Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:42, 20 March 2014

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Template:NORtalk

view · edit Frequently asked questions I disagree with the definition of secondary source. Misplaced Pages mostly follows the definition in use by historians, which requires more than simply repeating information from some other source or rearranging information from the author's notes. The earliest definition of a secondary source in this policy was in February 2004 "one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources". This published, reliable source is engaging in original research. We allow our reliable sources to engage in original research of their own – indeed that's their job, and we rely on them to do so. Our job as Misplaced Pages editors is to put reliable sources' research into article form. I've proven that general relativity is wrong, but the physics journals won't publish my proof. Can I use Misplaced Pages to publish my ideas about how Einstein was wrong? I can cite lots of sources in the article to support each piece of the puzzle. No. If you want to put a whole idea in Misplaced Pages, you need to be able to cite a source that contains the whole idea, not just isolated bits of it.

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Misplaced Pages. University of Illinois U-C.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64

Rewrite 2004-2005: Draft • Talk "Primary v. secondary sources" subpages "Change needed": Proposal • Talk "Various examples": Examples • Talk "Transclusion example": Example • Talk List all subpages

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

• WT:OR
• WT:NOR

Original use of images

I suggest the following paragraph be added to WP:OI:

Images that are used to illustrate points in an article should be used in proportion to the way in which reliable sources about the subject use similar images. Special care should be exercised when using images to illustrate fringe theories, especially since captions of prosaic images can be inappropriately used to promote alternate interpretations.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you please give a specific example of a (real or potential) misuse? Because right now my answer would be: probably this is already covered by our overall NOR policy. First, what do you mean under "prosaic images"? WP:OI talks about self-drawn images. Second, captions themselves may be censored for WP:NOR. For example an image of a monkey with a caption "This image clearly shows that a human cannot descend from a monkey" is very easy to deal with. "Alternate interpretations" are (you said the word!) interpretations, and hence they are either OR or may be sourced. For example, the mentioned example of the caption for a monkey may be validly amended as follows: "Creationists say this image clearly shows that a human cannot descend from a monkey."

So, please be more specific . Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis was embroiled in a huge controversy over this and may still have some problematic images that relate to this (see the swimming baby and wrinkled toes on that page). Other pages that have been affected in the past include almost anything listed at List of pseudosciences whenever advocates come through. UFO has been a classic case. While fringe POV-pushers often are unsuccessful at getting their ideas in writing included on the page due to this policy, some have discovered that they can use images to skirt WP:SOAP. If you don't want to include this here, I think a place could be found at WP:FRINGE, but we really need to address this issue. jps (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no OR issues with the images of the baby and the toes. They clearly are being used to illustrate the claims that are discussed (and sourced) in the sections they are attached to. That's not Original research. What's more, the caption clearly attributes the claim being illustrated to the person who made the claim.

As to the broader point that "a picture is worth a thousand words" and so can give fringe viewpoints undue weight... That is not really a WP:NOR issue... it should be discussed at our WP:NPOV policy page. I have started the conversation (see: WT:NPOV#Images and UNDUE weight) Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Why the baby and the toes? The choice of what to illustrate and how is clearly an editorial call, and in the case of Aquatic ape hypothesis, one need not look too far in the past to see a collection of images pulled from all over that is clearly being used to make both illustrative and rather original points. jps (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverse original research

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

I'd like to add a section about "Reverse original research" - "Deleting relevant, reliably sourced, neutrally worded material from articles should be avoided, unless you have reliably sourced information which solidly refutes it. It is often better to leave conflicting reliably sourced information in articles than to edit war over which version or account should remain in an article. Deleting reliably sourced material without any reliable sources to support your deletion, because you personally don't like, agree or believe something, is reverse original research." Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No way. Verifiability is no guarantee of inclusion. Material may be removed on the basis of good writing, regardless of how reliable the information may be. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information regardless of how verified the material is. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ghostofnemo does raise a legitimate concern, though. It would be possible to breach WP:NOR by taking a balanced article and deleting all the information that's unfavourable to one particular side, as sometimes happens in highly political topic areas such as Israel and has been attempted in Scientology-related articles in the past----so subtracting information from an article really could create a NOR issue. This may be the behaviour that Ghostofnemo is concerned about? Fortunately, Misplaced Pages does already have the relevant policy section. It's in the WP:Editing policy under WP:PRESERVE. I think it would be reasonable for us to have a discussion about whether WP:PRESERVE should be mentioned in WP:NOR. Ghostofnemo, is there a specific incident that has given rise to this post?—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Some examples. The first example is a discussion which FINALLY resulting in inclusion, after repeated deletions. The others are diffs of deletions, which as far as I know remain deleted:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Harry_Truman
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=405170520&oldid=405158745
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=482102967&oldid=482101670
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories&diff=529672499&oldid=529654789
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_nicknames_of_United_States_presidents&diff=487201463&oldid=487199503
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nelson_Mandela&diff=585300836&oldid=585294103
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Police_state&diff=578931729&oldid=578657087
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_British_words_not_widely_used_in_the_United_States#armalite Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything there that seems to need an edit to a policy. I do see some reverting from a user who occasionally needs reminding that other people are allowed to edit articles too, but I think that's an issue with the user rather than an issue with Misplaced Pages's policy setup, and every one of those reverts was logically defensible in context.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

S Marshall - Re: It would be possible to breach WP:NOR by taking a balanced article and deleting all the information that's unfavorable to one particular side. Um... I don't think unbalancing an article would be an issue for the WP:No original research policy ... that would be covered by our WP:Neutral point of view policy. It's still wrong to do... just not within the scope of NOR.

As for PRESERVE... We absolutely are allowed to use some editorial judgement and "remove verifiable information"... we do it all the time. Whether we should remove a specific bit of verifiable information (or not) is a very different question. A question that can only be answered at the article level.

A lot depends on how relevant or significant the information is within the context of a specific article. For example, the fact that George Washington wore dentures is certainly verifiable... but that fact is also fairly trivial. It certainly isn't something that is significant enough to mention in either our George Washington bio article, or our article on Dentures. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can envisage that presenting one side of the evidence and not the other in order to influence the conclusion would breach NOR (as well as NPOV). WP:PRESERVE says "preserve appropriate content" (which is, incidentally, my wording and I like it a lot), so obviously if there's a consensus that a piece of content is not appropriate for the article then it should be removed; I'm not sure if there's some sense in which you're disagreeing with me or if you're just restating the policy.—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• @Washington's dentures. Funny that you gave this example. Our GW article does talk about them. :-) And your actions would be...? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh... wasn't there the last time I read that article (but then it has been a while). My recommendation would be to remove the paragraph as being trivial information. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Content must satisfy various policies (WP:NOR being merely one of them) in order to be even OK to put in, and then once that is met the question of whether or not it should be in is a whole additional conversation. IMHO putting something into a policy that says it should be included if it complies with this particular policy would be an unthinkable and illogical mess. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this should not be covered here. In fact a lot of editors claim WP:RS already when there biased, trivial content is removed. It is already difficult enough to convince them that reliably, sourcing of trivial content, or reliably sourcing of only marginally relevant content to support a non neutral pov in an article needs to be removed for other reasons than WP:RS or WP:OR. Let's not add arguments in these policies to make these kinds of edits even easier. Evidence for relevance needs to come from the editor adding it, and WP:OR / WP:RS is only a supportive argument for addition, not a central argument. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Meeting wp:ver/wp:nor is one of the requirements for inclusion, it's not a force for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, deciding what is relevant and what is not, what is trivia and what is not produces a rather broad gray area with original research, since it is based on wikipedians' judgement. And there is no way we can have 100% detailed instructions on this. That's what Misplaced Pages:Consensus for. We introduce a new policy to deal with actual problems. The list of diffs above: were all these issues resulted in heated debates/wars? Only about the first one some indirect hint was given.

In any case, even if it is decided we don't need a new rule in this page, it might be a good idea to clarify the scope and give helpful references, something like "this policy is about the addition of information into an article. Deletion of information is handled by the following policies and guidelines <...>" Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In my view WP:OR is only one of the condition for addition of information. That the new addition does not contain any original research is an essential but not sufficient condition for addition, Besides fulfilling the OR policy, the addition should also comply to WP:NPOV and WP:TRIVIA and other policy. So I would disagree with placing the ball for deletion with the editor opposing trivia as your suggestion implies (at least to me) Arnoutf (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Was not thinking clearly. Indeed, sounds weird. I will think more. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

From the examples provided above: "FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted to a Senate panel that the Bureau had been warned by an agent in the summer of 2001 that Moussaoui "could fly something into the World Trade Center." Is this really trivia? Is the fact that Harry Truman is the one who had the final authority over the dropping of the atomic bombs trivia? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course someone is going to think that some well-supported fact belongs in a particular article, and someone else is going to think it doesn't. That does not justify putting in a rule that every well-supported fact may be put in an article if one editor feels like it. Frankly, when I've seen editors urging a policy change to force their favorite fact into an article, those editors usually turned out to be editing in a biased manner. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll just note that we already have policy/guidelines that tell us how to resolve disagreements over whether some verifiable fact belongs in an article... see: WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Dispute resolution. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the excuses I've heard for these types of deletions is that inclusion is "against consensus". Which implies that if a majority of editors want to omit a reliably sourced, relevant and NPOV fact from an article, like the fact that more than 1,000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new 9/11 investigation, they can, which would seem to violate WP:NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That may be the case, but that has nothing to do with this specific policy but with Consensus and NPOV policies, and should be resolved for those reasons. It seems the thread has gone off topic and is now discussing other policies than this one. Arnoutf (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, my point is that if putting things into articles without any reliable sources is original research, and considered to be a no-no, why is it ok to remove reliably sourced information? Isn't that also a form of original research - removing something reliably sourced without providing any other reliable source to show that the original information was false, misleading, outdated, etc., just because they personally don't feel it belongs in the article? Seems like a strange double standard. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I could use the flat earth analogy. If I put a reliably sourced line in the article "Flat earth theory" to the effect that since humans have orbited the earth and taken pictures of a round earth, the flat earth theory has essentially been disproved, is it ok for someone to delete that information if a majority of the editors of that page agree? Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The "strange double standard" of which Ghostofnemo complains is simply a matter of logic, which is that the converse of a true statement is not necessarily a true statement. It is true that, according to Misplaced Pages policy, the insertion of unsourced material is original research. It also violates Misplaced Pages policies on verifiability and reliable sources. It does not follow that the converse is true, that all removal of sourced information is also original research. That isn't a "double standard". Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Everyone who writes based on anything other than pure imagination, uninformed by any sources or experience does research. The variety of research that reports new experimental results, new theories, and the like is original research. Misplaced Pages expands the definition of original research to any new work that is not attributed to a reliable source, even if the editor adding the material is not the one who discovered it.

Another variety of research is source-based research, which summarizes and organizes material in reliable sources into a cohesive, well-written whole. That is the type of research done by Misplaced Pages editors. It includes excluding reliable material on a variety of grounds. Such grounds include the material being too detailed for the article, or not being closely related enough to the topic of the article. The word "original" in original research is crucial. You seem to be arguing that Misplaced Pages editors don't do research, which is flat-out wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: "If putting things into articles without any reliable sources is original research, and considered to be a no-no, why is it ok to remove reliably sourced information?"... because the decision to include/exclude a particular bit of information is not purely an Original Research issue... nor is it purely a Verifiability issue... it is based on multiple factors that all have to be considered at the same time. Some of the other factors we have to consider are Due and Undue weight (does mentioning the information give Undue weight to a particular viewpoint?) and Relevance (is the information really relevant to the topic), and Triviality (is the information worth mentioning, or is it essentially trivia?). And there are other factors as well. As the Verifiability Policy itself notes: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• My understanding is this proposal is to prevent someone from removing reliably sourced information. The proposal looks bad, when its meant to be a solution for a real problem here. Putting in, its ok to remove information if a contradicting source appears, opens up a new can of worms, that the proposer may not like either (it may be turned against what you wish to do). Also, there may be reliable sources for conflicting points of view. An editor can rightfully make reverts if any reliably sourced information is removed. This is a NPOV issue. A lot of editors here use Wikilawyering to avoid neutral point of view, and enforcement of npov is a better answer. - Sidelight12 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose Closure

I propose to close this section as discussed and dismissed. The original argument used by the original poster is a logical fallacy, an argument from an inverse. The inverse of a true statement is not necessarily true. Original research should be deleted, but the fact that information that has been added is not original research does not mean that it should be retained. As noted by several posters, there are other reasons why such information may nonetheless require deletion, such as that it is not verifiable, or that the source is not reliable, or that, while verifiable, it is not notable. The whole concept of "reverse original research" is an erroneous argument from an inverse, and this section should be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm referring to the deletion of relevant, reliably sourced, notable information that can currently be deleted at will, without any evidence to support its irrelevance, unreliability or non-notability, on the basis of an editor's PERSONAL OPINION that it doesn't belong in an article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's where WP:BRD and WP:3RR come in. If you add "sourced" material and someone else deletes it believing it improper, you discuss it on the talk page. If long-standing material is deleted, you can re-add it and ask why the material was deleted on the talk page. The point is that there is no way will codify a policy to outright prevent the removal of sourced material, just to use standard editing approaches to delete with how to keep it or not. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

First, it is unfortunately common for an editor who has been involved in an article content dispute, possibly with associated conduct issues, to go to a policy forum, discussion forum, Help Desk, or noticeboard and pose a "hypothetical" scenario to try to get abstract support for their view. (Often the "hypothetical" scenario is presented in a slanted way, sometimes actually a mendacious way.) Some of the regular editors at these forums have learned to decline to respond and to ask what the actual dispute is. It appears that Ghostofnemo is using this fallacious argument as a hypothetical. I haven't yet reviewed his or her posting history to see what the issue is. In any case, he or she is apparently proposing, based on a logical fallacy (that the statement implies the converse), trying to rewrite a well-established policy to lock in challenged edits. Second, if the original poster has a valid case with regard to the article content dispute that prompted this, they haven't made the case here, because their argument relies on a logical fallacy. They would be better to describe what the specific article content dispute is, and ask for a third (or fourth or fifth) opinion, or go to WP:DRN or some other forum, or post an article content Request for Comments, rather than waste time using a flawed argument to change a policy to justify their position. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a legitimate issue, but the proposal looks bad and it can be turned against what the proposal's intent was. This is a NPOV issue. No, people can't remove information just because they don't like it. On the other hand, information may become obsolete or proved wrong, which this tried to address. Ghostofnemo, do you have an example? I can imagine this problem scenario without an example, but one may help. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and its noticeboard may be of help. If someone removes reliable material without an explanation to cause an edit war, it could be a case of gaming the system. It seems like there's already a policy for this somewhere. Misplaced Pages:Content removal somewhat addresses your concern. - Sidelight12 04:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ghostofnemo provided quite a number of specific examples above.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that Ghostofnemo provided multiple examples above. It appears that Ghostofnemo has a history of making controversial edits which are then reverted or removed. It appears that the edits may have to do with conspiracy theories. (A typical hypothetical question has to do with one actual content dispute. This editor appears to have had multiple content disputes about attempts to add questioned material.) Conspiracy theory references are typically sourced, but there are questions about the quality of the sources and the neutrality of the point of view. I think that the original proposal, to modify a core policy, has been discussed at sufficient length, and has no consensus, and this discussion can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I skimmed it. So far, few of your edits were legitimate, but others had problems. Problems: Youtube isn't an acceptable source, unless its uploaded by an otherwise reputable source; find the original video of the documentary in order to include it. The Washington Times may be a good source, AIA might be ok only as an accomplice to the Washington Times, but the other references used with it aren't. Using a mock name Ronald 'Rayguns' is unacceptable, there are policies about that. Another problem, the link to the cnn video doesn't link to the said article. The edit on Mandela's article has the issue of being a POV push, one reference was bad, but someone fixed it and made it neutral. - Sidelight12 16:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think this discussion will lead to an edit to a policy, but I do think it's rather illuminating. WP:PRESERVE's original intent was a general presumption against removing sourced information from the encyclopaedia. Sometimes there's a good case for moving the information to a different article, or for changing the prominence with which it's presented or reducing the word-count associated with it, but the WP:PRESERVE attitude is that if a decent source has confirmed something then it's likely that the encyclopaedia ought to cover it somewhere.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, there is no consensus for the proposed change to policy (which, if I understand it correctly, would render sourced edits, regardless of the reliability of the sources, locked in), and there appears to be a consensus against it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH contravention?

Statistics Canada publishes demographic census data on visible minorities. The order it presents the minority groups are as follows, based on largest to smallest populations: South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Arab, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean and Japanese.

My inquiry is two-fold:

1. Is it contrary to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to present this data within tables in an order of groups inconsistent with the order published in the StatCan source? If no, would it more likely be a contravention of WP:NPOV?
2. Is it contrary to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to use different terms for the groups than those published in the StatCan source?

The concern about #1 is that some editors may reorder the groups to match their preferences for whatever reason, or it can be perceived that they have been intentionally ordered to align with someone's preferences.

An example of #2 is using "African" rather than "Black", or using "White" rather than "Not a visible minority", or in the case of Demographics of Canada#Visible minority and Aboriginal population, aggregating "like" groups into greater groups (like rolling Chinese, Korean and Japanese into "East Asian").

For your background, consider this discussion that triggered this inquiry.

Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Note the other editor involved just made a change. My inquiry above was made on behalf of both of us. Hwy43 (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with you and Skookum1. UrbanNerd's concerns should be disregarded.—S Marshall T/C 10:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks S Marshall. His concerns aside, can you confirm the above are technical violations of SYNTH/OR? Hwy43 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

They're certainly in the topic area that SYNTH/OR touch upon, and I definitely wouldn't want people changing the terms for ethnic minorities willy-nilly. However, I feel that in this case they're not violations. I feel that a key aspect of SYNTH/OR is when you go beyond the sources to suggest conclusions that the sources don't imply. I don't feel you're doing that, so I don't feel that a technical violation is taking place.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about declaring people who pass for being white as actually having European origin, since they might not. You could misrepresent the source that way. But in this context, you could probably use Black and African interchangeably, since white Africans (e.g., Afrikaaners) aren't actually "visible minorities" in the sense that they're talking about in the source. This sort of change falls under the category of "explaining the source" rather than "materially misrepresenting the source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you have just made a classic common American centric blunder, the peoples north of the Sarah are just as African as as those from sub-Sahara, yet I suspect that people from such an ethic background are more likely to be classified by the Canadians as Arab rather than Black as they say it is based on visibility. Whether or not that is true using African for Black distorts the survey. In the same way are not Arabs "West Asian", if not what does "West Asian", encompass? For reasons like this, if the authors of the Canadian survey have not defined precisely what the terms mean, is is probably best to leave the wording as is. -- PBS (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it is a Canadian survey on what people look like is exactly why I believe that their category of "African" excludes non-Black Africans (from Afrikaaners to Berbers to Arabs and more), and includes all dark-skinned people, even if their ancestors immigrated two centuries ago. Also, they probably include immigrants from Jamaica and other Carribbean countries in this category, even though many of them don't see themselves as being from Africa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We frequently enable users to reorder data tables, so I see no problem with orders. Terms is a more difficult question, though. Aggregation becomes more problematic, it seems like synthesis to me. SamBC(talk) 00:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your insights. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Third party sources and tertiary sources , Hitler and Mussolini (OR rules)

Simple question - 1. Are a third party source and tertiary source the same ? And a second longer question - A :DVD-documentary about Mussolini includes a speech that this Italian dictator held in Bari in 1934, after the murder of :Austrian dictator Dolfuss. Mussolini says (it is subtiteled sound film, and a part of the documentary)

"With a serene contempt can we reguard some doctrines from the other side of the Alpes, doctrines which has been created by a people that even didn't knew the art of wrighting, and couldn't write their own history at the same time as Rome had Caesar, Vergilius and Augustus ! It is indeed at the shores of the Mediterranian Sea that they all have been born, the great religions, the great philosophers, the great writers and an Empire which has made an indelible impact on the history of all civilized peoples !"

Can this be used as a source for instance in a historical (and relevant) article to support a statement like "Mussolini :wasn't very fond of eighter the Nazists or Germany from the beginning of the Third Reich" ? And finally - 3. May a statement (at a relevent location) like "Hitler hated Jews" and use some phrase from "Mein Kampf" as source be OR or wrong in any other sence ? Appriciate serious answers. Boeing720 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Question 1: As far as I know not. A primary source is someone giving their opinion or eyewitness report. Examples are the speech by Mussolini, and blogs. A secondary source is an analysis of a finding (or a primary source). Most academic papers are secondary analyses of an observation A tertiary source is a source where the body of knowledge is aggregated and made accessible to a larger audience. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, as are many textbooks use for classes.

Re question 2: The actual speech by Mussolini is a primary report. The statement you suppose is an interpretation of that primary speech by Mussolini and would likely count as original research as it is not what Mussolini actually said. The same goes for your Mein Kampf statement. If you find a quote which state "I hate jews" in Mein Kampf it would be a primary source, if you interpret phrases it would probably be original research indeed.

In any case both examples would build heavily on primary sources, which is not to be preferred, especially for a topic where there are literally thousands of secondary and tertiary sources that provide the claims you want to make. So basically you don't need any of this in this example (so why bother). Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanx! So if the narrator in the documentary (or an author of an analyzing historical book) uses this speech as an example, then the statement would be OK (the statement by the narrator or author, not the Misplaced Pages-editor, to be absolutley clear) ? Boeing720 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The narrator would be a secondary source; and using that is not Original Research. Whether the narrator should be listed a RELIABLE secondary source, is another issue. Arnoutf (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I sooner ment the narrated text. The reliable person(s) must be the editor and/or the (executive) producer, I assume. Boeing720 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Boeing720, I think you'll want to read WP:Party and person and WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Counting -- possible addition to WP:CALC

Has there been any discussion about the possibility of adding "counting" to WP:CALC as not being "original research" ? Just looking to be more clear. In other words, do I need to have a source that says Tom and Carol Brady have 6 kids combined, or can I just look at Greg, Peter, Bobby, Marcia, Jan, Cindy ... and count up to 6 without sourcing it? I think so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add that to WP:CALC. This is simply a question of understanding/reading a particular source and about different ways to summarize it correctly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that needs adding – it comes under 'routine calculations' to me, so is already covered, and is only one of many examples of such and we don't need to go adding every variant. If 'routine calculations' seems vague then that's by design: what is routine is determined on a case by case basis by consensus among editors.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 14:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I once asked if calculating population density for an area is OK, based upon area and population. Even adding some areas their population, and calculating the overall population density. This was OK. I also recall that if the article´in question is of mathematical type, a higher degree of math may be alouded as NOR. If this was to any help Boeing720 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is more one example where (or it is possible to imagine) a new or an isolated wikipedist lost good contribution because some one other wikipedist, use self interpretation of WP:NOR or WP:CALC rules, for delete good contributions at Misplaced Pages. I started Misplaced Pages:About Valid Routine Calculations (today an abandoned essay but we can rewrite and restart it) for this cases: an essay is a "consensus reference" for any one, without the support of an "expert", show or check what is wrong with your own text, or what kind of abuse the another wikipedist is doing. --Krauss (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that even simple counting can be abused. For example, we all agree blueberries are fruits, and so are watermelons. But counting 1 blueberry and 1 watermelon up to two pieces of fruit in the context of daily intake of food is nonsensical. The current vague routine calculations would allow consensus to block such cases while it creates no problem for regular counting. Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Also note that you cannot formulate 100% foolproof guidelines, that is guidelines protecting against any conceivable form of abuse. Any guideline can be abused and any guideline is subject to interpretation (to a degree). In doubt it is up to involved editors to decide in an individual case (usually via consensus) whether a source is used according to guideline (in doubt in its spirit rather than its literal reading if every single sentence) or not. If such such consensus is not possible then there project pages where you can request the assessment of univolved editors/rd opinions.

The longer and more detailed a guideline gets, the lower are the chances of editors actually reading and heeding it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• As far as the specific example is concerned:- if I have a source that says Tom and Carol Brady's children are called Greg, Peter, Bobby, Marcia, Jan and Cindy, then it would be reasonable to say "Tom and Carol Brady have six children" and cite it to that source. That's not original research. It's simply summarising the source, which is the encyclopaedist's most basic task.—S Marshall T/C 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly!--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I felt the need to put together an essay. Misplaced Pages:Counting and sorting are not original research. Please take a look and comment/change/modify: it's a community essay of course!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The important point is that counting is not OR unless it is reasonably disputed. You should feel free to simply count up Barack Obamas children. However, there is nothing "simple" about counting up the number of Clint Eastwood's children (for example). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor clarification add "primary"

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
It's straightforward from the examples (i.e. summarizing a book requires access to the book (primary source), interpreting the book requires a secondary source that interprets the book). The policy is referring to the primary source, not a source of special knowledge . --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Interviews clarification

WP:NOR#defs defines "(in some contexts) interviews" as primary sources. In what contexts would an interview not be a primary source? 88.75.174.246 (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, if you interview the local history professor on the radio and say, "So tomorrow's a big anniversary in history, so why don't you tell our listeners about it?", and he replies, "Sure. Tomorrow is the 400th anniversary of our town being spared destruction during a religious war, because the mayor could really chug wine. Mayor Nusch slept for three days afterwards."

An interview that tells someone's own ideas is primary; one that is basically a talking textbook lesson is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OI

(At least to me) WP:OI isn't as clear as it could be.

Currently the central sentence reads as follows:

Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.

To my judgement, that comes more or less down to the tautology:

Content created by a Wikipedian is not considered original research, so long as it is not original research.

As far as I can see, the same rules apply to adding images (or graphics) to an article, that as well apply to adding text to an article: Created content is most welcome (as in self-made photos/graphics or self-written text), but it has to be verifiable by a published source.

How about changing it to something along the following line, and making it the first in the WP:OI paragraph:

Adding self created content to further the coverage is most welcome at Misplaced Pages. Content like photos or graphics ("Original Images") created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as the content is verifiable by a published source.

If there are any exceptions with regards to NOR and images, then they should be spelled out more clearly – at the moment I can not see any exceptions, and in my view the same NOR-rules that apply to text apply to images as well.

My mastery of the English language is not the best, and in addition I am not very good in navigating all the WP rules, so I would ask if someone more knowledgeable could think about this, and make some changes to that paragraph if deemed useful.

I see at least one caveat: There are potentially quite a few original images of places used in Misplaced Pages (e.g. images from small towns or publicly not accessible places) that are possibly not verifiable by a published source at the moment (e.g. no StreetView coverage). Tony Mach (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree for graphics; the problem with the many current graphs is that when challenged in relation to them being original research, creators of graphics frequently refuse to provide sources; so in my view some stricter verifiability criteria for graphs would be very welcome. For photos it is a bit trickier. E.g. a photo of the Statue of liberty is not easily verifiable, nevertheless such a photo would be easily "recreatable"; so perhaps a slightly different phrasing there. Arnoutf (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

List of American beach volleyball players

What's your opinion on List of American beach volleyball players... I know very little about beach volleyball, so who decides that this is a list of well known players? Says who? Should it be sent to AfD? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine as a typical list. While I didn't look at all the entries, it appears that they are all notable, American, beach volleyball players. The sourcing is in the respective articles on the individuals. Any entry that doesn't meet the inclusion criteria should be removed.

However, there's a category that it is duplicating. I'm not sure what the consensus is on categories vs lists covering the same topic. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Explaining rejections?

WP policies like WP:OR are intended to facilitate the presentation of good content and reject mere speculation, or OR. A militant rejection of 'crank' content is necessary because there are many attempting to promulgate their own views, which is unacceptable unless these views also are those of reputable sources.

It is my observation that WP rejections are tending more and more toward overly brief in-line editor comments and a resistance to more complete explanations. I wonder if there is a place in WP policy for a recommended procedure to be followed; a sequence of steps that could direct discussion toward sources and prevent descent into put-downs and arbitration? For example, in the case of rejection of a submission it could be recommended that:

1. Rejection should be polite;
2. Rejection should cite the policy that has led to the rejection and supply some indication of what is in violation;
3. Rejections with an in-line edit should assume that further discussion could go to the talk page, and suggest that possibility;
4. If a talk-page discussion takes place, the rejecting editor should identify specifically what caused the rejection, and exactly how it contradicts the cited policy; not just blanket-reference the entire contribution, and admonish the contributor to "read the policy".

Possibly these steps are too obvious to require elaboration in WP policies, or perhaps it is felt that these steps are already present in existing policy? Often in-line edit statements strike me as peremptory, and when a contributor requests more information a confrontational atmosphere shows up right at the beginning. Brews ohare (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This may conflict with WP:BOLD, possibly even WP:DR.

It would be nice to see more emphasis given to focusing on content and focusing on the sources (which should be detailed somewhere in our policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that your post covers about 6 much-needed different areas of good behavior, and I don't see any that concern the specifics of this policy; I think that they actually are about a missing policy. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

PS when you noted that this policy exists for a reason, I thought you were going there (i.e. to note the reason when deleting and not just the policy) but I don't think that you did. Sincer3ely, North8000 (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

When an editor has attempted to insert material over multiple articles and not gained consensus for any of them the patience of others wears thin. When policy has been explained to that editor many times but they simply don't listen it wears thinner. When they go to policy discussion groups (this is the third time) to try and win the argument another way it finally goes. Any review of Brew's history on Philosophy articles (and his permanent ban from editing all physics articles) will show the pattern of behaviour. Put simply if you have explained policy and content issues once, but an editor refuses to accept that then short edit summaries are reasonable. When the editor calls an RfC and gets no support but carries on anyway the edit summaries just get shorter and shorter ----Snowded 06:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Snowded doesn't like the process of content development, which is too demanding of his time and intellect, requiring reading and assimilating sources and actually formulating summaries of them. So he has taken the route of claiming my attempts to fix the uncountable gaffes in philosophy articles as a kind of plague rather than a necessary clean-up operation. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:CANVAS violation, and inappropriate use of this forum.

There are some good points in the initial comment , but they have nothing to do with WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ronz: I agree about the misuse of this forum to engage in extraneous debate. To get back to work, the proposal is indeed more general than WP:OR although WP:OR is a policy very often invoked in rejections. Can you suggest a better venue for this discussion? Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

I already pointed out WP:BOLD and WP:DR, especially noting WP:FOC, which is a part of WP:DR. WP:FOC begins with a link to WP:EP. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ronz: Thanks for these links. I wonder if you agree with me that these links basically cover the territory, although perhaps an itemized list would add some emphasis? Unfortunately, these policies are not followed, so one has to wonder if it is clarity that is the issue. Brews ohare (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you choose one of the talk pages to the policies/guidelines listed, and discuss the matters there. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ronz: I wasn't aware of all the attention to these issues already in the links you provided. I am going to drop the subject, as I'm now persuaded that policy is not the problem on WP; it is the failure to follow policy. Brews ohare (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What do cautions about primary sources mean?

The policy WP:OR states:

"The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed."

Later, regarding sources,

"The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material"

"In general, the most reliable sources are:

• peer-reviewed journals
• books published by university presses
• university-level textbooks
• magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• mainstream newspapers"

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

Clarification is requested here about the meaning of "used with care" and "misuse". In a conversation with editor Snowded,12 I suggested this phrase "with care" is a caution that it is easy for a WP editor to slip into synthesis not found in the sources, or into statement of the WP editor's personal interpretation. However, any rejection of a presentation of this material is not to be based upon the controversial nature of the subject, but upon any misrepresentation of the sources, for example, by failure to note there is controversy surrounding the subject, or by ignoring some aspects of the subject that should come up."

In short, material that is controversial or rapidly changing is not excluded as OR simply on that basis, so long as accurate presentation of what is contained in reliable published sources is adhered to, and care is taken to present all sides of any controversy.

Does that seem to be what the policy requires? Brews ohare (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In the policy on primary sources the sentence after the one you quote is this: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

So using primary sources, in particular devising an 'accurate presentation' of them, requires a reliable secondary source or sources. Without a secondary source your presentation might be quite different from another editor's selection and presentation. So any presentation should be based on secondary sources.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 00:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That isn't how I read it Blackburne - I'd write this line as follows:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

The 'interpretation' that cannot be made is a WP editor's personal interpretation of what the primary source said, in contrast to what the source itself has to say. That is, I'd take it that only a secondary source is allowed to interpret what a primary source said.

Thanks for bringing up this point for further clarification. Brews ohare (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Selection is interpretation ----Snowded 05:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd understand that simply reporting what a primary source says is not 'interpretation' unless it reports the source inaccurately. Of course, an improper selection, like taking a line out of context, can be removed on that basis. Brews ohare (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Brews, if you take (as you have many times) strings of quotes with some minor commentary between them then, aside from the stylistic issues, you have determined which quotes and which authors. Recently you suggested that half a loaf was better than one and that rather deleting your quotes more material should have been added. The role of an encyclopaedia is not as a recording device for notes for people studying the subject, it is to fairly and accurately summarise the field ----Snowded 06:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is another way of looking at it. Just quoting primary sources is unencyclopaedic. I.e. an article that consists just of a quote, or a list of quotes, is not really an article. Any section similarly consisting just of quotes is not encyclopaedic. Adding text giving the source, e.g. "this is a quote from A" doesn't change that and is redundant as that's what references are for – readers can follow the links to them so there's no need to clutter the article with such attributions. Anything else, such as saying "this source is important", "this source is controversial", "this source is contradicted by this other source" is commentary, and as such must be based on reliable secondary sources or it's original research.

So using just primary sources is either unencyclopaedic or original research. Articles should be based on secondary sources, and once these are used and the article is properly written based on them then there are relatively few uses for primary sources. Quotes when the quote is being discussed. Examples of language when the use of language is being discussed. Plot/chapter summaries for creative works that are the main subject of the article. But actual encyclopaedic content should be based on secondary sources.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 12:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Selection of sources, and deciding which information from sources to include in an article, is not original research, it is source-based research. Source-based research is the method used to write Misplaced Pages; without it, Misplaced Pages cannot exist.

The full sentence about misinterpreting primary sources is "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors." From this we see that the caution against interpreting primary sources does not apply to the ordinary process of reading: scanning with the words, understanding the meaning of the words with the brain, deciding what is relevant, and restating the meaning in the editor's own words. The caution against interpretation applies to more advanced forms of interpretation, which is described as "original analysis", that is, reaching a conclusion by combining material from various parts of the source, or by comparison of material in the source with material in other sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

1. "Agent: Moussaoui 'could fly ... into the WTC'". CNN. May 14, 2002.