Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Julie Lythcott-Haims, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.
Panian513
23:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have not added any original research, but rather a link to a story written on the award-winning digital publication Autostraddle. Historically, this had been a digital magazine-type site with independent freelance writers attached, and so I thought it was a sufficient source, just as though the author had written her personal story for Slate.com or somewhere similar. On somewhat further research it's possible that the changes in ownership and mission of autostraddle in recent years might mean that this should be considered more in line with a self-published blog entry, in which case I understand the objection on sourcing grounds. However, I think it's worth at least another examination by the Powers That Be.
Brauwerij89 (
talk)
23:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The publication itself is reputable, the problem is that Julie Lythcott-Haims is not mentioned by name in the article. Individual analysis to conclude that Julie Lythcott-Haims is the subject, therefore, qualifies as original research - as the guide on
original research states, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Therefore, it is best to wait until there is a reliable source that directly names Julie Lythcott-Haims to mention the allegations.
Panian513
23:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Well, patience then. I appreciate the explanation. Brauwerij89 ( talk) 23:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The publication itself is reputable, the problem is that Julie Lythcott-Haims is not mentioned by name in the article. Individual analysis to conclude that Julie Lythcott-Haims is the subject, therefore, qualifies as original research - as the guide on
original research states, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Therefore, it is best to wait until there is a reliable source that directly names Julie Lythcott-Haims to mention the allegations.
Panian513
23:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Julie Lythcott-Haims, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.
Panian513
23:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have not added any original research, but rather a link to a story written on the award-winning digital publication Autostraddle. Historically, this had been a digital magazine-type site with independent freelance writers attached, and so I thought it was a sufficient source, just as though the author had written her personal story for Slate.com or somewhere similar. On somewhat further research it's possible that the changes in ownership and mission of autostraddle in recent years might mean that this should be considered more in line with a self-published blog entry, in which case I understand the objection on sourcing grounds. However, I think it's worth at least another examination by the Powers That Be.
Brauwerij89 (
talk)
23:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The publication itself is reputable, the problem is that Julie Lythcott-Haims is not mentioned by name in the article. Individual analysis to conclude that Julie Lythcott-Haims is the subject, therefore, qualifies as original research - as the guide on
original research states, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Therefore, it is best to wait until there is a reliable source that directly names Julie Lythcott-Haims to mention the allegations.
Panian513
23:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Well, patience then. I appreciate the explanation. Brauwerij89 ( talk) 23:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The publication itself is reputable, the problem is that Julie Lythcott-Haims is not mentioned by name in the article. Individual analysis to conclude that Julie Lythcott-Haims is the subject, therefore, qualifies as original research - as the guide on
original research states, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Therefore, it is best to wait until there is a reliable source that directly names Julie Lythcott-Haims to mention the allegations.
Panian513
23:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)