Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Pool Forge Covered Bridge and OR

I have an interesting problem regarding the usage of original research. The issue deals with the Pool Forge Covered Bridge. One source claims that the bridge is used for farm storage. Another source says that it is closed to motor traffic. The third source confirms that the bridge is on private property. Now, I was at the site of the bridge yesterday and took a number of photographs. During that time, numerous vehicles passed through the bridge, although it is indeed on private property (and thus closed to public traffic). Now it may have historically been used as a storage barn by a previous owner or in some other case, but this is not true now. Technically my work there is Original Research, although I have pictures to document that it is not used as a barn and the approaches are roadways. Now if someone was going to be hard-nosed about it, they would put in the old information EVEN THOUGH IT IS FALSE. Now obviously we allow uncited information, but in this case the easily "verifiable" information is wrong, and the "original research" (which *is* verifiable, just not published) is right. I think because I have pictures to prove the point, there will be no debate, but what is someone supposed to do in the case where there are no pictures? It seems sad if we accept incorrect information in the name of not allowing OR. Covered bridges in Lancaster County are historically significant and they are significant to tourism (i.e. notable), but there is very little published information about them, and information about things such as whether or not it is used as a barn or storage shed (like Red Run Covered Bridge) is unlikely to be mentioned or updated for many years (if ever!). — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the only place to write or to publish photos. Perhaps you could write a short history of the bridge and get it published in the Sunday supplement of the local newspaper, or have it placed on the web site of the local tourism agency. Then the up-to-date story could be used in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a rather large hoop to jump through in order to correct an inaccuracy; it just isn't possible for an average person to get an article published in a newspaper. If the original research policy demands this, then the policy is broken and should be fixed. Ken Arromdee 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Plus there is no guarantee that it could be published. Besides, whether or not I can publish it doesn't really change much. It's the same information, just in a newspaper, which already has questionable accuracy anyway. Is it really worth going through that hassle for every incorrect detail in a published source? Additionally, for someone to verify the point, they'd have to go on at least a 1.0 - 1.5 hour drive (round trip) to verify it. The point is that if it was totally uncited and/or removed and someone compared the article with one of the sources, they would be making the incorrect assumption that the source was correct. I've never really gotten involved in the NOR policy, but this issue has always bothered me. The problem is that I trust myself, sure, but if the situation was reversed and there were no pictures, I wouldn't believe the poster, since TWO sources have the incorrect information. Perhaps we need to take a step back and remember WP:IAR, which is exactly what I'm doing here. The old information is currently incorrect, and it makes no sense to use it, despite the rule. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The no original research rule is a rule to be used in a dispute between good contributors. The IAR policy applies here so long as there is no dispute. If an anon (who happens to own the bridge and needs to claim it as nonfunctional for legal reasons, for example) disputes that it is used for traffic then sourced statements win. Otherwise let sleeping dogs sleep. 4.250.177.88 05:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to that interpretation. IAR is about ignoring process when it gets in the way of building an encyclopedia. The verifiability and NOR policies are not 'process'. It is true that an unsourced statement about an obscure and/or uncontroversial subject may go a long time without being challenged, but IAR does not protect such a statement. -- Donald Albury 11:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You can object, but I believe that's what the status quo is. verifiability and NOR policies get applies mainly when there are people who contest such information. Uncontested information is allowed to live unless "more verifiable" information comes to light. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that so many unsourced wikipedia articles are not up for deletion. I also suspect that a web-based source may be given higher priority than a more reliable print-only source . Why? Because the one can be verified easily, the other one can't, especially if the book is expensive or out of print. People want accuracy over verifiability, and that's the consensus. The whole point of verifiability is to improve accuracy, otherwise it HAS no point. It's useless verifiable information. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If the suggestion is that we allow incorrect information simply because it is published, then I think that's just plain ignorant of the facts, and totally against the accuracy that we supposidly strive for here. I also object to the idea that if said owner would object that we change to sourced statements, which are clearly written some time ago and clearly wrong: (Image:Pool_Forge_Covered_Bridge_Side_View_HDR_3200px.jpg - Note the motorcycle leaving the foot of the bridge) and (Image:Pool Forge Covered Bridge Inside View HDR 3264px.jpg - Note the inside of the bridge is not in fact a barn or shed, but a normal looking bridge (compare)). — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 11:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the verifiability policy says,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

That statement has very long standing in the policy, and is vigorously defended whenever questioned. As stated in the section on "Burden of evidence", statements that are not verifiable from reliable published sources may be removed at any time. -- Donald Albury 14:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(Removed Indentation) First, the sources in question are hardly the most authoritative before, but they are published. They'd be as legitimate as if I got the correct information published in a local paper (if that were even possible for an outsider to do). So perhaps the sources are not all that reliable, although that's a matter of opinion in some cases, since they seem to be quite reliable in other situations. Secondly, most information and knowledge in the world is not published on the web, despite its prevalence. What you have left then is various print media and physical verification of the item in question. The latter is much more reliable. Both take time and money to verify and are unlikely to ever be done in most cases. Wikipedia can never even come close to its stated goal (a collection of *all* encyclopedic content) if it rejects such information. Lastly, my point is not that the policies are wrong. But it is clear that people do not follow these policies legalistically, because you could remove almost everything from every article that isn't cited, and even most sentences in those articles that are cited. In fact you'd be justified in doing so according to Jimbo himself. But I'm telling you, it just doesn't happen. I just clicked on "Random Article" and got Greater Morocco. This has one source and seems like a great article. According to the verifiability page, this page should be deleted because none of the information was cited by the original editor (burden of proof for verifiability is on the editor). Only one tiny section would remain. Perhaps I should bring it up at WP:AFD? Afterall "Any edit lacking a source may be removed". How about the case of Khunjerab Pass. The information could be right or it could be wrong, but no one knows. It may theoretically be "verifiable", but who is going to spend $25 to verify this, and then once it is verified, who is going to stop ANOTHER editor from having the same problem? This problem is equal to the problem of physical verification. I could order the book and verify it, or physically go there and verify it, but it doesn't really add to the article. And if I *tell* you that I checked it in a book or checked in in person then you are back to the original problem: it is logically indistinguishable from original research. How do I know you didn't just make it up? All you have to do is say you found it in a book and cite a fake reference to a real book, and the error will never be contested. If you don't believe me, try putting the page on AFD (and thousands of others like it) and see what happens. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Adding some additional thought: I've read over WP:NOR and read all of the quotes by Jimbo dealing with the formation of this policy. As far as I can tell, my concerns have never been addressed. Sure you can look up the referenced information, but how that is logically different from going there physically? Not really. All of the quotes dealt with either scientific theory (which this is not) and history (which this is not). Both do not easily qualify as verifiable because there is no way to prove them other than publication. You can't physically go back in history and you can't physically visit a theory. But that is again not the case here. It is easy to verify it by physical inspection, which I've argued is no different logically from just believing some alternate source. Might it be true? Who can say? The source does not matter. I think that people understand this intuitively, which is why most Wikipedia articles still exist. If it isn't a theory and it isn't history and IS something that can easily be verified outside of publications, then it is allowed. Happens all the time. Pictures are used as original research in this fashion all the time, despite the assertions on this policy page. Pictures are used to describe physical elements of any given object or thing that would never be used in publication because it would either be inappropriate for the medium or because the picture speaks for itself. But this is an encyclopedia, the only one of its type, so it is unique. Take for instance the specifics of a professional bike rider. His bike may be of a certain brand, the colors of his jersey a certain type to match his team, he may carry some number of water bottles, the number of gears on his bike, brand of bike helmet, and a myriad of other details that may be encyclopedic, but would be obvious if shown a proper picture. Lots of these little bits of information would not be published at all and if they were included in the article based on a picture, no one would have a problem, although it would be original research. -- RM 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Original consensus formulation

Lest we forget, here is the long-term version as it existed before the recent attempted coup.

• ==Expert editors==

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."

Any questions? Pproctor 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

other editors have pointed out that it is problematic to say "knowledge is verifiable" because we never expect our readers to verify knowledge, our verifiability policy is that certain CLAIMS about knowledge are verifiable i.e. they come from verifiable sources. Also, this version is just wordy. The corruent version in the policy is identical in terms of policy, it is just more concise and precise. Brevity is good. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: None here. So let's now hear the supporters of a change from the above version argue a little more cogently for why they think a change is necessary. Jon Awbrey 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Name three. Or two, or one. Let's find an real, live supporter of the change, and get them to this discussion; otherwise, this is pointless. Someone must support it, or it wouldn't keep getting inserted, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, which change to you mean? The change from the original guideline, or the change back to the original guideline?

Oh, come on. I mean precisely what you meant in the practically one-sentence post of yours that I was responding to. You said "let's now hear the supporters of a change from the above version argue a little more cogently...", and I said, ok, name a supporter of said change, and let's get them here. Is that complicated? We're talking about the change from what you're calling the "original guideline", and another way to tell that is that I would be pretty foolish to say, "gosh we need to get someone in the discussion who holds the view you and Pproctor just uttered, since it's not represented." You really thought that's what I was saying? At any rate, Rubenstein has given us an argument above. What do we think of it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He makes a nice straw argument, as do the rest of you-all. But it does not touch on the issue, which is the change in a long term Wikipedia rule to give more power to Larry Sanger's "Trolls and Fools" to harass experts. Again, I had this happen to me and cited this rule to protect myself. So the perps come over here and attempt to change the rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pproctor (talk • contribs) 15:07, September 7, 2006 (UTC)

No, I provided valid reasons. for you to dismiss them out of hand is a demonstration of bad faith. i showed good faith by taking a questions seriously and providing a serious answer. you lack good faith. to you, anyone who disagrees with you over anything, in any way, is wrong. You are adding nothing to this discussion, you are notconstructive, and you do not know how to work with others or participate in a constructive collaborative effort. I will give you one last change to demonstrate whether you are capableof good faith or not. In the current paragraph, please explain what it is that gives trolls the power to harass experts? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, your good buddy dunc (or maybe you are just his sock puppet-- I notice you-all post to the same "creationist" pages) proceeded to delete/revert pages I had spent much of my rather valuable time on. The excuse was that I had cited my own work, the real reason was that I had dared to provide a neutral POV over at Raymond Damadian over issue that I was a personal wittness too, but which apparently he had strong feelings about. I noted that what I had done was perfectly OK under the existing rule. So Dunc inititated this rule change. Presumably the purpose was so that he can continue his bad behavior. Pardon me if I assume bad faith-- there has been bad faith in this whole process from the very start.

Still, I should not be too surprised. As Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger has noted [1], complain about trolling around here and you get accused of trolling. Sic:

• "There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll." and "....Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they will--at least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversy--be forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to "work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best)."

I notice you didn't answer Slrubenstein's direct question: What in the policy, as it's currenly frozen, gives trolls license to harass experts? Please be specific, and quote the offending bit of policy. I'm quite familiar with the Larry Sanger quotation, and by now I'm quite familiar with your own history with Dunc. It turns out that neither of those is an answer to the question: where in a policy or guideline page does it say that you can't cite yourself, as long as you do it properly? Can you point to it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As we have discussed here ad nauseum, the "vanity" guideline is so subjective that it gives anyone a tool to harass anyone else anytime. The present policy gives experts some protection from this. As I have noted here repeatedly, I have personally experienced this kind of harassment. So kindly do not tell me it does not happen. Pproctor 03:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't tell you that. I've never said that. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. It appears that you don't want to link to the vanity guidelines, but otherwise the wording is ok in the frozen version. Subtract that last "see also" sentence with the link, and you're happy. Is that correct, or not? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pprocotor, if you accuse two longstanding and respected editors of being sockpuppets of one another, then you are indeed far more likely to be described as a troll. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Respected? From Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture. Dunc got censured, but it did not do the slightest bit of good.

"Comments by Slowmover

• In an unrelated matter, I also found Dunc's behavior assumed bad faith and lacked civility. Specifically, this concerned the disambiguation page Them. Dunc spotted an earlier edit I had made which had removed some content he had added, and immediately reverted it as vandalism [15]. I decided to revert Dunc, but explained myself on his talk page [16], and complained about the accusation of vandalism. His response was to ignore my complaint, revert me again, and repeat his accusation of vandalism [17]. After this, I decided to check Dunc out, discovered he was a sysop, and that there were other examples of similar conflicts in his talk archives. I began to wonder if Dunc was trying to lure me into a 3RR violation, so I decided that I would stay away from him. Before walking away from this conflict, I documented my position on the discussion page Talk:Them, and added a final comment on his talk page [18]. Dunc finally paid attention to at least one of my points and made a minor correction to his reversions [19]. He then immediately archived his talk page, which I found curious. I found his behavior and attitude to be unacceptable in a sysop, and his 3rd "vandalism" accusation in his edit summary here to be inexcusably rude, since he was now aware that I was editing in good faith. I was also surprised that he didn't seem to care that his edits weren't really conforming to WP:N and Mos:DP. Overall, I found my interaction with Dunc dispiriting, and my concerns increased about the future of Wikipedia with admins behaving like this, which drives good editors away. -- Slowmover 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Comments by A Y Arktos

• Like Slowmover, I also have had a less than civil interaction with User:Duncharris on an unrelated matter whereby he accused me of vandalism in an edit summary. Had not discussed the matter first on the article's talk page. I had discussed it there and had requested citations for the article more than one month ago. Duncharris seems unaware of, or unwilling to accept the WP:Cite policy, commenting that "this place can get verification-happy". In my case he breached civilty as far as I am concerned. I was interested to see this mediation on his talk page immediately above my posting to him asking for an explanation. I thus note I am not the only victim of his incivility. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Incivility continued at Talk:Kangaroo court where he accused me of trolling, being lazy and stupid! He also used the rollback button inappropriately, still failing to meet WP:Cite - antoher editor commented on this behaviour also.[20]. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Comments by William Avery

• Further evidence of Dunc's tendency to escalate the emotional temperature will be found on his talk page at the Commons. Seeing that he replied to the civil request "please try to find those permissions (I'm sure, you got them)" with "I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am lying" fills me with foreboding about trying to pursue similar issues with other images he has uploaded there. --William Avery 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Comments by Ground Zero

• I, too, am appalled by the persistently aggressive and uncivil behaviour by an admin. When I copyedited Adrian Knatchbull-Hugessen, an article full of deadlinks, I fixed numerous deadlinks, adjusted the text, and removed several deadlinks. Duncharris restored the deleted links with the edit summary "reinstate vandalised links". When I pointed out that I had made several unquestionably useful improvements to the article and asked for an apology, he continued to insist that removing deadlinks "might be interpreted as vandalism". He still has not, as far as I know, created articles for any of the deadlinks that he restored. See his talk page and mine. Ground Zero | t 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Today he accused me of vandalism again. See User_talk:Ground_Zero#Adrian_Knatchbull-Hugessen. Sadly, it does not appear that he is paying this mediation effort any heed. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Comments by Jim Butler

• I'm not terribly heartened by Dunc's removal without discussion today of Template:POV-title that I placed on category:pseudoscience. From Category_talk:Pseudoscience, it's obvious that disagreement exists over how to handle this cat. I thought the whole point of dispute templates was to flag the articles and attract discussion so as to help build consensus. Removing the tag without discussion is not only poor Wikiquette, but contrary to the bedrock principle of consensus itself. Unfortunately it doesn't appear Dunc has taken this MedCab request to heart. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by pproctor

• I also second Dunc's bad behavior. Everybody has bad days, but this seems far too much and with too many people. In fact, as a physician, I wonder whether there isn't some psychiatric issue. Normal tussles are normal. But this guy is completely over the top.
• We went round and round on Raymond Damadian. He put me thru all of the above-- reversions without explaination, lots of abuses, insults, misstatements of "the rules", etc. I put on a "disputed section" tag and he removed it. I would try to put in something to bring the POV to neutral and he would just revert it. No discussion, nothing.
• In fact, I can't believe this guy is an administrator-- something which should be reviewed, ASAP. If Wikipedia wants good editors, it cannot treat them like this. And his continual flouting of "the rules" is not conducive to having them followed.
• Even worse, I made the horrible mistake of letting my true ID be known. Next thing I know, he is seeking out my other posts on Wikipedia and giving them "the treatment". Totally nuts-- like when you set off some psychotic. I don't need this trouble. Wikipedia-cofounder Larry Sanger has long noted the difficulty of keeping good editors in the presence of such "fools and trolls". Pproctor 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Any questions? BTW, the reason I suspected that Duncharris and Slrubenstein might be avatars is because the flack I got came from the various "creationist" pages, which they both post too. E.g. from Talk:creationism

(cur) (last) 11:24, 31 March 2006 'Duncharris (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 58.7.114.188 (talk) to last version by Homestarmy)

(cur) (last) 10:58, 31 March 2006 58.7.114.188 (Talk) (More info here:)

(cur) (last) 19:14, 30 March 2006 Homestarmy (Talk | contribs) (ŮPlease, please, please)

(cur) (last) 12:09, 30 March 2006 Jefffire (Talk | contribs) (ŮName of God)

(cur) (last) 08:44, 30 March 2006 Slrubenstein (Talk | contribs) (ŮName of God)

Here is what Pprocter is referring to. I wrote, They are not translations of YHWH - "god" is a translation of "el" ansd "Allah" is the Arabic form of the Hebrew "El," which itself probably has older roots in Semitic languages.

(cur) (last) 21:07, 29 March 2006 Jefffire (Talk | contribs) (Name of God)

(cur) (last) 16:54, 29 March 2006 Slrubenstein (Talk | contribs) (ŮNPOV)"

Here is what Pproctor is referring to. I wrote, Here is the issue: the sentence makes a claim. If the claim is not just someone's personal observation (which is not allowed regardless of whether it is true or not, see our NOR policy), there should be a verifiable source to support the claim.

First of all, Pproctor, you are a lying BS artist. First you accuse me of being a sock/puppet without any evidence,. Theun, you post thise timestamps without links as if they constitute evidence that I am (1) a sockpuppet and (2) that I have somehoe given you flack. Now let us strip away your mask of lies and reveal to people what I actually wrote on those two dates. My first comment was a response to Jeffire's suggestion that God and Allah are translations of JHVH. My response was not directed towards you but towards Jeffire. I was polite. And I was constructive. My second comment was directed towards Stephan Shultz and Homestarmy, and again I was polite and constructive. Now you claim this is evidence that I have been sending flak in your direction! If you are saying that you were the object of my comments, then you are suggesting that you are a sockpuppet of Jeffire, Homestarmy, and Stephan Shultz. Now, I do not think you are a sockpuppet of any of them. So that means I was not directing ANY comments towards you. And even if I were, these comments are simple and constructive. For you to claim that they represent attacks on you means you are paranoid and I sincerely recommend psychiatric help. I want you to get better and medication can help you. That you think these comments are flak or attaks on anyone just means you are kind of dumb. I am afraid there is no treatment for that. But get this straight, Pproctor - do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet for anyone else. You have no right at all to question my integrity or honesty. And don't accuse me of sending flak in your direction. When I criticize you, as I am doing now, I do so in an open and up-front way, and I am criticizing you because you deserve to be criticized. You are acting like a sleaze and I am just letting you know, you are not going to get away with it. You present fake evidence I have done something wrong and this is just evidence of your own sleaziness. How dare you treat fellow editors this way!Slrubenstein | Talk 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw man or maybe you just miss the point. It is not what you posted, but where you posted it. At least three members of the alleged consensus here actively post on Talk:creationism and similar sites such as intelligent design. You, Duncharris, and FeloniousMonk.

Remember, this whole mess originated when I accidentally crossed Duncharris by attempting to NPOV Raymond Damadian, an avowed creationist. (The great irony is that I discovered one of the few direct examples of classical Darwinian evolution in Humans.} Dunc then lost it and vandalized my postings elsewhere, claiming "vanity". In my defense, I then cited the guidelines you-all now seek to change. Just perhaps there is some collusion here. Again "What are the chances?" Other issues aside, Wikipedia:concensus states:

• "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

And then there is this, also from Talk:creationism

18:16, 11 August 2006 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) (ŮCreationism and the supernatural - sp)

18:15, 11 August 2006 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) (ŮCreationism and the supernatural - cite doesn't support the passage)

Out of the 1 million plus pages on wiki, what are the chance of such coincidences? And others besides. Such apparent coordinated efforts violate Wikipedia:concensus, not that one more rule violation makes much difference here. But I can at least embarrass the perps. As Dunc's case above proves, the formal censorship structure here has little effect. Pproctor 01:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

---

For some reason <grin>, the project page keeps getting frozen with the changed version, not the original and long-standing one. Properly speaking, you-all ought to freeze it with the original form, until and if the revised version gets a Wikipedia:concensus, which appears very far a way. Otherwise, we might start to suspect shenangans. Pproctor 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think "you-all" is some unit with volition. As soon as you start assuming that I am of the same mind with people I don't even know, I start to have a hard time taking you seriously. -User:GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, September 6, 2006 (UTC)

Just attempting to be nice. Around here (Texas and the rest of the Southern US) to be polite, we often use "You-all" when we don't want to use the antagonistic word "you", which may give offense in an accusatory context. This is analogous to the editorial use of "We".

We also use "you-all" as "You-impersonal"--Analogs are "they say..." and "one". E.g., "One {i.e.,"you-all") cannot break the guidelines and then expect any credibility when citing the guidelines against others." When we want to specify "You-plural" exactly (which is apparently how you interpreted it), we use "All-You-All", usually pronounced "All-ya'll".

But you still haven't justified why the page keeps getting frozen with the changed, not the original form, as the guidelines require. Or why we keep getting all these straw arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pproctor (talk • contribs) 15:07, September 7, 2006 (UTC)

I grew up in Texas, and your nonsense about "you-all" above is what we call "horseshit". Y'all is second person plural, period. "All y'all" refers to a larger group. If you use "y'all" in some weird sense, you should expect to be misunderstood. If you mean "one", say "one".

Must not have grow up in my part of Texas Pproctor 22:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, since I'm quite dense, it seems, I don't see which argument you're characterizing as a straw man argument. Is it Slrubenstein's assertion that "knowlege is verifiable" is a problematic statement, or is it his contention that your preferred version is wordy? Can you please explain which of those is a "straw man argument" and how? I guess there's also the argument that the currenly frozen version doesn't give trolls license to harass experts... is that a "straw man" argument? I'd really love to understand you here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are not what we are having this disagreement about. But Slrubenstein presents them as such. Ergo, a straw argument. Rather, the issue is subjecting experts to a completely subjective vanity guideline. I have been harassed by this and only dissuaded the harassor by citing the existing rule. The purpose of this rule is to give a little protection to experts from such harassment. Pproctor 22:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem very keen to have me do a lot of guessing here... I think you're saying that the only thing you care about is whether the vanity guidelines are linked to from this page, and that all the rest is red herring-y. Am I still missing it, or is that right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't much care either way. As I have consistently said above, the important thing to me is that both the present version and the past version quoted here by Pproctor are better than the version of a few days ago that suggested an official policy that self-citations go into Talk. The main concern of others seems to be that the longstanding vanity/conflict-of-interest guidelines are relevant here and should be mentioned/linked. Would everyone be happy if we took the old version, quoted here by Pproctor, and added the one "See also..." sentence from the end of the present section? —Steven G. Johnson 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think most of us would be happy with that, but I'm pretty sure Pproctor is opposed to any link to the vanity guidelines. I'm not entirely sure which bit of the vanity guidelines is objectionable; that'll be my next question for him. I tend to think the proper course is to fix the vanity guidelines, rather than pretend they don't exist or aren't relevant, but I'm willing to see where the conversation goes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Here are the problems that I see with that suggestion:

1. For the moment, but only for a moment, I will put aside the problems of assuring equality under the law in a pseudonymocracy.
2. We recognize here the crucial character of the distinction between action and intent. We're all enjoined to try and describe each other's behavior and try to restrain our natural impulses to ascribe or impute this or that speculative intent. This scruple is fundamental to many of our attempts to establish community harmony.
3. Self-citation — and again, only under conditions of due disclosure that exist in the real world but that cannot be compelled under our established rules — is an action. Among other things, this means that there is a comparatively simple decision procedure for saying whther we are looking at a self-citation or not.
4. Those other things - conflict of interest and vanity - are matters of intent.
5. We need to think very long and hard before we entangle what have so far been 3 comparatively straightforward and content-regulating policies with all these other gray and getting grayer issues. And mostly I think we should probably avoid doing that. Jon Awbrey 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the past version as presented by Pproctor, but I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over a link to the WP:VAIN, even if I don't think it's necessary. -- Donald Albury 15:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA, what the hell is a "pseudonymocracy"? My internet's obviously not good enough, because it hasn't got that word. (Nor have my paper dictionaries.) Is it pseudo-nomocracy, with some kind of vowel shift going on? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: It's formed in accord with the regular generative rules: pseudo-nym-o-cracy = false name government (Gr: kratos, power, strength). Jon Awbrey 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was breaking it up as pseudo-nymocracy, instead of pseudonym-ocracy, and couldn't figure out what the hell a nymocray was. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one thought...

Not all original research is dishonest, as many well-known hardcopy encyclopedias have an abundance of original research. Yet Wikipedia seems to fail to take the time required to filter original research, so it chooses instead to block it altogether.

Original Research question - artist-submitted information

If an artist posts information to an article concerning one of his pieces, is that considered original research and hence verboten? Expanding on the theme: even if the artist had not previously publish the information regarding his piece, but it is rather "in his head," so to speak, is that original research? Fantailfan 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A more preferable approach, by the artist, would be. Create a web site, post your views on your work, post a helpful note to the Talk page of your work, stating that you have a website with views on your work. Then wait for some editor to come along and quote you. Wjhonson 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A self-published web site may be dubious as a reputable source (see WP:RS on self-published sources). —Steven G. Johnson 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Except on themselves, where, we accept their claims as their claims. If there is a conflict, you cite it as "The author states that...." since it's a fact that they do state that. Your interpretation of RS on self-published articles by the source about themselves is overly restrictive. Wjhonson 06:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, information directly provided by the artist is original research, not to mention unverifiable, unless it was published elsewhere in a reputable source. You should suggest that the artist point us to e.g. some magazine interview etc. that contains the information he/she wants to convey. —Steven G. Johnson 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's twist it another way. Regardless of its origin, reliability or verifiability, the comments are invaluable regarding his frame of mind, sources of inspiration, etc. at the time he created the piece. (Note I am not saying what I mean by "piece" though a look at my contributions would make it obvious.) So, in a sense, he is doing original research on himself disintermediated by printed articles or books. Therefore it should be deleted as Original Research, Point of View, Unreliable Source and Not Verifiable. It's a shame, really. Fantailfan 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - I have confirmed the posting is by the artist. Fantailfan 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about the artist, there is some leeway, if he posts that information on his website. Then we can cite his website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than keep this in the realm of the vaguely hypothetical, it's better to come out and say explicitly what article we are talking about: Avenging Annie. I'm afraid that this kind of first-person account is blatantly POV, OR, and unverifiable. I'm sure it was done in good faith; the author didn't try to hide what he was doing. We really need to stick with published sources, however, and the author can be of great help to us in identifying interviews etc. that we can go to for similar information. The key thing to remember here is that just because something is good and true doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. —Steven G. Johnson 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused -- isn't the intent of NOR to prevent wrong interpretations about something from being inserted into the articles? If this is coming straight from the artist's mouth, then the interpretation cannot be wrong. However, instead of NOR, it sounds like it would be WP:V that would come into play, as we would have no way in the future to verify that it was indeed the artist who said that, as we cannot cite anything. So it sounds like a WP:V issue rather than a WP:NOR issue. Thoughts? --plange 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The NOR policy has nothing to do with the information being "right" or "wrong". (Although keeping out bad information is certainly part of its intent.) It is merely that Wikipedia is the wrong venue in which to first publish information. As the policy says, we would have to reject even Pulitzer-level journalism if it were published on Wikipedia first. —Steven G. Johnson 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because a journalist is writing about something other than themselves and so they are creating original research and attempting to publish it here which is verboten. The problem here seems to be a WP:V thing and can be rectified by having the artist put the information on their own website so it can be cited. --plange 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy, don't just interpret the title. Any creation/publication of a new primary source violates WP:NOR. Yes, it also violates WP:Verifiability (the two policies are closely related). However, self-publishing it on a website is not generally a way around these policies, because we require Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Steven G. Johnson 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter since both of us agree the stuff doesn't belong here, right? That's why it's a holy trinity, one of the three is going to "stick" with somebody and the stuff goes. --plange 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other point, wouldn't the artist's own website be a reliable source for the interpretation of his own artwork? It should of course be augmented with any critical interpretations from reliable critics (Using WP:V), etc., so that it's not POV --plange 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. —Steven G. Johnson 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is "Avenging Annie." There is no question that the article is written by Andy Pratt, the author of the song. Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be a first publisher (and I obviously agree to this policy), are we going to tell him to have his publicist (if he has one) post first on his site and then one of us will link to it? Fantailfan 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's been done, moved to the talk page by Steven G. Johnson. I know it's policy, but is still a bit irritating. Fantailfan 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding having him post the same account on his website: what do we do in five years if the website goes offline or is changed? How will anyone ever verify the information then? I agree that we could use the website in a pinch, but we strongly prefer traditional published sources for good reason, I think. In this case, the artist is prominent enough that there should be plenty of articles on his work, without making an end-run around the policy like this. —Steven G. Johnson 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why accessdate is strongly recommended when citing from any website (any website has just as much potential to go away as any other, yet we do allow websites to be used as sources) so that the WayBackMachine can be used to pull it up. For instance, if I'm writing an article about Firefly (TV series) and wanted to find out what Joss Whedon, the creator, used as his inspiration, I should be allowed to quote from Whedonesque.com so long as the post was from him. --plange 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know. It's all for good and solid reasons, with which I agree. I remember in 1994, Michael Stipe posted "in progress reports" to the R.E.M. board on AOL while the band was doing their new album - and now Time-Warner owns it without even knowing it. Fantailfan 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

People lie to themselves and others. An artist who is motivated by A can create a work of art and tell themself the reason is B while telling the public the reason is C. A reporter in source X can get it all wrong and report that it was created for reason D. Wikipedia's job is to accurately report that X says D. WAS 4.250 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I said the artist's interpretation should also be supplemented by an outsider's interpretation as well. I think to discount and not state an artists view of their own work is misleading. What an artist says of their own work, and what others might think it means, can be very telling. It provides a more well-rounded article. --plange 23:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What an artist says of their own work, and what others might think it means, can be very telling. Yes. But how do we (all of us - editors and readers) know what they said? That is where verifiability comes in. We can't just take someone's word for it. There has to be the ability of any reader (with adequate prerequisites for the material the article covers) to follow the sources and arrive at the same conclusions expressed in the article. WAS 4.250 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, that's why I was saying the artist's opinion needs to be somewhere that is verifiable (their own website, for instance, or an interview, etc) --plange 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We know what they said because we convince the artist to start their *own* website, and then we cite to it. Verifiability on what the artists thinks of their own work, is, in fact, their own statement. There is no need to go any further than that. And no the reader doesn't have to "arrive at the conclusions" they only need to be able to verify that the statements are as quoted, they don't have to *believe* those statements represent truth. If the artist has taken a picture of his dog, and says "This is my cat", then the cat-statement is what the artist in fact said, which is verifiable, but no one else will agree with the statement. Wjhonson 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not agree with this site

Think about it users... ok... so many articles and sources that we find on the internet were once original research, somebody wrote it, others agreed and became popular, these are golden words, original research, proven, is sometimes best there is especially in the light on a subject that is little known or information comes from one dubious and subjective source a source that has something against a particular topic or individual or even history as a whole, the golden rule are my words... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.224 (talk • contribs)

Suspect you'd like the quote, "History is a fable, and a poor one at that." or "The difference between a novelist and a historian is this: that the former tells lies deliberately and for the fun of it; the historian tells lies in his simplicity and imagines he is telling the truth." These quotes are from Kristnihald undir Jökli or Christianity under the Glacier (published in English as 'Under the Glacier) by Halldor Laxness as translated by Magnus Magnusson, Vintage 2004

But there is a strong reason for not allowing original research here on Wikipedia. Go take a look at the article titled Riksmål to get an idea of the confused point of view pushing that can result because Wikiepdia allows anyone to edit. Unsourced personal opinions result in confusion, edit wars & unusable material.

Suggest you take a look at Uncle G's Primary Notability Criterion also. Might help you better understand the issues.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Question for Pproctor

Pproctor — Slrubenstein, Dunc, and FeloniousMonk are well-known editors in good standing, no matter what cooincidences you think you're seeing, so could we put an end to the ad hominem arguments, please?

It is not ad hominem to point out that according to Wikipedia:consensus, "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." (emphasis-added). And then to provide objective evidence. Unless, you assume the the rules and guidelines here are personally meaningless, except to be used in a higher cause against editors whose POV you disagree with.

By daring to provide a NPOV on creationist Raymond Damadian, I inadvertently got involved in the spat here between the creationists and and their opposition. True believers on all sides. The great irony is that I discovered one of the few real examples of classic natural selection in humans (the partial substitution of uric acid for vitamin-C [2]) and published this in the journal Nature. Not everyone gets to answer a human evolutionary question raised by JBS Haldane. Also see my picture of Darwin's Cat.

You are still a lying BS artist. You continue to claim I am involved in some conspiracy against you because I disagreed with something you wrote concerning creationism, when I have proved that no such thing ever happened. Give it up, you charlatan. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nota Bene. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks ***Martius Caius 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Martius, but frankly I do not care. What I wrote above is accurate. Pproctor has lied about me and continues to lioe about me, that is the issue. It is true that I no longer assume good faith in my dealings with Ppocter - I used to, until he started attacking me without any provocation, slandering me, and revealing himself to be a self-serving liar who only wants to use Wikipedia to promote himself. I think in this case I have good cause not to assume good fatih but on the contrarty to assume bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Request. That sounds very serious. For observers who may have missed all that, could you document your assertions as to where Pproctor lied about you, attacked you, and so on? Thanx be4hand, Martius Caius 18:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the top of this talk page (until it gets archived). Specifically, look for my comment time-stamped 18:25 September 7, and then skim a bit but read carefully before you get to Sept. 9, where Pproctor lists my controbutions to the Creationism talk page to justify his having accused me of being a sock-puppet (and my refutaion), then read on to the end of the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As for "think I'm seeing". Assuming that editors are distributed randomly across Wiki's million plus pages, the probability that three of the rather few regular editors on Talk:creationism, etc. should suddenly show up here is several trillion to one.

Not really. There are fewer regular editors on Wikipedia than you might imagine, and Slrubenstein, FM, and Dunc are all interested in policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Then the probablities are only one in 10K or so<grin>. SIrubenstein was here a couple of times previously, Dunc only to intitiate this change in the rules after he got caught out vandalizing my postings. True, the knowledge that he could change the guidelines if he got caught out again likely explains why he continued his shenanagans even after being chastized. Also, if regular editors are few, then regular editors who are "experts" are even fewer. So why drive them off? Pproctor 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification 1

Could you say here what the outstanding issue is for you? I see almost no substantive difference between the versions, just that one has been tidied somewhat. If you think one version comes down harder on people who want to cite themselves, please explain how, and why it would be unfair. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My minor issue here is the attempt to change the existing ==expert editors== guideline to point to the "vanity" guidelines (under other names too-- call a skunk a rose and it still stinks). Far too subjective and thus open to abuse. I'm not talking revolution here--The original long-standing guideline should simply be restored. This seems like a small issue. But I can provode a concrete example of the "illegal" use of the vanity guidelines to harass an expert who dared to try to neutralize a POV.

But a considerably larger issue is the rather underhanded way this rule change is being forced thru, involving multiple violations of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If this is really Wikipedia policy, then everyone should know about it. Pproctor 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The only substantive difference, apart from tidying the wording, is the link to the vanity guidelines. That's not worth holding up the whole talk page over. It's appropriate to link to the vanity guidelines, because the issues are connected. We don't want editors citing their own work when it's perhaps not as notable or relevant as they think. That doesn't mean we're saying all self-citers are in violation of the vanity guidelines. It means only that those guidelines might be of interest.

Is there any other difference between the versions that you object to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If an expert's cite is not as notable, etc. as they think, then, as specified in the existing guideline, this can easily be handled under Wikepedia:neutral point of view and wikipedia:no original research, etc., which have the advantage of not being totally subjective. So, as a practical matter, the proposed change does nothing positive, other than keeping delicate sensibilities from being offended and to maintain idoelogical purity.

This is particularly so when there have apparently been no problems with the existing guideline. Besides which, the only time the change will matter is when an expert is flat stupid enough (as I was) to reveal his true identity. However, as my experience proves, there is a lot of potential mischief in the change, since it allows harassment of experts for completely subjective reasons.

I figure this change is going to be ramrodded through, no matter how many rules get broken. So, back to the procedural issue, which is the major one here. Who is this "We" you mention?

As I have noted, many of the editors piling on here (including yourself) seem to be migrants from the Talk:creationist pages, etc.. Do you maintain that this means a "concensus" or that a major wikipedia admin such as yourself can define such as a concensus. This is in spite of the fact that Wikipedia:concensus specifically states that such log rolling does not represent a concensus. BTW, I figure I lost my case weeks ago, so just asking. Always want to know what the rules of the game are.

No. Just restore the section as it originally was, is all I ask. Pproctor 16:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to vanity is appropriate, although I certainly do understand your revulsion to the link given your editing history et al. The "we" is the Wikipedia community, and we do not thing such behaviour is appropriate. It's really quite simple. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, another of the "usual suspects" from Raymond Damadian and/or Talk:creationism. Thus further making my point. You-all check out the "history" on those pages and see the familiar names. Not exactly the "Wikipedia community". But whatever. Taking the bait--And since when is the guy who (e.g.) built the first "plastic transistor" and the mother of all those color displays in your car radio and your cell phone not "notable". Except that I did the bio, naturally. Which thus further makes Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger's point that experts need some protection against all the nasty people here.

Disagreeing with just one link isn't worth this fuss. If you're all right with the rest of the wording, perhaps the link can be introduced more gently. The last sentence could be the start of a new paragraph and could say something like: "Sometimes an editor's appraisal of the notability or relevance of his own work will differ from that of the other editors on the page. In such cases, WP:NPOV should be carefully adhered to; these guidelines may also help.

It's a bit wordy, but at least the vanity link won't appear to be attached to the entire preceding paragraph i.e. won't appear to apply to all self-citers. Would that help? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever... I figure I lost the issue long ago. Pproctor 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You should really stop with the victimization bit, it's not very becoming. Neither, of course, are the lame ad homs "usual suspects" and "all the nasty people here".

The fact remains that one should be very careful about citing oneself. If another cite is available, use that instead. Had you approached these issues in a less tendentious manner, you might have found much more acceptance here. Instead, you stormed in, proclaiming "I'm the expert, the rest of you shut up" and proceeded to cause much more trouble than any of these articles merit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious? I started with a minor change on a technical issue to Raymond Damadian and right-off got accused of being a "vandal" and of "promoting creationism". When I tried various paths to bring a little NPOV, suddenly I get mobbed. I belatedly realize this was not the formal academic debate I was aquainted with and so beat a hasty retreat. End of story, I thought.

Suddenly, DuncHarris is prowling Wikipedia deleting/reverting my posts on the vasis of "vanity" and putting an RfD on a bio article I did. You personally also piled onto this RFD, though I seriously doubt you know anything at all about the history of Organic electronics. When I call him on it, citing the very rule you-all are trying to change, he initiates the change. Blowing the whistle against a bunch of totally against-all-the-rules-and-guidelines crap is not exactly being "contentious". Or do you maintain that "the rules" do not count for certain special people here? Pproctor 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, SlimVirgin is trying to help you here and you are treating her like a piece of fecal matter. This is utterly unacceptable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, there is a historical pattern for collective endeavors to eventually get taken over by small groups of people acting in concert, while everybody else is just doing their job. As I start looking carefully at "history" of the policy and guidelines pages here, I see this occuring regularly and doubt it is good for the credibility of the project. For all the good it does, Wikipedia:concensus recognizes this process and says that the result is "not a concensus". Pproctor 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification 2

What I continue to not understand is this: if the vanity guidelines are subjective and allow for abuse, then why not fix them, instead of just pretending they're not relevant and refusing to link to them. Isn't that the wrong way to address a problem? What line in the vanity guidelines gives trolls license to harass experts? Pproctor could help us out a lot if he explains this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

All of it. "Vanity" is completely subjective (and thus a ready weapon), except at the limits, which can be well handled by WK:NPOV and WK:NOR. Pproctor 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take GTBacchus up on his excellent idea that you help to fix the vanity guidelines? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, there clearly being "not a concensus", we should restore the long-term guideline in its original form. Pproctor 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Trouble is, there's no consensus to put it back either, and there does exist a problem that's been indicated by the dispute, and we haven't yet addressed it. The problem I'm thinking of is the name and nature of the vanity guidelines. So, to clarify, is it your position that the vanity guidelines should remain as they are, vague and subjective, and that we should dig our heels in and refuse to improve them? I mean, once the vanity guidelines are either fixed, or else deemed unfixable and demoted from "guideline" status, then it'll be easy to get a consensus for whether or not to link to them from this policy, right? Since WP:VAIN is the page that actually caused your problem, I'm a bit surprised you aren't more focused on it. It's still sitting there, with the official guideline tag up at the top. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

By definition, there was a "concensus" on the rule you are trying to change. Ergo, lacking a concensus to change it, it is the only legitimate one. Stating that there must be a "concensus" to revert a totally-illegal change to a rule is BS. It this is true, all you need is a compliant admin to freeze a change and anybody can change any rule at any time. Simple really. Pproctor 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not trying to change the rule. I'm trying to help resolve this dispute in a way that results in a better Wikipedia. Secondly, your energy is misplaced in pursuing the idea of whether some past action was "legal" or not. The rules here are not to be taken legalistically, but in a more consequentialist spirit. All we care about is results. I and others are working towards improving the policies and guidelines, while you seem to want to pursue a technical rules-oriented approach that will frankly get you nowhere on this Wiki. Thirdly, you seem to be working from a different definition of conSensus than the rest of us. You say that there was a consensus on the previous version of the rule, but that is clearly not the case, because there are lots of people who think it's better with the link to a relevant guideline. The status quo is not defined to be a consensus version, it's simply assumed to be until the moment someone objects to it or changes it. From that moment there is no consensus version; there's a dispute. The correct thing to do in a dispute is to leave the article or policy in the Wrong Version and pursue discussion. Attempting to get it changed based on a legalistic interpretation of Wikipedia policy is pretty much guaranteed not to work. Now, if you understand this, and if you actually care about what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say about expert editors citing themselves, then you'll get over to Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines, and contribute to the discussion that's already underway there. Pursuing the strategy of trying to get it changed back because "that's what the rule says" will lead you to more frustration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Frustration

Folks, this is turning into a monumental waste of time. An overwhelming majority of editors, including the most experienced editors, supported the change. The only person objecting is Pproctor and his objection ammounts to an objection not to this page but to the page on vanity edits. As long as that page exists, there is no basis for criticizing a link to that page being in this policy. So Pproctor should move his arguments to that policy´s talk page and stop obstructing genuine progress here. Someone lese has alreadsy made that constructive suggestion. Now I will make a prediction: if Pproctor is not a troll, he will go to the talk page there and suggest constructive improvements. If he is a troll, he will stay here and continue to blather on about all sorts of paranoid fantasies, obstructing any other discussion. Let´s see Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you-all seem to have run off my fellow objectors "through persistence, numbers, and organization", at least for the moment. And the "experienced editors" mostly seem to be members of a specific and organized group, all of whom post to Talk:creationist, Raymond Damadian, etc. Check out the "history" pages there. They are attempting to impose their own POV. Wikipedia:concensus describes this situation:

• "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

All we want is for the guideline to be restored to its original long-standing form before they started all these shenangans. Pproctor 20:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor, some of us want more than that: namely, for all the policies and guidelines to be sound, consistent, and cohesive. I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines#Citing oneself, regarding how that guideline can be brought more into line with good sense, and with this policy. Editors interested in this issue may wish to comment there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, GTBacchus. Pproctor, who is this "we?" The current version is more concise and clear. You have never presented a valid criticism of it, never. And even here you persist with your paranoid BS, suggesting this has anything to do with your position vis a vis creationism. What BS. What on earth are you talking about and what does the edit history of the creationism article have anything to do with this policy? You have an infinite supply of red herrings, it appears. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he has presented a valid criticism: that it links in a particular context to a vague and subjective guideline. I see (at least) two approaches to this problem. We could just not link to the guideline, like it was before. Alternatively, we could fix the guideline, in one of two ways. We could make it less vague and subjective, and turn it into something worth linking to. Else, we could decide that it's essentially unfixable, that it's redundant with and superseded by other policies and guidelines anyway, whatever, and we could demote it to an essay or something. Then it would be a no-brainer that we wouldn't link to it.

Right now, WP:VAIN a guideline, and I'm inclined to think that our policies and guidelines should be well interlinked, and that it would be pathological to maintain some kind of red-headed stepchild guideline that we're ashamed of, and refuse to link to. I'm against sweeping the putative problem under the rug. Pproctor has yet to address this point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I agree with you, GTBacchus. In fact, somewhere earlier I said just this - a long as vanity is one of our guidelines there is no valid reason for deleting a link from this policy page. If Pproctor has valid criticisms of that guideline he should leave this page and go there to discuss improving it (or put it up for deletion). If I have not been consistently clear about my sharing your view, it is because I am convinced of Pproctor's bad faith and that he is not serious about his "valid" complaint - if he were, he would have followed this advice, which you or someone else offered a couple of days ago, and would have left here to go to that page to work on it. Instead, he chooses to stay here, accuse me of being a sockpuppet and part of a cabal or conspiracy against him motivated by his views on creationism. GTBacchus, you are one of the most well-intentioned and consttructive editors I have encountered here (one reason I wish you would turn your energies to the ongoing discussion on primary and secondary sources), but with all due respect, your problem is you face Pproctor with good faith. Normally, a virtue, but in this case a mistake. He is motivated only by paranoid delusions, vanity and a monomaniacle desire for self-promotion. He will continue to act only to disrupt this page as long as it gets him the attention he craves. I admit I have been giving him too much attention and, starting now, will do so no longer. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you may be right, that there's no getting through to Pproctor. I tend to believe that he's the victim of some rather severe misunderstandings about what sort of project this is, based on the assumptions that seem to underlie his statements about "rules", for example. I think perhaps we could avoid many such misunderstandings with more clarity in our self-documentation. As for Pproctor, though, in his current defensive frame of mind, he doesn't seem open to pursuing any productive line of thought, so maybe it is best to just walk away.

I'll have a closer look at the Primary/Secondary discussion, and see whether I can weigh in with anything helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sub-subheader

Again. I p!ssed off Duncharris and assorted true believers over on Raymond Damadian by trying to introduce a little NPOV. Dunc, who had recently been reprimanded for bad behavior, retaliated by searching out my posts and deleating/reverting them under the excuse of "vanity" because I had cited some of my own research papers.

I pointed out that this was perfectly legitimate (at arms length, naturally) under the existing rule. He then proceeded to attempt to change the rule, presumably so he could continue his vendetta or perhaps just to further intimidate. He eventually enlisted the assistance of his little group over at Raymond Damadian and Talk:creationist. Look at the "history" sections on those groups to see the familiar names, including yours. Also note that the existing rule bothered nobody until Dunc tried to cover his butt by changing it.

Pardon me for assuming bad intent. There are some people here you cross at your own hazard. If you like, we can take this issue to arbitration. If they endorse this kind of behavior and blatant rule-breaking, the world ought to know about it. Pproctor 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are still accusing me of being a sock-puppet, co-conspirator, or collaborator of Dunc Harris in stalking you because I am pissed off by an edit your made concerning Raymond Damadian or a comment you made on the talk page for creationism, you are certainly welcome to file a complaint against me at the ArbCom. But be warned - they will expect you to provide evidence. If you are no longer accusing me of any of this, then you should respond to my explanations for the edit and stop bringing up Raymond Damadian as an excuse for your pathetic and paranoid attempt to continue disrupting this discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You apparently had no interest at all in this rule before Duncharris attempted to change it. As SV has noted, you have been here before. Why the sudden interest now? Pproctor 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would advise Pproctor, to stop with the silly conspiracy theories. If you look at editor's behavior from that lack of good faith, your view will be obfuscated and you will "see" conspirators everywhere you look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ill answe Pproctors question, stupid and delusional though it is. I am always concerned wtih improving articles and policies relevant to my own interests and work. Moreover, Wikipedia is a collaborative project so whenever I see someone make an edit to an article or policy on my watchlist, I check it out. If i object to the edit I explain why. If I like the edit or have no problem with it, I leave it be. if I like the edit or at least see some value in it and see others object to it, I follow the discussion and participate as I feel appropriate. Pproctor, this is called collaboration and this is what wikipedia is all about. But I do not think you will ever understand this as your own paranoid delusions, and your vanity and monomaniacle desire for self-promotion, lead you to view any collaboration as a conspiracy. I hope I habve answered your question satisfactorily. If you continue to believe I am part of some conspiracy, as I said before, just try to prove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding interspersing comments

WTF? Trying to make sense of this is virtually impossible as Proctor cannot stop interrupting other editor's comments. This fucking interposting needs to stop. Maybe, assuming Proctor performs surgery, I should bust into the OR, grab the scalpel, forceps or other instuments out of hishands, make a random cut, snip or clip and run back out. Enough. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

While Jim's comment lacks civility and is unecessarily graphic, he does have a point. Proctor, it would be appreciated if you didn't intersperese your comments within others. JoshuaZ 00:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

protected?

Is this still protected for a reason? Its been 5 days. Fresheneesz 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See above question for Proctor. Unless and until that is resolved, I assume the page will stay protected, as the activities of Proctor were likely a significant partion of the reasoning behind protection of the article. I do not wish to speak for SV here, but I'd imagine I'm pretty close to adequately explaining her reasoning. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While Pproctor continues to spin his paranoid fantasies above, the question is> are there other sections of this policy that currently need work? Note that there is a separate discussion on the Primary and Secondary Sources section, on its own talk page. Aside from that discussion on that section, are there any other outstanding issues? The page can remain protected as long as it doesnt need work. Does someone want to propose an agenda of concerns, sections that need work?Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See Groupthink and Wikimedia-Cabal, exerpted below. Pproctor 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:concensus

"It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities..."

It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus...."

"Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they perceive to be the consensus of the group. Groupthink may cause the group (typically a committee or large organization) to make bad or irrational decisions which each member might individually consider to be unwise.

Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.

Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. "

From Wikimedia-Cabal

"Why People think a "Cabal" runs Wikipedia

Sympathy voting. Most obvious at en:WP:RFA, where it is common for someone to say, "well if User:xyz supports this person, then I do too!" Also occurs at other votes.

Sympathy editing. Most Wikipedia editors routinely follow the actions of others who share similar interests and values. Upon observing a colleague in an edit war, some will support that colleague without first considering the merits of the individual edit.

Decision making focus on individual cases (articles, disputes) without much regard to consistency and to the broader issues of policy raised by the case in question.

Arguably, some users (including most of the prominent sysops) have befriended one another through IRC and other media; some know one another in person.

Many users do have certain traits in common, and may act as a group or be quick to defend each other without being consciously organized into a "cabal" - for example, many are leftist nonreligious twentysomethings.

Historically, charges that there is a cabal that "rules" Wikipedia also stemmed from these factors:

Lack of any sort of balance of power or adverserial system: decision-making entities (e.g. Wales, Administrators as a group, developers) have no outside check on their authority

Absence of any truly active (or inclusive) discussion forum for project-wide policy issues, lukewarm encouragement of community involvement in them, and low turnout in those discussions that do occur. " Pproctor 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave Carter copied from blp talk

Dave Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sorry for being long-winded, but this is complex. I would like to hear some opinions as to whether or not policy has been followed in this article. Carter was a singer-songwriter who died in 2002, but the issues relate to WP:BLP. In a conversation at Talk:Dave Carter a new user revealed several facts about Carter not previously known to the public and still not available elsewhere, among these were:

• Prior to his death, Carter had begun "to persue a gender change."
• Information about legal ownership of Carter's songs at the time of his death--mentioning by name Carter's ex-wife and executor of his estate.

The person making these claims, User:Grammer, revealed that she was in fact Tracy Grammer, Carter's partner both in his musical career and life. This was verified via e-mail by administrator, Phil Sandifer. Sandifer took the additional step of confering with Amgine (who I gather is a Wikimedia big wig) before making the following edits:

• Adding the first claim above to Dave Carter [3] and including the same into Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians.
• Adding both claims to the article, Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer [4]

Here are the issues that trouble me:

1. We have some controversial claims being made without citations. Shall we cite the Dave Carter talk page?
2. We are stating as fact Grammer's claims that involve not only herself and the deceased Carter, but also non-public figures such as his ex-wife (and including the ex-wife's name).
3. OK, so and an admin tells me Grammer really is Grammer, I suppose I can buy it. I'm actually a fan and have been to several of her concerts, but should Wikipedia be the first place to publish this?

I would like to hear some additional opinions. -MrFizyx 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Amgine is a Foundation volunteer, hence my running the language past her - because this clearly was something that needed to be handled with care. That said, MrFizyx's points, in order.

1. WP:BLP provides for the subject (Which this ultimately is, since Tracy Grammer is solidly involved in all of this) offering information on the talk page - it doesn't comment on how to do the citation, but I think all of the criteria on BLP are satisfied here. The only issue would be contentious, and I don't exactly think that's accurate here. The information is neither contentious nor controversial - there was no raging debate on whether Carter was transgender, nor on whether he had a romantic relationship with Tracy Grammer. The first was unknown previously, and the second a matter of speculation, but never of particular comment. The information is unusual, and I'll admit surprising, but it is not controversial - nobody has denied it.
2. I was quite impressed, actually, with how Grammer phrased the section - it was NPOV, discrete, and polite. It referred to "acrimony," but did not attempt to suggest that Grammer had a legal or ethical right to the songs, and brought in no dirty laundry. As for the ex-wife's name, she's mentioned as one of the people administering the Dave Carter memorial fund on a press release from their official website, and so it's not, to my mind, a massive deal - that said, I would not be averse to removing her name.
3. I'm willing to forward the e-mail to a Foundation member if this becomes an issue, but I would imagine that an administrator verifying that User:Grammer is not an imposter is sufficient.

This seems a by-the-numbers case of how a figure can add information to biographies. And I can understand why Tracy Grammer would not issue a press release that Carter was transgender, or on the settling of his estate. It seems respectful to tell the truth as Carter's quoted "partner in all things" tells it. It also seems respectful not to turn the matter into a spectacle. Grammer provided the information in a way that satisfies our requirements of verifiability - she's a perfectly credible source, and her identity is verified - but also in a way that seems respectful given the subject matter. Phil Sandifer 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Above copied from BLP talk. WAS 4.250 13:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Safe to unprotect?

What do we think? Please note that the vanity guidelines have been emended to include a clearer statement that self-citation does not imply vanity. It should be clear from this page and that one that our long-standing common-sense policy is still what it's always been: self-citation is just fine, as long as it complies with NPOV and NOR. WP:VAIN defines vanity edits and makes it clear that they're something different from legitimate self-citation by an expert.

Can we unprotect the page now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think we can unprotect because I do not trust Pproctor not to start a revert war. Currently, admins can edit. I propose a cautious policy: if anyone wants to, propose a change here (as I have done on the separate primary/secondary sources page) and allow for discussion. When, if ever, a consensus or strong majority emerges in support of a proposed edit, an admin. can make the edit. This seems prudent and provides a way for us to constructively discuss specific problems and make changes that will not invite controversy. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor has just agreed at his talk page and at the the Village Pump that he's ok with the two pages in question, as they currently stand, as long as we can assure him that he and other expert editors won't be subject to any kind of sanction due to spurious charges of vanity editing, when they cite themselves appropriately. I'm inclined to think that unprotection is worth a try. Do you think the Primary/Secondary crowd can keep from edit warring? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The way the primary/secondary section stands now is perfectly acceptable. I'm afraid however, that as soon as its unprotected the edit wars will start again. Wjhonson 07:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would you say that?Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I will unprotect. If editwarring resumes, we can always protect again. I will mark this version as "consensus version" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I have been assured that this is really a clarification and not a change. I might put the word "clear" in somewhere, if it looks appropriate, but again I am assured this is assumed in the present guideline. So I probably will not. If the new guideline gets blatantly misused, then I'll revert. But I doubt this will happen. EOF. Pproctor 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondary vs. tertiary sources and signing

Nathaniel Riddley, in a recent edit to WP:NOR, asserts that whether a source is secondary or tertiary depends on whether the author signs the work or not. I thought tertiary works were those mostly based on secondary sources. Where can I find this definition based on the author signing?

That kind of considerations doesn't belong here: it distracts from the main point that statements must be sourced - such distinctions are in fact irrelevant. Harald88 07:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems helpful to readers and new editors, as it explains one of the reasons why Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source. 69.222.59.13 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between secondary and tertiary sources is relevant because it makes a difference in the reliability of the source. If an article in a reference work (like an encyclopedia) is signed, then it amounts to a secondary source because readers can evaluate the credibility of the source for themselves. Number Seven 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a tertiary source. All sources non-primary are called "Secondary" regardless of any other consideration. Wjhonson 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that Wikipedia should not cite other encyclopedias or dictionaries (let alone itself) as a source. I don´t want to argue over semantics, I want to argue over the substance of this issue. I feel it deserves its own space for extensive debate.

However, this plicy has been going through a lot of changes and we are still in the process of resolving them. My advice is:

1. go to this page Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion and read it carefully, see what issues are still unresolved, and ask yourself if your participation can constructively speed up the resolution of these discussions. If so, contribute, and wait until there is something close to consensus on the remaining issues
2. Then, start a section at the bottom of this page, and post a link to this page from the primary/secondary talk page, and state your case more fully and clearly.
3. if you want serious discussion I also suggst you go to the talk pages of each of the people who have been active on this talk page, on the primary/secondary talk page, and in the edit history of the policy itself, and request explicitly that they go to the discussion of this issue and weigh in.

My final piece of advice - do not just say "prohibit tertiary sources" which is too abbreviated and begs the question of what you mean by tertiary sources. Explain what the real issue is and why you think it is important, and then we can work on the appropriate wording.

If no one objects, I intend to remove mention of tertiary sources from Nathaniel Riddley's edit, because there I have not seen any support for his definition of tertiary source, and further, because there is no consensus that the NOR policy should differentiate between a secondary and a tertiary source. --Gerry Ashton 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It used to be mentioned on WP Introductory pages that encyclopedias are tertiary sources unless the articles are signed, in which case you can cite an author and a date. But maybe you have rewritten your history since then? Some other discussion I found: [5] Melusina Morgan 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My take on the discussion referenced by Melusina, and the pages mentioned in that discussion, is that distinguishing between secondary and tertiary sources can be difficult, and no mention is made of distinguishing encyclopedia articles as secondary or tertiary depending on whether they are signed or not. I think this distinction would be illogical, because I can't see any reason why some encyclopedia wouldn't allow an article author to sign an article that is based entirely on secondary sources, and would thus be a tertiary source. --Gerry Ashton 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe both Melusina and Gerry are correct. The policy used to make the distinction but it was eventually dropped because of a lack of consensus as to what a tertiary source. That said, I still believe that while we probably all consult dictionaries and encyclopedias when researching for an article, I do not believe they should be cited as sources. I think it grants dictionaries (with the probably exception of OED) and encyclopedias too much authority; and besides it just seems really weird for one encyclopedia to use another as a source (if the first encyclopedia is so good as to be a reliable source, why go to Wikipedia and not just tot hat first encyclopedia?) - it seems like a kind of inbreeding. As I have tried to explain, my objection to privileging primary sources (which to repeat does not mean I support a blanket prohibition) extends only to those cases where a wikipedia editor may introduce his or her own POV (via his or her own analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation) into the article thus violating NPOV. But I enthusiastically share Gerry's commitment to careful research. I really think we need to encourage editors to rely on peer-reviewed journal articles, books published by academic presses, or trade books that are well received and reviewed, rather than other encyclopedias (which are themselves based on peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books). Gerry, do we disagree here? If we do not disagree, what kind of language would you propose? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein asks "if the first encyclopedia is so good as to be a reliable source, why go to Wikipedia and not just [to that] first encyclopedia?" I have a very simple answer: money. Among other things, Wikipedia is free, while most other encyclopedias are not. Providing that copyright laws are obeyed, creating a Wikipedia article that contains the same information as some other encyclopedia is a worthwhile thing to do because it brings the information to people who could otherwise not afford it. Since I regard copying ideas from other tertiary sources as a good thing, I don't see a need to distinguish between secondary and tertiary sources in a policy (maybe in a guideline that helps editors create better articles, but not in a policy).

Therefore I propose to remove the phrase "depending on whether they have been signed by their authors or not, respectively" from the policy. --Gerry Ashton 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerry, I do not know if it is just semantics or what, but I most definitely did not say and do not mean to say that "a Wikipedia article" should not contain "the same information as some other encyclopedia" nor am I opposed to getting ideas from other encyclopedias and putting them in Wikipedia. Indeed, I stated that this is something we all do, and I see nothing wrong with it. I do not think you are responding to my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I need to fully understand Slrubenstein's point to make the change I propose, because the phrase "depending on whether they have been signed by their authors or not, respectively" introduces a definition of tertiary source for which I think there is no consensus. Also, that is the only change I want to make at this time.

That said, perhaps Slrubenstein is saying that a Wikipedia article should not be just a deliberate paraphrase of an article from another encyclopedia, but rather, the editor should reexamine secondary sources, as well as the other encyclopedia, and if, by coincidence, the information in the Wikipedia article ends up being same as another encyclopedia, fine. Is that the point? --Gerry Ashton 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that dictionaries should be avoided as sources (including the OED) unless an article is specifically about the use of a term, but I wouldn't like to see us clamp down on the use of good encyclopedias. I find that using the Encyclopaedia Briannica is helpful in showing editors that a point has entered the mainstream. The EB also publishes material by named experts who can be cited as secondary sources.

I'm not sure I understand the point about whether something is signed by an author. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to add that I fully concur with Slrubenstein's point that editors should be encouraged to use scholarly sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerry is correct that he does not need to understand my point to make the change he proposes, because I was bringing up a second (though related) point. As to whether something is signed by the author or not, I agree with Slim Virgin and Gerry - I do not see the point and have no objection to Gerry´s removing the phrase.

Gerry askis if my point is, "that a Wikipedia article should not be just a deliberate paraphrase of an article from another encyclopedia, but rather, the editor should reexamine secondary sources, as well as the other encyclopedia, and if, by coincidence, the information in the Wikipedia article ends up being same as another encyclopedia, fine." Yes. Absolutely, this is my point. I have no problem with editors consulting other encyclopedias or dictionaries to get ideas, or even as a springboard for further research — many encyclopedias call attention to elements or dimensions of a topic we may not have thought of, and many provide suggested readings we could turn to to further our research. My problem is with editors citing other encyclopedias and dictionaries as sources in article. I can imagine few if any cases where an encyclopedia is a more authoritative or valuable source than an article publishe din a peer-reviewed journal or a book published by a major trade or university press. I think when it comes to actually citing sources and providing references and suggestions to further reading, we should strongly favor such sources over other encyclopedias. Gerry, SlimVirgin, if this makes sense and is agreeable to you, would either of you suggest wording that could be put in the policy? Gerry´s paraphrase of my point is fine but perhaps he could come up with more elegant phrasing for the policy itself (if he agrees). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Slrubenstein's point relates to the quality of articles, and has little to do with original research. Thus, if any wording is to be created, it should be created somewhere other than the "No original research" article. I have other points I would make about this, but not until the discussion moves to a more suitable forum. --Gerry Ashton 17:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Above, Wjhonson claims that "There is no such thing as a tertiary source. All sources non-primary are called "Secondary" regardless of any other consideration." This is simply false. The distinction between secondary and tertiary sources is common in library science. I googled "tertiary source" and got something like 39,000 hits. Here is a clear example of how library science distinguishes tertiary sources: [6]. Here is another [7]. I personally believe the use of tertiary sources as cited sources in Wikipedia should be discouraged, but others disagree with me, like Slim Virgin. Wjhonson, you may disagree with me also. But please do not just flat out assert that the idea of "tertiary sources" does not exist. Aside from revealing a lack of good faith (by both suggesting that Seven doesn´t know what he is talking about, and by dismissing his intentions, his reasons for making the point, by focusing on the language he uses) it reveals that you have done no research concerning library science. Ironic, since Wikipedia is all about research. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Try googling "secondary sources" and compare your results. You will find, that there are many researchers who agree with me. "Secondary sources" gets ten thousand percent more hits than "Tertiary sources". That should open your eyes to the fact that "library science" does not in fact make such a silly distinction. Tertiary is a ridiculous distinction made by people who are being silly and pedantic (and redundant! like myself!). Whether you agree or not with my analysis, making a distinction here on wikipedia is without merit. So there's no point in having this discussion. If you want to call it "non-primary" that is fine as well, but to add the make-believe category "tertiary" only makes the water muddier. Wjhonson 16:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What am I incorrect about? You stated that there is no such thing as a tertiary source and I have proven that there is. I am incorrect? Wjhonson, you really need to keep two things clear inh your mind. Whether there is such a thing as tertiary sources is one thing, and whether it is a term that you do or do not likem or do or do not think is appropriate for Wikipedia, is another thing. It is a simple fact that library scientists make the distinction between secondary and tertiary sources. You happen to think they are silly and pedantic and that the term has no merit. Fine. But can´t you express your argument without making personal attacks, and without stooping to false statements? I am sure, absolutyely sure, you can write a sentence that begins, "Although many library scientists make the distinction between secondary and teritary sources, I do not think the distinction is appropriate at wikipedia because ov x, y, and z ..." Try it. I am sure you are capable of not making personal attacks if you just make the minimal effort. By the way, of course there are more google hist for secondary sources than tertiary. There are more google hjist for primary than secondary. It´s only logical. If secondary sources generalize from primary sources and tertiary sources generalize from secondary sources, of course each level of abstraction will have fewer hits. But this does not "prove" as you claim that tertiary sources do not exist. On the contrary, you assert I am incorrect but seem to admit that there are inded many google hists for tertriary sources. Obviously they exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it original research to translate an anonymous webboard posting?

The body of the Lookkae Long Thang article is an editor's translation of an anonymous Thai language political webboard post. Does this qualify as original research, and if so, what would be a suggested course of action?

There are two references in the article, one in Thai and one in English. The English language reference does not contain any text from the anonymous post, nor does it contain a translation. Both the Thai reference and the English reference are owned by Sondhi Limthongkul, the subject of the article. I'm not sure how to proceed and would appreciate any suggestions. Cheers, Patiwat 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A web site mentioned in the text, but not in the references or notes, is manager.co.th, which does not work on my computer. The reference to Asia Times Online shows that some letter was read on a television show and stirred up trouble. If Asia Times Online is a reliable source, in spite of being affiliated with a company that is being sued, then the letter would be notable and worth translating. There does not seem to be any evidence that the Thai text in the article is the same text that was read on the television show. So the article really should be deleted unless a verifiable copy of the letter can be found. Once a verifiable copy is found, a decision would have to be made on the article's talk page about whether Asia Times Online is reliable, or find another reliable source showing that the letter is notable. After all that is established, it would be fine for the editor to translate the letter himself or herself. --Gerry Ashton 01:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. The creater of the article was very critical of suggestions to delete the article, so I let it slide. I'll ask him again to find an authoritative Thai-language copy of the original posting. Patiwat 04:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions please: should this change have been reverted?

I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor. When reading this article in good faith looking for information on how to mark up newspaper sources, I noticed some phrasing I perceived as unnecessarily NPOV. I changed "For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children", to "...claiming that a high government official hates children." I flagged the edit "Using the President's name in an example of some possible bad act violates NPOV". User Harald88 reverted my edit with "rv: in such a case the view would be published without hiding the already published name". I was then tempted to change "Bush" to "Clinton" to see what would happen next, but that seemed both childish and NPOV. It seems unnecessary to use any specific name in such an example. Opinions? I won't be around much today, so any response from me will be delayed. --CliffC 14:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Harald88 is right. You misunderstand both this page and NPOV. First, this is a policy, not an article. It is not "about" Bush or anyone, it is about a policy. That The Militant might criticize Bush is no surprise. The point of this policy page is that the Militant is NOT an appropriate source on this topic. That the quote of the Militant names Bush does not in any way violate NPOV, because we are correctly identifying it as 'the Militant´s point of view. Changing it from Bush to something else is not complying with NPOV it is simply lying - misrepresenting what the Militant says. Moreover, changing it from Bush to Clinton or a high government official not only misses the point, it destroys the point - the point is that the Militant is not an appropriate source on this kind of claim. It is precisely because it is the Militant making the claim, and the claim being about Bush, that the example illustrates what is an inapprorpiate source. Change the Militant to the New York Times, or change Bush to Clinton, entirely disrupts the point. If this does not make sense, ask Harald88 on his talk page to tutor you on the policy step-by-step. In any event he is right. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe characterizing it as "lying" is unnecessarily harsh. A more neutral word might be "glossing". If the quote is direct, it should be precise, but indirect quotes by their nature are paraphrases. I agree that strident sources should not be in used in cases where neutral sources exist. In cases where the only sources are extreme ones however, then they should both be posted, so the reader can see what the issue is. For example in Ann Coulter, where some issues do not yet seem to have a neutral representation. Wjhonson 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein says "Changing it from Bush to something else is not complying with NPOV it is simply lying - misrepresenting what the Militant says." This is just silly, because the Militant isn't saying it, Wikipedia's example is saying it, so there is nothing to misrepresent. In any event, my original point is moot because a September 17 revision by Tyrenius, to avoid the offense of casting a slur on the Socialist Workers' Party newspaper, has had the happy effect of removing the President's name from this page. --CliffC 01:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If an example is needed, it would be better to find one which can be verified as an untrue statement (I presume this example is fictitious). Tyrenius 03:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it original research if.....

An editor creates a new legal article but doesn't cite any references. While trying to verify that the contents of that article wasn't plagiarized from an external website, I found that the exact same content was posted to several blogs and websites. So I immediately put a {{copyvio}} tag on it. The tag was reverted with a link to the article creator's user page, which claims that this editor often writes original work and submits it to Wikipedia and other educational websites.

I'm not sure what to do with articles like this. Do they need a {{OriginalResearch}} tag, or a {{unreferenced}} tag, or a {{copyvio}} tag, or nothing at all? Patiwat 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends how bad it is, really. If there are no apparent immediate sources, AfD is actually a good call! WP:VERIFY allows the immediate removal of any unreferenced material, but people object to that happening to an entire article, hence AfD. If you think it would breach WP:NOR even with references, then consider {{OriginalResearch}} (and, seriously, AfD). If it's actually fairly good and it looks like it does have references, they're just not listed, {{unreferenced}} can work, as can {{fact}}(you may wish to look at the wikicode I used there, btw, for a useful template ;) ) individual statements. In cases like these it is prudent to remind the editor that WP:VERIFY is not optional, both on the article's talk page and on the editor's talk page. LinaMishima 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

a test case for where NOR intersects with Vanity Guidelines

If Pproctor's point is that we should not discourage expert editors, then I agree. That said, we still need to be wary about the way NOR and Vanity guidelines can intersect in policing the quality of our articles. Here is a current and I thing appropriate test-case, to test our policies and guidelines against an alleged expert, and to test the contribution of an alleged expert against our policies and guidelines: [8]Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people involved in the experts proposals, I will tell you now that the talk page discussion seems to indicate that no references are being used, and that is something no actual expert would persistantly do once they realised the existance of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. An unpublished work, which he seems to be using, cannot be used, and no real scholar would attempt to do so in a scholarly fasion. Further examination shows this to be also a case of undue weight according to WP:NPOV. The problem we seem to have here is more to do with distinguising a crank and an expert. LinaMishima 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear illustration that "vanity" issues are generally best resolved using the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc. guidelines, which are not as subjective. Either the citations meet them, or they don't. Pproctor 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor, it sounds as if you're making a case for cleaning up or removing the vanity guideline. It's certainly true that WP:VAIN is not any kind of extension of our core content policies of neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding original research. If the text of that page makes it seem to impose additional restrictions, then it should be changed.

The vanity guideline arose, not in conncection with actual experts citing themselves properly, but in connection with Joe Bloggs posting his resumé, and arguing that since he exists, he should therefore be documented in Wikipedia. That still happens regularly, with small businesses, fledgling websites, aspiring artists, etc. When these articles appear on AfD, people tend to identify them as "vanity" articles, which is really a shorthand way of saying "an article, written by the subject of the article, and consisting of original research that's unverifiable because no independent source has seen fit to document it". It's a lot easier to type "vanity", and then link to a page that explains what you mean, for people who haven't been on the merry-go-round for quite so many turns, and don't know the lingo yet. That page should provide answers for those people; that's its job. I'm certain it could be improved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that, in general, an "experts" posting will violate WP:NOR, etc. way before it will offend any vanity guideline and that this is an excelent example. Ya can't do better than good. Pproctor 03:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm saying there is no such thing as a vanity guideline beyond what it says in WP:NOR, etc. The vanity guideline is just an explanation of how WP:NOR applies, no more. There's nothing else to "offend". Again, if you have an issue with the way the vanity guidelines are written, go to Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines, and talk about it there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We are in accord. Sorry if I have not been able to make this clear.Pproctor 00:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding Nursery Jargon, Welcoming External Criticism

As Wikipedia draws more attention from external communities and independent media it will need to drop the usenet babytalk and nursery tale jargon that it has become all too fond of in the past. I bring this up here because some people keep replacing that troll tag on this page, and I think that the people who keep doing that probably don't realize how silly such a thing makes WP look to normal human observers from the wider world outside. I have the impression that the people who started WP were more aware of professional standards of journalism and scholarship than the current crew of activists seem to be, but it's clear that we are in a different regime now, where most of the wiser heads have been chased off by a Peculiar Activist Subcabal Of The Administrative Cabal (PASOTAC). In the general view of the outside world at the present time, the internal machinations of this PASOTAC are on a par with the antics of fantasy-dressed Trekkies at a Star Trek convention. If Wikipedians earnestly desire more respect for their efforts than that, then they will have to earn it the good-old-fangled way, through quality research and reporting. Ruby Rubicon 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon, is that you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem so, as are User:Charon Charalike and User:Nathaniel Riddley. List of Jon Awbrey's sockpuppets (so far) is here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Included would be User:Melusina Morgan and User:Number Seven, who commented above on this Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding primary/secondary thing

Would it be possible to avoid discussion of the primary/secondary distinction in the policy? We must use material from reliable published sources. The important questions therefore are: (1) is the source published by a third-party? and (2) is it a reliable source that's appropriate for the subject matter?

The issue of whether it's primary, secondary, or tertiary doesn't really come into it. We do want to discourage editors from using primary sources, but only because, in so doing, they are more likely to misinterpret how the source should be used, and what its limits are. But that can happen with a secondary source too. It's not the type of source that's the issue, but the misuse.

The sentence that says articles relying on primary sources should make no interpretive claims is problematic, because if the primary source makes interpretive claims, and if the source is reliable and appropriate, then the article can make them too, citing the source. For example, if the day after 9/11 the New York Times published stories by a bunch of journalists who were present when the planes hit the WTC — i.e. eyewitness accounts, primary-source material — there would be no reason we couldn't use those articles to repeat interpretive claims that the journalists made, so long as we felt they were appropriate sources.

I may be missing some other point about making the primary/secondary distinction, and if I am, I apologize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I mistakenly thought that you were behind this primary and secondary stuff and which distracts from the essence of the policy - sorry!

A way to improve the article is to mention a distinction between primary/secondary only near the end, just before "Original images". Harald88 16:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, concerning your example, I think this is why the "current events" exception is in the section. I am a little surprised that you are voicing these concerns - although a few people have modified this paragraph the two conditions have been in the policy for well over a year, maybe two. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I mention it only because people seem to be struggling with the distinction. I'm happy for it to stay myself, but I was just wondering if it would be simpler to find a way to bypass it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I now see that I replied to that above instead of here, thus once more and with elaboration:

For sure it can be bypassed. Nevertheless it may be useful to introduce it near the end of the article, just before "Original images", with an explanation similar to the one just now given by LinaMishima on this page:

What should be prevented is articles that introduce new observations or ideas (instead such information should be based on primary sources) or that perform new, non-trivial analyses or deductions of any other work (instead such information should be taken from secondary sources).

Harald88 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

People struggle with or actively resist "tertiary" but I think pèople get the primary secondary thing; I think the latest revision including bullet points is clearer. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)