Wikipedia talk:No original research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crum375 (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 7 June 2008 (→‎Fake images in aviation accident articles: spc). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:NORtalk

WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Shortcuts

Tie-in books

Shouldn't e.g. works that build on a particular fiction franchise be regarded as primary sources unless they provide substantial discussion above the level of narration? User:Dorftrottel 13:07, January 30, 2008

The problem with "directly related"

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

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

stating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issue of perceptions of media bias has been the subject of experimental studies. In 1985 one such study first demonstrated the existence of what has come to be known as the Hostile media effect [1], where partisans of a particular cause display a marked tendency to see news coverage as being biased against their position. Not only do they see news coverage as biased, but are also more likely to explain the perceived bias as due to malign intent. Numerous subsequent studies have confirmed the existence of the phenomenon. [2] [3] [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action figures

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

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

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

Disputes between different parties

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

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

But OR may be all we have!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synthesis issue

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

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

"Original images" section

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

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

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

Nutshell clause

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

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

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

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

A whole lotta synthesis goin' on

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

Neutronium: Something odd here

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

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

"Material serving to advance a position"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute regarding PSTS

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

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

Fake images in aviation accident articles

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

Could you provide a link or two so we can see what you are referring to? Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here and here are the current talk page threads, but the issue is generic, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOR in images is something that has been discussed recently here. There's a bit of a conundrum for the project in that pictures are good, but very few pictures are in the public domain. I believe that pictures should be evaluated in the same way as any other content. WP:UNDUE may really be the objection in this particular case rather than WP:NOR, as the contested item (on a brief glance-through) is supported by at least one plausible theory supported by a reliable source. The caption to the picture should clearly identify it as a reconstruction based on those sources rather than "the truth", though. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with "reconstructed" images is that, unlike photographs, they always reflect a specific interpretation of the facts. So in the case of an aviation accident, especially for a trained eye, they tend to introduce manufactured evidence. This would be a source of endless debate, because unlike words in a text, which can be tweaked by anyone, an image is much harder to modify by the average editor, so the wiki concept is mostly gone. I agree that photos are virtually always welcome, as well as images, maps or illustrations in non-controversial cases. It is when we produce a fictitious image in a hotly disputed event that we end up taking sides on specific issues, and that violates the letter and spirit of our NPOV and NOR policies. I think we must emphasize in both NPOV and NOR that fictitious or doctored images may only be used in non-disputed cases. Crum375 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Vallone, R.P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.
  2. ^ Perloff, R.M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.
  3. ^ Gunther, A.C., Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. The Journal of Communication, 54(1), 55.
  4. ^ Price, V. (1989). Social identification and public opinion: Effects of communicating group conflict. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 197-224.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&oldid=217762803"