (primary). Simple plot summaries, synopses, other basic descriptions of a work's contents are generally primary sources.

Any ideas about how these can be reconciled? Swood100 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:USINGPRIMARY is wrong and should be corrected. Note it is not a policy or guideline page. TFD (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not quite wrong, the language is nuanced, and this is getting into the most extreme cases of qualifying as commentary versus the naked facts. It is like a person talking about himself qualitatively, referring separately to facts about himself and comments about those facts. As a secondary source, it is contrived, and that source typifying distinction is very small compared to the glaring non-independent and questionable reliability of the commentary. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that the first definition's "A summary of the book within a review is a secondary source." is wrong, presuming that the summary is strictly a summary and does not try to include commentary; that summary would be primary. Commentary about the book's contents is secondary. A comparison exactly is that a non-interpretive plot summary of a film or television episode is a primary source as no transformation outside of summation has been made to the work. --Masem (t) 21:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I always treat book reviews as secondary sources. When authors summarize their own work (as in an abstract) that's primary. But a reviewer has to select some points and not include other points that is original decision-making regarding what the reviewer sees as the main points of the book. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A book summary is probably best considered always a primary source, and a recent book review a secondary source, in the historiography information progenity sense. A single document can be composed of elements that can be source typed differently. A very close secondary source, like an obituary middle paragraph, written by the son just after his father's death, is an extreme case. It may be treated as a secondary source about the father in the afternoon newspapers, but in a year's time, no, it is a primary source. Excessive focus on "secondary source" is excessive. A good source, for comment, is an "independent reliable secondary source". Swood100 appears to be asking secondary-source questions about sources whose worst failing is non-independence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In the creation of a summary that provides no interpretation, the selection of which plot points to leave in or out does not make the summary secondary (otherwise, nearly every summary on Wikipedia of a work suddenly will become original research due to our demand for concise plot summary, as a starting point). That said, in the selection of the main points, it should be fairly obvious to anyone that has read it. A summary that claims that "A Christmas Carol" was a story focusing on Tiny Tim would be highly questionable and I would expect that such a summary would have additional discussion that is secondary in nature why they think that way. --Masem (t) 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The first quote above says that the judgment of the reviewer about the book is a primary source for the reviewer's opinion. Is that same opinion also a secondary source as to the book? Swood100 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

If Wikipedians can't be trusted to determine the truth or falsehood of each others' original research then why be trusted to determine the reliability of media outlets? If truth isn't the main metric of determining the reliability of these media outlets then what is? Approval or disapproval of said outlets from other "reliable sources"? If so, then how does this not just encourage widespread corruption? Aube123 (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure where you get the idea that our ban on original research relates to the truth or falsehood of the material in question. That’s not the issue. The reason we don’t allow OR is that an encyclopedia is the wrong venue in which to publish original research, ideas, conclusions, etc. - we actually don’t care whether OR is true or not because we avoid the issue by banning all OR (or to put it another way: because we care about the originality of the material, we don’t have to worry about its truth or falsehood). An encyclopedia is a tertiary source... a summarization of what has already been published elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Then you're choosing convention over the principle that the convention is meant to protect: reliability, AKA tendency to be true. Is an encyclopedia not a collection of facts? Aube123 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of citing sources is to point readers to reliable authorities for confirmation of anything they find on Wikipedia. We never point to ourselves as reliable authorities, and it is not our goal to collect literally all true facts. It is inevitable that a bit of original research will happen on talk pages as we attempt to decide who the reliable authorities are on any subject, but we agree from the outset that we are not it (this is found in the second of the five pillars, our most important rules). The beauty of citing sources, though, is that we never have to ask readers to trust us, a bunch of pseudonymous internet accounts. The information and sources are there, and readers can decide for themselves if our sources are trustworthy, and whether we have accurately cited them. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

If you're not really asking for people's trust in who you trust as sources because people can decide for themselves who's trustworthy, then you also wouldn't be asking people to trust your original research, since it would necessarily need to be supported by explicit reference to evidence that people can research for themselves, and if they come to a more truthful conclusion, make edits. The big difference is the undue power given to organizations. If an individual believes that they can prove something written here to be false, they cannot simply argue why its false in order to change it, they must start an organization and hope to be voted in by Wikipedia as a reliable source. Then, both the truth and lies of that organization becomes one label: "reliably sourced". Far more trust is required in this way of doing things. Aube123 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

is the undue power given to organizations -- This statement is nonspecific therefore impossible to discuss. Given by whom? in what context? Which organizations? I strongly suspect that at least in context of wikipedia you are mistaken, but, as I said, I have no idea what you mean. In any case, for the purpose of Wikipedia, "If an individual believes that they can prove something written here to be false" the individual in the first place must find reliable sources which say something to this end and then discuss with fellow wikipedians that the new found source is just as trustworthy as the one the contested fact was based upon. We do know that knowledge changes and even reliable sources may be mistaken or underinformed. Finally there may simply be no consensus on the issue, an if so established, Wikipedia duly reports both opinions (with caveats). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Individual editors who can prove something on Wikipedia to be false with original research cannot make an edit that would replace the provable falsity with the provable truth, Wikipedia instead is dependent on what you could call the original research of secondary sources, typically organizations. There's nothing special about many of these organizations that gives them inherent merit to be the monopolies on original research, Wikipedia grants them this power when they are determined by the community to have an acceptable tendency to tell the truth, hence the contradiction: nothing and no one commands Wikipedia editors over which sources are reliable and which aren't, they trust themselves to reach that conclusion. To do so, they must conduct original research into the tendency of sources to tell truths or lies, indicating that editors can distinguish between the two. At the same time, editors are not trusted to distinguish between the truth and lies of the content of articles which necessarily stems from sources which had to have been evaluated based on their truths and lies. Aube123 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion about the precise meaning of the No Original Research rule, including the very concept of "research". The wrong meaning, which in my opinion is largely the fault of the appalling slogan "verifiability, not truth" that is now thankfully gone, is that Wikipedia doesn't care about its own reliability. On the contrary, we care very much, but we control the means by which reliability is achieved. If we allowed editors to put their own theories into articles, the result would not be reliability but chaos. So, if you have a proof that black holes are impossible, or if you conduct your own interviews with participants in a current event, you need to get the material published in a reliable source (such as a physics journal or a newspaper, respectively) before we can use it. On the other hand, if you find a high quality published source that contradicts the weaker source used in an article, you are most welcome to replace the weak source with the strong source. That's the sort of "research" we strongly encourage: searching for the best available sources. The best editors spend more time looking for good sources than they spend editing articles. There is some truth to the claim that this just moves to the problem to a different place: how do we determine which sources are reliable? But in practice the grey areas are shrunk substantially. Our experience is that the NOR rule greatly enhances encyclopedia reliability, contrary to initial impressions. Zero^talk 09:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that Wikipedia actually is interested in the pursuit and preservation of truth. I agree that to achieve this, certain subjects are far too complicated for any statements within the domain of that subject to be considered fact unless they come from experts. However this doesn't extend to every single statement about every single subject because many things are simple enough to be easily proven or falsified without complete dependence on statements from secondary sources, or lack thereof. So, which subjects are so unknowable that expert consensus should be treated essentially as doctrine and not up for debate except from other secondary sources treated with equal or greater reliability? Where do you draw the line? The line has already been naturally drawn in the way that editors conduct original research when determining the reliability of secondary sources. Editors do their own fact checking to prove sources as reliable or unreliable on matters simple enough for other editors to in turn conduct their own fact checking on the same matter and based on this agree or disagree, where they then vote, based on this original research, on the reliability of the source. On the other hand, if there has ever been a time when an editor has attempted to use his own theories on the existence of black holes to prove the unreliability of a trusted astrophysics organization, it wouldn't be necessary for other editors, who also are not astrophysics experts, to prove his theory incorrect since knowledge of that particular subject is so reliant on expertise that his non-expert challenge to the reliability of experts on their own expert knowledge can be readily dismissed, regardless if it might be true. He can take his theory to the experts, not wiki editors who have no way of disproving his theories. This difference which already exists I think would easily apply to the way that editors would conduct original research to determine the truth or falsehood of individual statements within Wikipedia articles, and not just the general level of reliability of secondary sources whose individual statements could very well still be lies. Aube123 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Directly related to the topic of the article" does not mean explicitly referring to it

The requirement that contributions must be "directly" related to an article's topic is being used to support deletions such as this one. I propose clarifying that, "An article's statements and the sources that support them need not refer specifically to the article subject as long as they refer to one of its component parts or sub-topics." This is long-standing practice and I have only recently encountered suggestions to the contrary. EllenCT (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly Opposed - “Directly related” does indeed mean that source X must actually mention topic Y. Otherwise any connection between X and Y is indirect (at best) or outright OR (at worst). Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Blueboar's claim is utter nonsense. This position would, for example, prevent using any source about the Boeing 737 MAX 8 in Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 unless the source mentioned the latter crash. Jc3s5h (talk)

  In fact, the article on the flight, when talking about the plane itself, uses sources about the specific plane that crashed, not sources about MAX 8s generally. As it should be. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Not all of them, and most of those in the "Aircraft" section that are about the specific plane are not about the crash. Where do you draw the line? EllenCT (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  The line: When a source is being used to support or imply a POV that the source does not itself mention. It's more than just the precise subject that the source is about. It's a combination of that and what claim the cited source is being used to support. A background section in an article about a plane crash might give details about the plane, and it wouldn't necessarily be an OR issue if those sources were about that specific unitary plane, but not the crash itself. However, if you were to cite a source about MAX 8s generally (that never mentions this crash) in a section about crash theories, you are in hairy territory. Basically, if those sources are being used to imply a cause of the crash that is not suggested by any sources explicitly about the crash, you are probably creating original research. Does that make sense? Again, to that article, the sources about MAX 8s generally are just there to say when this type of plane entered service and similar details, but not to say anything about the crash. The sources that are about this plane but not the crash are used to give details about the plane, but not the crash. In the black helicopter article, on the other hand, sources about literal black helicopters were being used to "possible explanations" for a conspiracy theory that was not mentioned in the cited sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Someguy1221: I took a few days off away from editing to think abut this. In short, no, it does not make sense to me. How can you operationalize this in the form of an edit to the policy which would allow us to cite sources about declining elephant populations in an article about an elephant population increase conspiracy theory, which do not refer to the conspiracy theory? EllenCT (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  You could not, and that is a feature rather than a bug. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Opposed to that wording, as it would encourage SYNTH. But OP has a point, and Blueboar's response is a little too strong. Good articles contain background that helps readers understand the topic better. In the plane-crash example, I would allow a source stating when the first plane of that model was delivered, provided it was not accompanied by an implication that the delivery date had anything to do with the crash. I don't think that such background violates NOR, though the boundary is nearby. Zero^talk 01:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • About "Background": this is the part I am always uneasy about. This is the place whre it is so easy to push lots of POV, because it is "just background that helps to understand blablabla". "Helps to understand" is a road to hell of POV: it may help to understand in some convenient way. And trying to balance it out may easily make things even worse. Therefore IMO "Background" section mus obey the same rule: if sources on the subject do not mention particular elements of "background" then its relevance is an opinion of the Wikipedian, hence implicit WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Blueboar's post reflects the extreme case of WP:NOR, where the whole topic fails WP:N, and article supports are scrounging for minimum sources for independent coverage of the topic. If the source does not explicitly refer to the topic, then it is not useful in demonstrating notability. It does not mean that if other sources have established notability that the source can't be used. WP:NOR speaks to balance of the sources. There must be secondary sources, but a proportion of of other sources, usually primary sources citing something very specific, even if tangential, are not excluded by this policy as a rule. Black helicopter helicopter is a borderline article, many sources mentioning black helicopters as a topic of conspiracy theory, but few giving direct coverage. If none give direct coverage, it is a WP:SYNTH failure. The sources of this article are borderline. The direct coverage of the topic from the first reference is this: "Alien conspiracy theorists claim unmarked black helicopters are often seen in the vicinity of UFO sightings", a newspaper reporting anonymous hearsay. I agree with User:EvergreenFir's removal, including the remove of this external link masquerading as a source: http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=71498993&epmid=1&partner=Google. It should be removed, for a multitude of reasons, including excessive primary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If something is included in articles about a subject, then editors are unlikely to complain about a source not directly about the subject. The air crash article for example mentions that the Boeing 737 MAX 8 entered service in 2017, but that information is frequently mentioned in articles about the crash. If someone challenged the relevance of the information to the article, then a source about the crash would be needed. It is very hard to argue however that information that reliable sources on the crash have failed to provide is relevant in a brief article. The relevant policy is "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If reliable sources on the topic fail to mention something, then it is unimportant and should be omitted. TFD (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. There are good WP:NPOV WP:DUE arguments for the removal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• EllenCT points to the black helicopter article but the more germane one to OP's question is white genocide conspiracy theory. There, OP is asking through an RFC whether or not articles about birth rates among whites should be included in the article (for context, see also Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory#Renamed_Critics_section_to_Criticism, this edit, NPOVN, and Jimbo's page). I am glad EllenCT is seeking clarification here though.
  I oppose the proposed language because I believe it mischaracterizes the issue at hand on the other linked pages and because it is too loose to the point of allowing SYNTH. The issue that led to this question by OP is less that she included sources not directly mentioning the page topic, but rather that she used those sources to make an independent counterclaim to the page's topic that was not present in other sources which explicitly discussed the page's topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: when you say "independent counterclaim" do you mean to imply that I was making the counterclaim? Do you agree that the counterclaim is supported by the WP:MEDRS reviews cited? Do you mean that the counterclaim was independent of the conspiracy theory; if so, in what sense other than contradicting one of its central tenets? EllenCT (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you were the making it a counterclaim. The issue is not the source, it's your connecting them to the topic of WGCT. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose one more argument the the ones already given: as long as they refer to one of its component parts - this part is a straight road to WP:COATRACK. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Generally, opposed. Everything is arguably a sub-topic or component part of something else, but we don't want everything in every article (or one long article titled, 'Everything'), and particularly pertinent, here, we don't draw connections that RS don't directly connect. If say, there is a type "a" defect in the Boeing lighting system that RS connect to the crash then sure discuss type "a" in the crash article, but if there is also a type "b" defect in the lighting system that RS do not connect to the crash, we don't connect "b" to the crash, in our crash article, even though lighting system is a component part. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Clarifying question in terms of BLPs

If a celebrity commits a notable crime, under what circumstances may sources about the celebrity written before the crime occurred be included in the article about the crime? I urge review of at least a few featured articles about celebrity crimes while considering this, as I have been unable to find any which do not include several sources from before the event. EllenCT (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have examples of something like: 'Celebrity X, fifty years before the crime graduated from Country Day High School (just thought you, Dear Reader, would like to know, although no one can guess why this matters).' Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, but on further review there aren't as many such FAs as I expected, so I edited the comment accordingly. I will try to think of a better clarifying question. EllenCT (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact, you are right; we do have something that looks like an exception here: per WP:SINGLEEVENT we have an option to fold the perpetrator's bio into the event article. However this is because if the crime was noisy, then pieces perp's bio (what a good/bad boy he was) are included in articles about the crime.

At the same time IMO if the perp is a celeb, I would sugest move the bio pieces into the bio page, per WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right that SINGLEEVENT makes this a terrible attempt at a clarifying question. I will try to think of a better one. EllenCT (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Affiliations of officeholders

Throughout the encyclopedia, we have editors with a fondness for filling holes solely for the sake of filling holes, without regard for whether the end result is to provide readers with credible, useful information. Particularly in the popular media and perhaps also in other sources, a capital letter in parentheses next to an officeholder's name means that the person is serving in that office under a political party or other affiliation. In recent years, we had the case of an officeholder who served nearly a four-year term while registered to vote as a Democrat but who wasn't elected to the office as a Democrat. Various editors filled infoboxes and navboxes with "(D)" next to his name, leaning on media accounts which failed to tell the whole story but which provided suitable enough justification for their position (declaring them to be "reliable sources" despite the absence of fact checking, etc.). The average reader would look at the "(D)" next to his name and take that to mean that he served in the office as a Democrat. Since the community repeatedly demonstrated a desperation to avoid discussing this matter, I really don't want to pursue it here. However, it does bring cause to discuss related matters. The same type of editors with a fondness for filling holes have similarly filled infoboxes and navboxes elsewhere and I wish to get a sense as to whether the following constitutes OR:

• When an officeholder's registered affiliation is unclear, but it is clear that they're not registered as a Democrat or Republican (in the case of the United States; I dunno if or how this may apply to the politics of other nations), editors declaring the person to be an independent without clear evidence that they're explicitly affilated as such;
• Perhaps more importantly, when the person holds a nonpartisan office, appending their registered affiliation. If they're holding a nonpartisan office, their registered affiliation may be revealed by media sources, but those same sources typically take care not to specify that they're serving in the office under that affiliation. Once again, if a holder of a nonpartisan office has "(R)" next to their name, the average reader is going to take that to mean that they're serving in the office as a Republican, not that they're simply registered to vote as a Republican. A lot of times that an affilation has been placed next to the name of a nonpartisan officeholder, it's entirely unclear that this affilation has ever been revealed by a third-party reliable source. I get the impression that editors are repeating what they find on VoterRecords.com or similar sites. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

More out of curiosity: determining the real-world location of filming from landscape/panorama shown in shot

This is for a reality television show where we know when it was filmed (last year), know from RSes the general vincity where it started filming (down to a specific city). Earlier stills suggested a specific location in that city (on a beach, etc.) and knowing the nearby area, one could pinpoint it down but that required specific knowledge of the area, enuogh that that would be SYNTH concerns to include.

Now we have a long-enough video (from an RS) that gives at least a 180 deg panoramtic shot of the shoreline/cityscape during filming. It can be compared directly to a Google Maps street view of the previously identified location to confirm the same fundamental landmarks are present that are in the short video. Is it still considered SYNTH in this case to use that to narrow down the location? When it was only stills, with limited views of the shoreline, that would have been a concern, but as we can the full shortline from several angles, it feels less a problem. --Masem (t) 16:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say yes, it would be OR for an editor to guess at the location in this way. What appears on screen can be deceiving (for example, a landscape can be computer generated to look exactly like a specific location, and it would be very difficult to tell). I would also say I hat, without sources, stating the precise location would be UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinions needed at Dental dam talk page

Opinions are needed at Talk:Dental dam#Which version to go with?. A permalink for it is here. Part of the discussion concerns WP:Synthesis. Of course, an editor can simply weigh in by commenting in the Discussion section if they don't want to vote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

adjudicate accusations of protocol violations

I have been accused by editor Omnipaedista, on the talk page of “Instrumentalism,” of numerous violations of WP protocols. I suggested mediation, but was told my form of stating my defense was inappropriate for that remedy. How can I initiate adjudication of the charges against me?TBR-qed (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

TERF

Hello. At Talk:TERF#The lead and two pieces in the responses section, we are discussing whether or not there are WP:Neutral (specifically WP:WIKIVOICE) issues with the lead of the article, and if there are issues (for example, a synthesis issue) with a section lower in the article. Regarding the lead, one concern is application of the term "TERF." Do one or more of you mind giving your opinions on the article's talk page? 98.162.170.103 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It's now an RfC. The first one is at Talk:TERF#Should the lead be changed back to its previous incarnation?. The second one is below that. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked, and the RFC has been closed. Will archive next, to minimize leakage. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC about independent sources for academic notability

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?

Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the/Are the CIA (and other "Intelligence" agencies) a Primary source, or a Secondary source?

This question relates specficially to the Article on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but probably applies in other places. The issue is my attempt at deconstructing extracts from a CIA report and "analyzing" them, and then comparing those statements that were used in the mainstream media and comparing the two, which is considered by at least one other Editor as "original research". My assertion is that first, much of the RS published was derived from that/those CIA report(s), and that the word choice and order they were used was delibarate. One example is "influeced" (CIA word) vs. "interference" (Journalist word). But also the order in which certain other assertions were listed by the CIA, vs. the order in which similar, "recharacterized" assertions are listed by Wikipedia in the Lede. My analysis is the common-sense assumption that the CIA lists their assertions in a prioritized order, most important/significant/reliable first). The Wikipedia article modifies that original language, and changes the priority of what I believe were originally CIA assertions. At this point, I think the CIA is a Secondary source, because like Journalists, they research, analyze, etc... and then output their "judgement" (the CIA actually uses this word in one report), along with a "confidence level" of "high", which you don't see in Journalism. Further, the CIA are what I characterize as "apex professionalis" in "information gathering and distribution", and given that (one assumes) the quality of their information is higher, and the fact that's their primary reason for existance, and that their information is used to guide the decisions of the people that actually run the country (Senators, and what not), the CIA's analysis should be given special reliability when the Journalists (who I believe use the CIA report and adapt it to their stories) are at vairance with them. Maybe I'm wrong here. Looking for someone to either agree with me, or show where I'm wrong.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

One country influencing an election in another country would be considered an intelligence activity. It is the duty of US intelligence agencies to detect and respond to intelligence activities by foreign countries directed at the US. The CIA is a US intelligence agency. Since they are, by law, an actor in the alleged Russion election interference, everything they write about it is a primary source, no matter what techniques they used to write the material. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What "law"? Tbh, I don't understand your point. I see legalese about "law", "actor", "alleged", and "techniques" being used to "write" material. It feels like what "wikilawyering" might be, but tbh, I don't really understand that concept either. But mostly I don't understand what you just said. Can you explain it in plain language? What I understand so far is you are saying "by law, Wikipedia's policy must be "x"."Tym Whittier (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem described here isn't primary/secondary. It's about making up something that isn't published in any source at all. For example, editors can't take a CIA report in one hand, a stack of news stories in the other hand, and then invent a story about how much of those news stories originated from the CIA report. They also can't decide that the report "really" means something – for example, they can't read a sentence that says "they developed a preference for X" and say, "Hey, 'they developed a preferences for X' means that they did something with Y earlier, right?". You can't use a sentence that doesn't mention Y at all to support any claims about Y at all. That's what we mean by "directly supporting" the material. If you want to write something about Y, then the sentence you're looking at needs to be talking about Y, not about X. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't understand a word of this.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

CIA are what I characterize as "apex professionalis" in "information gathering and distribution" - First of all, I would disagree with this statement. I would say, Mossad is the apex, no CIA, but this is minor point. The most important thing most people fail to understand is the nature if CIA information gathering. Since the national security at a stake, CIA's job is no to prove some fact "beyond any doubt", but to establish that something happened with "high probability" or "reasonable probability", so that even potential threats must be mitigated. Therefore one must pay attention how CIA qualifies its findings, and if CIA speaks of "confidence level" other than "beound any reasonable doubt" about some finding, then (A) this statement must be clearly attributed as CIA's opinion and (B) if some reporter converts it into a bolder statement, clearly we cannot quote him/her, because we cannot base wikipedia on "chinese whispers": the most reliable source is the one closes to the source, pardon the pun. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• The source was not the CIA, but a publication in an RS by journalists. Something stolen and published by Wikileaks would indeed be a primary source, or an unreliable source. However, even that could be used if republished in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

First, I aasume that the OP is talking about the ODNI report of January 2017, which was compiled from contributions by the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. As such, it is a primary source representing the views of the U.S. intelligence agencies, and any excerpts from the report that we use in our articles should be duly attributed as such. We do not have access to any of the confidential sources that the intel agencies purport to summarize, so that the ODNI report cannot be considered a secondary source to those invisible sources. The OP's second question concerns interpretation of the report, i.e. interpretation of a source, irrespective whether it's primary or secondary. Wikipedia policy is clear-cut: editors are not supposed to engage in original research (writing something they think is correct but that is not backed by a reliable source) nor in synthesis (inferring something from statements made by several sources). In that regard, any interpretation of the ODNI report should be only mentioned if such interpretation is well-sourced itself, and if it has some due weight, i.e. not a fringe view. — JFG ^talk 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Primary Source: "I heard Putin say that the Russian government's goals were to x, y and z in the 2016 US Presidential Election." Secondary Source: "Multiple intelligence agencies with multibillion dollar budgets that ensure the National Security of the United States put lots of sometimes classified information together, analyzed it, and came to a professional conclusion that the Russian government's goals were x, y and z in the 2016 US Presidential Election." Yes I am referring to the text in the ODNI, and I also agree that this secondary source should be attributed, because that attribution only increases the "tone" of reliability of the most reliable source. It's much more powerful, and impactful, when the Wikipedia starts it's Article (the Lede) with the CIA saying something explicitly, and saying it's the CIA saying it, vs. the watered down and synthesized "RS" from the "chinese whispers" of the less reliable "RS" of the for-profit media, who have a for-profit motive to manipulate data and information for profit, vs. telling the truth under penalty of law. There's also the issue of accountability to consider when making the decision one which "entities" are more reliable. When RS lies it's a story that sells ad space, and when the CIA lies someone goes to prison.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I have to disagree in 2019 with the argument Tym Whittier makes about the for-profit media. Such a media does not really exist anymore In the United States-- only a handful of newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal) put much effort into developing non-local news. The other newspapers still make a profit in the first place, and they certainly don't make it by selling advertising. Google and Facebook and Such control advertising revenues, and they Don't have journalists who can produce reliable news sources. You'll notice that Google etc. in the last year to have been hiring tens of thousands of staff people to identify and eliminate misinformation which various mostly anonymous sources pump into their system. As for misinformation selling newspapers, well that was 1900 and yellow journalism. In the last half-century, newspapers that tried to replicate the old days of William Randolph Hearst soon get discredited, --They look like grocery store tabloids--and the editors here drop off the Wikipedia list of reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Another consideration of if this is SYNTH

Article is Stranger Things (season 3) , under "Filming". Before the season aired, a reasonably reliable source posted social media sightings of filming of the series in Malibu with the show's lead actress and others. (main original source is [8]) As the show is normally filmed in Georgia and narratively set in Indiana, this of course caught people's eyes. However, it is also consistent with characterization from the show, as some characters were known to have moved from Malibu. Now that the show has aired, it is clear these definitely were shots for the show (the beach setting is used, the outfit she is wearing is the same, etc. etc.) just impossible to tell if they were THE shots used (or did they decided to move 10 miles up the coast and do the same?)

It does nag me that I can't think we can factually state "Some filming took place in Malibu Beach" without attribution, since no official word has come down from Netflix or the team that I've seen, but occum's razor suggests there's very little else this could be. Under SNYTH can we say this factually, or do we need attribution like "Filming of the scenes involving (actors/situation) appears to have been taken at Malibu Beach, as witnessed by some people over social media." or something like that. Or it is possible to leave it as it currently is, stating that the actors were seen filming there, and not necessarily tying that to any specific scene, with a well-informed reader able to make the leap of logic. --Masem (t) 17:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The article already says that filmoing was spotted at Malibu. You are drawing conclusions. Let the reader make the same conclusions. WP:NODEADLINE: if this filming was something important, surely a confirmation will appear, otherwise it remains WP:TRIVIA not warranting bending wikipedia's most basic policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Where does music fit in with all this?

I've noticed several times that in articles that go deeply into music someone will query 'original research?'. I've just seen an entry about a record that I've just been listening to and it's definitely wrong, but someone else has already put an original research tag on it. Now the way I see it, if you read something then you can use it as fact as long as it's not on the 'Unreliable sources' list, and I've seen several instances of 'facts' which I know to be wrong, but someone's put them into print therefore as far as Wikipedia is concerned they're right.

So imagine you're blind. If your computer 'reads' something to you, then I assume that will be allowed as a published fact, but if a human being reads it to you how do you know they're telling the truth? So can you use that?

From that, let's shift back to the subject of music. If you have a sheet of music in front of you you can presumably use it as written confirmation of a fact, but if you're blind and listen to the music, can you use that? The record you're listening to is after all a published document to which anyone can refer. But then what if it's a live performance?

And so to my final question. I'm a musician. I understand the workings of music, I can write it, it's just another language, anyone can learn it and I have, just as other people learn Mandarin, Unix, or Klingon. So why, when I hear something that is wrong, something which anyone can listen to for themselves, am I likely to get hit with an 'original research?' tag? Deke42 (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes a publication is anything made available for public consumption in a reproducible medium. Sheet music can be a publication. An audio recording of the music being played can also be publication. Either of these can be cited as a source. However, a live performance that is not recorded is not a publication. If that performance is recorded and uploaded to the internet (without violating copyright), then it is now a publication. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note that (even though published) sheet music or recordings of performances would be considered WP:PRIMARY sources... and there are limitations on how we use primary sources. Use with caution. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If original experience contradicts, will a source stay or be removed?

If I and all others notice moon is moving around the earth, and if the source says moon is stationary, is such a source considered bogus on wikipedia? Or do the wikipedians have to continue to cite moon is stationary until a reference is published? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The whole reason behind V, RS and NOR is that Wikipedia's reliability rests on the sources that are cited. We never ask readers to trust that we, some total randos on the internet, know the truth about everything. Rather, we tell them what reliable sources state, and then point them toward those sources. We accept the possibility that anything from maths to physics to medicine to astronomy to history to music to current events may be more complicated than we amateurs can even understand, and so we don't try to provide original explanations for anything, and just stick with what sources say. And if something is even remotely subjective, we accept that the world does not give two whits about our personal opinions, and rather our job is to simply report those of others. If what is true is a matter of perspective, or depends on the exact definition of a word, our perspectives and our definitions do not matter. You can argue that a source is not actually reliable, or that it is being misread, or that a viewpoint is fringe, or that better sources exist, but you almost can't ever argue that a reliable source is wrong. About the only time I would ever do that is when a supposedly reliable source states as a fact that a specific source said something, when reviewing that source proves that it did not. And I mean specific, down to the edition. If a source says that "Bob's Annals of Stupid Wikipedia stuff, volume 2 edition 4, pg. 626 says that ProtectorOfWorldSaves made a bad argument", but we all have that book and actually it ends at page 299, we have a problem. But short of that, and just assume that everything is short of that, we just write what the sources say. tl;dr: if all of the experts disagree with you, a random internet person, wikipedia will go with what the experts say. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A person who does not know the valid reasons, cannot provide a valid reason. If a person is bluffing, he may fail to inform the valid reason. "if all of the experts disagree with you" if all the experts have disagreed, and have not provided the valid reason in the source, or even over wikipedia, then the source is probably bluffing? In such cases, what route do wikipedians take? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on reliable sources that are established by some degree of peer review or oversight by others who have experience with a subject or phenomena, not the experience of anonymous and random Wikipedia editors - which can be incorrect or badly interpreted. See WP:OR for the policy on that. If experts disagree, we merely cite them all and let readers discern the options themselves rather than having Wikipedia dictate truth. After all it is an encyclopedia, not a handbook or reference work.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"If experts disagree", there was an encounter of me with a PHD. In that case the PHD started informing something similar to "I am a PHD on the subject matter, so I am correct.", and while I questioned him to inform the valid reason behind the inference, he did not provide the same. A person who does not know the valid reasons, cannot provide a valid reason. So, in such cases where it is likely that the concerned person is bluffing, just because he is a PHD the citations continue to exist? A whole lobby of criminals/sadists/revengeful people etc may just write whatever they feel suited towards their agenda? I guess you may know today we have people with contradicting views having PHDs. Both contradicting views cannot be truth at the same time. So, in such a cases, what do wikipedians do? Can a lobby from one group remove the sources of another? If such happens, what is being done? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't cite "This guy who has a PHD". Our reasons for citing a source are not "This guy has a PHD, so whatever he says is right." Our favorite sources are the peer-reviewed academic literature. Documents that have been written by people who are recognized experts in a relevant field, reviewed by yet more recognized experts, and published by an outlet with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Significance is demonstrated by showing that multiple independent experts are saying the same thing. If you think they are all wrong about something, you should write and publish an article about it, but somewhere else, not Wikipedia. Or you could tell us why you made an account and what specific inaccuracy you have in mind, so we could give you a specific answer. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"Significance is demonstrated by showing that multiple independent experts are saying the same thing." what is number to do here? If 10 people who are planted as pseudo-experts by a corrupt lobby don't give valid reasons, but continue to cite their opinion, and if only 1 person with valid reason informs, then the one person who is providing the valid reason must be logically considered. If a wikipedian presents that one person's information with valid reason, then what is the stand that wikipedians take? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it should be "Significance is demonstrated by showing that multiple independent reliable sources (RSs) ...", not "experts". If sources meet the standards of WP:RS (or the appropriate more specialized requirements of WP:MEDRS, etc.) then we report what they say, together with any contrary views in other RSs. Then the reader can decide. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

How many readers read carefully in the world? As per the current standards, will the one published source with valid reason be deleted, if multiple sources that's so far considered reliable due to marketing and branding and not due to valid reasons inform wrong? Or is there presently a way out? The wrong can be realized upon reading the presence of a valid reason in the one published source, and absence of any valid reasons in the multiple sources that's contradicting. Consider the one source says 2+2=4, by giving valid reasons and the multiple sources that's so far considered reliable says 2+2=5 and fails to give valid reasons. That one source with valid reason must logically stay and no matter how many multiple sources that's considered neutral or reliable must go away, if they don't present the valid reason. Is there presently a way out on wikipedia? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", which is an actual site policy, we do not create new rules or exceptions to rules based on vague or unrealistic hypotheticals. Thought experiments are only so useful. Rather, the rules are rewritten when it is demonstrated that there is an actual need to rewrite them. If you want a real answer you should present a real scenario. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So, at present to address this hypothetical I have presented there is a no policy/rule on wikipedia? Are you sure? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the day we have WP:IAR. That can always be invoked if everyone agrees. You just need to keep in mind that there is a very strong prior, drawn from experience, that if someone claims he can prove all of the experts wrong, he is actually an insane lunatic. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"that if someone claims he can prove all of the experts wrong" if someone brings to the notice that all the experts are claiming without a valid evidence? "he is actually an insane lunatic" GOD is all knowing as per records. You are a disbeliever? He may prove all the experts without valid reasons, by pointing out them all without a valid reason upon questioning the experts. Do you know one single human expert on earth who knows all the objective facts pertaining to any fact around? I guess I am going to notice such situations many times. Are you sure such will not happen? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop being a nuisance. I think everyone has given your thoughts a fair hearing, but I don't see this being productive. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Please stop being a nuisance." what nuisance? Why the advice? I am trying to understand the wikipedia project. So, I am asking questions to dig deep. Is asking questions considered a nuisance in wikipedia? Under which guideline? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

For the last time: (1) read WP:RS (2) accept that the policy here is to report what reliable sources say, not what "experts" say unless those experts are the authors of reliable sources. Where the word "expert" appears in WP:RS it is qualified, e.g. widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field – we recognize the reliability of the source in the first instance because it's a standard textbook. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"For the last time" otherwise? Is asking questions in order to get myself cleared about the policies a no-no on wikipedia? Under which guidelines? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@ProtectorOfWorldSaves: Please provide a real-world example of the issue as you have seen it on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Should people dig a well only after the thirst is felt? As per which policy/guideline only after the incident comes into existence the policy must discussed?? Precaution is better than looking for a cure later? If there is no such policy/guideline why insist "Please provide a real-world example"? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a very practical place; policy and guidelines have developed over many years to deal with actual issues, not hypothetical ones. The situation you are describing has apparently not been an issue for the first 18 years of Wikipedia's existence, possibly because it is not an actual issue. But perhaps we're all wrong here, or we're just misunderstanding you, or inexperienced. Please assist us by presenting a case where this has actually been an issue, so we can understand better and respond appropriately. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

" not hypothetical ones." digging for a well after the thirst is felt is a bad practice? Are you sure in wikipedia such a policy is present, which stops people from discussing hypothetical situations as a precaution? We are living in such a world presently where one living being is eating another living being mercilessly. A part of the living beings do not even try to stop such harms by finding alternate methods, perhaps due to selfishness? Do you see the world around any different then what I am guessing? While if what I am guessing is correct, are you sure discussing hypothetical situations as a precaution is not allowed in wikipedia? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Just read WP:RS. Also, please read WP:VERIFY. That is the policy on Wikipedia. it says "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." This should clear it up a bit.

Wikipedia is not resource for truth claims, it is a collection of views on topics by reliable sources as defined in the policy. Of course, for truth claims, wikipedia is not a good resource. It is just an imperfect online reference.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not publish original research." what is done by wikipedians, if a wikipedian reports on wikipedia the concerned reference on wikipedia does not have valid reasons to conclude a particular inference? Is the reference taken down from wikipedia? Or is a remark put along the reference, that highlights the research work to have researched/informed incompletely in order to arrive the conclusion? A hypothetical example: If a reference informs "There is no GOD", but does not provide details towards how the researchers perfectly researched the whole existence in order to conclude there is no GOD, then is the reference taken down? Or is a remark put up on the cited reference citing research provided incomplete information to conclude etc? A person without a valid reason cannot provide a valid reason. ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess we're still not understanding your point. Could you provide a practical example of the issue, so we can better answer your question? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I need not provide a practical example in order to address a hypothetical possibility. Others who understood may address this issue. Jayjg what did you understand regarding the last comment from me? Kindly elaborate whatever you understood. Let me try and make you understand. ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding anything you're asking, it just doesn't seem to have any relevance or relation to Wikipedia as I've edited over the past 15 years. Phrases like if a wikipedian reports on wikipedia the concerned reference on wikipedia does not have valid reasons to conclude a particular inference and is a remark put up on the cited reference citing research provided incomplete information to conclude don't seem to me to be semantically meaningful in relation to Wikipedia. Can you explain further? Or provide some concrete example that will elucidate? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Jayjg thanks for elaborating. Thanks everyone for the efforts you are taking. I respect all your good efforts. Jayjg have you been into a situation were you are unable to conclude, since you don't have sufficient necessary knowledge to conclude?
2. Jayjg if I don't have sufficient necessary knowledge to conclude and I guess a particular permutation may be right, and if I don't explicitly inform I am guessing, then I am bluffing, if I assert the concerned permutation is right without being fully aware? Though at times the bluff may be right, but at times the bluff may turn out wrong? It is not at all inappropriate to guess in this realm where we are gradually coming out from ignorance, but then we must explicitly state we are unaware of the truth and are guessing, by using of appropriate English terms like "perhaps" etc which represent the guess explicitly? Did you not face a situation where you guessed permutation may be right strongly, but it turned out wrong eventually?

Now is it clear to you, what I am trying to point out? If it is still unclear, do let me know. ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It's honestly still hard to know what you're talking about without a concrete example. There is simply so much potential for nuance. In the case of the God stuff above, the answer is straightforward: Wikipedia does not state as a fact that God does or does not exist, but we will report what others believe where that is relevant to an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Others who understood what I am trying to point out, may discuss. Someguy1221 let me try and explain you by giving a real world example. Kindly answer in a yes or no to this question I am asking. Are you absolutely certain by means of valid reasons, that it is you who is typing all the text that is getting typed by the hands from the side of the world you are present in? A hint:- You need to know the whole science involved concerning the question, and you need to know all the necessary facts pertaining to this question, to be absolutely certain. Now think carefully and answer. ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am going to attempt to cut through the philosophical walls of words, and answer the original question: we do allow Original Research to be discussed on talk pages, so... if your personal experience leads you to think that a source is not accurate... you can raise the issue on the relevant article’s talk page, and challenge the reliability of the source. If your arguments convince enough other editors then a consensus will emerge to not use the flawed source. The next question would be whether to a) replace the source with another (and amend the article text to reflect what the new source says) or b) remove both the flawed source and the text it supported. What we can NOT do is add text based on your personal observations.

To use your original “moon is stationary” example: the article could a) continue to say “The moon is stationary” but cite a new source to support that statement... or b) not discuss the issue of lunar movement AT ALL (omit the issue). What we can NOT do is say “the moon moves” (because we don’t have a reliable source to support that statement). Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@ProtectorOfWorldSaves:, I'm sure that this has been fun for you, but Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Is there a specific change you are proposing to this policy? If so, please state exactly what that is. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar "then a consensus will emerge to not use the flawed source" the history of mankind indicates, consensus don't emerge immediately? People did consider Earth is flat for a very long time, even though it is not? People get disturbed on thinking their beliefs are wrong? Even today there are people who argue about earth being flat? Thereby to ensure people stick to reasoning it is necessary that they provide valid reasons. If any article is noticed with points absent with valid reasons, an indicator is necessary on the main article which clearly indicates the concerned point in reference is without a valid reason. Valid reasons are those that consider all necessary aspects regarding the matter. If a necessary aspect is not addressed and if a guess is found, then an indicator must be present highlighting the guess. ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg "I'm sure that this has been fun for you" did you not just post Wikipedia is not a discussion forum? How is whether I am having fun or whether I am facing a moral dilemma with this WP:NOR matter here? Please WP:GF. ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You received your answer at the beginning. We are not supposed to get into deep discussions over what is or is not true. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize reliable sources, not analyze them. Editors are welcome to present OR on talk pages if the purpose is to challenge the reliability of a cited source, and if other editors are convinced, the source and its summary may be removed from the article. So, here are my questions to you: 1) Is there an actual article issue you had in mind? (You would be far from the first person who comes to a policy talk page with a hypothetical, and then pulls a bait and switch, insisting we just agreed with him on some content dispute); 2) Is your goal here to understand the original research policy, or argue against it? If your goal is understanding, it would appear the problem is simply that you don't like the answers to your question. If your goal is to argue against the policy, this is not the way to do it - you would have to either a) point to a real problem this policy is causing; or b) suggest a specific improvement to the policy. If you simply intend to drag everyone into an epistemological debate, we've all been wasting our time. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"with a hypothetical" I have already written "Precaution is better than looking for a cure later?". Is it impossible for human being to execute the said hypothetical? While If it is not impossible, why wait for the disaster to strike? Any rational reason to wait and dig a well only when thirst is felt? While when so many court cases world wide are present, while so many wars are happening all around the world, while so many criminals are getting convicted daily, what is the reason to keep this hypothetical unaddressed?

• Jailer: Mr. Manager, why is this hole kept open?
• Manager: We don't have any evidence that this hole was used. Until and unless the hole gets used, why waste time on it?
• Jailer: Are we waiting for the disaster to strike?

No matter what valid argument the Jailer gives, if the manager continuously argues about not addressing the hypothetical possibility, what is the first thing that you must consider? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM, and please ensure that your next comment, and all subsequent comments, include specific proposals for changing the content of this policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The policies we use are ultimately founded on the same ideas that led to the scientific revolution which caused many widely held beliefs founded on authoritative sources to be debunked. Verifiability from our modern reliable sources is ultimately based on letting the facts determine the (most likely) truth, and not some authority. Personal experience is now less reliable than what can be extracted from our modern reliable sources. A good example is Uri Geller who in the 1970s was able to fool quite a number of scientists into believing that he could spend spoons. Count Iblis (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The given example (stationary moon) would quickly get resolved on a typical article about that subject. But if there were some personal battle involved or some political gain for a "stationary moon" then someone will wiki-lawyer to keep "stationary moon" in and claim "just enforcing the wiki rules" and win. The wp:RS criteria are helpful but not enough to assure actual reliability. We should define "degree of strength" of a source as a metric, and say that more controversial claims require additional strength. And "Objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it" should be added to the metrics which determine the strength of the sourcing. This is effect what happens at the RS noticeboard. Time to align policies with the very intelligent practice which occurs there. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I only read the opening post. In the example you describe, the reliable sources will be consistent with the vast majority of people's observation that the WP:SKYISBLUE (or whatever). If someone came along with a source that says something crazy-different, we would likely evaluate it as WP:FRINGE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 17:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Contributing Research Findings

I am a researcher in the field of psycosomatic disease, psychoneuroimmunology, neuroplasticity, human consciousness etc. How do I contribute .. Dr. Juan Lifesuccess (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research, which would absolutely include new research findings. In fact, medical-related articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be guided mainly by systematic reviews and other high quality, secondary sources (see WP:MEDRS). If you are aware of gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of your field of expertise, you are welcome to contribute content that cites those high quality sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comments at User talk:Lifesuccess. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC on content concerning illegal fetal tissue dealers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy#/talk/8#/talk/8

I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. natemup (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Expanding on a discussion that I'm part of at User talk:TedEdwards‎#List of American Horror Story episodes, does every secondary source need to explicitly cite a primary source in its content? A statement at the linked discussion is "a secondary source cannot exist without a primary source"; is it a case that if a secondary source states something, and it can't be backed up by a primary source, then that means we cannot use it at all? I'm not seeing this detailed in WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY. If that was the case, why, then, would we not solely use primary sources, if that's the only place where information can come from? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No, but if the primary source is missing or not explicit, we need to be sure about the reliability of the work, as a good RS would be able to justify where the information came from if push came to shove. A common example I see is when the Hollywood Reporter talks about a new film or casting. They simply report this, but rarely state where the details came from. But THR is a highly reliable source in Hollywood, so we can presume when they state this, they have been given this information off the wire, from a press release, or similar valid primary source. On the other hand, a weak RS making the same types of claims without an indication of that source should be treated in doubt. --Masem (t) 01:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

So, it's not required in a definitive sense. Your example is a perfect one that I can follow up with my own; Deadline Hollywood reported the newest episode of Into the Dark, but does not give details on where they got the information from. However, Deadline Hollywood has always been considered a reliable source, so there's no need to question their sources or reliability.

The sources in question for the linked discussion are from Entertainment Weekly and Elle.com, which both state that American Horror Story: 1984 will be ten episodes long; this is the apparent disputed content. Neither source makes mention of a primary source; however, EW is used as a source in over 21,000 articles and Elle.com is in used in over a thousand articles; neither website has been disputed as a reliable source. These would then satisfy WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY as reliable sources, right? -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Elle, but for the purposes of how many eps of an upcoming season, we should reasonably be able to take EW's word for it, in Wikivoice. This is exactly the case where I would not expect EW to name their primary source, but it is implicit they have some information from the primary source that affirms this. --Masem (t) 04:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for your response/confirmation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Doesn't WP:Verify say we aim for verifiability, not truth? If we take that policy seriously does it really matter whether the series in question is or isn't going to have a ten episode season?
• Maybe I am missing something. If we are discussing the reliability of Elle, or some other publication, why is the discussion at the original research noticeboard, and not the reliable sources noticeboard? Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Are interviews considered secondary sources... redux

Recently another contributor provided a link to Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 61#Are interviews considered secondary sources?" - claiming it justified classiying all interviews as primary sources. I am going to ping those who weighed in there, two years ago, because I thought that discussion showed some serious misconceptions. timtempleton, Staszek Lem, Chris troutman, SMcCandlish, Arnoutf, SmokeyJoe, Masem, Alanscottwalker, Huggums537, Zero0000, Johnuniq, Blueboar , The key misconception is that, during an interview, the interviewee is in charge. In a properly conducted interview this is far from true. In a properly conducted interview the interview subject doesn't get to ramble, and repeat their favourite talking points, without challenge. In a properly conducted interview the interviewee doesn't get to skate around topics they want to avoid they want to avoid.

In a properly conducted interview the interviewer and his team have done a lot of research. They have not only prepared some questions, they have anticipated sneaky, evasive and deceptive answers the interview subject might offer. And they have prepared zingers to stem that deceit. The interview subject tries to make deceptive assertion XYZ, and the interviewer is ready for them, with, "Ah, well, if XYZ is the case, then how do you account for your actions in situation ABC".

In a properly conducted interview the interviewer is in control. In a properly conducted interview the interviewer's questions are structured to present a coherent story to readers or viewers.

What about the other end of the spectrum, where some guy like Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News directs one of the "fair and balanced" Fox News staff to interview him? I suggest those should be regarded as special cases, and should not justify a blanket writing off of all interviews as primary sources.

I think the Frost-Nixon interviews represent a good example of a highly researched interview. Frost and a team of crack researchers spent months of preparation. If Nixon had arranged to be interviewed by a crony the interview would have been of very little value. But we saw the opposite. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• This conflates separable question that can and should be considered separately.

(1) Is the source, simply put, an interview, or is it more than an interview but happens to include an interview.

(2) Is the interviewee the subject of the Wikipedia article the source is being used for attesting Wikipedia-notability?

(3) Is the source of the information independent of the topic?

(4) Is the information being take from the source to the Wikipedia article primary source or secondary source information? That is, is the information merely repeated facts, or transformed information?

(5) Is the source reliably published? If reliably published, is it self-published?

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• The key issue comes down to the fact that "interviews are always primary sources" is not true. They can be, they can be secondary, they can be a mix. They can be a proper, independently done interview, it can be a interview fully done as a means of promotion, etc. So when an interview can be used for sourcing, and how that relates to notability of an article, all depends on context. --Masem (t) 22:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Masem.

A more fundamental question to come before my above questions is: Is the question about relying on the interview source as threshold-making evidence for notability of the topic? If yes, that’s where the contention was. If no, feel free to use the interview to support the article material. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, in charge? If someone says in an interview of which they are the this subject, 'I remember when I did _____ and this happened' they are 'in charge' of their own statements about themselves and what they experienced, and yes such a statement is generally primary. Now, the separate issue of whether the questions are 'primary' might depend: 'what did you say?' has no secondary information in it, but a more complex or leading question might. As for notability, I would not count a primary interview alone, but for me at least if other text or sources around the subject suggest the interview is an indication of substantial or sustained interest in the subject by others, I might argue it should be counted depending on the context. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The competent interviewer should know the subject well enough that they know how they will answer their questions. Even though the subject might respond 'I remember when I did _____ and this happened' the competent interview should have known the subject well enough that they anticipated this response. If they didn't think that answer would contribute to the interview they were going to publish they don't ask the question that triggered it. Okay, even the best prepared interviewer is going to trigger the occasional surprising answer. But the competent interviewer will know the subject well enough to remain in control. If the surprising answer is something they won't to follow up they should know the subject well enough to followup with the right probing questions. If they don't want to follow up they have more questions to change the topic.

    So, I think the competent interviewer is in charge. Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Who in charge", "does not allow to ramble", etc. has nothing to do with the classification of the source: the basis of classification primary/secondary is the relation of the information to the person who provides this information. A single interview can contain pieces of primary and secondary information. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone who weighed in. None of you supported the point that I thought my other respondent was making - a blanket dismissal of all interviews as primary sources.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would not be true. Interviews should not be blanket-dismissed as primary sources. First quickly, "primary sources" are not to be dismissed, but to be used in balance. On interviews, although they are frequently primary sources, they can very easily be used for secondary source information where the interviewee is talking about something. An interviewee talking about himself, it may be unreliably published, non-independent, non-reputable, but it is still secondary source information contextualizing things. This sort of thing even happens not infrequently, with late career politicians for example. Sometimes they may even ask themselves the question before going on to answer it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia user is also an author, references own work

Hello,

I am unsure how to proceed. When attempting to improve upon some articles, I ran into a situation where the author of books on a topic has created pages on those topics and contributed significantly to others. On at least one occasion, the article made reference only to the author's original work. Does this qualify as original research? (Cjstepney (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC))

Assuming the content matches the source, it is not technically original research, but if the sources were self-published, it is sort of an end-run around the policy. It would technically (potentially) fall under WP:SPS/WP:RS, and if the sources present literally original research, it may be WP:FRINGE as well. Citing one's own work is generally considered a form of WP:COI, and editors are cautioned against it. Often new editors think that as long as there is no direct financial motive there is no COI, but anything that might be seen as an attempt to draw attention to one's off-wiki activities may be reasonably interpreted as one. Recommending sources on article talk pages, or submitting new articles through AFC, would be preferred. And any article that only cites sources from a single author is in danger of being deleted as non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

OR and talk page discussions

Some users argue that making logical conclusions during talk page discussions is an original research. In connection to that I would like to know if such statement as:

"It is clear from the source X that that source is based solely on the source Y. Therefore, the article's text should avoid creating a false impression that the source X and the source Y are two independent sources"

is a legitimate statement, or it is an original research.?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be original research, but that's completely permitted on talk pages - OR only applies to article content. It is literally impossible to assess notability, significance or reliability without engaging in a bit of original research and argumentation, nor is it possible to determine what the neutral point of view is without attempting to analyze the points of view taken by the sources. I couldn't give a more detailed opinion without a more detailed question. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Someguy1221. Actually, a more concrete question is:

The NOR policy prohibits adding original research to the article space, however, as you correctly noted, a decision about inclusion/exclusion of some content, and about giving a due weight can be usually done based on some speculations, analysis and synthesis of some materials. That means, the "No Original Research" policy actually means "No Original Research in the article space" policy.

Is it correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the most succinct statement is that no article should state or imply something that cannot be found in a reliable source. How editors decide which sources to use, and for which statements, is not limited by the original research policy. To suggest otherwise would imply some bizarro version of Wikipedia where we are only allowed to use reliable sources, but are also prohibited from discussing those sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, this edit would indeed be WP:OR because this is article space, and because this is not "according to the data of the tabloid newspaper", but according to other multiple and a lot more reliable sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Came here from a discussion on Talk:Femininity, citing Someguy1221's statement that OR only applies to article space. I'd clarify that a bit, in that talk page discussions can feature a lot of freewheeling discussion/analysis/interpretation of published sources, but that original interpretations and opinions about the subject matter don't belong, as per WP:NOTFORUM. In my experience, discussions can easily slip from one to the other under the guise of "discussing improvements to the article". It seems to mostly be a habit of less experienced users, however. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, I didn't cite Someguy1221's statement. I first cited where the policy page states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." I then cited this discussion reinforcing what the policy page states. We are not going to limit article talk page discussion in ways to appease your odd interpretations of our rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Another thing I've observed (not necessarily recently) is users indulging in blatantly SYNTH-y screeds on talk pages in a way that clearly has no bearing on creating or refining content to be used in the article itself, justifying this with "OR doesn't apply to talk pages" (ignoring WP:TALK#USE in the process). So I would personally avoid citing this exemption too freely. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  From reading that discussion, I see Flyer22 and others attempting to have a discussion about improvements to the wording used in the article, while Sangdeboeuf attempts to lead the thread into a pointless tangent on the distinction between discussing the article and discussing the subject of the article. It is explicitly helpful to explain the rationale behind statements in an article - Flyer22 was obviously making a descriptive statement. Interrogating him her as if he she were making normative statement is not helpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what discussion you saw, but in fact I've been repeatedly trying to steer the discussion towards reliable sources and away from users' personal opinions, as per WP:CON: "Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy". If a rationale isn't based in published sources, it isn't much of a rationale. Normative statements don't enter into it at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's not what you were doing. And nothing I stated there about the literature is based on my personal opinion. On a side note, Someguy1221, I'm female. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Struck "personal opinions". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Normative statements don't enter into it at all. One of us has completely missed the point. Flyer22 was explaining the prior consensus (descriptive statement). You demanded that Flyer22 justify that consensus (as if assuming Flyer22 was making a normative statement). Flyer22 refused, as her prerogative, and shared her own thoughts on the article wording in a separate subsection. There was no point in that specific thread continuing unless it was your intention to dispute the characterization of the prior consensus, much as there is almost no point in continuing this very discussion. This is how the discussion should have gone: Why is the article like this? Discussion led to consensus [links]. Please provide sources proving the wording is good. No, thanks. I was just answering your question on why it's like this, not arguing that it should be like this, let's discuss how the article should be written down below. Okay. You're welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know why we're talking about this. I stated my thoughts about OR on talk pages in general, and put in a link to the page where I was made aware of this thread, just so nobody would think I was gaming the system. Others are free to take my comments on board, or not, as they see fit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:PRIMARY

Hey all,

I propose adding the following verbage to WP:PRIMARY:

"Primary sources may be used, uncritically, to support assertions in the article that the author of the primary source claimed something. For instance, a Tweet from Chris Noble that says 'I love Pizza Hut' may be used to cite a claim in the article that says, 'Chris Noble claims to love Pizza Hut'."

I think this is so common-sense as to be absurd, but just think this needs to be clarified. Red Slash 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if necessary too add but as per wikipedia:CLAIM stated in a better term to use over claim.--67.68.29.177 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)--67.68.29.177 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This definitely is not needed (see WP:BLPSPS) nor appropriate. --Masem (t) 02:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Per IP user, Masem, and other problems with this addition. For one, it violates this very policy. The policy already explains how primary sources may be used, and it definitely does not include cherry-picking random tweets, and this addition seems to suggests. Judging that a primary source like a tweet is significant enough to be highlighted in an article is a form of interpretation, and needs to be based on non-primary sources. Eperoton (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see the reverted addition as needed. But, per WP:About self, we do use primary sources in that way. We'd avoid "claim" per WP:Claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per "uncritically" without even reading the rest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, though I disagree with Eperoton that judging significance is interpretation. Our interpretation of a source (primary or not) may form part of an argument of significance, but it doesn't have to. Judging significance is something we have to do with all sources. Zero^talk 12:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above except Eperoton's disputed point. Basically, it's redundant, since we already have how to use primary sources laid out in PSTS, and the exact kind of scenario the OP is concerned about is already addressed in ABOUTSELF. At most we'd need a cross-reference.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

What is considered an interpretation of primary sources in history related article?

The policy says that primary sources "may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". In connection to that, can a primary source be used to describe some historical event that has not been discussed in secondary sources? In addition, I am wondering if a knowledge of foreign languages is considered a "special knowledge" the policy is talking about.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

“ can a primary source be used to describe some historical event that has not been discussed in secondary sources“? I think yes. It hinges on the meaning of “describe”. Infer, or conclude, no. Describe, yes.

Assuming that others know this language, that it is not an obscure language for which the interpretation can’t be verified, the language translation should not be a problem. Not for a simple description, for sure, I would guess. Hypothetically speaking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly what I wanted to know: what is a difference between "infer/conclude" and "describe" in that context? Concretely, when a primary source is quoted to prove that some historical event did occur, is it just a "descriptive statement"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

In this context (a reliably published memoir by a famous person), the direct citation of a primary source does not serve to prove anything, but only to describe something that the person or others witnessed in their life - exactly as described in the source. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

When you cite noted person X saying “Y”, you are not “proving” that “Y” is true... you are “proving” that X said it, and that we are accurately presenting what X said. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: That is correct, however, imagine a situation when an article tells about some historical event X that allegedly happened, but no secondary source tells about that. If you write "A person Y (a witness, not a scholar) says that X did occur", doesn't it imply the event X did occur, according to Y? In the absence of other sources, that would look like a confirmation that X really happened, at least, a reader will interpret it in that way. In that situation, should that primary source be used in the article about a person Y, or about the event X?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Meh... in most cases, if no secondary sources bother to mention that an event occurred (so the ONLY account of the event is the primary source), then it would probably be UNDUE for Wikipedia to mention the event (certainly not in any depth). It is really more a question of “if secondary sources don’t care about this, why should we?”

However, there are exceptions. The specifics of the person and the event are important, and context of use matters. For example, if singer X says that his best known song was inspired by the assassination of President Nixon, we might mention that “Singer X SAYS that Nixon’s assassination inspired the song”, even though we know that Nixon wasn’t actually assassinated. Sure, we might add something to clarify the situation (perhaps a parenthetical noting that Nixon wasn’t assassinated)... but in talking about the singer or the song, it would be appropriate to mention the inspiration. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Actually, I agree, but doesn't it mean that the statement about a singer X is relevant to the article about X, not about Nixon? The question seems rhetorical, but it seems some other people may disagree with that, so I would like to have a clearly expressed third opinion. Sorry for asking such trivial questions, but I became drawn in an absolutely ridiculous discussion where I have to address totally ridiculous arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"when an article tells about some historical event X that allegedly happened". That's misleading. There was no significant historical event in this example. Just a few more peasants no one knows about were poisoned by NKVD guys in secrecy. They killed a million during the Great Purge.My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Among other things, I would be wary of WP:SYNTH combining materials in such a way to imply, make or reach an original point. For example, if secondary sources agree that something happened in a certain way but a Wikipedia editor juxtaposes what they think a primary source says in such a way that it casts doubt on or spins the secondary sources, we literally have "original research" - original researchers (secondary sources) look at primary sources, apply expertise, etc. and reach conclusions (not Wikipedians). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point! One should always check what secondary RS tell in general and specifically on the subject covered in the primary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability

On a publicly downloadable video game, would that count as a published source if it has no mentions?

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 02:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A source for what exactly?.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Why no original research?

Could anyone direct me to a serious, full discussion of this? Don't give me one-sentence explanations; I'm looking for an essay. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• It’s such an old policy, well accepted and deeply rooted, fundamentally connected to sourcing policies and NPOV, that it didn’t generate many essays. Essays are generally written in response to conflicting philosophy. No serious Wikipedian has ever argued against WP:NOR. The best you. May find is probably in the talk page archives here. Why don’t you write the essay you are looking for? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yearbooks - primary or secondary?

Hello. I believe a have a fair grasp of the policies involved, but I gotta ask: is a school yearbook a primary or a secondary source (for confirming that NN went to YY school)?

I would have guessed "primary" myself, but if the latter, how should I think to arrive at this conclusion? What aspect of a yearbook crucially differentiates it from marriage records (and those other things mentioned in Note [c])?

There was a single mention of "yearbook" in the archives, but it was more of a mention in passing. Since I'm not looking to verify a particular case I thought this place was better to ask at, than WP:NORN. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• It’s a primary source. If recent, it is not a suitable source for anything. If historic, it is definitely primary. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Its primary, but would be reliable for saying that someone attended the school. Very limited use. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Use of a school yearbook to verify the school attended by a living person would fall foul of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources. A school year book is intended as an internal publication, even if publicly accessible. It is very similar to a publicly accessible marriage record, neither should be used unless referred to by reliable independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• School yearbooks are excellent primary sources for obtaining schooling info. They are not "private" -- they are official school publications and are held by local and state libraries and anyone can use them. Many are online. Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, I disagree. School yearbooks are not generally excellent sources, although they certainly can be. Judgement is required. Another policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources, covers it best. Yearbooks are not private, but they are not intended for a general audience. Yearbooks are well known to contain unreliable information in the form of inside jokes. As a sole source for BLP information, they must be considered dubious if there is any reason for doubt, and seeking verification from a yearbook suggests an existing reason for doubt, and primary source sleuthing for personal information. Names in yearbooks can be inaccurate. An individual may be deliberately misnamed after a similarly named famous person, everybody in the year knows this, and it is misleading to the unintended general audience. In most cases, yearbooks are fine, but if you are forced to go to yearbook, consider that policy section I link. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The student editors and faculty advisors work very hard to get the facts right--and often they have the only photos available. They do a better job than newspapers, because they do not have a couple-hour deadline to turn in story to an newspaper editor who is not likely to know all the students, and because the other coeditors check out the facts and photos. Rjensen (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting this to note there doesn't seem to be ironclad consensus regarding this issue. What gives? CapnZapp (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we gave good answers. You asked a broad question, and there is not a single definitive answer. Can you give more information on what inspires your question? Note however, your questions here are supposed to be directed to improving this policy page, and your question might be better asked at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Does assembling individual datapoints into a chart (where no such chart is known to exist) constitute OR?

Over at Talk:Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton we're discussing a chart and whether it constitutes OR (among other things). The chart plots the graduating class size of the article's subject since inception, based on available secondary data. Per Mathglot's suggestion, we're hoping to get the thoughts of this page's habitués.

The discussion in that section probably gives enough background plus some initial pros and cons. I think we're wondering first and foremost about WP:NOR and its variants; also whether it's simply too much detail. Ottoump (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's OK to make a chart from verifiable data to illustrate a statement, if the statement is sourced to a secondary source. It is not OK to make a chart from verifiable data to support a statement that is not based on a secondary source. The NOR exemption for editor-made figures is for figures to illustrate information already sourced and present in the article, it is not for creating information out of data. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is OK per SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. However it would be crossing the line into OR if the chart was invoked to make assertions about trends or predictions, unless those assertions were made by a reliable source. Zero^talk 00:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the above serves as clear guidance. Ottoump (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Road lengths

For some territories, the only way to find the true length of a named/numbered road is to measure with Google Maps or go drive the full length. This is because these territories' transportation departments do not include concurrences in their databases. As a result, these files should be considered as false information, and original research should be allowed in these situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnT122 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No. CapnZapp (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

FOIA Request

If an editor submits an FOIA request to a government agency and receives a response via email that contains pertinent and relevant information for a Wikipedia article how would one properly cite such an email. One idea might be to scan and upload a picture of the email; however, if the picture is not used in the article and is merely linked it might be deleted as being an orphan file. Open to suggestions. I am sure someone has done something like this before. Boston1775 (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If it's the US government, the letter should be PD and you can upload it to Commons. Otherwise, you can post it on Wikiversity. If you e-mail some journalists interested in the topic, before or after posting it, they may report on the letter; that will give you good sources with expert context. HLHJ (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a private e-mail message is not Wikipedia:Published and is therefore not usable (at all) to support content in Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This policy guarantees a pro-mass media bias

Surely that is against the neutral viewpoint of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.192.59 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

no--"neutral" has a special meaning in Wikipedia-== it refers to including all the major reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Pro-mass media bias"? Yes, that's exactly correct. Please review WP:DUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Someon that bias - which other editors point out reflect policy - should be gamed to a degree with WP:RECENTISM. Contentious cu Jeff's are ones best covered by source farther in time from the original event to reflect long term views rather that the immediate reactions. Those long term views may still have apparent bias because the long term supports that. --Masem (t) 22:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair question. The answer is largely a WP:NPOV issue, but also WP:RS. Some think that newspapers are good sources. Newspapers are usually the weakest sources acceptable. Excessive use of newspapers leads to mass media bias. An answer is to try harder to analyses your newspaper use under WP:PSTS. Sources that reference other sources, that compare and contrast other sources, are the best sources for guiding Wikipedia’s POV. Front page newspaper articles are not usually these best sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) When read together with other policies, what NOR encourages is a pro-reliable source bias. There's significant overlap between mass media and reliable sources, but it's an imperfect overlap and there are mass media that we don't accept as reliable (e.g. the Daily Mail). There are also plenty of academic sources that aren't mass media that we totally do accept. What we don't accept are fringe sources, blogs, Infowars, etc.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A "a pro-mass media bias" sounds actively good to me, since it keeps Wikipedia free of extremist or fringe viewpoints, political or otherwise :) CapnZapp (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for mass media to incorrectly report on some scientific discovery with a technical error and neglect to correct it. The problem with a "pro-mass media bias" then is the article contains things which are technically wrong. E.g. news articles on results of Monte Carlo experiments in physics, which frequently misinterpret them to be experiments in the traditional sense and so to have physical meaning.

In such a case, what, do you throw your hands up and say "well I guess I must write this thing that's wrong because I have a bunch of media sources claiming it's true"?

It's a good thing that math-heavy subjects aren't touched by the media, then, since this keeps them correct! 2601:14D:4002:6D00:F557:B35D:C52A:CAD4 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a requirement that articles cite sources written by experts, and "expert" is definitely contextual - their expertise has to be relevant to what they are writing about. Newspapers generally should not be cited for scientific facts. It's true that they often are, but this is not supported by existing policy. For clarity, that doesn't mean they can't be cited for anything related to science. There is literal "news" about science - a newspaper could be cited as a source that something has been announced, or a project started, or an award given out, etc. Just usually not for the actual scientific claim. So the sentence "scientists have announced X" can cite a newspaper article, but if you just wanted to write "X", cite something the scientists themselves wrote. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC related to this policy

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. The WP:NOR policy has been mentioned repeatedly, and perhaps editors familiar with this policy would like to share their views.

In some discussions prior to the RFC, editors wondered whether the math involved in turning a pill strength (e.g., 100 mg) into a monthly amount would exceed WP:CALC's limits. I don't know the answer, and I'm hoping someone here is more familiar with the current state of how CALC is interpreted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

photo

I say that this is a pizza, charred by 4 hours in the oven; so does the photographer. I have however been asked to provide a third-party source to assert that it illustrates charring, is/was a pizza, and was baked for four hours. HLHJ (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. can photograph be used as source(primary source)? (Ckfasdf (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC))

• Yes. I have seen it done. A photograph of a sign that gave population information, is one example I remember. Not ideal, but yes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

​This is really common for photo captions. If I caption a photo with "A Labrador dog rolling in the dirt in Tanzania", I probably don't have a source that says that the picture shows a Labrador dog rolling in the dirt, or Tanzania. If I do, it's probably a comment by the photographer, which is a primary source. This is generally OK.

Such claims are usually either easy to for anyone examining the photo to verify (sure looks like a rolling dog to me, and that looks like dirt...) or they are OK under WP:ABOUTSELF (if the photographer says that their dog is a Labrador, it probably is, even if the cloud of dust makes it hard to be sure; and if they say they took the photo in Tanzania, we probably have no reason to disbelieve it).

I have actually had talk page disputes over this issue. See accompanying picture. HLHJ (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that editor is known for having a quirky definition of "original research". You probably need to take it to WP:NORN, and resolving it may require someone waving the WP:BANHAMMER around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Good lord, HLHJ. My first two guesses to that thing were "dead bird recovered from oil spill" and "meteoric glass". Someguy1221 (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL, Someguy1221. Glass on a plate... though the lump of char looks utterly inedible too. I was looking for a photo of something completely carbonized... WhatamIdoing, thank you for the advice; I don't recall coming across the NORNboard before, and it's good to know. I'm afraid that's far enough down my list of priorities that I am unlikely to get to it; there are more important issues which I ought to resolve. HLHJ (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pizza_image The RfC was against including the image for the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Why no original research?

Could anyone direct me to a serious, full discussion of this? Don't give me one-sentence explanations; I'm looking for an essay. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• It’s such an old policy, well accepted and deeply rooted, fundamentally connected to sourcing policies and NPOV, that it didn’t generate many essays. Essays are generally written in response to conflicting philosophy. No serious Wikipedian has ever argued against WP:NOR. The best you. May find is probably in the talk page archives here. Why don’t you write the essay you are looking for? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

---

@Deisenbe and SmokeyJoe:

On the General Dogmatism on Wikipedia, not an essay but a live example.

— Wikipedian Right (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Some controversy

To any readers here, there's been some controversy over at the Michael Bloomberg article. There is a lot of press that covers Bloomberg's private aircraft alone, along with other non-environmentally-friendly assets/practices. He has even been asked directly about the matter recently, as it stands in contrast to his environmental activism.

I am not sure how to word this in order to still abide by WP:OR and WP:RS, especially as many editors there somehow feel that these plainly-obvious, well-cited facts shouldn't be mentioned. They're also a very important criticism to note. Here is the discussion: Talk:Michael Bloomberg#Michael Graham article. Any input or advice? ɱ (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

intro

policy says even if something is never challenged you must source it. but then it says for example capital of france does not need a source.i put a sentence in 2020 pandemic misinformation page and you need to make exceptions for some pages and some info.Baratiiman (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Context: OP is referring to my revert of this edit. Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

What is the best WP policy page to point someone to when they misrepresent a source, either by misquoting it or by using it to support something it doesn't say at all? This is more basic than WP:SYNTH, which is about drawing conclusions from multiple sources, and more basic than WP:INTEGRITY, which is about the mechanics of citing properly. There is an essay Wikipedia:Honesty, but I'd think this is more fundamental than an essay, and some sort of statement would be useful in WP:V or WP:NOR. Or have I missed some obvious place...? --Macrakis (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say it's the very lead section of WP:No original research: "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source". This is also stated at WP:Verifiability#Original research, so it's in policy twice. To get the point across, I would quote that and link to both places. :-) PS: I've added this point to WP:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The core point is that it does not support the material and thus does not fulfill the sourcing requirement for the material.North8000 (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nonfiction synopsis based on primary source

I have a request for feedback in two discussions:

1. at Talk:Pedagogy of the Oppressed#Synopsis section, regarding a synopsis of an academic work by a student editor
2. here in this discussion, regarding whether we need more explicit guidance in NOR policy regarding SECONDARY vs. PRIMARY sourcing for synopses of academic nonfiction works. Do we need to add any text to section #Primary, secondary and tertiary sources to clarify the situation; or to some other section of the policy where WP:NONFICTIONSYNOPSIS would be the right shortcut.

I wonder whether the NOR policy gives sufficient guidance about whether editors may, or may not write a synopsis of a nonfiction book or article, or whether it needs to be expanded to cover this case. The real world example prompting my concern, is the discussion I raised at Talk:Pedagogy of the Oppressed, where a student editor added a long synopsis of a serious academic work in their own words, citing the book itself as their only source in this solitary footnote.

My reading of WP:PRIMARY leads me to believe that the key sentence there for this case, is the straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person-criterion. In the case of fiction, I find this more easily interpretable, and it is further clarified in MOS:BOOKPLOT. I find it notable, and important, that MOS:BOOKPLOT is a shortcut for the MOS subpage "Writing about fiction". In particular, I find the "any educated person" criterion not nearly so straightforward when it comes to a synopsis of a non-fiction work such as Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In this case, it seems to me that except for bare-bones information (such as: number of chapters, titles of chapters, possibly direct quotations from the source—but maybe not even that, since editorial judgment is exercised in selecting a quotation) which could be sourced to the book itself, any other synopsis in the article should be based on independent, secondary sources, and not solely on the opinion of a Wikipedia editor's reading of such a work.

In this, my view of the meaning of WP:PRIMARY as it pertains to non-fiction works, aligns with that of Jayjg, as they expressed in Archive 40 (diff). But I can't find anywhere in current policy where this interpretation is stated, or refuted. To the extent that we have clear guidance at MOS:BOOKPLOT, don't we need something analogous for non-fiction?

There may be related discussions in the archives (1, 4, 5a, 5b, 40, 15, 48, 50). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to know where it can be found but I'm 99% certain all issues related to the application of OR to plot summaries of fictional works apply to non-fictional works, I agree this has been discussed and was documented somewhere, but likely close to a decade ago, making it difficult to narrow down. --Masem (t) 01:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:, thanks; did you check the archive links I placed just above? Some of them are ten years or older, so maybe what you remember is there. If something was discussed and documented in the policy, I'd like to see it. If the result was, as you say, that "all issues related to the application of OR to plot summaries of fictional works apply to non-fictional works," then I believe that either we should revisit that, or codify it in the policy. The problem that I see, is that even if that is 100% true, the fact is that writing a synopsis or plot summary of non-fiction is different in kind, and not merely in degree, from writing one for fiction, and so a correct application of the policy for the one case would be vastly different in practice from applying it for the other, and that this is not obvious, and so should be made explicit. In writing a plot summary for fiction, you can list the characters, how they are related, who shot whom, who got married to whom, what spaceships they used to visit what planets, and so on. For an academic work, the issues are completely different, and very often completely in the world of ideas. Do we want to read assertions from a Wikipedia editor on what Freud or Einstein said, using only Freud or Einstein's original works as a source, or do we rather want to reference reliable, academic authors who wrote about them and footnote what they said? I vote very strongly for the latter, and I just don't want to hear a volunteer editor's opinion about what either of the two giants of the twentieth century said in their written works. The same argument holds for works of non-fiction by anyone notable enough to have an article at Wikipedia about their work. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussions I recall are under WT:NOT's archives as related to WP:NOT#PLOT. Though this doesn't get to the matter of OR application to the summary of a non-fictional work. I think it should readily apply, in that an RFC could be had to deal with two birds with one stone: that 1) we accept uncited summary of a work on an article about that work on the presumption the work is a primary source for itself, and 2) in writing that summary, all aspects of using a primary source without any additional secondary sourcing must be observed - no analysis, interpretation, etc. --Masem (t) 02:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Accepting uncited summaries of works assuming citations to themselves has always struck me as weird. However, I agree that 2 is how we should apply our guidelines to nonfiction. In general our formal writing on nonfiction is sorely lacking (a point I've brought up before). To me the the dangers of SYNTHESIS and other forms of OR are just as likely to happen with a book/TV show/movie/etc as with any other primary source. It is why we favor secondary sources. And, crucially, why the bulk of any Wikipedia article should be those secondary sources. If a page is all plot/synopsis that should should be radically pared back so that the article is primarily about the secondary sources (at least in my interpretation of DUE which is also under discussion). Masem one question for you: what are you hoping the RfC would establish? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Mathematics and original research

Hi, could someone tell me if it is possible to write personnal mathematical demonstrations ? I am not talking about very hard demonstrations that only professionnal can understand. The other users who have standard mathematical skills could just read it. If they disagree with my arguments, they can remove it. Otherwise, if they agree with my arguments, can they still delete it because it is original research ? Here is an exemple: "Let f be a differentiable function from R to R. We can assert that f is continuous." Contribute.Math (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Original Research and Lists

Adding an item to a list can be original research. Say I want to add a name to the List of Norwegian Americans. The sources do not include the complete list. And then I will have to do OR to add the element to the list. Yet my addition is reliable even without being included in reliable (list) sources. Anyone can verify that my addition is valid.

The problem with the OR is that it's generally unreliable. Yet for lists, doing OR to add an element to the list is not a problem, because the addition is reliable. Maybe that should be mentioned somewhere in the policy - as General research allowances (which include WP:CALC). Avram25 (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it really SYNTH to use cites as examples of a statement?

For example, if you say "some newspapers reported it thusly" and you cite some number of direct examples of newspapers reporting it that way, is that really WP:SYNTH? To me that is analogously comparable to "summary" or "numerical summation" which are both listed in WP:SYNNOT. But people are dinging it for OR. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Biases re. No OR

I am wondering how other editors have dealt with the OR rules for controversial subjects that are unfamiliar to most Western readers. I have been editing the biography of a controversial Buddhist teacher. There are certain authorities within the tradition of Buddhism that he practices, i.e. the head of that lineage of Buddhism makes the decisions about who is or is not an authentic teacher of the tradition. However, I cannot find a source saying explicitly that it is the head of that lineage who makes those decisions - this is something that is so obvious to practitioners of that lineage that it's assumed. It's similar to the idea that it is the Pope who is the final authority within Catholicism. Every Catholic knows that, so it might be difficult to find an academic source that stipulates that idea. But this lineage of Buddhism is a bit obscure, not so well-known, and these facts are not well-known outside of that lineage. Because the article in question is about a controversial figure, every edit is being contested. There seems to be some inherent cultural biases in the No OR rules - the uncontroversial facts like the sky is blue are facts that are obvious to Westerners. Has anyone else encountered this type of issue and how have you dealt with it?

Mekinna1 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mekinna1: The comparison with Papal infallibility and the sky being blue potentially kill your argument, as there's plenty of academic sources that explain concepts. Doctrines, particularly those of organizational matters such as lineage, are easier to write about than the experiences of the religion (e.g. beatific visions, Śūnyatā, whatever). Those academic sources might be published by the religion, but Brill Publishers releases a ton of secular works on religious doctrines. Our article on Sky has four citations for the line explaining that the sky is blue.

Also, it's not Wikipedia's job to decide who is "right" in the Karmapa controversy. The problem is not so much cultural bias (for once) but that you've taken a clear stance on the matter and don't like that Wikipedia's remaining neutral. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: This comment is in relation to cultural bias, and what is obvious within one particular culture that is not obvious in another. The 'sky is blue' example was from an older version of the WP:OR page, where the example was given that you don't need a source for an obvious and uncontroversial statement like 'the sky is blue.' Yes, sure there are sources that explain why the sky is blue, but that's really not my point. I'm talking about cultural assumptions that are obvious and uncontroversial to one group of people, namely Westerners, where you might not need a source because nobody would demand one, vs. cultural assumptions that are obvious to a non-Western group of people which end up requiring a source because they are not obvious to Wikipedia's typical audience...The question is around how Wikipedia is authored by Westerners for a Western audiences; there are some cultural assumptions there while the cultural assumptions of other cultures don't seem to 'transfer' over very well. Some cultures have been studied by anthropologists and so you can find sources to cite their assumptions, but others are more obscure and sources are sparser.

The comment was not in relation to the Karmapa controversy. Just seeking help from other editors who might have dealt with this before and have suggestions on how to help. Not really interested in a debate.

Mekinna1 (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mekinna1: The Karmapa controversy affects Diamond Way Buddhism, which in turn concerns Ole Nydahl. It's pretty clear from your edit history that that's what this is about. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

And if it's really not, then please let us know what lineage you're talking about so we can help you find sources. :) Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Do I know you? What is your problem here?

I haven't edited the Karmapa controversy page in a very long time, and as far as I know there isn't much controversy anymore. The two main candidates just wrote a long life prayer together. People can make up their own minds on the subject. I don't really care.

I'm looking for helpful suggestions on this subject of cultural bias - maybe someone other than you has something helpful to say, it's clear that you don't.

Mekinna1 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You said I have been editing the biography of a controversial Buddhist teacher. There are certain authorities within the tradition of Buddhism that he practices, i.e. the head of that lineage of Buddhism makes the decisions about who is or is not an authentic teacher of the tradition. Your editing history indicates that the locus is Ole Nydahl, Diamond Way Buddhism, and their role within the Karmapa controversy. I addressed this by pointing out that it's not our job to take sides on the matter. If it's not relating to that general area, then the only options are that you've been editing under different accounts, or you're moving the goalposts because that response didn't give you a workaround against WP:NOR, or we need you to tell us what leader you're actually talking about so we can help you find sources.

Outside of that specific example, your argument amounts to stating that because you hypothetically lack the ability to find sources to support your claims in some unknown area, they must not exist, so it's the academic culture that's biased. Nevermind that other people might be able to find sources, and nevermind that if there were no sources on that lineage we wouldn't have an article to begin with.

I'm trying to help you accept that we can't just use personal knowledge, it's on you to find sources to your claims, and that you need to be willing to ask for help if you can't find sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I started editing Wikipedia a few years ago because I saw that the biography of an individual which was, in my view anyway, not very fair or accurate. It was never my intention to make Wikipedia editing my life's work. I haven't devoted much time to it in general - so yes, if you look at my editing history it's been focused on a couple of articles, stretching over a long period of time. I didn't realize when I started dabbling in Wikipedia editing that the idea was to spend a whole bunch of time editing a whole bunch of articles, or you weren't legit. I'm still just not really that interested in that. I have a job, a life, stuff to do besides respond to the hostile editors...I don't think this can or should invalidate everything I have to say. There are editors who have worked on the article about Nydahl who have openly admitted to POV-pushing on the talk page - no one seems to care because they edit lots of other pages and therefore have more authority.

The question relates to the authority of the Karmapa within the Karma Kagyu lineage, meaning the authority of the Karmapa to make decisions about the lineage and the tradition, and within the lineage, (not to the question of who is the Karmapa vis a vis the Karmapa controversy).

Anyway my original question here was not about me wanting to use personal knowledge - I have asked a few historians and Tibetologists if they know of sources that describe the authority of the Karmapa within the lineage to, for example, decide who teaches what. The answer that I've received is that there is no source because it's just assumed knowledge. It's something which is so obvious to Tibetans in that lineage that it's never something that needs to be asserted. I haven't found any newspaper articles or non-academic articles that state this either. So, if there are none, then it would have to be inferred from other texts describing the actions of the Karmapas, or something like that, if it was going to be used. But it can't be inferred as far as Wikipedia goes because No OR rules, etc. However, it's still true - not according to my personal opinions but according to Tibetologists and others who can infer such from their sources. But they haven't written articles about this because it's not terribly interesting from an academic standpoint. So that is the basis of the problem.

Mekinna1 (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mekinna1: there is no source because it's just assumed knowledge -- that's personal knowledge. Doesn't matter if it's not specifically your person, doesn't matter if there's a significant number of people that possess it, it's personal knowledge.

And maybe you should try asking competent historians and Tibetologists, as previously unpublished info gets one credit in academia.

if there are none, then it would have to be inferred from other texts describing the actions of the Karmapas -- We don't interpret primary sources because that opens the door to the sort of sectarianism that's getting harder to not see in your edits.

it's not terribly interesting from an academic standpoint -- if it's the basis of a succession controversy, then it's interesting. I cannot believe that the historians and Tibetologists you asked were simultaneously competent, paying attention, or actually trying to help you (instead of just trying to get on with their day). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.Thomson: that's personal knowledge. Doesn't matter if it's not specifically your person, doesn't matter if there's a significant number of people that possess it, it's personal knowledge. -- it's not personal knowledge, rather it's cultural knowledge. Western cultural knowledge doesn't require a reference but Easter cultural knowledge does. Get it yet? I'm pointing out a cultural bias in Wikipedia's editing rules.

Mekinna1 (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

do verifiable observations count?

i have been wondering about observations that may be difficult to find stated explicitly in a source, but are easy to verify with publicly able information e.g. "the lowercase letter b is the mirror image of the lowercase letter d". I probably could find somewhere cite-able saying that, but just as an example. I guess a more likely example would be a more obscure "in the medial form ـقـ ـفـ the Arabic letters ق ف are distinguishable by the number of dots above". Irtapil (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• See WP:CAPTAINOBVIOUS but IMO the example you provided needs verification although it is obvious. The reason why it needs verification is that it is implying that the dots are the only way to know the difference between ق and ف in the middle form. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it's original research but since no one's ever done it before, does it count as reliable?

No. And you should have started a discussion at the relevant talkpage instead of continually edit warring this material into mainspace. Grandpallama (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Not only is it pure original research (and so should be removed) but it's comically wrong. You've put Trump into the libertarian left? And no, it's not reliable. — Richard BB 16:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The poster has been indeffed. There's no discussion happening then or now. I'm removing the mega dump. Also possible copyvio as their rationale was that they are the creator of the "image" which is 9 images that they didn't create. Please look at July 1 history if you want to see what was removed. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sources published before an event shouldn't be used to provide background information for an article about the event"

Netoholic, as seen with this edit, you added the following: "For example, sources published before an event shouldn't be used to provide background information for an article about the event because such information can't be verifiably shown to be relevant. Instead, use current sources which cover the event and which detail any relevant background information."

Will you explain here on the talk page what this means, or rather what you intend by this addition? I ask because there are cases where sources may be used to speak about an upcoming event, which, of course, is before the event has happened. It might include information about what the people behind the event intended, via their own words. That they explained what the event is about before it happened doesn't mean that what they stated is outdated or inaccurate once the event happens. Think of how film information -- background, etc. -- comes out before the film premieres. I noted here that I'm "not sure what 'such information can't be verifiably shown to be relevant' is supposed to mean. Not sure how that piece is helpful. Editors can simply argue that it's on-topic and therefore relevant."

Since you thanked me for this edit via WP:Echo, I didn't ping you. It's clear you're watching the page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeeeah, I have no idea how that is even appropriate. The only caution about using sources before an event is that there's the chance that the event may not happen (as we've learned this year with COVID-19) so editors just have to make sure to write carefully as to not presume the event will happen, just that they are planned to happen. --Masem (t) 05:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it isn't even true. Some types of background information do not need a source to show their relevance. If an article about a war in the year 2020 has historical information like population figures, government leaders, and wars in the years before 2020, there is no reason whatever to eliminate sources from before 2020 for that information. Only statements in the article that connect that background to the 2020 war in a sense that isn't mere juxtaposition need sources that make the connection. I'm removing these sentences as lacking consensus. Zero^talk 12:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case, if population/leadership/prior wars was relevant, then certainly there are sources from after the 2020 war which would mention that relevant information. Otherwise, how could we as editors know for certain which particular facts are indeed relevant to the topic. That's the problem, it'd be editors making decisions about what they think is relevant, with no guidance from sources to back it up. This leads to arguments about which facts are relevant... rather than relying on sources which can verifiably state what is relevant. -- Netoholic @ 16:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: - I can see the cause of confusion, and its because my "For example..." didn't clearly exclude sources about a known, upcoming event (like a film). My concern is the use of sources that do not specifically mention the event that an article is about. To use a somewhat silly example: in an article about an earthquake, we would not use a source from two months before the earthquake stating something about property values (such a source pre-dates the event and so wouldn't mention it). If property values were relevant background to the earthquake, then sources after the earthquake will mention them as relevant, and in that case we'd cite those sources (not the ones that pre-date the event). In short, if a source doesn't mention an event, it shouldn't be used as a source for the event's article. I'd like to see the line restored in some form that clarifies your concern. -- Netoholic @ 16:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The process of deciding which facts are relevant and which are not is called writing an article. That's what Wikipedia editors do. It was correct to remove this addition from the policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There are many ways that a source from before an event could be useful and appropriate for an article. And others where it would be a bad decision.North8000 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Extend PSTS to ensure topic relevance

WP:PSTS states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources .... To avoid Coatracking and the inclusion of articles on topics that are not actually notable, I think this should be extended to clarify that these secondary sources must be directly relevant to the topic of the article. Without this addition, it is possible to create a valid article on a topic that has no reliable, published secondary sources itself, but which does include them for the peripheral content that every article contains. For example - an article on a non-notable person that's packed with reliable sources that discuss the person's family name, their notable relatives, their home, their businesses, etc. would apparently be acceptable.

This requirement seems to be assumed or understood, and although it is stated or hinted at elsewhere (e.g. in WP:N), it would be beneficial to clearly state it here because WP:PSTS is such a widely cited shortcut.

I have boldly added "that are directly relevant to the topic" to the policy. If you disagree with the addition, please discuss here.  —SMALLJIM  23:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

At first sight you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, we want the main topic of an article to be based on sources that directly refer to it. But good articles also often contain secondary material with sources whose relevance to the main topic is less direct. Your proposal seems to eliminate them, which is not good. Zero^talk 00:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the important phrase is "should be based on", which refers to the core topic of the article. It's not the same as 'should include' which would apply to all other items of information in the article.  —SMALLJIM  09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000. I see what is meant, but the wording is too open to wikilawyering. What is "directly relevant"? A strong interpretation might be that the topic of the secondary source must be the topic of the article – which is clearly too strong. A weak interpretation would be that the content of the source must explicitly mention and provide information on the topic of the article – but this is essentially meaningless, as any source has to support information in the article. The addition is unhelpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Everything is open to wikilawyering! What exactly does "based on" mean anyway?! I reckon you're overthinking it - it's plain language to be interpreted by discussion and consensus for each case as it arises, same as everything else in our rules. But that's not to say the wording couldn't be improved, of course.  —SMALLJIM  09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted. I'm another voice who does not see the addition as an improvement. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• What are you getting at here, Smalljim? Can you give us an example of the kind of behaviour this edit is meant to prevent?—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: the recently created Enoch Round was what made it click. He was a really minor figure, yet the article is packed with references that makes it look like it's about a notable person. Only when one looks in more depth does it become apparent that the secondary sources only verify peripheral material and the only sources for the subject himself are primary ones. This is a loophole that needs plugging somehow and I think it would help if we emphasise that the reliable published secondary sources that WP:PSTS states an article "should be based on" must be directly relevant to the topic. At the moment I can write an article about my grandfather, filling it with good secondary sources about the schools he attended, his employers, where he lived, his notable great-grandmother... and at a cursory review - which is all that most articles of this type receive - his lack of notability wouldn't be apparent and it would stand a good chance of passing new page patrol. Sure, WP:GNG does state the requirement ("If a topic has received significant coverage..."), but as it stands PSTS with its weak "articles should be based on" doesn't support this requirement strongly enough. Does that help explain?  —SMALLJIM  23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what's happened, isn't it? A brand new user has created an article about her grandfather (or similar close relative). There's already a rule at WP:COI which would prevent that particular edit; but you're right to say that we can envisage a situation where person without a discernible COI does a similar thing, and there still ought to be a rule against it. Interesting one.—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you think WP:SYNTH covers it?—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The trouble is that the principle is touched on by many disparate bits of policy and guidelines, but it's not clearly stated anywhere (probably because it's so obvious!). Maybe bringing it to the attention of New Pages Patrol might help.  —SMALLJIM  09:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You know, I've reflected on this quite a bit, and I really do think WP:SYNTH covers that case.—S Marshall T/C 10:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: could you explain in more depth? I can't see it myself, but then I've always had a problem getting to grips with WP:SYNTH.  —SMALLJIM  10:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• So the sources verify names, dates of birth, and dates of marriage; the fact that there was a connection between mining and brass bands; the fact that Round was one of the founders of a corporation called Wright and Round; and the fact that the corporation published a paper called Brass Band News, which Round edited. The article goes on to claim that Round [had a major part in] the arranging, editing, and publishing of music for brass bands and other composers. That claim is the central thesis of the article and the only thing that gets it past A7, but it doesn't seem to come from anywhere in the sources; as far as I can see it's a novel conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. I've had to think about this too and while I'm sure you're technically right, WP:SYNTH does imply purpose in the editor's actions, doesn't it? I don't think that was the case here: the creator has simply written an article on someone interesting to her. It would be fine in a magazine or blog about brass bands, but not here. I maintain that the problem with Enoch Round is simple lack of notability which - returning to the original purpose of this section - has not been picked up because our policy doesn't make it clear that the secondary sources used to show notability must be directly related to the topic. I still think that's a loophole that would be best plugged by a change to the policy wording. The article really needs putting up for AfD.  —SMALLJIM  22:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Good Lord. Does it? If so, I don't know how we're supposed to distinguish "purposeful" synth from "accidental" synth.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well maybe not :) I told you I didn't understand SYNTH! But where WP:N is also appropriate, that is easier to explain to the offender.  —SMALLJIM  23:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Those sources which do not directly cover the topic of the article should be replaced with those that do."

I undid the addition of a massive new policy. "Sources used should be directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Those sources which do not directly cover the topic of the article should be replaced with those that do." would make a huge amount of the sourcing / cites in Wikipedia illegal. There are an immense amount of sentences etc. in an article that individually are not directly about the topic of the article. These need to be sourced or sourceable, and such sourcing is typically not going to be directly about the topic of an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This principle has, for a long time, been part of the lead paragraph of this policy. It's not new. Any source we use needs to be verifiably-related to the topic at hand. --Netoholic @ 21:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not accurate. The lead says what you must be able to do. It does not forbid other sources as your wording does. To give a (made up) example. An article on Mary Jones says that her father is Jonathan R. Wentworth III. And then a sentence that says he was mayor of London from 1967 through 1971. The source for that last statement will not be about the topic of the article. The lead is slightly ambiguous (inherent in brief summaries of the body) and could be interpreted a lot of different ways. Your wording explicitly states an impossible-to-follow rule. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the important point (as I raised above in Extend PSTS to ensure topic relevance) is that the sources that are used to show the notability of the topic must be directly related to that topic. Obvious, but a loophole that's being exploited.  —SMALLJIM  22:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What yo are saying is a good point but I think that it is covered in wp:notability. I think that the context of what is currently in the lead is that when you are putting material in that implies that it is about the topic of the article, then the material needs to be about the topic. Let's say that you have a theory that cats are paranoid. You can't add sourced "paranoia" material to the "cats" article in a way to imply your theory unless the source is talking about cats having paranoia. North8000 (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In your example, why stop at the father's term as mayor? Why not include his education, the courtship of his spouse, his changes of residence, etc. etc.? The world is full of facts - that doesn't mean that Wikipedia editors can pick and choose which facts are relevant to the topic of the article. We rely on sources to tell us which facts are relevant. -- Netoholic @ 07:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what article editors do, and what groups of editors make decisions on when there is a question. While I am in favor of adding some type of degree-of-WP:relevance criteria, your idea is so strict / stringent that it would make a major portion of Wikipedia illegal. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the removal of these sentences. The only times I have seen them mentioned in a content dispute were attempts to wikilawyer perfectly relevant perfectly sourced text out of an article. Sources should directly support the text they are cited for. Of course the text must have a case for being in the article at all, but it doesn't have be about "the topic" of an article. North8000 gave a good example. A similar one: an article on an event E mentions a person P. If we want to state the birth year of P, must we restrict ourselves to sources about E? I think that would be silly; we should be able to use the best available source for the birth year of P even if it was published before E occurred. Zero^talk 06:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The principle of (paraphrase) "cite reliable sources which are directly related to the topic of the article" has been present in the NOR policy since 2005 (@SlimVirgin:). It is not "wikilawyering" to say that a source which fails to mention the topic of the article should not be used... because that is what leads to original research. If the birth year of person P is really relevant to event E, then there must be some reliable source which can be cited to show that relevancy. To do anything else is to incorporate potentially arbitrary information into an article which cannot be verifiably shown to be relevant. The only reason to include that information would be to present some conclusion or connection between two facts which is not stated in any source. -- Netoholic @ 07:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what article editors do, and what groups of editors make decisions on when there is a question. While I am in favor of adding some type of degree-of-WP:relevance criteria, your idea is so strict / stringent that it would make a major portion of Wikipedia illegal. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the birth year of P in an article about an event E that involved P is not original research. It is commonplace background information that provides context to helps readers understand the article. Original research would only arise if some conclusion is drawn from the combination of E and the birth year of P that is not provided by a source. I suggest you read the explanatory statements WP:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition and WP:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information. Zero^talk 15:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is at the heart of the problem - that kind of "background information" is not so "commonplace" if -no- source can be found which ties the two facts together. Wikipedia editors doing so independently is done only to draw some conclusion, even if that conclusion is called "provid(ing) context". Why would the birth year be relevant if it is Wikipedia editors alone that think so? Well that is what "no original research" is policy to prevent. Otherwise, Wikipedia editors could conceivably string any number of facts together and euphemistically call it "provide context". -- Netoholic @ 15:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As a tertiary source, we (Wikipedia editors) can engage in a minimal amount of "original research" to judge how best to present a comprehensive article on a topic. We're already doing that in how we organize the article's content, decide how much weight to give any one section, and so forth. The idea of adding additional content that may not be directly tied to the sources, such as creating a background section to build a comprehensive stand-alone article, is well within that allowance. If there are disagreements with how much relevancy that section has, that's a discussion for the article's talk page. Obviously, in such cases, these additions shouldn't ramble, they should be neutral and impartial and not to make a point, and all that, as there's an OR line that can be crossed. --Masem (t) 15:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't find any support for this contention in the WP:No original research policy (its not "WP:Minimal amount of original research" policy). Now, perhaps Wikipedia has drifted from the principles over time, but that's exactly why a more straightforward directive should be incorporated here. If a source doesn't mention the topic of the article, then it shouldn't be used, because any information we use from that source is potentially out of context or creates a completely new narrative coming from the minds of Wikipedia editors. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but almost every history article has background like that. Original research is not about deciding what things are mentioned in articles!! That sort of decision is made by everyone who writes an article and there is a process (consensus) for making the decision if editors disagree. Original research is about drawing conclusions, not about deciding relevance. There are at least two additional problems with the text currently removed. (1) It forbids use of any source not "directly related to the topic of the article" even if the relevance of what it is cited for is expressly established by another source which is also cited. This just hampers article development for no good reason. (2) "The topic of the article" is not a stable concept. Original research shouldn't pop into or out of existence when an article title or lead sentence is changed. Zero^talk 15:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem just described how Wikipedia works and is built in this respect. IMO you are taking the most extreme possible interpretation of the interpret-able sentence and saying that Wikipedia should change to that, instantly making a good portion of the entire Wikipedia and it's accepted editing practices illegal. And your proposed addition would explicitly codify that most extreme possible interpretation of the interpret-able sentence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

While being pretty direct about the proposal, I forgot to thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. Thank you! North8000 (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Devendra kula velalar

This information provided is correct since the upper caste pretend that this Devendra kula velalar community should be given in Wikipedia as low and should be critisized that's the main problem but the contents in the given page of Devendra kula vellalar is correct and true Devanath ramakrishnan (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement."

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. I tried to make it meaningful[9], but I got reverted[10] by User:Ryk72. Please rewrite this sentence to make its meaning clear. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It means what it says: Sources can be both primary and secondary. Some parts of a source might be primary, other parts secondary; even for the same article content. Other than removing "for the same statement", I'm not sure this can be simplified. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

An example would be if a Wikipedia article had a statement like "Mount Nadir has an elevation of approximately 1200 meters."^[1] and the source said something like "Expeditions by Clark {1935), Peters {1940), and Williams {1964) used barometric measurements to estimate the summit elevation; the results were between 1100 and 1300 meters. Our own expedition used a handheld GPS unit and mathematical adjustments to estimate the elevation as 1210±50 meters." The hypothetical source contains both primary and secondary statements relevant to the claim. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ryk72 and Jc3s5h:. The hypothetical example was really helpful. But is it really needed to go into such details and cover such rare situations? I don't think so. Anyway, I tried to make it clearer by this edit [11]. Feel free to revert me if I you think I made it worse. Regards, 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

OR and SYNTH concerns at The Infinity Gauntlet

I would appreciate input from interested editors here. There's a disagreement on whether a group of sources saying similar things can be used to support a general point about a common opinion, among other concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC

Please participate in RFC regarding implementation of policy.Thanks --Shrike (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"ancillary article", meaning?

A quote from Jimmy Wales near the end of this article uses the term "ancillary article". I cannot find anywhere saying what exactly that means in terms of Wikipedia. I am guessing that it could mean "anywhere except an article in the main namespace, such as in Talk, or essays" but that is just my guess. I have checked, and that is exactly the words used in the reference. FrankSier (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Texts that establish law

It is a long-standing practice of editors, to cite texts that establish law—such as constitutions, legislation and court judgments—directly from official modes of publication (government printers, officially approved websites) even though these are arguably primary sources and so citing them might be seen as original research. Currently stated policy appears to allow this by way of exception, but does not clearly do so. Some of the issues are reviewed in the essay WP:RSLAW. In these ways, the legitimacy of these citations is questionable and there have been such objections.

That concern may be responded to on several levels:

1. Such a text, being itself law, is an event; it is not a source about an event. It is an exercise of social power, usually with immediate and enduring effect.
2. Therefore direct citation is the most reliable way to refer to the text.
3. It is the only effective way to refer to specific passages in the text, especially by quotation.
4. Reliable published discussion of the text cannot be a complete substitute for direct citation. One issue is delay: there will ordinarily be a considerable delay, at least of weeks and usually of months, before commentary appears in a reputable scholarly source; these texts are often of more urgent importance. Another issue is accuracy: media reports at the time are often inaccurate (the reporter might not have any legal background).
5. These texts are often in legally technical language and their meaning often depends upon interaction with other texts. To refer to them in a way suited (and even comprehensible) to encylopedia readers may require some degree of informed explanation and for that purpose they would need to be cited directly.
6. A court judgment, so far as it reviews the facts of the case, is a source for those facts. However, it surely counts as a sufficiently reliable source, although any contrary reliable source could also be cited.
7. In common-law systems, "courts" as judicial organs are distinguished from "tribunals" as executive organs, although their proçedure may be similar as well as the effect of a court "judgment" and of a tribunal "decision". For the present purpose, the two types of pronouncement may be treated in the same way.
8. A marginal case here is a court's official summary of its judgment. It will be in clear langage and much briefer than the judgment, and thus handy for encyclopedia citation. It will probably also advise that it is not itself a statement with legal authority and is not a substitute for the judgment; the encylopedia therefore should also cite the judgment itself.

I think it would be best for such texts not to be exceptions within the "sources" policy but rather to state that they just are not "sources".

Proposed: at the end of the section "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" add

• Texts that establish law—such as constitutions, statutes, regulations and court judgments—are to be treated as events, not as sources. However, they do not require secondary confirmation and to cite them directly does not count as original research. Errantius (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed. The policy does not forbid use of primary sources, but only certain use of them (the three "Do not"s). In an article about a law or similar document, verbatim quotation of the document is already permitted and is often a good idea. However, secondary sources must be cited for any associated interpretation, case law, and similar. I think that verbatim quotation of a court judgement is also ok (though some would argue it is not ok by itself). Again, commentary on the judgement is not ours to give and a secondary source is needed. I think nobody will understand your "some documents are events" proposal. Zero^talk 08:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We definitely dono't disallow the use of these as primary sources, but it is not our place to use them together as a means to create original research. The law/etc. should be mentioned in someone's analysis that make linking to it useful (for example, quoting the full statute of a law when the details in media reports only tackle a phrase from it). --Masem (t) 13:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

We should not do this. Per Zero0000 and Masem. As an unrelated sidebar depending the nature of the in wiki statement that required sourcing and what the "object" is (a law, the creation of the law, a ruling), the published document can have a bit a separation which makes the primary/secondary separation less tidy. For example, the official government document produced for a Supreme Court Decision is a "package" which can contain the majority opinion written by one justice, concurring and dissenting opinions by the other judges, and an overall syllabus written by the recorder of decisions which is stated as being not the decision itself nor a part of the official decision. Sorry for the tangent! North8000 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Although I would tend to disagree with Errantius' proposed solution, the issue they raise probably deserves more thought than it's received so far. Can we consider, for example, Mirvahedy v Henley in the light of this discussion?—S Marshall T/C 20:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what there is to discuss. The article does cite various court judgements ... to support statements about the content of those judgements (ie they are being used as primary sources). This is an acceptable use. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that it leans on "primary sources" to such an extent that in the light of this policy, it looks like OR, even though I would deny that. I think the text of laws passed by Parliament and case reports authorised by the presiding judge are authoritative, and they shouldn't be seen in the same light as primary sources in other fields. I wonder if the language of primary, secondary and tertiary sources is really the best way to think about law.—S Marshall T/C 08:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• When we generally consider a single journalist to be 'secondary source', it's rather unworkable and bizarre to insist a single judge is always 'primary', let alone a group of judges. The judge is never a witness in the case, and is almost always collating and interpreting other sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Exactly. The essay which Errantius cites, WP:RSLAW, is incredibly specific to the US, and although it contains a lot of thought I agree with, I find its definition of "primary source" a bit hard to square with the law articles I am familiar with.—S Marshall T/C 09:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose All legal texts require independent interpretation and evaluation. I stongly advise against citing legal documents from North Korea, China, etc. as reliable primary sources or as events that change the world by virtue of their literal meaning. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose You say, "Currently stated policy appears to allow [citation of primary sources] by way of exception, ..." However, WP:PRIMARY says that primary sources "may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care [...]. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

Reponse. Many thanks for these careful reflections:

1. As I'm sure will be agreed, there is no bright line between "meaning" and "interpretation". A hard case here, however, is where the text appears to have a clear meaning but someone with a legal background knows that just to assume this meaning will be likely to mislead—and there might be no available and reliable commentary.
2. There has been no support for my "events" proposal, but there is some for taking law-establishing texts out of the category "primary source". (Nor do commentaries "confirm" them.) If we take them out, how shall we classify them?
3. The article Mirvahedy v Henley is an example of a legislative text that is simply obscure—as the court said! (Even then, I'm still left puzzled as to how the alsatian or the horses were exhibiting unusual characteristics.) To my mind, this article should probably draw upon the cited literature to clarify the difference between the two tests referred to.
4. But what I'm on about is that the current guideline on primary sources presumes it to be improper to cite a law-establishing text on its own. There are editors who object that such citation is illegitmate. How can the guideline be clarified? Errantius (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I feel that RSLAW is mistaken, as essays that haven't been reviewed by the community quite often are. I think the text of a law is a primary source, but an approved judgment is a secondary source (being as judges are experts, so their words are best understood as expert analysis of what the law says).—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Except in a common law jurisdiction where the common law has not been codified, a judge's decision is just as much law as a statute. For example, England and Wales don't have a statutory offence of murder. It's a common law offence, and the court decisions are the definition of the law of murder. What's the difference there between a statute and a judicial decision?--Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

In Source text, I now see, a "source text" is defined as "a text (sometimes oral) from which information or ideas are derived" and what I am calling "texts establishing law" are classified as "primary". The definition is wide and has been constructed to accommodate understandings in a variety of disciplines. A "source" in historiography is different from a "source" in translation or in literary criticism. This seems to render inappropriate an assumption that to require a secondary source is normal in every field. Errantius (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Laws are not events as defined above because they are not necessarily enforced, in which case they don't lead to the change that was intended by the law-making body. This is because legislative, executive, and judiciary are separated in most countries. See Drug policy of the Netherlands#Non-enforcement for a famous example where "the Dutch Ministry of Justice applies a gedoogbeleid (tolerance policy)... telling public prosecutors under which circumstances offenders should not be prosecuted." Similarly the German Law on Wealth Tax is not enforced and wealth tax is not levied, see de:Vermögensteuer (Deutschland) if you read German. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the creation of any legal norm (rule etc) is an event, in that (a) the creation is an observable act and (b) the norm brings about a social expectation that it may be followed. (As it happens, I've been reading German all day, but I don't have tax law vocabulary!) Errantius (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Statistics

Does interpreting a source publishing statistics to make a statement about those statistics count as OR? ViperSnake151  Talk  19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes... ANY interpretation needs to come from a reliable source. That said, be aware that doing simple math (such as adding up a total) is not considered “interpretation”. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• This source does indeed say that COVID-19 cases in South Dakota tripled between the beginning and the end of August, and it's an appropriate source for that claim. The problem with that edit was that it connected the tripling of COVID-19 cases with the Sturgis motorcycle rally using Wikipedia's voice, when in fact there's uncertainty about that connection from reputable scientists. I would suggest that the disputed sentence should remain in the article but with in-text attribution as well as the citation. So I'd leave it in but add: "According to the New York Times..."—S Marshall T/C 01:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Original Research in science

I am a chemist and regularly search the scientific literature for various chemistry and biochemistry topics, and have done so for many years. Although I read reviews I usually only use them to find papers that have made the original discovery, for example a new catalyst. Incidentally, this has also made me realise that secondary sources, like reviews, can have mistakes in them. All scientists I know do something similar and if they themselves are writing a review will cite those original papers in preference to the secondary literature. Wikipedia articles are really reviews and at least as far as scientific subjects are concerned I find it really odd that one should not cite original research in them. Philip Jewess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:ECA6:6D01:28B1:9C9C:4547:D150 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of this policy says The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

The rule is to not present one's one original research here but that it should be published elsewhere. It doesn't say "don't use someone's novel research that has been peer-reviewed and published." Such research would be a primary source. Further down, the policy says Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

It is interpretation of primary sources that's restricted, not their actual use. And that's because anyone here can mess up the interpretation as much as those reviews you point to -- but non-primary literature is published and someone on the internet saying "because I said so" isn't. And for scientific and especially medical statements, you should understand why tertiary meta-analysis (or textbooks based on meta-analysis) beats individual studies. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Books published by university presses

Books published by university presses are high in the list of reliable sources. Perhaps this needs revision. I am currently editing a Wikipedia article about a book published by Amsterdam University Press (AUP) that has caused a huge controversy. When I read the reviews about the book and information about the AUP I learned that the AUP is a commercial enterprise that operates independently from the University of Amsterdam. In the case of this book, the author is not an academic, the AUP employee who organized the publication is not an academic, and according to a review published in the Netherlands nobody at the AUP or the university has critically reviewed the text. It is my understanding that the AUP has split from the university several years ago and publishes popular books to avoid bankrupty. This policy disqualifies the AUP as a reliable source I would say. I wonder how many other university presses have found themselves in similar circumstances and have either become independent companies or have adapted their publishing policy to increase sales in order to survive. Saflieni (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Prestigious Melbourne University Publishing has gone the other way, to publish nothing but mainstream scholarship. Critics see this move as political rather than financial. Errantius (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is quite common for university presses to be separate companies from the universities they are associated with, so that much means nothing. Also, university presses are not sources at all, they are publishers of sources. It is our practice, and I believe justifiably so, that being published by a university press is one of the things we take into account when deciding if a book is reliable. It isn't an absolute guarantee of reliability, and if there is evidence of unreliability it is fine to present a case for unreliability and try to get a consensus. I have done that, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Zero^talk 11:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why are we discussing this here at WP:No original research? Seems more of a WP:RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Quite right, Blueboar. I have no objection to moving all this to there. Errantius (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That's ok. I responded to the list of reliable sources I found here but the WP:RS page raises a similar question. It does define publishers as sources (one of three types) and puts "well-regarded academic presses" on par with peer-reviewed research. My example shows that for a Wikipedia editor it's not always easy to decide on reliability without investigating and forming a personal opinion about it. This might conflict with Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and original research. Saflieni (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Calculation of dates.

Just checking. I believe that if I have an article in a newspaper with a relative date in it, calculation of the actual date is *not* original research For example, I have a newspaper dated December 1, 2020 and it says something happened "last Friday", then stating in an article referenced to that newspaper that something occured on November 27, 2020 is fine, right?Naraht (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that people disagree on the similar phrase "next Tuesday", see https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3841/which-day-does-next-tuesday-refer-to. I think the same confusion can occur for "last Friday", but in your example the previous Frida y was also in the previous week so everyone should agree on what it means. I would allow this. Zero^talk 21:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Source Based Research vs Original Research

Using Sources:

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

Original Research:

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Question: what is the official distinction between Source Based Research and Original Research, and where does the one end and the other begin? 83.84.100.133 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Source 1 states that Person A is related to Person B. Source 2 states that Person B is related to C. There are no other reliable sources that describe the relationships of these individuals. You use those sources to say that Person A is related to Person C. Even if true, that is an example of original research. Reading over WP:RS and WP:V will also give you a better idea of where the line is drawn. Snuish2 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds extreme to me. If, say, the Dictionary of National Biography says in the A article that B was his child, and in the B article that C was B's child, it seem to me unproblematic to conclude that A was the grandfather of C under the routine calculations theory... provided of course that there is no dispute that the two articles are talking about the same B. --Macrakis (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more of cousins when I wrote that example so that A might not necessarily be C's cousin, but an editor could use his/her personal knowledge to assert the relationship. In regards to your example, I wouldn't have readily assumed it's permitted under WP:CALC. On the contrary, if a source stated A was five years old on March 9, 2021, I would use WP:CALC to state he was ten on March 9, 2026. Snuish2 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem in the case of cousins is not WP:SYNTH, but incorrect logic. "Cousin" means sharing an ancestor (typically a grandparent), and is not a transitive relationship. That is, if A is B's cousin, and B is C's cousin, it is not necessarily true that A is C's cousin. Similarly, if A is B's biological half-sister, and B is C's biological half-sister, A and C are not necessarily biological half-sisters. On the other hand, if A is B's parent, and B is C's parent, then A must be C's grandparent. --Macrakis (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You use terms in logic as precisely as a logician! I see the distinction -- I think I used a poor example. Snuish2 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Date of Revelation on Doctrine and Covenants 107:82-84

For ChristensenMJ: The date cited in this article on the revelation on the "Common Council of the Church" has two issues: 1. The introduction to D&C 107 states that "Although this section was recorded in 1835, the historical records affirm that most of verses 60 through 100 incorporate a revelation given through Joseph Smith on November 11, 1831." D&C 107 This is why I corrected the date. 2. The phrase "Common Council of the Church" is not used in the revelation - simply "common council." The emphasis in this article points to a Common Council conducted by the Presiding Bishop of the Church, but again this phrase is not used in the revelation. Reference "a" in vs 82 goes to vs' 74-76 which refers to "other bishops (acting) in the same office." Any bishop can conduct a Common Council against a President of the High Priesthood. These are the Church President or a Stake President. Should this article remain as written or changed to reflect Common Councils in general? Perhaps a new topic "Common Councils in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" should be begun. Your view? I'm new at this, so please forgive any protocol errors. Neil F15Kiwi (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You posted in a place for discussions on improvement of the WP:No original research policy page which is the incorrect place. I think that you should re-post this to the talk page of the article that you are discussing article page or to the talk page of the editor that you are addressing. And then deleted here. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The link between WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE weight

In my opinion, over-using primary sources often introduces WP:UNDUE weight into an article. There's an incredible amount of raw data out there to support any POV, so it is not hard to cherry pick primary sources to support a fringey conclusion. However, the WP:PRIMARY "policy" paragraph doesn't explicitly mention this link between primary sources and undue weight. Should we perhaps add a sentence? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, @Novem Linguae. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think it would be reasonable to add it to the line on "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" as one of the reasons why it should be avoided, but it's not the only reason (another reason is that since primary sources can't be used for interpretation or analysis, overusing them makes it extremely likely that the article will engage in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, even if unintentionally.) And I'm not sure it's necessary to go into that detail - "don't overuse primary sources" is the important part and is lready there. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• The idea is definitely tied to UNDUE (though keep in mind that's on NPOV). I think if a statement is added here, it should build off the issue from UNDUE but added, as Aquillion states, that too much reliance on primary sources can raise the question if what's being written is too much OR/SYNTH. Mind you, sometimes we do have articles that are more data rather than process where that data is coming from primary sources (eg election results) and that's expected to use primary sources, as long as some metric of secondary sourcing is present to establish context. --Masem (t) 03:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Masem, what do you think, in principle, about mentioning primary sources at DUE? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY requires that primary sources are "reputably published." What does that mean?

@Onrandom and I have a disagreement over whether a PDF file hosted by the website of the Clarion Project, a known hate group, may be used as a citation for a primary source on Michael Scheuer. It's my position that this file can't be "reputably published" on the website of a hate group. If it was hosted on JSTOR, for example, I certainly wouldn't have an issue with it. Also concerning is that this is a biography of a living person and WP:BLP applies. Onrandom states that the reputation of the host of the file is irrelevant. What does "reputably published" mean exactly in this context? Am I misunderstanding this? Snuish2 (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section as a result of WP:BLPRS but the answer to the above question about the meaning of "reputably published" would still be very useful for me going forward. Any insight would be really appreciated. Snuish2 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

My 2cents would be that while that organisation is guilty of misrepresenting and falsifying claims it’s not been accused of forging a document (as far as I can tell). What they’ve put on their website appears to be a genuine document. It’s certainly sub-optimal using a site like that, and they certainly can’t be used as a secondary source. They couldn’t also be used for quoting a primary source where they are simply quoting that primary source themselves. But displaying a facsimile of a primary...may be ok absent any claims of document forgery. This is on the basis that as an organisation it has come under published scrutiny, and that particular allegation appears not to have been made. i think it would be different if it was a completely ‘unknown’ site where there is no public domain scrutiny - that definitely shouldn’t be used in this way. Interested to see what others think. DeCausa (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with DeCausa on this. It isn't enough to have never been accused of something, it has to be that they have a reputation for reliability. In the case of a primary document, the publisher has to be relied on to accurately identify the document, to not modify it, to not deliberately suppress related documents that show it in a different light, and so on. A hate site cannot be relied on for those important matters, nor can a random tweet, blog or youtube video. So, as much as we would like to use a primary document that we found published by an unreliable publisher, we cannot use it. That's sort of what I take "reliably published" to mean. Zero^talk 01:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is how I've always interpreted the phrase thus far although Onrandom suggested that the host's reputation was entirely irrelevant. I think the policy page could use additional clarity here if editors can come to a consensus about what exactly is meant. Snuish2 (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Based on the history of this page, it seems that the statement was originally "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." That then turned into "reliably published," which was eventually changed to "reputably published." Snuish2 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

When "reliably" refers to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it's not possible for something to be "reliably published". What's meant is something like 'primary sources are okay if they appear in magazines, newspapers, academic journal articles, etc. or if there is some other good reason to believe that this is a reliable source'. What's written could be interpreted as disallowing self-published primary sources (in which case, we might as well delete {{Cite Twitter}}). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF creates a narrow set of cutaways (established experts and WP:ABOUTSELF, with some additional restrictions) where self-published sources are considered reliable; therefore, they can be used as primary sources within those restrictions (in fact, they almost can't be used any other way - AFAIK WP:SELFPUB sources are almost always considered primary; they're really the most primary sources we allow.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think it might be good to change it back to "reliable source", since that is better-defined. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't want to see "reliably published" again since it doesn't necessarily convey what's intended. However, some additional clarity (via, e.g., a footnote) or changing this back to its original form would be useful because "reputably" is not clearly defined in Wikipedia policies. Snuish (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

When a word isn't defined in policy at all, then it is meant to use the normal English-language definition. We define only a very small number of words, such as Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged and WP:Based upon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia:Original Research ?

Hello guys! I am a little confused, is this original research?

=== Current president's last college was closed by the US Department of Education === The current Nightingale President is Mikhail Shneyder. From 2009 to approximately 2012, Mikhail Shneyder worked at California's Heald College as the Vice President. Due to findings by the Department of Education of misrepresented job placement rates at certain programs of Heald College from July 2010–2015, the department made students eligible to have their debts canceled. Because of a lawsuit alleging that "Heald College...misrepresented job placement rates for certain programs". Heald College was shut down on April 27, 2015.

Infinitepeace (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is 100% WP:SYNTHESIS, which is a form of original research. Woodroar (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Morbidthoughts in quotes:

NUMBER one: "You need one reliable source that says Schneider is CEO of Nightingale."

The current Nightingale President is Mikhail Shneyder.

(October 29, 2013), ABC 4 news interviews nightingale’s CEO Mikhail Schneider, nursing college Utah, ABC.

Becoming a Nurse, ABC.

(April 5, 2012), Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing.

(November 6, 2014), Studio 5 with Brooke Walker, NBC. Nightingale College Offers New Nursing Education Program</ref>

AND

NUMBER TWO: "that he presided over the previous failed schools."

Education/Licensing Committee Meeting, State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, (March 10, 2011) - "Heald College Baccalaureate Degree Nursing Program, Fresno Campus Representing Heald College were Mikhail Shneyder, RN, is Vice President of Allied Health Programs at Heald College Central Administrative Office"

Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing, (April 5, 2012 - in which Shneyder explains he started working at Nightingale in March, 2012).

Woodroar - What is WP:Synthesis about this? READ the sources before you parrot someone please. I am at a complete and total loss as to how you consider this WP:synthesis Infinitepeace (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Infinitepeace, I've read the sources, which is why I commented. I'll break it down. You have 3 basic claims:

1. Mikhail Shneyder is the university president. You added 5 sources, 4 of which are dead and 1 is a public document and unusable for these claims.

2. Some claims about mispresenting job placement rates, debts being cancelled, and a lawsuit. You added a public document about how to apply for loan forgiveness, also inappropriate for BLP claims.

3. Heald College shut down. You added 3 public documents (2 of which are live, 1 is dead) and an article on SF Gate. The SF Gate article is likely the only BLP-compliant source we have.

So right from the start, claim #1 may or may not be original research, depending on what those 4 dead sources say. You'd need to track down archived versions or find better, live sources for us to look at. But that's mostly irrelevant because of the next issues. Claim #2 is WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research, because it doesn't mention Shneyder at all. You can't use a source that doesn't mention a person to support negative claims about that person, period. Now even if the source did mention Shneyder, it's still a public document and not BLP-compliant. Claim #3 is also synthesis because it doesn't mention Shneyder, either.

So yes, this is 100% original research. Woodroar (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I got a great idea Woodroar, why not use Archive.org and help me edit the page.

OR

Google Mikhail Shneyder Nightingale college. Let me help: [12]

1. 1 is clearly knocked out.

I am really troubled by the way you are approaching this. A 2 second google search establishes that he is, in fact, CEO.

Although I am not a newbie, I am thinking about this article: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Especially since you know wikipedia policy very well.

Infinitepeace (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that this paragraph is written in a way that implies that Shneyder is responsible for the problems in the second, third, and fourth sentences, even though none of the sources for those sentences mention him (except the Education/Licensing Committee Meeting, which is a WP:PRIMARY source and clearly unsuitable for a WP:BLP-sensitive claim.) In order to connect him to the school's troubles, you need a source making that connection, at least implicitly (by mentioning him), and ideally explicitly if you want to go into any depth. Even with your additional source, taking sources that say "X is in charge of Y", other sources saying "Y failed" (without mentioning X), and combining them in a way that implies that X caused Y to fail is textbook synthesis. And it's not other people's responsibility to find sources for you - if you can find better sources, good! But we're just evaluating the ones you showed us, which are insufficient for what you're trying to say. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Infinitepeace, you come to a policy talk page asking for an opinion on the application of that policy. When someone gives you that opinion, but it’s an answer you don’t like, you complain about them and say, snippily, they should do some research on google and help you edit the page. Huh?! Why on earth would you think they should do that? DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this should get moved to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Add time zone shift as example for routine caculation?

At the moment the examples are "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". I suggest to add time zone shift. Any support or objections? --Schrauber5 (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't a time zone shift basically just adding numbers? (Assuming that which the time zone offsets are is clear from the source.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think that what's a "routine calculation" stretches quite a lot further than that. A lot of the articles that come within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics really benefit from worked examples to aid the reader's comprehension -- but we can't copy/paste a complex calculation from a textbook because non-trivial calculations are copyrightable. So in practice, editors need to formulate examples of their own and check each other's work; see for example Euclidean algorithm#Worked example. This is, in context, a routine calculation; a trivial one, actually, by the standards of WikiProject Mathematics, but nevertheless far more complex than a time zone conversion.
  I think calculations are analagous to foreign-language sources, in that some editors might find your sums unintelligible, but as long as there exist at least some other editors who can follow your sums and confirm them, then you're not breaching NOR.—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My example was adding Sol (Mars days) to a given reference. There was Earth and Mars time for one event available and I calculated earth time for another event with a given Mars day by adding ((the Sol difference) times (the duration of one Sol). That was considered murky calculation and original research. I would see that also as routine calculation. Schrauber5 (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm the author of the "murky calculation" quotation. Converting Terrestrial times to Earth's UTC is, I'll stipulate, a simple matter, and most people would be able to figure out how to do it. I'm pretty sure the same statement does not apply to converting Martian times to Earth's UTC. Even reading Schrauber5's instruction just above, I don't know how to do it. Perhaps what he did (in the Ingenuity (helicopter) article) was not OR, in the sense of posting information from a non-published source. My focus was on the problem of posting information that did not appear verifiable, because the method of calculation is probably not known to most people, and because the alleged facts had not yet appeared in any published source. Schrauber5 suggests that "time zone shift" should be an exception to OR. One might assume he is talking about converting one Earthly time zone to another, or to UTC. However, his idea is much more encompassing, although he does not state as much. My bottom line, for now, is that converting Martian (or other non-Terrestrial) times to Earth times is not yet trivial among the broad public, and therefore, should itself be excluded from a proposed exclusion of "time zone shift" from OR. DonFB (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• • In the answer that follows, I confine myself to the specific question of whether a calculation is OR. I do not consider any of our other policies that govern content decisions.
    Converting sols to days is a matter of simple high school maths, easily checked by any editor with a calculator app. One sol is 24 hours and 39 minutes; convert a given number of sols to days by multiplying by 1.02749125. Convert a given number of days to sols by dividing by the same. Ingenuity touched down on 18 February 2021. By Nasa convention, 18 February 2021 would be sol 1 of the mission. Ingenuity deployed on 3 April 2021, which is 44 earth days later. 44/1.02748125 is 42.8 sols, so deployment would have taken place on sol 43 of the mission.
    If the ancient Egyptians had worked it out by 1550BC, then it's not OR. But it could be UNDUE, for example. The fact that a calculation is mathematically trivial doesn't mean it has to be included.—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The arithmetical operations are simple, but the steps involved—or even knowing what steps should be taken—is not common knowledge. Even in your calculations just above, I don't see a result that shows either a Terrestrial UTC, or a Terrestrial date—the two issues that were in contention. In any case, the procedure shown, I would assert, is a far cry from the single simple operation of addition or subtraction to get a Terrestrial UTC from a Terrestrial time zone. DonFB (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As a procedure, it is hardly a "routine calculation". DonFB (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's a little early but I see consensus that Earth time conversion is included. User:Firefangledfeathers was not sure about that. Following question would be if it should be include in the examples list? The other point, how far routine calculation should be extend and to which extend explained in the article / in the edit?

User talk:S Marshall Landing day is Sol 0 Schrauber5 (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You're making my point. If a knowledgeable editor here does not know if landing day is Sol 0 or Sol 1, in order to make the correct series of calculations, the assumption is wildly inaccurate that this whole procedure is "routine' and that all Wikipedia readers will have an intrinsic understanding of why the final result is correct. DonFB (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Schrauber5, your phrase "Earth time conversion" is troublingly ambiguous. Are you talking about purely Earth-bound conversions from one time zone to another, or to UTC, or are you talking about non-Terrestrial-to-Earth conversions? Much more precision is needed in discussing. DonFB (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

With Earth time conversion I meant one Earth time (e.g. EDT) to another Earth time (e.g. UTC). Schrauber5 (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sol number of landing day makes no difference if you just calculate the difference between a reference date and a new date as long as the source (here Nasa) follows a single definition of the landing Sol number.

• Wikipedia needs an essay called WP:VERIFIABLEBYWHOM.
• If I write content based on a book source that I own, but isn't on the net, then that content is verified. Some editors don't have the book, so they can't verify it; but we don't remove the content. We refer the doubting editor to someone who does have access to the source.
• If I write content based on a German-language source, then that content is verified. Some editors don't speak German, so they can't verify it; but we don't remove the content. We refer the doubting editor to someone who can.
• If I write content based on high-school arithmetic, then that content is verified. Some editors may struggle with it, but we don't remove the content. We refer the doubting editor to someone who, err, speaks maths, to coin a phrase.
• In this case either I, or possibly Schrauber5, have performed a calculation based on the wrong premise. The right course would be to correct the error, not to remove the calculation, unless there was some other (non-OR) reason to remove it.
• WikiProject Mathematics needs to be able to do mathematics for the reasons I have already given. For example, our article on Fourier analysis contains:

$S[k]={\frac {1}{P}}\cdot S\left({\frac {k}{P}}\right).$

It's cited to a footnote. The footnote isn't a source, it says:

$\int _{P}\left(\sum _{m=-\infty }^{\infty }s(t-mP)\right)\cdot e^{-i2\pi {\frac {k}{P}}t}\,dt=\underbrace {\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }s(t)\cdot e^{-i2\pi {\frac {k}{P}}t}\,dt} _{\triangleq \,S\left({\frac {k}{P}}\right)}$

I put it to you that this does suffice to verify the calculation. You might not be able to follow it (and I certainly can't), but, for example, Charles Matthews can.—S Marshall T/C 11:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Schrauber5, you are attributing to me the near opposite of my view. I've said to you previously that "I think on-earth time zone conversions are unambiguously already included" in CALC. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You also wrote "other might agree with you that it's worth mentioning" which I interpreted and memorized as "other might be not so sure and would find it helpful" which is close but not the same. Sorry for that. So the first of my three points is settled. (1) Is time shift included, 2) should it be mentioned as example, 3) were is the limit, what are the criteria for NOR, is Mars to Earth time conversion above or below. Schrauber5 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABLEBYWHOM is a very good point. The criteria trivial among the broad public is in my opinion much too strict. I don't think that even a Earth time to Earth time conversion would fulfil this. I feel more like: comprehensible (including using the edit comment) to the majority of readers that can understand the article would be a better criteria. Schrauber5 (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Off topic: I find it very hard to see on this which parts belong together, who wrote what. Is there a tweak to see that better?

The criteria at the main page gives the following criteria at the moment: consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I see obvious as the most strict criteria but think that trivial among the broad public extends that a lot. But obvious to the editors may also be different from obvious to the readers. Schrauber5 (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The calculation to convert extraterrestrial time to Earth time is not nearly as simple as converting Earth time zones and UTC to one another, which can justly be described as "routine". Perhaps in the not distant future, ET-to-Earth time conversion calculations will indeed be "routine". Until then, I think it would be a good idea to provide a footnote, or some type of non-article text, analogous to what S Marshall depicted above, which shows either the ET-to-Earth conversion formula itself, or step-by-step instructions to perform the calculations. That, I think, would go a long way toward satisfying the Verifiability requirement and avoiding debate whether unseen and undescribed calculations constitute OR. Above, user S Marshall said "Converting sols to days is a matter of simple high school maths". Ultimately, it seems to me, any formula, no matter how complex, is a matter of "simple" math, because the operations must necessarily resolve to addition, subtraction, multiplication and division--not even high school level, but probably elementary grade level. The issue is not the basic arithmetic operations themselves, but rather, the sequence of operations, and how many steps may be involved. That's the difference between "routine" and not-routine. As of now, in my opinion, ET-to-Earth time conversions are not routine. DonFB (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ooh. I do like the idea that you can verify an arithmetical calculation by showing your working.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I try to make a summary, sorted by complexity

1. trivial among the broad public
2. calculating a person's age
3. converting units
4. calculate a ratio
5. reading from a diagram
6. consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious (to the editors or the readers?)
7. (top researchers of) ancient Egyptians were able to do it
8. comprehensible (including using the edit comment) to the majority of readers that can understand the article
9. comprehensible (including using the edit comment) to the editors of the article
   1. that would allow WikiProject Mathematics to have more complicated routine calculations than a celebrity article
10. Can be verified by any professional in that field (derived from analogy: Translating from a foreign language. Everybody needs to ask a specialist, and they are able to verify).

I think there are a lot of topics where you can't verify anything beside a 1:1 copy (and even there you might miss context or preconditions) without having a basic knowledge of the topic. So a criteria that doesn't considers the content will not fit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrauber5 (talk • contribs)

• I'm going to put a pointer to this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics because I think we need their input.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I regard converting time zones as a routine calculation that will actually require a source in the general case. Because, this is only a routine calculation if you can safely assume that you know what the time zones are. In the general case, I contend that you cannot.

New York and Indianapolis are both on Eastern Time. The 2003 Indianapolis 500 started at 11am in Indianapolis, so that was 11am in New York, right? Nope, because Indianapolis didn't use DST in 2003, while New York did. Do we expect people to know this without looking it up?

OK, so time zone weirdness in Indiana is still tolerably well known. You don't have to go that far back for things to get a lot more complicated. What was the time difference between the Twin Cities and New York on May 15, 1965? One hour right, because both use DST and Minnesota is on CT and New York is on ET? What if I told you that in fact, on that date, Minneapolis was not just two hours behind New York, it was an hour behind Saint Paul?

So let's move to Europe. How many people writing about European football just know offhand that Estonia did not use daylight saving in 2000 or 2001? How many know that until 1996, continental Europe ended DST four weeks earlier than the UK and Ireland?

Time zone calculations, in the general case, are actually a good example of something that appears to be a routine, but actually requires sourcing. Kahastok talk 17:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What you write about is time zone determination for a given place and time which may be difficult. I meant the conversion between two given time zones. But you are right, the determination of the zone is often connected and in some cases not trivial. Schrauber5 (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I really doubt that people are going to read the proposed text, and think it only applies to conversions between zones described in the style UTC-4 and UTC+2, as opposed to conversions between zones described in the style the time in New York and the time in Indianapolis. A lot of people assume time zones are simple and they're really not. Kahastok talk 19:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Simple calculations" apply to any calculation (regardless of complexity), which is recognized as standard in the field, and straightforwardly not original research. Converting martian days to earth day is straightforward, and not original research, even though a random Joe/Jane on the streets doesn't know the conversion factor off the top of their heads. A more complex computation that would still be allowed is the conversion of light's frequency (ν) to wavelength (λ) with c = λν ; or their uncertainties (Δλ = c/(Δν)²). Even though random Joe/Jane on the streets likely doesn't understand derivatives, these calculations are completely straightforward and unambiguous. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Standard and straightforward calculations in the physical sciences can take thousands of hours of computer time. Some in mathematics can too. So "regardless of complexity" is a dangerous addition that would fundamentally change the consensus on what the policy means. Zero^talk 07:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure there is consensus on what WP:CALC means. This discussion suggests to me that there might not be.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comments by a professional mathematician, and experimented Wikipedia editor. First of all the above example from Fourier analysis is a perfect example of what should not be done. The problem is that wikifying it requires time spent by a mathematician Wikipedian. As this article seems correct and not original research, editors who are able to fix it seem to prefer to work on other articles.

IMO, for being a routine calculation, a calculation must use a method that is not original research, and must be described in a way that allows readers to verify it, if they have the competence to understand the article (supposing that it is correctly written). WP:LEAST must be applied: if a reader may say "Wow, how can I verify this computation", this means that there is something wrong. On the other hand, a sentence like the following hypothetical example can be considered as a routine computation: "For proving the equality of these two polynomials, one may exapand them with the distributive property, regrouping the like terms and compare the resulting coefficients of the powers of x." Although the whole computation is not routine, each indicated step should be routine for a reader knowing polynomials. On the other hand, a computation that is straightforfard for specialists is not original research, but may be far to be routine for Wikipedia readers. In summary, a routine computation, and a computation that is not original reseach are two different things. D.Lazard (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Math articles on Wikipedia definitely need an expansive interpretation of what WP:NOR allows, because even standardizing notation within the article (something everyone wants, regardless of how they may feel about standardizing between articles) requires math beyond the average person (though hopefully well within the grasp of the average reader of the article). I hope that whatever is decided here does not result in a policy so strict that the everyday practice of writing technical articles isn't WP-legal. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope so too. I have tentatively added to the policy: For articles within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, such as Factorization of polynomials, where (a) the reader's comprehension will be significantly aided by a worked example, and (b) copyright considerations prevent us from using a worked example from a textbook or similar source, mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation.—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Are we sure this isn't a tempest in a teapot? The post by S Marshall seems utterly reasonable. The Martian Sol conversion is something that many grade-school children can do just fine, on their own; when a bright ten-year-old can figure it out, its not "original research" and does not require a citation. For more advanced topics, if it is the kind of conventional manipulation one might perform during the course of a homework exercise assigned from a textbook, that's not "original research". 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall, I think that's far too narrow. Surely there are other projects with similar needs (high-energy physics, bioinformatics, etc.) and surely the need is for more than just adding examples. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There being no dissent from CRGreathouse's view, I shall make a broader amendment to the policy with my next edit.—S Marshall T/C 16:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don’t have a strong objection to your amendment, but I do have a concern: it is one thing to say that a mathematical calculation can be verified by showing your working… it is another thing to say that any conclusions that are based upon the calculation are verified by showing your work.

Think if this as being similar to drawing a WP:OR conclusion based upon primary sources. The data may be verifiable from the primary sources, and the conclusion itself may be logical (it may even be “correct”)… however, that conclusion is still Original Research and NOT verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think you're overthinking this, Blueboar. It's settled policy that the result of a routine calculation isn't original research. This discussion has expanded the definition of a routine calculation, that's all. You can now have a "routine" calculation requiring undergraduate mathematics. If one editor lacks the math to follow the sums, they can ask on the talk page of Wikiproject Mathematics for an uninvolved editor to confirm.—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"Does not apply to talk pages"

I wonder why no original research does not apply to talk pages. I watch a lot of science articles, and frequently people try to put their Brilliant Revolutionary Theory on a talk page, if not right into the article. Here is an example of a revert I did today:[13] Not only did the editor create a new section spelling out their ridiculous theory of gravity in detail, they also disrupted other discussions, even inserting remarks inside other people's comments. I removed all of it before finding out that doing so is in possible violation of this guideline.

Can we perhaps be more nuanced about OR on talk pages? It seems that patently non-notable new theories added to a talk page — with the presumed intent to convince other editors that the theory is so brilliant that it should be in the article — serves no function at all except to disrupt. -Jordgette [talk] 23:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say if something is original research on a talk page, then explain to them why. I don't think that banning comments that contain original research would help. Also, something like "I heard that XYZ happened, can someone find a source?" would also be original research. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Harassment from User talk:Binksternet

This User is harassing people: from what I read. He’s dismissing people’s edits even when they’re adding articles off the internet and it’s not fair. He’s not even an administrator and he’s harassing every person that comments on his talk page. Do something. Tnays20 (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Original publisher web links/retailers

Hello there. Following a discussion that started on WP:A&M some days ago (well, in fact there were at least two previous discussions about the same issue before that months ago), there were concerns about the use of primary sources, specifically the use of the very own publisher links and retailers, to a lesser extent, for the Template:Graphic novel list. Specifically, they are usually used for a very simple parameter: publication dates, and, maybe to a lesser extent, the ISBN. The thing is that, based on these three discussions, there was a consensus that the manner that these kind of sources are used falls well within the policies of WP:PRIMARY. Nevertheless, there is an editor that is completely contrary to the use of this sources (I will not ping this editor, because I don't want to start a conflict and I want to assume good faith here), claiming that their use is wrong, because supposedly, they are "commercial sources" and "spam links" (although, if they were spam links they would have been blacklisted long time ago), also insinuating that there was a WP:CONFLICT. I want to make it clear that these sources were never used to promote these graphic novels, show their price, point out how much stock is still available, dimensions of the product, etc., No, they are used for a very minimal thing (two if anything).

Besides, the editor also claimed that the articles must fulfil a certain proportion between the amount of secondary and primary sources, where the amount of secondary sources must be higher than the one of the primary sources. This may be due to my own ignorance, but I don't know about this guideline/policy making reference to this fact, so I take the opportunity to humbly ask for a link regarding this specific rule. Otherwise, I don't really understand why articles like these, this or this are featured articles, when the amount of primary sources is higher than the amount of secondary ones. That being said, I reaffirm my stance that I don't want to start any conflict, I just want to know more opinions outside of the project and to see if this can be settled once and for all. Cheers and thanks in advance. - Xexerss (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Synthesis and routine calculations

I recently ran into a situation where I would need to find a source for the claim that corn was not consumed or sold in ancient Rome - in this context, the Western Roman Empire. It's possible to find sources for that:

1. ancient Rome existed in Europe,
2. the Western Roman Empire only existed until 5th century,
3. corn wasn't introduced to Europe until 15th century, and
4. 5th century happened before the 15th century (actually I'm not sure there are sources for this last one).

It'd seem trivial to deduce from these facts that corn was not introduced to the ancient Rome, but this does fall within WP:NOR, and no source would explicitly write out such an obvious conclusion. What should be done in this particular case, and should the Routine calculations section be expanded to allow some basic logic regarding individual statements for which sources exist? BlueBanana (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

BlueBanana, the sources using 'corn' were likely referring to 'corn' in the generic sense, referring to almost any edible grain. I think it would be appropriate to define the first usage for clarity. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

By corn do you mean maize? The American use of the word "corn" is really confusing to me. It's completely uncontroversial to say that the ancient Romans didn't have access to plants that weren't brought to Europe until after Columbus' voyage. They had no potatoes, no tomatoes, no maize, and no tobacco. They certainly did have cereal crops such as wheat and barley.—S Marshall T/C 00:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That's likely the case. However, I still think the issue is worth addressing. It's often impossible to find sources to disprove false claims if you can't as much as introduce a conjunction out of two statements. BlueBanana (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For trivially false claims, the best approach is removal from the article. For falsity that requires some explanation or nuance, we should continue to require reliable sources to verify the explanation.

I don't think new language regarding "basic logic" would be a helpful addition—the slope on that is too slippery for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

SYNTH and summary table in US presidential rankings

Hi. I'm arguing on the talk page of Historical rankings of presidents of the United States#Scholar survey summary about how to treat the overall-summary column at the end of the summary table in that section. It's at least partially a SYNTH problem.

The table is a list of how various polls of historians over time have ranked the presidents. The last column is "most-frequent quartile". This is the "most-frequent" among the polls we've chosen to include in the table, not in any absolute sense, which itself might be a SYNTH issue.

There are two issues we've been arguing over: sorting and how to sum up the overall results.

Sorting

The first problem (IMO) is that the table is sortable, and sorting by the rightmost column produces misleading results. For example, it typically places George W Bush 2nd from bottom; one time I sorted, it placed Grant dead last. Yes, I understand that this is because the 2ary sorting is whatever the previous sort was (by default, the historical order of presidents); the question is what to do about it. I don't see how the results are encyclopedic, and they are potentially misleading. The obvious solution (for me at least) would be to disable sorting in that column. However, I've been reverted twice, both times with the claim that not making the column sortable is a violation of SYNTH.

My problem is that the sort order is inherently evaluative. If we sorted cities by country, then there would be no expectation that the resulting order of the cities within each country would be meaningful. There's no evaluation or judgement implied in their order. However, because the poll table ranks presidents according to how historians rate them, and all the other columns with quartile coloring sort according to how they've been rated by historians, and because the quartile colors are intended to make those evaluations immediately visible, with 'best' on top and 'worst' on bottom (or vice versa), it seems to me that it is seriously misleading for the sort order to be jumbled within that overall evaluation, in a way that cities sorted randomly within countries would not be.

Counting quartiles

The other question is how to decide which quartile (and quartile color) each president should be assigned for their overall ranking in the rightmost column. That is, which presidents should be colored blue, green, yellow and orange, and labeled 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the last column.

The argument (if I understand it correctly) is that, to avoid SYNTH issues, the overall ranking and quartile color must reflect the modal quartile among the polls of each president. But that can produce some bizarre results. Suppose we have two presidents and nine polls. One is ranked Q3 in 4 polls and Q2 in 5. We label him a Q2 president and color him green. The other is ranked higher: he's Q3 in the same 4 polls as the first, but the other 5 polls are Q2 in 3 and Q1 in 2. We'd label him a Q3 president and color him yellow -- a lower ranking overall despite him having higher rankings in the polls. If we instead sorted by the most frequent half (whether he's rated by historians as above or below average), he'd still be in the top half: if he had been ranked lower by the historians who rated him highly, he would rank higher in our table. Would it be a violation of SYNTH to list the average quartile instead (which would be Q2 for both), so we don't get screwy results like this?

Averaging rankings

In order for the sorting order of the rightmost column to be sensible, I proposed listing the average rank in the polls instead of most-frequent or average quartile. (There's a table of what that would look like on the talk page.) It was objected that averaging poll results violates SYNTH, and I suspect those of you here probably agree. I'm not arguing for it here, but I'm not clear on how a count of most-frequent poll results would not violate SYNTH if an average of them does -- both are simple ways to report aggregated information. Another possibility would be to use the averages for 2ary sorting, with the {{hs}} tag, which wouldn't be visible to the reader. That way we wouldn't tell them that e.g. Grant is on average ranked 33rd out of 44, but when the table was sorted by that column, the resulting order would reflect how the presidents have been evaluated.

(BTW, I don't know or care much about Grant in particular; I initially chose him as an example on the talk page because I was taken aback when the table sorted him in 44th position, well below presidents that are generally evaluated as worse.)

— kwami (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I don't get why it has summing up quartiles when the polls over-time have different sets of quarters (eg. quarters of 30 does not seem comparable to quarters of 40) -- and do quarters constructed by pedians have any meaning, certainly no meaning pedians can give them. I also don't think average makes much sense when, you have someone who can be 30 in one poll, and 44 in another, just because the units counted in each poll is different. Has a median column, and separately a mode column (for presidents who have a mode) been discussed? Otherwise, doing no summing up column, at all? --Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and this should be moved to WP:ORN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That whole table is an attempt at a meta-analysis of what historians say, and I don't think we should be doing editor-generated meta-analysis on Wikipedia at all. If I was ruler of Wikipedia, the only time editors could do statistical calculations would be when it was verifiable that all the statistics came from sources that used exactly the same methodology.—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The whole table? Isn't part of the table just listing what 'historians' have done? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Saying that a president consistently ranks in the top 10% does say something.

I came here because this is where SYNTH led me. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Mathematical inference and proof

I can understand that for most fields of endeavour, information will necessarily be partial, and that therefore even the most rigorously constructed syntheses may lead to disputable conclusions.

However in some fields, such as mathematics, there is no "wiggle room", and any valid "proof" is absolute and infallible, not merely "beyond reasonable doubt".

Against that I do not see the necessity for a conclusion to be attributable as long as all the assumptions or axiom are attributable (and for higher mathematics, cited), and a person with ordinary skill in the subject can satisfy themselves that the conclusion is thus inevitable.

In the simplest this is tacitly assumed: you can synthesise an "obvious" result from a few well known facts (like the lack of maize in ancient Rome) without anyone disputing it.

So my question is where is the line for what level of skill should be required to assess the validity of the conclusion? If someone disputes the inclusion of a synthesized but rigorously defended conclusion on the basis that they don't understand the inferential steps of the proof, when is it OK to say "it's OK that you don't understand it, but the conclusion will stay, because this article is intended for a more skilled audience"? Or what about responding "OK, we'll add more detail to the proof, rather than deleting it."?

Martin Kealey (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue but is ultimately resolved in the normal way: if consensus on talk is that a particular conclusion is inadequate (perhaps correct but original research), the conclusion should be removed/fixed. If necessary an RfC might be required. If I saw a disagreement like that, I would ask for opinions at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Johnuniq. Also the purposes for the intended addition will probably also new included in the discussion. If it's to create something new, that's not what we're here for. If it's in essence to paraphrase what a source wrote then that's what we do with text anyway. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• There's recent, previous discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 62#Add time zone shift as example for routine caculation?.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Issues relating to 'Using sources'

When using references to newspapers, on this article it suggests using 'mainstream' newspapers, however this is conflicting within the UK. Due to Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland being countries within the country of the UK, regional newspapers for the UK may be regarded as mainstream for the Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish so if people want to edit pages relating to Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish matters, other editors may warn other editors that 'regional newspapers' are not allowed.. even though they have their own cultures; language, churches, governments.

This can be even more complicated when using victorian newspapers that are both old and seen as 'regional', for example on the page Welsh Not's talk page , you'll have editors suggesting that old newspapers cannot be valid and are classed as both 'regional' and 'Original research'.. however this is not the case, in order for an article from a newspaper to exists, it first needs to have research done to collect the data and print it.. so why would it be classed as 'Original research' when it clearly isn't? Can rules be updated for the exception of the UK? where it's unique to the 'country within a country' where they have their own identities?, because it seems unfair to disregard newspapers that's aimed specifically for Welsh audiences to which is their native language?, thanks. Hogyncymru (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

A couple years ago, there was a very long discussion of the meaning of the word "Mainstream" on this talk page. Just check archives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Synthesis

The 'real' example of improper synthesis doesn't cut it for me.

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.

The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it.

The above paragraph does not at all express an opinion about whether Jones committed plagiarism or not. Strictly speaking, it doesn't even express an opinion about whether according to the Harvard manual only Jones committed plagiarism or not. Firstly, it doesn't make a claim about whether Jones consulted the original sources or not — although a reader might read this (in the available context) as "even if". Secondly, it doesn't make a claim about whether Jones used "a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them". Thirdly, it doesn't make an explicit claim on the merits of the Harvard manual — from the usage in the present paragraph the reader might infer that the Harvard manual is a grand arbiter on such matters ...but perhaps in the next paragraph the article goes on to mention an Oxford manual with a distinctly different set of definitions.

I foresee someone sticking up for the above paragraph as a great example. But rather than sticking up for an example of borderline acceptability, why not find a better example? —DIV (1.145.43.213 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC))

Yes the above paragraph is written in such a way that any reasonable person will perceive it as a proof that Jones didn't commit plagiarism. This is exactly a good example of sneaky WP:SYNTH to advance a certain statement.

And in fact the conclusion pushed (but not explicitly written) may be false, because copying of citations may be considered as "using a source's information". Here is a hypothetical example to demonstrate the latter point. Suppose author AA wrote "BlaBla" with a reference "From unpublished private correspondence of YY to ZZ", which AA happens to have in his grandpa's archives. And author BB wrote "BluBlu" (paraphrased BlaBla) footnoting this with the same reference. Unless BB was exceptionally lucky to lay their hands on the correspondence of YY and ZZ, it is clear that BB wrote "BluBlu" relying solely on information coming from AA, but without attribution, hence plagiagism. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This trick of juxtaposing two statements begging an insinuation is very popular by paparazzi. "Mary Slut was killed it her apartment tonight". "Senator Johnes was seen jogging near her apartment this morning". Well, not in Wikipedia. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan, I've recently seen an example of that at Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. This is a huge government agency, and we have only a few sentences about it. We have a few newbies who are desperate to insert a statement about the location of one of its many facilities relative to a public location that is (in)famously where the COVID-19 didn't start. (Why? Some politician keeps mentioning it, and apparently none of them know how to use a calendar. "Before" and "after" are key Kindergarten-level concepts, which can prevent you from saying stupid things like "X happened after Y, and therefore X caused Y".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Historical currency conversion

I've been working on Clive Sinclair, a UK technology/business leader, so appropriately most financial figures are in GBP. However, I've recently hit a few sources from the NYTimes in the 1980s that give good supporting financial info but in US Dollars. I haven't had a chance to check around to see if I can find corroborating sources that give similar info that give the financial figures in GBP that's easily accessible but if that's not possible, I would assume that using a reliable historical source for currency conversion and reporting these as "estimated" figures in GBP based on the NYTimes numbers isn't a violation of CALC/NOR. The only issue is that what is a good historical source of currency conversion for this type of purpose then and should that be sourced if that's used? --Masem (t) 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A more serious problem is to make this conversion non-ephemeral. You have to figure out how to convert 1980 $$$ into {{CURRENTYEAR}}.

This conversion would be the allowed "simple math" if you write something like "was $NNN in 1980 or $MMM in 2021 dollars <ref (ref archived in 2021) /ref> But will this be useful in year 2032? Lembit Staan (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be touching inflation. This was a 1984 article talking about events at that time (we're talking about at most 4-5 years where the figures may have been relevant) so inflation really doesn't enter the picture. As long as its clear this is an historical context, I was not planning to adjust for inflation, that being an exercise for the reader if they wanted to know that. --Masem (t) 21:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ideal source would be the Office for National Statistics but they only publish records on their website back to the late 1990s. Failing that, I'd look for the Financial Times archives. Use the numbers from 5th April each year to represent that year.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Masem, it sounds like you're looking for the opposite of Template:To USD. Maybe Template:Inflation could handle it, if it would let you specify the same year? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is {{From USD}} which would have done it. However, ultimatately I was able to find a UK source that reported the figures I wanted in GPB, but it is good to know that 1) these templates exist and 2) the basis being the World Bank as their source should the question come up again. --Masem (t) 21:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

And since those templates are used in hundreds of articles, I think that demonstrates that this type of conversion is accepted in principle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much yes, though as long as one does it via those templates or the related World Bank data. There's other sites I came across that offered their own data and raised the question of their reliability hence why knowing which source is trusted here helps too. --Masem (t) 21:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

A Computer-generated image reached by consensus

@John Jones and Deb: Re: WP:IMAGEOR. Apart from 2 or 3 very vociferous editors, who certainly know a lot about the do's and don't of Wikipedia, there's quite a consensus on the Welsh Not article that an illustration is needed. Indeed, there's been a tag to that effect on the article for two years. It's a very difficult article as it discusses the use of the device as a means of punishing children for speaking Welsh. The latest image (included), following many tips and suggestions by the community has been suggested on the Talk page, but two (non-Welsh) editors argue that the image is disallowed as the "clothing, ethnicity, and other aspects of that image" are 'unpublished ideas or arguments'. I can't see for the life of me, what the problem is as neither have provided any details. The devise has NOT been challenged and neither has her hair. I'm sorry troubling you all like this, but the Talk page is getting very heated, and as we seem to reach a stalemate, I thought maybe you could advise the cgi editor (John Jones) of any details which do conflict with our policy. Thank you! Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If there is agreement that the device is accurately depicted - appearance, how it was worn, and size relative to a child - I cannot see how then the OR claims around the appearance of the CGI-based child and clothing matter as long as those are "close enough" - eg we're not showing this with a child wearing an Indian sari or a Chinese robe. Some of the points in the discussion are fair: making sure the child is at least appearing Caucasian as expected for the topic, and that we're not creating a bias with the hand positions, but otherwise this appears to be a reasonable use of Wikipedian's tools to make a free image from available information (we know how the Welsh Not was used, so illustrate it on a fairly representative person of that place and era is right in line). --Masem (t) 16:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Masem for your contribution here. Just to let you know that there is now an RfC on the deletion of this image here. All the best! Cell Danwydd (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

When is an academic study considered primary, secondary or both?

The NOR section on primary vs secondary (wp:PRIMARY) includes some guidance when deciding if an academic study should be considered primary or secondary, "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment." WP:MEDRS in particular is very clear that we treat primary academic sources differently than secondary. However, this opens up some ambiguity. It is clear that if a paper reports on a new study that came from data newly collected for that study we would call it primary. However, if a study combines and interprets existing data sets (presumably creating criteria for including/excluding data points, proposing how data sets are statistically combined/analyzed) is that a primary source for the conclusions drawn from that data set? I've taken the primary vs secondary line to be defined by what is the novel contribution of the paper.

Consider a case where authors develop and test a new method for finding tumor margins CT scans and turning those into 3D models. Do we consider the CT scans primary or secondary data? Does the answer change if the scans were taken from simulated samples prepped specifically for this test?

What if the paper is studying epidemiological data? If the study takes several independent data sets published by various government agencies and analyzes them to produce a novel conclusion. I presume we would agree the data sets are secondary but what about the conclusion? Is it primary or secondary? Would the answer be the same if we decide the topic was outside of the MEDRS scope? Springee (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Springee, funny enough, at the same time you posted this, I just posted a section below addressing very similar issues and seemingly inspired by the same RSN discussion. I don't know if you'll want to consolidate these, add something separate down there, or what. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI

I've opened up conversation here as to application there of our policy on primary sources. --2603:7000:2143:8500:34F3:46D5:FCE9:6825 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Seemingly widespread and contradictory views about what primary and secondary sources are

I've been involved in two different discussions of late that, together, have left me baffled. Each one has involved editors who seem quite experienced. I'm not exactly a new editor myself - I've edited regularly for over 2 years and have over 15,000 edits. Yet, the positions espoused seem to be diametrically opposed, and in fact backwards from what would make sense to me.

• Exhibit A (permalink). This is a WP:RSN discussion about a research paper analyzing voting results and presenting conclusions. Most, but not all, respondents say that this research paper and the authors' conclusions are a secondary source, with the primary source being the voting results themselves. Example quotes: A secondary source analyzes primary sources to reach conclusions and create knowledge - like this paper and The author is interpreting the exogenous primary data and secondary sources and is thus making secondary interpretation. There are many more like this.

• Exhibit B (permalink). This is a discussion at an article where the parts relevant to this discussion are about this book from Oxford University Press by Farber & Sherry. The book discusses pre-existing scholarship, and presents the authors' conclusions about it. Although there are fewer total editors at this discussion, we get comments like this: Farber & Sherry et al. are primary sources for their own "criticism" of CRT. When I quoted the first four sentences of WP:SECONDARY, another editor replied: As the policy says, "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one." All sources are primary for something elaborates: "More importantly, many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material....A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)."

Am I missing something, or are these two scenarios demonstrating fundamentally contradictory views about what is primary and what is secondary? In both sources, author(s) of the RS are taking pre-existing material and presenting their conclusions about them, which is being used with in-text attribution in the article. In one case, that exact sort of material is being called secondary, and in another, primary.

And this is not only inconsistent, but precisely the opposite of how I (and at the first discussion, some others) would understand it. In the first scenario, the authors' analysis is on raw data, so it would seem to be equivalent to WP:PRIMARY: a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author [which] is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. In fields like political science, the raw data from the "experiment" is usually pre-existing and not created in the authors' own lab - much like many studies in, say, epidemiology, as well as some studies in physical sciences like astronomy. Although this is not a medical topic, MEDRS's section on avoiding primary sources defines primary and secondary in much the same way and is of interest for comparative purposes. Meanwhile, in the second scenario, the source engaging in analysis is discussing pre-existing academic articles, much like a review paper, and is itself a book by an academic publisher. Yet this is supposedly a primary source.

I bring this up because this widespread of contradictory claims may call for clarification of the policy in one or more places. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Mostly in your second discussion the issue was around due weight (and soto voce ONUS) because a source was said to be out-dated, superseded, or not picked up. Mostly primary or secondary does not matter (or is rather an abstract 'purely academic' debate) as long as one is adhering closely to the source material, not talking about living persons, not talking about scientific/medical experiments, and not 'over-representing' or 'over emphasizing' the source. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That was a part of it, yes, but the array of contradictory views on PSTS is still an issue. If PSTS can be used in the way discussion B says, then the editors at discussion A are wrong. Or if those editors are right, then the editors at discussion B are misunderstanding the policy and adding undeserved weight to their arguments.

I am not interested in pursuing either of those discussions further. I want this policy to be clear so misunderstandings are reduced. These were not consistent positions, and we don't want policy to be so subjective and confusing that it becomes 'stuff I want to include is secondary and stuff I don't want is primary'. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Not 'wrong', speaking in different contexts. Not likely an "aray" that any policy writing can cure. No absolute certitude in every situation and nuance is unavoidable. (example, policy says "base" in basing on sources, it is inevitable that application will cause discussion on that). Writing and editing is not an algorithm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel your pain, and don't have much amelioration to offer beyond aspirin. WP:PSTS doesn't help a lot. WP:IDPRIMARY, an explanatory supplement to PSTS, says that primary sources have three separate, basic characteristics to identify, the third of which is: "Is it primary?". the Primary source article begins, "In the study of history as an academic discipline, ...". The Secondary source article says, "the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, so that precise definitions are difficult to make. (with shortened footnote cites of a couple of outside sources, only one of which has a full cite in the article). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• PSTS makes more sense if we remember how it ORIGINALLY started… originally, the point was to say that we should not make WIKIPEDIA a primary source for information, especially analysis and conclusions. This is why it is contained within WP:NOR. Unfortunately, over the course of various rewrites, that original point was lost. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Based on my very similar question above I think this is a bit of a confused mess. When I was publishing/reviewing a common question we asked was what is the the novel contribution of this work? If this work is trying to present something new or present an analysis that was derived from a novel analysis of existing data we would call that a primary contribution. If the work was repeating/summarizing the work of others then it was a review work. I can see where this is confusing when we are dealing with the analysis of existing data sets and we should be careful to not assume a meta analysis is the same thing as taking existing data sets and combining them in new ways. If I took data sets about smoking, commuting times, and voter turnout, put them thought some statistical model and reached a novel conclusion about how they are tied together that would be a novel conclusion based on available data. Thus my paper should be viewed as a primary for a discussion regarding how smoking and commuting times impact voter turnout. However, if in the paper note that the data shows that smoking rates have fallen over the past 40 years (my hypothetical data set says that) then that isn't a novel contribution of mine thus my paper can be a secondary source for such a claim. I think the critical part is if I combine data, regardless of it's origin, in a new/novel way to reach a new/novel conclusion, then my paper must be considered a primary source for that claim. Springee (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blueboar hit the nail right on the head and if we could go back to the original intention a huge amount of useless back-and-forth would be avoided. Whether a source is primary or secondary is nearly always irrelevant. What we can't do is publish our own analysis or conclusions that the source doesn't explicitly contain, and that is true for all types of sources. That is what NOR means. Applying it directly to Springee's example is much easier than arguing over primary/secondary labels and reaches the correct conclusion right away. Zero^talk 02:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• The best way I've found to judge primary versus secondary for a source or specific source material relative to a topic is the nature of if the source material is transformative of other primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Transformative being the application of what we normally consider original research but by what we hope is an expert source, such as doing analysis, synthesis, criticism, etc. Simple reorganization or summary of what is out there is not transformative nor for us original research by this policy. So like said above, your Farber & Sherry example is one that I can having secondary nature in that their opinion of the existing research, but as others point out, it is primary source for their own opinions. Or as another example that had come up elsewhere, US Supreme Court decisions often have portions that are secondary sources for existing law/court cases, but the decision itself is primary for the case it deals with.
  The problem is that our pages on PSTS evaluation, while they cover this transformative nature as a means to determine it, focus a bit too heavily on the "one step removed" factor, which is important but more about the independence of a work and not so much its primary or secondary nature. I found it far easier to make the determination sticking to "transformation of information" than any other metric. --Masem (t) 03:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the problem here has always been that PSTS is too heavily based on historians' definitions, which don't neatly carry over to non-historical subjects. In particular, in history secondary-ness and independence are usually correlated but that's not so in many other fields. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  ^ This. Every field has its own idea of the "correct" way to divide these, and they do not "translate" well between fields. I can tell you that Exhibit A would be primary if the subject were biomedical research, and that Exhibit B would be secondary in that situation, but I would have to do some research to figure out how the fields of political science and sociology understand those concepts. That said, on wiki, non-autobiographic books are generally assumed to be secondary sources, even if a strict analysis of an individual work (or portion of it) by an expert in that field might come to a different conclusion.

  The other thing that I wish is that editors would quit assuming that primary=bad and secondary=good. I suspect that much of the wrangling over this is about people trying to get a source rejected, rather than trying to accurately and impartially assess the source's classification. (See also the RSN discussion about QuackWatch, and the comments in there that amounted to "but his website just can't be self-published, because I really really really want to cite it!") WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the goal to avoid the wikipedia contributor's novel interpretation or the primary sources' novel interpretation?

The 2nd sentence of "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" has me scratching my head.

  Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

What do the final 6 words want to avoid?

Is the goal to avoid novel interpretation by the primary source's author?

Is the goal to avoid novel intprepretation of the primary source by the wikipedia contributor?

Both? With what weighting?

2601:1C1:C180:4F40:5C4A:BE6D:F0D9:20B5 (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A primary source, by our definition, contains no interpretation. It presents facts without commentary or analysis. What that last part of the statement is to prevent Wikipedia editors from making any further interpretation or analysis from primary works (eg your second statement). If there is any interpretation in a source, it is not primary but likely secondary. --Masem (t) 22:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite true, but NOR forbids us from making further interpretation or analysis of secondary or tertiary sources too. This is a good example of how the policy uses the p/s/t classification to make the rules harder for ordinary editors to understand. We should be just telling them that they cannot insert interpretation or analysis that is not present in the source. Zero^talk 01:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The goal is to avoid novel interpretation by Wikipedia editors, including editors who do not believe that what they are doing should count as either "novel" or "interpretation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

OR on Talk pages, etc.

Currently at the end of the first paragraph of the lead is,

(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)

This is not sufficiently general. For example it doesn't cover WP:Village Pump. Suggest changing it to the more general and concise,

(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and any other pages for editor discussions.)

Bob K31416 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Could you give us an example of when this has been a problem?—S Marshall T/C 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think there is need for a change, but if there is a change it might be best to state where OR is forbidden. Is there anywhere outside article space? Zero^talk 03:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

SYNTH review please

Please can I request some third-party reviews of these edits for violation of WP:SYNTH? I have been informed by User:Joy in the deletion review that I do not understand this policy. I disagree, but would happily hear further opinions. --99of9 (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you're using a lot of primary sources and trivial mentions to build a picture that no one else has ever presented. That puts you offside with most of Wikipedia's main content policies. WP:OR says If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. This is related to WP:NPOV, which says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. And these are highlighted once again in WP:V. We're not supposed to assemble articles from a series of out-of-context quotes. You need substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in order to build a broad, reliable foundation. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I weighed in about the AFD at the AFD which was "keep" for reasons bordering on WP:IAR based on the topic being highly enclyclopedic. IMO the biggest policy/guideline question is wp:notability, and the lack of supplied & utilized independent in-depth overview type sources and then using them to provide overview type material in the article. And so I mostly agree with Shooterwalker's overview, although I consider WP:NPOV to be intended more for balancing / avoiding imbalance in contested areas . IMO wp:synth is not specifically the main question there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)