This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
I think using Google Books search links as surveys is original research. The example in question is at Talk:Elizabeth Bentley#Mother's maiden name. I suspect there are also other bits of original research going on there, where the line between referencing and aggregating historical sources, and drawing conclusions from them, is being crossed. Could people help out there? Specifically, the example is the proposal to put the following actually in a footnote in the article: Lauren Kessler's biography and a few other sources have spelled Bentley's middle name 'Turrill'. Kathryn Olmsted's biography and most other sources use 'Terrill'; see this vs. this. What do people think? Answers here or there will do, but general discussion should probably be here. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The opening statement of Wikipedia's policy states:
To me, this clearly means that Wikipedia is no place for "crackpot theories", such as Solar Oblateness, that are unsubstantiated and out of mainstream thought. But, does this extend to an observation that is so simple that nobody has thought that anything needed to be published about it. I have had a small number of my own edits, which were nothing more than stating the obvious, challenged as original research. The best example was--after studying several maps published by the U.S. Census Bureau--I noticed that the latitude and longitude of a census designated place was at the geometric center of the the CDP. I stated this in the article about census designated places. The statement was immediately challenged as original research. That statement may have been "systhesis of published material" but it did not "advance a position". It was just an observation. After the statement was challenged--and after a futile search for a published reference--I contacted the USCB by e-mail and was directed to a statement on their web site that corroborated my observation. Okay, it's good that I was able to cite a reference, but really, if I say "fire is hot" do I have to find a published reference to validate the statement?
Should a statement that is easily confirmed by simple observation, that doesn't advance a position, opinion or argument--and is so obvious that nobody thought to base his or her doctoral dissertation on it--be excluded as original research? Rsduhamel ( talk) 06:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I just found this statement on the No original research policy page (in the section titled "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources"):
I think my example was no more than a "descriptive claim" that was "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". I think this bolsters my position that simple observations should not be barred as original research. Rsduhamel ( talk) 06:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
... on
Wikiversity.
Dear WP policy-makers and original-research-hunters! I want to ask you for a favor... Could you encourage users contributing original research on WP to do it on Wikiversity instead? Original research is generally not wanted here, and it is often deleted. We on the
neighbouring server are generally more benevolent to this kind of activity, and happily accept the well-written and also developing original research entries. You could also encourage these users to move the articles to WV before it is deleted here. The promotion of this idea via templates like {{
Original research}} would also help :)
You can read more about this issue here:
v:Wikiversity:What shall we do with Wikipedia?. Thanks for cooperation and help! --
Gbaor (
talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested also in expert commentaries possibility on WV. -- Gbaor ( talk) 05:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be practical to redirect "suitable articles containing too high a proportion of original research to meet Wikipedia standards" to be redirected to appropriate Wikis eg Wikinfo (the Wikipedia article on which seems to have disappeared)? This might resolve "a number of arguments/complaints. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
See Archive 34#Autobiographies and Archive 34#PSTS- autobiographies
Reading the archives has not changed my initial position on this ( Archive 34#Autobiographies). In the case of military histories it seems to be a very arbitrary rule and depends on the style of how the the book is written eg: "Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall" or the "Downfall of Adolf Hitler".
I did not realise that autobiographies had been put back in and would like to remove it as the people who took part in the debate seem to agree that given the PSTS rules many autobiographies are also secondary sources. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I entered some edits to the Rodenticide article (note in passing that it is a very good article that is far more comprehensive and more valuable than the matching entry in a long-established and very much respected comprehensive encyclopaedia that I myself use routinely. I observe that one of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is neither severely space-constrained nor cost-constrained. It also is more flexible; I had pointed out a major deficiency in that article in the other encyclopaedia several years ago, and it still has not been updated. These are advantages that it would be sad to sacrifice on the altar of unobjectionability. That is an altar with room for more adornments than the trappings of incontrovertibility in the eyes the publish-or-perish hierarchy. Do we really want to refuse to post anything that has not already been formally peer-reviewed? EB-envy is fraught with hazards.)
One of those edits referred to personal observation that an item was of regional common knowledge within certain circles. This was not research on my part; I just happened to encounter the fact. The item is of practical importance, but not patentable and I have no interests in it apart from its value as general knowledge that I acquired adventitiously and that I personally regard as good to know in context and of value to such people as might refer to the article. In short it is just the sort of thing one might wish to gain from an article in an encyclopaedia. Technically the item is unexceptionable in terms of biochemistry, practical fact, and ethology. (It deals with the toxicology of ethylene glycol, which is hardly controversially ground-breaking!)
Now, to the chase. That edited item was (conditionally?) rejected as presumably falling foul of the [original research/personal opinion/lack of refereed publication] rules (check as applicable). Reading some of the discussion on such matters it seems that I am not the first to encounter similar difficulties. My reason for raising the subject is not primarily the rodenticide issue as such, but the fact that I expect(ed) to post other items of information in future articles, and they might very frequently include similarly non-peer-reviewable information. Some such might be open to doubt, but still worth inclusion in the context of such doubt; whereas others might be undocumented formally, but be easily verifiable (say, the interesting nature of the numbers 39 and 51, contrary to the entries in the valuable Penguin dictionaries of interesting numbers, or the observation of the frequently sematic coloration of the backs of ears in feline species.)
So let's consider this illustrative and actual example: in parts of South Africa (specifically including the Western Cape Province where I live) it is common practice among certain local lay populations to use ethylene glycol as a rodenticide. I have failed to find any similar reference in google. It is the sort of item that I might have referenced as "pers. obs." or "pers. com." in a professional publication. It would not require a major research initiative to verify it, but technically it is not clear how important verification is; the main point in context is that it is a very important observation in practice. The substance is cheap, commercially available, can safely be handled and used (though it is not necessarily so handled and used), unpatentable, easy to formulate in a safe form, practically resistance-proof, requires no pre-baiting, and addresses one of the most serious pest-control problems facing humanity. The ethological and toxicological aspects are common knowledge and have so been since the 1930s at least. A policy of refusal to publish such a thing in context seems to me perverse.
Now, this rant was in response to a specific item, but I think it applies to a lot of potentially desirable subject matter. Comments anyone? What do we do about publishing things that we cannot usefully reference? I realise that some people parrot the slogan that the plural of anecdote is not data, but that is a very blinkered view of the nature of either anecdote or data, let alone data about anecdote. Where do I go from here?
Cheers
JeanGeilland (
talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: The following discussion emerged on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, where it was off the core topic but raised various points of interest. Judging it to fall within the scope of the present page, I have relocated it here for further comment.] Spinality ( talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I posted this at some other place, but this seams to be right place for a proposition. I am a new Wikipedia fan. Well, not exactly now. I tried to introduce minor corrections in some texts that belong to my academic expertise, when I realised that number of people jealously want to keep their contributions as they are. I realised that Wikipedia promotes not expert opinion, expert consensus but, what a surprise, the USERS CONCENSUS. The truth is not what is justified by a valid and sound argument, but the truth is what the majority of the “amateurs of knowledge” would accept as truth. For an expert it represents most often an extremely big effort to convince self educated people what is an accepted scientific fact and to develop, for a lay adapted full argumentation for every single issue that he finds false on Wikipedia. And there are too many mistakes, in fact few factual but which then “program” for milliard of failures of interpretation mistakes. Or inversely.
I realised that Wikipedia is knowledge based on the lay democratic argument. The truth is here what a majority of lay persons will accept as such. The Wikipedia is a game.
May I suggest something that I find essential? I suspect that this may violate your philosophy, but I would like to propose that you establish registered experts or groups of expert users who would establish what a consensus is. This may increase value of Wikipedia which, if left as it is – quite useless or quite, quite unreliable as a knowledge source.
The method would be that the registered person would have to justify hers/his expertise for the given subject (the publications list may be sufficient, or the academic degree). Although I think any academic degree higher then PhD or high teaching position at a university may guarantee adherence to a kind of coherent scientific method. Such users do not have to be necessarily very narrowly specialised to be reliable to judge on the application of the scientific method to may be not quite related subjects. This may provide greater number of the experts that would be available to build a consensus.
It may be that you already have that or some similar expert system in use. If you do have I would greatly appreciate if you would indicate to me where to find it on your impressive site and how to use it.
If such or similar expert consensus system would not be available and to decide “what is” and “what is not” would be left to the consensus of those who love knowledge and not to those who have knowledge, the Wikipedia will remain to be just – a game. Sincerely, Draganparis ( talk) 10:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing "cut and dry" in science either. Yu probably did not read all what I wrote about this. Or I really did not expend this well enough. The expert system works in the matters not only of the security, technology, or all serious even sometimes not expensive projects, but in science in general. In that respect, the expert system can not be challenged, although it does not ALLWAYS guarantee the best choice. This is particularly true if the best choice a priori can not be arrived at, because of the inaccessibility of complete knowledge of our world. I did not ask that question. The “expert systems” have other drawbacks that are inherent in their structure, but on the level of knowledge, it has obvious advantages over lay consensus. People often believe that since in politics a simple consensus works, that democracy is how we should ALWAYS take our decisions, even in deciding what is and what is not the case. This is simply not true. Although I suspect that this is the core of the problem here, we can not develop it right now.
I asked whether the Wikipedia should ALSO employ the expert system, in addition to the other rules and the lay consensus. This may depend (and I think it does not) on how we define the Wikipedia. The question is of whether Wikipedia is a knowledge data base - then we would need the expert system; or Wikipedia is a colourful “knowledge” game that includes learning some aspects of the “scientific method” - then we do not necessarily need the expert system. And then, I asked also, would an expert system destroy the charm of the lay research? I personally know, as may be many of you, so well that the most attractive research is one that is so often just marginal to my very narrow speciality.
Just one word more. There was a comment of some artist I think, that if, during my lay research, an expert would come to tell me what is the “state of the art”, the last knowledge about that what I was researching, this would destroy my research enterprise and the pleasure of research. I hold this for false. I tested this many times. This produces just a desire to go further in the same direction, now set at the new starting point; or this may produce a desire to change the subject of the research. I think, an you know this also, that learning and finding what is not known is extremely interesting. However, we - almost all of us, are learning and finding what is certainly already known and are just enjoying doing this all the time! So, to conclude, I think that Wikipedia will survive if the expert system would run in parallel with other rules that do not relay on the experts. Draganparis ( talk) 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
[<end of shifted discussion>] Spinality ( talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
An expert system would be disasterously useless and work only to create more content disputes. Although I'm aware I can't speak for Draganparis, it is my general observation that people who rail against "users consensus" aren't the most experienced in legitimate scientific content disputes. Considering guidelines/policies like reliable sources, verifiability and the page we're talking at right now, a user-based consensus that contradicts verifiable scientific consensus should always fail after enough dispute resolution. The actual monkey wrench in this idea is the existence of experienced POV pushers who game the system. While limiting who can form a consensus may seem a laudable goal, restricting who is allowed to participate violates the very concept of Wikipedia, and it would suffer problems of its own. For example, it can be easily demonstrated that many individuals with considerable academic credentials are complete cranks, and some seem to have gotten their credentials with the sole motive of making their crank publications seem more reliable (though not for Wiki purposes, as far as I know). Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me summarise before I’ll go:
A. The main text will have a Core article (it could be edited only by the peer reviewer), and the main text (that is open for editing).
B. A peer review may be demanded occasionally for some disputes.
C. The per-reviewers will be the people with the 1. academic titles one level higher then a PhD (for example: Associated Professor in the USA, in France and Germany “Habiltation”, in England Senior lecturer). 2. + publication lists, 3. and should be evaluated by a small body within Wikipdia.
D. Each “Science” will have one or more administrators who will contact the peer reviewers.
E. The peer review will be established only for the subjects belonging to the narrowly defined sciences (arts, culture, biographies, literature and similar will be left free for editing).
F. The registering procedure for Wikipedia will contain a question about capability for peer-reviewing and a suitable longer questioner (as number of scientific journals have) so that potential peer reviewer can be immediately registered and classified. All claims MUST be verified by ordinary procedure (deposition of certificates, verifiable list of publications).
G. Initially the peer-reviewers will be asked to produce/correct the core articles under their expertise; then they will every month re-examine the text and eventually register the suggestions. In the mean time they will serve as arbiters on request. It should not be expected that one peer reviewer spends more then 1 hour per month on these activities.
Well. I do not have anything else to say except that I am certainly not a person who will organise this. I know: “we do not need the ideas, we need the people who will do the job”. Draganparis ( talk)
I only just noticed this thread about NOR and expert editing which is very apropos to this issue. Many good points are made about the technical accuracy of scientific articles. Spinality ( talk) 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"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. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." It seems there is no problem with publishing religious beliefs as facts in WP as long as they are Judaeo-Christian. Pardon my cynicism, but WP is merely a white anglo saxon propaganda machine. Fourtildas ( talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC) PS: anyone object to me deleting all those Bible Stories? Can you help me with the etiquette for that? Fourtildas ( talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What we really need is an exception to the policy -- in its entirety. SamNZDat ( talk) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
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
I think this policy on Wikipedia is a bit annoying, and promotes deprivation of some information that could be vital. For example, I am under the impression that MP3 players are a probable replacement to radio (more to this topic can be read in Talk:digital audio player). However, my efforts to claim that ordeal on Wikipedia always get reverted (owing to this policy).
Besides, I think peoples' personal experience with concepts may be a basis for public awareness that is largely deprived as people could be missing out on experience that ancillary advantages of concepts may provide. Besides, people are so under some impressions that they forget the research is "too original" thus they get annoyed.
So, will the admins legislate some exceptions to this policy so Wikipedians can be less annoyed by it? Because I know I am. -- Roadstaa ( talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Further to my suggestion above - how feasible would it be to develop a policy along the lines of "this OR is more appropriate for (Wiki X/Website Y than for Wikipedia"? Some cases will always be marginal/personal experience/leading edge etc but it may be possible to place some work more appropriately than Wikipedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we need exceptions to this policy. I did some research on a game to collect statistics about certain aspects of the game. However, I didn't realize until after I posted the information that no original research could be used. What I'm saynig is, I think that original research should be allowed if it has ___ people who agree, and can verify that said information is true. The underscores above indicate a number of people that would be needed to verify the information. -- MaggotSoldier ( talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been involved in a content dispute with an editor largely about WP:SYNTH for several months. There is (another?) RfC open here. There are several problems (notably COI), and we're clearly dealing with a WP:SPA, but I think that the fundamental one is that the editor truly doesn't "get" WP:NOR.
The background is this: The editor has self-published a book on his idea about a medical condition. Since the article he wrote specifically on his idea was deleted as non-notable, he's been steadily trying to introduce his idea into the Wikipedia article on a related, vaguely defined medical condition from the 19th century. Under threat of ban for obvious COI violation, he now confines himself to long complaints on the talk page.
His past work and talk page arguments primarily involve (carefully selected aspects of) primary sources. The rest is the addition of related conditions (like Chronic fatigue syndrome) that line up with his POV (and surely they're practically the same thing, because many of the symptoms are the same). He asserts that his work can't be "original research" because some of the studies are more than 100 years old. Thus he believes that he's only reporting someone else's original research, and (inevitably) drawing conclusions from those papers that just happen to support his novel, non-notable idea.
Now you know, and I know, that drawing novel conclusions from primary medical studies is practically the definition of WP:SYNTH. But this editor doesn't seem to know that. I am honestly wondering whether he's ever read this policy. Instead, he seems to think that I (and the other involved editors) are just invoking SYNTH as a form of anti-Truth™ wikilawyering.
I don't think that he needs a bunch of people to jump on him -- he's probably feeling pretty embattled already, and he's remarkably unfamiliar with basic WP conventions, like "{{ Otheruses4}} belongs at the top of an article", so I think WP:BITE might apply -- but I do think it might be helpful if several editors who are particularly familiar with this policy would leave a polite note on the RfC's talk page to indicate that, indeed, the community consensus is that drawing your own novel conclusions from 100-year-old medical reports really is a violation of WP:SYNTH, and not just something that the other editors have invented as a means of obstructing him. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Is applying a definition of a term an act of SYN?
In other words, for example, if the definition of discrimination is to treat people differently on a basis other than merit, and I can show source indicating a case where people are treated differently according to merit, is it SYN to therefore say that the case was one of discrimination, is that synthesis? Do I need an explicit source that actually associates the exact word with the topic? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them." -This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it.
As the example illustrates, WP:SYN has long prohibited the specific thing being done here -- an editor claiming a person has or has not done a wrong based on the editor's own application of a definition of that wrong to a set of facts. That's what the plagiarism example says can't be done, and that's what's happening in the example you gave here. Hope that helps. If you're requesting that this longstanding interpretation of the policy be changed, I wouldn't support such a change. The fact that the example you're giving is (like the plagiarism example) one where claims of legal wrong are involved, together with the fact that claims of legal wrong are fraught with pitfalls, makes me even less inclined to dare to tread, let alone rush in. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The WP:OR article defines trial transcripts as primary sources, and thus out of bounds. But what about a published decision? In my opinion, published decisions should be considered secondary sources (for the limited purposes of WP:OR), and potentially citable/quotable in WP. One relevant passage from WP:OR is: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." Certainly a published court decision meets this qualification. Verklempt ( talk) 06:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The classification of a source as primary versus secondary depends on context – on what elements from the source are being used to substantiate what points in the article. The majority of publications are primary sources for some new theses, syntheses, facts, findings, analyses, etc., because without offering some novelty, the only nonfiction works that would get published are textbooks, surveys, and encylopaedias. (If we forbade the use of all sources that contain ANY primary material, we would essentially limit ourselves to tertiary sources.)
In the case of a published court transcript, such a document would clearly be a primary source for details related to the subject matter of the case – it would be an error to cite deposition X as establishing fact Y. Fact-finding is left to judges and juries.
However, a properly published court transcript is a secondary source for some factual points – such as venue, parties to the case, dates of proceedings, and perhaps (depending on publication medium, transcription method, etc.) for reliable transcripts of verbatim testimony, establishing what statements were made by whom. Again, the transcript would not establish truth of falsehood of issues being addressed by the case, but rather about facts and events related to the court proceedings. Thus we could say "the transcript establishes that Smith said X" but not "the transcript shows X.") This at least is my reading of policy. Spinality ( talk) 20:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A phrase from Emanuel Ringelblum is literally quoted in History of the Jews in Poland as an alleged secondary source. I believe it's still a primary source if we don't quote the comment in Polonsky. Xx236 ( talk) 12:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
An issue related to original research in titles is under discussion at Talk:Chinese wén, specifically the use of common names of currencies as currently recommended by the style guidelines as well as WP:OR. If interested, please discuss a resolution of a titleing issue and give suggestions there. — AjaxSmack 01:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping someone could help me out here, specifically someone with a good idea of what constitutes
WP:OR. There's an increasingly-bitter argument going on at
Talk:UEFA Cup 2008-09 over whether the inclusion of a table of goalscorers for the competition which includes goals scored in qualifying should be allowed. UEFA doesn't consider goals scored in qualifying to be part of their Golden Boot (top scorer) award, and so does not list any qualifying goals in their table of top scorers. We tried adding them to the Wiki article, on the basis that just because they are not part of the Golden Boot competition, doesn't mean the information isn't relevant. However, a couple of people who objected to this step have used the "OR" term as a reason we should discount this and revert to the previous format (no qualifying goals shown). Now, I am confused by this step because it doesn't seem at all like Original Research to me. It's hardly original, the goalscorers are known and published by UEFA and countless other media sources, and there are also numerous websites, some reputable, some not, who compile their own lists of goalscorers including qualifying goals and have done since way before we started doing it here a week or two back. To my mind, it's also certainly not research because it's not in any way an argument, speculation or idea; it's not analysis or synthesis and doesn't serve to advance a position, and the only facts here as said above are published, not unpublished. To me, that discounts any possible idea of it being Original or Research. The counter-theory appears to basically be that any compilation of facts about football not already compiled by the football organisation relevant to it (i.e. UEFA for the UEFA Cup) is Original Research, and I've seen one person as good as say that because qualifying goals don't count towards the Golden Boot then they officially don't exist, making them unpublished facts (I've already presented my opposition to this above).
The argument has now gone on long enough that I decided to come here for assistance - I'm picky about these things, and while I don't mind being told that I'm wrong, I'd really like to find out what really constitutes OR in this instance, so I can get my facts straight. Any advice from those with a clear sense of what OR is would be much appreciated.
Falastur2
Talk 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
All right, I don't understand why this is controversial, someone fill me in on the history. It says "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I would delete (or at least tone down, or at the very least remove the bolding from) the first clause, since it seems to have nothing to do with originality of research (the topic of this page), and therefore distracts attention from the message. Can anyone explain why it's there or what it's supposed to mean?-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There were many reasons for including "directly related"... go through the archives of this talk page and you will probably find several. The most obvious to me is that it limits editor's ability to cite sources out of context. Blueboar ( talk) 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Auf analysierende oder interpretierende Aussagen, selbst eine selektive, suggestive Aneinanderreihung von Primärquelleninhalten, muss verzichtet werden, bis entsprechende Sekundärliteratur verfügbar wird.
Editors must abstain from making any analytic or interpretative statements, and abstain even from presenting a selective, suggestive string of primary source contents, until relevant secondary literature becomes available.
I was visiting wikiversity, and they are very interested in having original research moved to that website. Multiple pages in wikiversity discuss trying to establish a policy of having claims of original research in wikipedia examined by/for wikiversity, and possibly being moved there. In fact, this article was linked from just such a page. How do other people feel about mentioning this in this page, or elsewhere? Does the idea have merit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.130.94 ( talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
...is being discussed here. I started the discussion out of the concern that such illustrations, which are necessarily speculative when based only on a fossil record, violate WP:OR, at least when no cites are provided to any sources upon which the images are based. There seems to be a presumption in some of the comments that illustrations are categorically excluded from OR considerations, or that there's no difference between articles including speculative illustrations first published in a reliable source and speculative illustrations first published on Wikipedia. Postdlf ( talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Directional Michigan concerning original research. Essentially, "Directional Michigan" is a term used to refer to as a single group the following: Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, and Western Michigan University -- particularly their college football programs, although it can extend to other sports and even outside sports.
The issue at hand is that if an editor finds sources for budgets and game attendance of each university's athletic department, is it original research to add those numerical amounts together and come up with a sum total of athletic budget and game attendance for the group of schools that make up "Directional Michigan" ?? One editor says yes, another says no... a third (me) is now totally confused.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved — I copied this discussion to Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Synthesis question in college football article since that appears to be the correct place to get more eyes to view it. Any further discussion should probably occur there rather than here. — X96lee15 ( talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:Sources states
Clear enough, but I've seen wikilawyers use the claim that peer reviewed studies are a "primary source" to oppose and block reporting of studies in Wikipedia, arguing that text books or even newspaper articles covering the study (if they exist) are preferable because these are secondary sources. This has the effect of closing the door to reporting any newer studies which have not been included in text books or in media reports. This "block" thereby limits the scope of the encyclopedia as a comprehensive summary of known information on a subject.
I therefore believe the defininition of a secondary source should be clarified to include all peer reviewed journal articles, except in those rare circumstances where the article has been retracted by the journal...but even in those cases it may be especially important to report that the article was published and retracted.
Further reasoning is as follows:
1. Lab notes and raw data are clearly primary sources. Published raw data collected by national regisitries, surveys and the like are also primary sources.
2. Once these notes and data (whether collected by an indivdiual research or third party compilations of data) have been analyzed and intepreted by a researcher, or team of researchers, and this synthesis and analysis and review of data and literature has itself been reviewed by peers with expertise in the field and published in a peer reviewed, indexed journal, that publicaion is now an reliable secondary source, by definition. Afterall, the information has been vetted by experts and considered at least worthy of consideration as having added information useful to the field. That is roughly speaking the standard and purpose of peer review. While peer review is sufficient, I add "indexed journal" as an additional level of quality verification since the academic journal indexing houses verify that the journal, even a new journal, has editorial processes worthy of the journal being indexed.
3. A core policies are reliability and verifiablity...not truth. That some wikipeida editors do not find peer reviewed studies convincing does not justify wikilawyering efforts to block their inclusion in articles. Peer reviewed sources are and should remain highly valued and not subject to suppression by ideologically driven editors.
I've read previous discussions of this subject and believe the policy is currently correct, but it is frequently being misinterpreted and should therefore be clarified. -- SaraNoon ( talk) 17:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We do say that peer-reviewed journals etc. are the most reliable sources. The problem may lie in the inclusion of "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" under the subheading of "primary sources". This would include results published in peer-reviewed journals, given the present wording. I can see the concern that published experimental results are sometimes found to have been in error, or prove irreproducible by others; so there may be good reasons for caution. On the other hand, if some groundbreaking research results are published in Nature, or some other mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal – say, the discovery of a new particle or element – are we really saying that we should not mention this in Wikipedia? And what about sociological studies, for example, published by the sociologist who has done the fieldwork? Surely, such studies are reliable sources, certainly more reliable than newspaper articles.
Where did you have these problems, SaraNoon? Which scientific fields are involved? Jayen 466 22:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed sources are generally primary sources and are always subject to the WP:PSTS issue. ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If a peer reviewed article is later challenged by another such article, per NPOV we ought to mention both, in particular when it concerns scientific disputes. WP:V and WP:OR do not preclude the inclusion of competing views, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
@DGG" Though many review articles are themselves peer reviewed , sometimes quite heavily, they remain to be understood in most cases as being the personal view of the people who write them. ... which makes these personal viewpoints perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia articles if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the thread above, I brought it up here because I've seen WP:PSTS, which is part of No OR, cited by wikilawyers as an excuse to exclude any mention of citations -- even from major journals. They simply argue, as ScienceApologist did above, that peer reviewed journal articles are generally primary sources.
This conflict over how peer reviewed sources (whether from a fantastic journal or a "any opinion goes" journal) is therefore a source of ongoing of editing conflicts and edit warring. Clarifying this definition would help to reduce such editing conflicts. In my view, this clarification should be done in a manner which encourages inclusion of more material and tries to discourage exclusion of material.
In short, I can see why the definition at WP:PSTS can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with WP:Sources. Therefore, WP:PSTS it should be clarified to reiterate that peer reviewed sources are highly prized as verifiable sources with an explanation that they often combine both primary and secondary material. In that regard, editors should be reminded that any use of the primary material (raw data) should be used with caution and not with OR, and that it is generally best to rely on the scondary source materail from the peer reviewed source, which is usually in the form of the textual description of results and discussion. The "background" sections are also valuable secondary sources as they often provide a review of the relevant literature undergirding the new paper.
Some of these points should be developed in guidelines explaining this policy. But as this is a policy page, it should be clarified in a way that reduces conflicts between interpreting WP:PSTS and WP:Sources.
Regarding guidelines, as stated above, I believe in inclusion rather than exclusion. If some editor thinks that a third rate paper from a third rate journal should be cited in an article, I would be all for keeping the citation, but might insist that it be just that, an additional citation associated with better cites to the same point raised. After all, even a third rate paper is verifiable and rather than edit war, it is best to find at least a nominal place to include it out of respect for the other editor's insistence that it should be included.
My main point then is not that every peer review paper deserves equal weight or discussion. Not at all. But I do object to POV pushers deleting peer reviewed papers simply because the findings and opinions expressed conflict with what the editors insist (usually without sound basis) is the "accepted" viewpoint....often relying on well known newspaper or magazine articles as "reliable secondary sources." In my view, peer reviewed sources should always be more highly preferred than newspaper articls...unless you are looking for a synthesis of what so and so said at this political rally, of course.-- SaraNoon ( talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
-- SaraNoon ( talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Are patents really always primary sources? They are indeed nominally published by the person who was involved in the research, and I suppose the first telephone patents would clearly be considered as primary sources in most contexts, but is a patent by a large, modern corporation, which is based on lab data, edited by company policymakers, vetted and further edited by company or third party patent attorneys, and finally reviewed by the patent office really a primary source? I would rather say that lab notebooks, original research data, emails etc. would be the primary source in this case, and that the patent itself would be a secondary source.
As for research papers, I have similar questions. Isn't the lab notebook (which often comes up in court cases) the real primary source here? After all, a peer-reviewed paper has been edited and commented on by third parties, and usually modified in response to editorial and peer review commentary. -- Slashme ( talk) 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I guess I can go along with that definition then. -- Slashme ( talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Granted that the primary/secondary/tertiary terminology has been dragooned from historiography to serve Wikipedia's particular needs. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable mapping for scientific articles.
Its not quite the same thing, but the same general concept applies. Robert A.West ( Talk) 02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations)#A_census_as_a_source_of_notability about whether or not a census is a primary source (and hence a basis for notability under WP:N). AndrewRT( Talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in this too. At John Howard we have a newspaper that erroneously quotes a reputable poll. Under the current WP:NOR policy, the newspaper reference cannot be refuted. (side note: I have a big problem with the assertation that mainstream newspapers are among the most reliable sources - bad journalism abounds everywhere) -- Surturz ( talk) 05:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone, once told me "Phenylalanine, what needs to happen is to gather sources and then write the article from sources that use the article title [...] You should google the article title and use those sources and their content to avoid violating WP:NOR." But what about "descriptive" article names, such as Evolution of the human diet or Environmental effects of meat production. Must the sources use the exact words "Evolution of the human diet" or "Environmental effects of meat production" to avoid WP:NOR? For example, if I create an article called "Sustainable diet", is that title a general "descriptive" name (that doesn't have to appear in the references) or a specific term that must appear in the sources? Thank you. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) One very obvious reason why sources don't have to use the exact words of the article title is that Wikipedia allows foreign language sources, which won't even use the same script. Also, WP:Naming conventions explicitly says not to use the terminology in the "best" sources, it says to use the most easily recognized name, which will be the terminology most used in common English. It also says to prefer common expressions to specialized, limited-use ones. The reason for this policy preference is that the purpose of article titles and sourcing are different. Article titles need to use the terms that users who want to know about a topic are most likely to include in a search. Thus, they have to take into account users as they are and the search terms they actually use, whether specialists agree or not (Users have to find the article to be informed, so if we use a title they won't be able to find we've done nobody any good). Sources, on the other hand, need to reflect the expertise and often the jargon of specialists. For this reason, there are many situations where an article title should (if WP:Naming conventions is followed) use a common term for a subject, while the "best" sources may use a formal or specialized term. This convention isn't always followed (if it was, we'd have more human anatomy and behavior articles with four-letter titles and fewer with latin names then currently). But it is the guideline. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 08:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You have to use editorial judgement and creativity. To some degree you can use a source that says something equivalent to the title; but if someone objects, then move that data to a related article with a similar but different title that reflects terminology used in that source. For example in an "Evolution of the human diet" article you may put in a claim related to "Evolution of cooking" or "Evolution of human teeth" or "History of farming techniques" and someone may delete it as original research. You can then create new articles on those subjects, add the data there, and link to those new articles in the "Evolution of the human diet" article. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your responses. I see a fundamental difference between descriptive article names, such as "
Evolution of the human diet", or perhaps more clearly, "History of the human diet", and article titles that correspond to specific terms such as "
Sustainable food system". In the case of the "history of the human diet", it is not necessary to define the expression in the article lead, the expression being quite clear, while "Sustainable food system" appears to be more specialized, it being necessary to define the term in the article lead. In the case of descriptive article titles, any sources and material about the topic should be acceptable in my opinion (when the article name is unusual, one or two sources using the exact article title in their terminology should be sufficient). For articles with specific titles, sources using the article name in their terminology are necessary in my opinion. For example, in the article "Sustainable food system", I could examine how the term is defined in expert sources and see that a "sustainable food production system" is part of a "sustainable food system", and use sources employing the term "sustainable food production system", but not "Sustainable food system". This in my opinion would constitute original research (correct me if I'm wrong). But is "Sustainable food system" an acceptable article name, considering that article titles must correspond to commonly used terms, as indicated by Shirahadasha? Shirahadasha, are you saying that I have to create an article like "sustainable diet" (commonly used and understood term) and then discuss "Sustainable food systems" (more specialized term) in the body of the article "sustainable diet" (perhaps including a section in that article on "Sustainable food systems"), sourcing the information added on "Sustainable food systems" with references that use the expression "Sustainable food systems" in their terminology? Thanks. --
Phenylalanine (
talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG's classification of sources at Notability_(Geographic_locations), and I added a note to that effect there. Census reports, for example, are compilations of census forms.
But then I started looking at the sources listed in the notes (2 through 4) used in WP:PSTS I see the definitions and examples are all over the place. For example, this one lists Encyclopedia Britannica as a secondary source, while most put encyclopedias as tertiary.
Actually, I would actually agree that some encyclopedias, like Britanica, are compiled secondary soruces since they commission experts to write the articles, which are therefore essentially review articles by an expert who synthesizing his or her interpretation of a body of knowledge. In my book, I wouldn't object to WP editor starting an article using a Britannica source (though defined as WP as tertiary), though it is always better, in my opinion, to move sources back to peer reviewed scholarly articles whenever possible.
To me, in regard to definining the quality of sources for WP source material, tertiary includes not only distance from the original source but expertise. A newspaper article reporting what a scientists says at a press conference is a great secondary source documenting that scientist's statements. The same article providing a summary of what "most scientists believe" or what "most research shows" is reflecting a tertiary view, expressing the view of a reporter with limited expertise who has most probably looked at only a few sources and spoken to a few scientists. But a Britanica article by an expert, while in a compiled encyclopedia, is closer to being a reliable secondary article.
And there is part of the rub. Primary, secondary and tertiary vary depending on use, authorship, ane even intent.
Another source of confusion: many sources contain both primary, secondary, and even tertiary material. For example, peer reviewed science article typically includes introduction which will contain a literature review of studies related to the subject of the stdy and in a concluding section where the authors discussion, synthesize and intepret the results of the study. Whether the results reported in the tables are primary material (since this is the first reporting of the findings) or secondary material (since this is a synthnsized statistical analysis of raw data which is not reported, but is the true primary source) depends on one's preferences for defining primary and secondary sources. But the presence of primary material does not change the fact that the introduction and conclusions are secondary source material representing the peer reviewed opinions of an expert in the field.
The current NOR page contributes to much edit warring and wikilawyering because there is no universally clear definition for primary and secondary sources in all contexts and fields. In addition, it makes two "definitive" but (at least to wikilawyers) competing statements: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" and "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care."
A policy that breeds confusion and contention isn't very helpful. The main point of NOR is to stick closely to the source, whether one believes it to be primary or secondary. That should be the focus, not trying to define secondary or primary sources (where there is plenty of room for contention).
I will post a recommendation for clarifying policy in the near future. At the very least, the policy should state that secondary sources are preferred but primary can be used (provided they are used without adding interpretations) within the same sentence. But first, what are your thoughts? -- SaraNoon ( talk) 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the SYNTH section is already far more important than PSTS, which has problems we're talking about. I'd like to move PSTS below "Citing oneself" without any other changes. Doing so not only helps to bring readers to the SYNTH section first, but may help alert those watching policy to look in on this discussion regarding rethinking the PSTS section to join in the discussion.-- SaraNoon ( talk) 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this page should be split.
I think that the information here is great, but that few people will read it.
The initial section on sources in particular should be required reading for all Wikipedians.
But few do, simply because of the name of the page. The page name suggests that this is a page outlining what not to do, when it (the sources section at least), is a great guide.
So I'd like to see this split between the two concepts.
(I'm not placing a split template yet, because I want to first discover if there are any obvious reasons (for or against) that I may be unaware of.) - jc37 02:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I found this comment on a discussion board regarding original research, it's a quote from a user called IPMan, can someone comment on this qoute, I suggest it should be included in the OR article.
"That would be a descriptive claim about the contents of a primary source whose applicability is easily verifiable and obvious to any reasonable, educated person without the need for specialized knowledge — and therefore not OR." The link is to the original article that the quote was taken from. [ [4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holamitch ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the following text or information be added to the article:
To ensure that information added to a Wikipedia (WP) article has been published in reliable sources in relation to the WP article's subject, which is described by its title, the information should be verified by reliable sources that include in their text, and in the proper context, the term(s) used in the WP article's title or synonyms of this/these term(s).
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this proposed addition makes more clear the existing meaning of this policy. It does not change this policy. Whether this additional clarity should be added is the question. Is it needed? I don't know. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 21:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This sounds more like an issue of presentation and attribution within articles on fringe theories than one of Original Research. To take the "Raw foodism" example above, while those claims could be construed as original research the way they are written in the example text, they could be appropriately represented by wording along the lines of "The health benefits of eating raw foods are accepted by mainstream nutritionists in certain cases, such as examples and study citations go here. In the case of other foods such as other examples and study citations go here however, cooking is considered essential to the prevention of disease." -- erachima talk 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
My rationale for this proposal can be better explained by the following example: Imagine a researcher who has knowledge of all and only that information that is published in reliable sources where a specific topic, e.g. the concept of " Raw foodism", is described/mentioned. Now, suppose the researcher looked at the Wikipedia article "Raw foodism" and noticed aspects or research which he/she never read about on that particular subject (Raw foodism). In my opinion, such information would constitute original research.
I have found the proposed approach to be very useful and helpful in keeping articles on topic and in ensuring that they accurately reflect, in a neutral manner, the body of published research on their subjects, and I would hate to see this proposal rejected out of hand. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
My interpretation of "Wikipedia:No original research" is that: Information can be considered directly related to the topic of a Wikipedia (WP) article, for example the concept of "Raw foodism", when a WP editor considers this information to be relevant to "Raw foodism", not based on his/her analysis of the concept of "Raw foodism", but rather based on the WP editor's readings of reliable sources which describe/mention Raw foodism and his/her consequent interpretation of what these particular reliable sources specifically describe as being relevant to Raw foodism. This interpretation of the NOR policy has the merit of greater promoting a "neutral point of view", since if the editor's interpretation of the relevance of information to a WP article, e.g. "Raw foodism", is based on his own analysis of the subject-matter of an article, then, IMO, there is a greater possibility of misrepresentation, in terms of undue weight, of what the whole spectrum of reliably sourced points of view are saying about Raw foodism, and thus greater risk of breaching the WP:NPOV policy. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 04:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
After further reflection, I can see that there are counterexamples to my proposal. For example, take an article such as the " Environmental effects of meat production", I don't think it would constitute OR, under any reading of the OR policy, to add information to the article that is verified by sources referring to the environmental effects of "intensive livestock farming", even if the sources don't use the exact term "meat production" or synonyms thereof. I also see that focusing on terms is not the right approach since there will be cases where the sources will not explicitly mention the relevant terms but will still refer to the concept described by those terms by indirect means. The key issue here is the specific concept described by the article's title. There are articles, where it seems to me obligatory to use sources that refer to the concept described by the article's title. Such would, IMO, be the case for articles like " Sustainable food system" and " Raw foodism". Perhaps the reason is that in the case of "Sustainable food system", we are dealing with a term defined within a very specific discipline or field of study. While, "Raw foodism" is not defined within a specialized field, it refers to a concept that is based on a point of view. " Raw foodism" is based on the belief that uncooked foods are better than their cooked counterparts. In this article, it would, IMO, be unacceptable to provide information intended to contextualize (i.e. contrast with opposing research/evidence or with mainstream views) the statements supporting/contradicting/criticizing the Raw foodism concept if the contextual information were not verified by sources that refer to the concept designated by the article's title. I believe that this approach should be followed for all articles about concepts based on points of view, even when the articles are about a fringe theory (in which case the lack of contextualizing information verified by sources that refer to the concept designated by WP article's title signals the lack of notability of the fringe theory and therefore indicates that it does not belong on Wikipedia). I therefore amend my policy clarification proposal as follows:
“ | In a Wikipedia (WP) article about a specific concept that is defined within a discipline or specialty field or about a concept that represents or is based on a point of view, information added to the WP article should be verified by reliable sources that refer to that particular concept, in order to ensure that the information is presented in these sources in relation to the WP article's subject. | ” |
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 02:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Kotniski, the policy says that "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". I'm saying "you must cite reliable sources that provide information which these sources directly relate to the topic of the article." For example, if the subject of an article is "raw foodism", you could find sources that provide information which you judge to be directly related to Raw foodism, for example, information that contextualizes, i.e. that contrasts with opposing research or compares with mainstream views, the statements supporting, contradicting or criticizing the Raw foodism concept. However, you may not be able to find and cite reliable sources that directly relate some of this contextual information to the concept of Raw foodism (i.e. that present/examine/review some of this contextual information in relation to Raw foodism), in which case this particular information would constitute original research according to my policy clarification proposal. For a specific example of this situation, see Raw foodism#Criticism and controversies. In that section, the following statements would constitute original research by the OR definition I suggest above, but not necessarily according to the current policy definition: Most other anthropologists oppose Wrangham, contending that archeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East.[38] This stance of Wrangham's, re cooking leading to bigger human brains, [can be] contrasted with several studies showing that average human brain-size has actually decreased in the last 35,000 years by 11%.[39][40][41] If you click on the refs, you'll notice that none of the sources discuss/mention/describe the concept of Raw foodism. None of the references for these two statements directly relate the information to the concept of Raw foodism. The first statement is verified by a source which refers to (i.e. criticizes) Wrangham's arguments suggesting that cooking played a major role in human evolution, but without mentioning (i.e. directly criticizing) Wrangham's criticisms of the concept of Raw foodism which are based on a number of arguments including the arguments in question which suggest that cooking played a major role in human evolution. The second statement is verified by sources that don't even mention Wrangham. Nevertheless, the editor who included these two statements considered that they were both directly related/relevant to the topic of the article (presumably because these two statements serve to contextualize Wrangham's criticisms of Raw foodism). IMO, both statements should be considered as original research, and consequently the the current definition of OR needs to be clarified, per my proposal, in order to account for this example of original research. It is not our place, as Wikipedia editors, to decide on our own (based on our analysis of the subject-matter of the article) what is relevant and what is not relevant to the topic of an article. As I explained above, what is relevant to the topic of an article, in the case, Raw foodism, should be determined based on what reliable sources indicate as being relevant to this topic. I can provide further specific examples to illustrate my proposal such as the Raw food controversy example provided above, if requested. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 02:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kotniski, I have been reflecting on your comments about fringe theories and I think you're right, applying an overly strict OR policy, such as the one I proposed above, will render the NPOV policy ineffective. An (WP) article's subject, as well as, claims made in an (WP) article regarding it's topic may be considered POV if not properly contextualized, i.e. contrasted with opposing research or compared with mainstream views. Consequently, here's my new policy clarification proposal:
“ | As a rule of thumb, information added to a WP article and that is intended to describe, support or criticize its subject should be verified by reliable sources that directly relate this information to the topic of the WP article, and in the same way that the information is presented in the WP article (said another way, in the sources cited, the information should be intended to describe, support or criticize the subject of the article). However, in order to ensure a neutral point of view in clear cases of violations of the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" policy, it is sometimes necessary to (temporarily) ignore this general guideline, when no sources consistent with the guideline can be found, to be able to properly contextualize (i.e. contrast with opposing or mainstream views) statements describing, supporting or criticizing the topic of the WP article. Nevertheless, in building WP articles, editors should always strive to follow the general guideline and sources compliant with the guideline should always have precedence over non-compliant ones. | ” |
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Per the above discussions, there appears to be a consensus that the section on PSTS needs some changes to minimize the many conflicts that arise over defining primary and secondary sources. Most believe that much of the material in this section would be better handled in Guidelines where more specific examples and suggestions could be made.
As also previously proposed, since there has been no objection to moving the current PSTS, without changing it, to a lower place in NOR policy, I have done so. This reorganization is intended to not only to shift focus of readers to more important material, but also to signal to all watching this policy that a policy change and new guidelines are being proposed. I have therefore moved the PSTS section as discussed.
I have also created a page that contains both (1) a draft of the proposed policy change for the PSTS section and (2) a draft of the proposed guidelines to give more examples and discussion of PSTS in a fashion that doesn't unduly burden the NOR policy page.
Please join us in the discussion and work on this policy change and guideline at WP:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources. For the sake of bringing people up to speed on the discussion, I've also copied a bunch of the last year's discussion of this issue from the archives of NOR to the talk page of Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources.-- SaraNoon ( talk) 21:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
An interesting question came up today about use of maps as citations in road transport articles. Working toward my first highway FA, and an editor at FAC opposed. His principal argument for opposing was that map citations violate WP:NOR, since he says reading a map constitutes original research. I hadn't really thought of the matter that way before (just followed existing precedents). If he's right then the editors in this FA drive will need to obtain different sources. Before heading to the library I'd like to get the opinions of uninvolved editors, (partly in hopes it might save a trip) but mainly because nearly every existing highway FA is sourced to maps. A few examples follow:
So, is this original research? Durova Charge! 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Per discussion regarding my previous proposal, I believe the following text or information should be added to the NOR policy. For an explanation of my rationale and specific examples of how this proposal differs from the current NOR policy wording, see this discussion.
“ | When adding content to a Wikipedia (WP) article, the
Wikipedia:No original research policy states that you must cite reliable sources that (1) provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that (2) directly support the information as it is presented.
As a general guideline, you should also ensure that (3) the reliable sources which you cite directly relate this information to the topic of the WP article, and in the same way that the information is presented in the WP article. For example, if the information added serves to criticize the subject of the WP article, then you are required to cite sources where the information is clearly presented as a criticism of this topic. Whether the information added serves to contrast certain aspects of or statements about the subject-matter with opposing or mainstream points of view, or to support such statements or aspects, or even to point out aspects related to the topic of the WP article which happen to cast the subject-matter in a more favorable or unfavorable light, the same principal applies. When developing the context for a subject described in a WP article, if no sources can be found that comply with the above guideline, you may occasionally cite reliable sources that provide information relevant to an aspect of that subject, but which do not directly relate that information to the topic of the WP article. However, to avoid breaching the Neutral point of view policy, you should never do this when adding information that may misrepresent any aspect of the subject or cast it in a more favorable or unfavorable light, for example if the information supports, discredits, highlights or downplays any aspect of that subject. |
” |
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following to the introduction:
I think this would be a good way to encourage those who just can't curb themselves from original research to find a welcome venue for their ideas. Any support or objections to this proposal?-- SaraNoon ( talk) 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
<undent>W.r.t. this edit, I must say I agree with Vassyana's basic take on it above, though not necessarily the "modest list" below. For the moment, I didn't want to unilaterally revert it, so I've pared it down to a simpler statement here, making clear that Wikinfo is only an example, as Vassyana has pointed out. I figure the next step, consistently with what Vassyana says above, is someone else cries "foul! we've got an OR website too!", then I imagine in short order it is likely to be a place where virtually every "OR friendly" website will want to post their names and URLs, perhaps next we'll need to collectively decide which of the numerous blogs meet WP:Notability, etc., etc. Perhaps the statement might be consensused to be appropriate without any specific mention of particular sites wherein it is permissible for users to publish OR? Either way, the proposed statement appears to me to require the scrutiny of a somewhat broader sampling of the WP community than has weighed in on it thus far. ... Kenosis ( talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Following SaraNoon's lead above, it would be appropriate to make a modest list of places where original research is welcomed (adding such a section before or after "See also"). It would be easy to make a short list such as:
Some Wikipedia sister projects welcome original research:
Some external collaborative projects welcome original research:
Starting a new wiki accommodating original research can be done at wiki farms:
Thoughts? Vassyana ( talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
I think using Google Books search links as surveys is original research. The example in question is at Talk:Elizabeth Bentley#Mother's maiden name. I suspect there are also other bits of original research going on there, where the line between referencing and aggregating historical sources, and drawing conclusions from them, is being crossed. Could people help out there? Specifically, the example is the proposal to put the following actually in a footnote in the article: Lauren Kessler's biography and a few other sources have spelled Bentley's middle name 'Turrill'. Kathryn Olmsted's biography and most other sources use 'Terrill'; see this vs. this. What do people think? Answers here or there will do, but general discussion should probably be here. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The opening statement of Wikipedia's policy states:
To me, this clearly means that Wikipedia is no place for "crackpot theories", such as Solar Oblateness, that are unsubstantiated and out of mainstream thought. But, does this extend to an observation that is so simple that nobody has thought that anything needed to be published about it. I have had a small number of my own edits, which were nothing more than stating the obvious, challenged as original research. The best example was--after studying several maps published by the U.S. Census Bureau--I noticed that the latitude and longitude of a census designated place was at the geometric center of the the CDP. I stated this in the article about census designated places. The statement was immediately challenged as original research. That statement may have been "systhesis of published material" but it did not "advance a position". It was just an observation. After the statement was challenged--and after a futile search for a published reference--I contacted the USCB by e-mail and was directed to a statement on their web site that corroborated my observation. Okay, it's good that I was able to cite a reference, but really, if I say "fire is hot" do I have to find a published reference to validate the statement?
Should a statement that is easily confirmed by simple observation, that doesn't advance a position, opinion or argument--and is so obvious that nobody thought to base his or her doctoral dissertation on it--be excluded as original research? Rsduhamel ( talk) 06:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I just found this statement on the No original research policy page (in the section titled "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources"):
I think my example was no more than a "descriptive claim" that was "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". I think this bolsters my position that simple observations should not be barred as original research. Rsduhamel ( talk) 06:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
... on
Wikiversity.
Dear WP policy-makers and original-research-hunters! I want to ask you for a favor... Could you encourage users contributing original research on WP to do it on Wikiversity instead? Original research is generally not wanted here, and it is often deleted. We on the
neighbouring server are generally more benevolent to this kind of activity, and happily accept the well-written and also developing original research entries. You could also encourage these users to move the articles to WV before it is deleted here. The promotion of this idea via templates like {{
Original research}} would also help :)
You can read more about this issue here:
v:Wikiversity:What shall we do with Wikipedia?. Thanks for cooperation and help! --
Gbaor (
talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested also in expert commentaries possibility on WV. -- Gbaor ( talk) 05:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be practical to redirect "suitable articles containing too high a proportion of original research to meet Wikipedia standards" to be redirected to appropriate Wikis eg Wikinfo (the Wikipedia article on which seems to have disappeared)? This might resolve "a number of arguments/complaints. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
See Archive 34#Autobiographies and Archive 34#PSTS- autobiographies
Reading the archives has not changed my initial position on this ( Archive 34#Autobiographies). In the case of military histories it seems to be a very arbitrary rule and depends on the style of how the the book is written eg: "Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall" or the "Downfall of Adolf Hitler".
I did not realise that autobiographies had been put back in and would like to remove it as the people who took part in the debate seem to agree that given the PSTS rules many autobiographies are also secondary sources. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I entered some edits to the Rodenticide article (note in passing that it is a very good article that is far more comprehensive and more valuable than the matching entry in a long-established and very much respected comprehensive encyclopaedia that I myself use routinely. I observe that one of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is neither severely space-constrained nor cost-constrained. It also is more flexible; I had pointed out a major deficiency in that article in the other encyclopaedia several years ago, and it still has not been updated. These are advantages that it would be sad to sacrifice on the altar of unobjectionability. That is an altar with room for more adornments than the trappings of incontrovertibility in the eyes the publish-or-perish hierarchy. Do we really want to refuse to post anything that has not already been formally peer-reviewed? EB-envy is fraught with hazards.)
One of those edits referred to personal observation that an item was of regional common knowledge within certain circles. This was not research on my part; I just happened to encounter the fact. The item is of practical importance, but not patentable and I have no interests in it apart from its value as general knowledge that I acquired adventitiously and that I personally regard as good to know in context and of value to such people as might refer to the article. In short it is just the sort of thing one might wish to gain from an article in an encyclopaedia. Technically the item is unexceptionable in terms of biochemistry, practical fact, and ethology. (It deals with the toxicology of ethylene glycol, which is hardly controversially ground-breaking!)
Now, to the chase. That edited item was (conditionally?) rejected as presumably falling foul of the [original research/personal opinion/lack of refereed publication] rules (check as applicable). Reading some of the discussion on such matters it seems that I am not the first to encounter similar difficulties. My reason for raising the subject is not primarily the rodenticide issue as such, but the fact that I expect(ed) to post other items of information in future articles, and they might very frequently include similarly non-peer-reviewable information. Some such might be open to doubt, but still worth inclusion in the context of such doubt; whereas others might be undocumented formally, but be easily verifiable (say, the interesting nature of the numbers 39 and 51, contrary to the entries in the valuable Penguin dictionaries of interesting numbers, or the observation of the frequently sematic coloration of the backs of ears in feline species.)
So let's consider this illustrative and actual example: in parts of South Africa (specifically including the Western Cape Province where I live) it is common practice among certain local lay populations to use ethylene glycol as a rodenticide. I have failed to find any similar reference in google. It is the sort of item that I might have referenced as "pers. obs." or "pers. com." in a professional publication. It would not require a major research initiative to verify it, but technically it is not clear how important verification is; the main point in context is that it is a very important observation in practice. The substance is cheap, commercially available, can safely be handled and used (though it is not necessarily so handled and used), unpatentable, easy to formulate in a safe form, practically resistance-proof, requires no pre-baiting, and addresses one of the most serious pest-control problems facing humanity. The ethological and toxicological aspects are common knowledge and have so been since the 1930s at least. A policy of refusal to publish such a thing in context seems to me perverse.
Now, this rant was in response to a specific item, but I think it applies to a lot of potentially desirable subject matter. Comments anyone? What do we do about publishing things that we cannot usefully reference? I realise that some people parrot the slogan that the plural of anecdote is not data, but that is a very blinkered view of the nature of either anecdote or data, let alone data about anecdote. Where do I go from here?
Cheers
JeanGeilland (
talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: The following discussion emerged on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, where it was off the core topic but raised various points of interest. Judging it to fall within the scope of the present page, I have relocated it here for further comment.] Spinality ( talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I posted this at some other place, but this seams to be right place for a proposition. I am a new Wikipedia fan. Well, not exactly now. I tried to introduce minor corrections in some texts that belong to my academic expertise, when I realised that number of people jealously want to keep their contributions as they are. I realised that Wikipedia promotes not expert opinion, expert consensus but, what a surprise, the USERS CONCENSUS. The truth is not what is justified by a valid and sound argument, but the truth is what the majority of the “amateurs of knowledge” would accept as truth. For an expert it represents most often an extremely big effort to convince self educated people what is an accepted scientific fact and to develop, for a lay adapted full argumentation for every single issue that he finds false on Wikipedia. And there are too many mistakes, in fact few factual but which then “program” for milliard of failures of interpretation mistakes. Or inversely.
I realised that Wikipedia is knowledge based on the lay democratic argument. The truth is here what a majority of lay persons will accept as such. The Wikipedia is a game.
May I suggest something that I find essential? I suspect that this may violate your philosophy, but I would like to propose that you establish registered experts or groups of expert users who would establish what a consensus is. This may increase value of Wikipedia which, if left as it is – quite useless or quite, quite unreliable as a knowledge source.
The method would be that the registered person would have to justify hers/his expertise for the given subject (the publications list may be sufficient, or the academic degree). Although I think any academic degree higher then PhD or high teaching position at a university may guarantee adherence to a kind of coherent scientific method. Such users do not have to be necessarily very narrowly specialised to be reliable to judge on the application of the scientific method to may be not quite related subjects. This may provide greater number of the experts that would be available to build a consensus.
It may be that you already have that or some similar expert system in use. If you do have I would greatly appreciate if you would indicate to me where to find it on your impressive site and how to use it.
If such or similar expert consensus system would not be available and to decide “what is” and “what is not” would be left to the consensus of those who love knowledge and not to those who have knowledge, the Wikipedia will remain to be just – a game. Sincerely, Draganparis ( talk) 10:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing "cut and dry" in science either. Yu probably did not read all what I wrote about this. Or I really did not expend this well enough. The expert system works in the matters not only of the security, technology, or all serious even sometimes not expensive projects, but in science in general. In that respect, the expert system can not be challenged, although it does not ALLWAYS guarantee the best choice. This is particularly true if the best choice a priori can not be arrived at, because of the inaccessibility of complete knowledge of our world. I did not ask that question. The “expert systems” have other drawbacks that are inherent in their structure, but on the level of knowledge, it has obvious advantages over lay consensus. People often believe that since in politics a simple consensus works, that democracy is how we should ALWAYS take our decisions, even in deciding what is and what is not the case. This is simply not true. Although I suspect that this is the core of the problem here, we can not develop it right now.
I asked whether the Wikipedia should ALSO employ the expert system, in addition to the other rules and the lay consensus. This may depend (and I think it does not) on how we define the Wikipedia. The question is of whether Wikipedia is a knowledge data base - then we would need the expert system; or Wikipedia is a colourful “knowledge” game that includes learning some aspects of the “scientific method” - then we do not necessarily need the expert system. And then, I asked also, would an expert system destroy the charm of the lay research? I personally know, as may be many of you, so well that the most attractive research is one that is so often just marginal to my very narrow speciality.
Just one word more. There was a comment of some artist I think, that if, during my lay research, an expert would come to tell me what is the “state of the art”, the last knowledge about that what I was researching, this would destroy my research enterprise and the pleasure of research. I hold this for false. I tested this many times. This produces just a desire to go further in the same direction, now set at the new starting point; or this may produce a desire to change the subject of the research. I think, an you know this also, that learning and finding what is not known is extremely interesting. However, we - almost all of us, are learning and finding what is certainly already known and are just enjoying doing this all the time! So, to conclude, I think that Wikipedia will survive if the expert system would run in parallel with other rules that do not relay on the experts. Draganparis ( talk) 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
[<end of shifted discussion>] Spinality ( talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
An expert system would be disasterously useless and work only to create more content disputes. Although I'm aware I can't speak for Draganparis, it is my general observation that people who rail against "users consensus" aren't the most experienced in legitimate scientific content disputes. Considering guidelines/policies like reliable sources, verifiability and the page we're talking at right now, a user-based consensus that contradicts verifiable scientific consensus should always fail after enough dispute resolution. The actual monkey wrench in this idea is the existence of experienced POV pushers who game the system. While limiting who can form a consensus may seem a laudable goal, restricting who is allowed to participate violates the very concept of Wikipedia, and it would suffer problems of its own. For example, it can be easily demonstrated that many individuals with considerable academic credentials are complete cranks, and some seem to have gotten their credentials with the sole motive of making their crank publications seem more reliable (though not for Wiki purposes, as far as I know). Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me summarise before I’ll go:
A. The main text will have a Core article (it could be edited only by the peer reviewer), and the main text (that is open for editing).
B. A peer review may be demanded occasionally for some disputes.
C. The per-reviewers will be the people with the 1. academic titles one level higher then a PhD (for example: Associated Professor in the USA, in France and Germany “Habiltation”, in England Senior lecturer). 2. + publication lists, 3. and should be evaluated by a small body within Wikipdia.
D. Each “Science” will have one or more administrators who will contact the peer reviewers.
E. The peer review will be established only for the subjects belonging to the narrowly defined sciences (arts, culture, biographies, literature and similar will be left free for editing).
F. The registering procedure for Wikipedia will contain a question about capability for peer-reviewing and a suitable longer questioner (as number of scientific journals have) so that potential peer reviewer can be immediately registered and classified. All claims MUST be verified by ordinary procedure (deposition of certificates, verifiable list of publications).
G. Initially the peer-reviewers will be asked to produce/correct the core articles under their expertise; then they will every month re-examine the text and eventually register the suggestions. In the mean time they will serve as arbiters on request. It should not be expected that one peer reviewer spends more then 1 hour per month on these activities.
Well. I do not have anything else to say except that I am certainly not a person who will organise this. I know: “we do not need the ideas, we need the people who will do the job”. Draganparis ( talk)
I only just noticed this thread about NOR and expert editing which is very apropos to this issue. Many good points are made about the technical accuracy of scientific articles. Spinality ( talk) 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"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. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." It seems there is no problem with publishing religious beliefs as facts in WP as long as they are Judaeo-Christian. Pardon my cynicism, but WP is merely a white anglo saxon propaganda machine. Fourtildas ( talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC) PS: anyone object to me deleting all those Bible Stories? Can you help me with the etiquette for that? Fourtildas ( talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What we really need is an exception to the policy -- in its entirety. SamNZDat ( talk) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
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
I think this policy on Wikipedia is a bit annoying, and promotes deprivation of some information that could be vital. For example, I am under the impression that MP3 players are a probable replacement to radio (more to this topic can be read in Talk:digital audio player). However, my efforts to claim that ordeal on Wikipedia always get reverted (owing to this policy).
Besides, I think peoples' personal experience with concepts may be a basis for public awareness that is largely deprived as people could be missing out on experience that ancillary advantages of concepts may provide. Besides, people are so under some impressions that they forget the research is "too original" thus they get annoyed.
So, will the admins legislate some exceptions to this policy so Wikipedians can be less annoyed by it? Because I know I am. -- Roadstaa ( talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Further to my suggestion above - how feasible would it be to develop a policy along the lines of "this OR is more appropriate for (Wiki X/Website Y than for Wikipedia"? Some cases will always be marginal/personal experience/leading edge etc but it may be possible to place some work more appropriately than Wikipedia. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we need exceptions to this policy. I did some research on a game to collect statistics about certain aspects of the game. However, I didn't realize until after I posted the information that no original research could be used. What I'm saynig is, I think that original research should be allowed if it has ___ people who agree, and can verify that said information is true. The underscores above indicate a number of people that would be needed to verify the information. -- MaggotSoldier ( talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been involved in a content dispute with an editor largely about WP:SYNTH for several months. There is (another?) RfC open here. There are several problems (notably COI), and we're clearly dealing with a WP:SPA, but I think that the fundamental one is that the editor truly doesn't "get" WP:NOR.
The background is this: The editor has self-published a book on his idea about a medical condition. Since the article he wrote specifically on his idea was deleted as non-notable, he's been steadily trying to introduce his idea into the Wikipedia article on a related, vaguely defined medical condition from the 19th century. Under threat of ban for obvious COI violation, he now confines himself to long complaints on the talk page.
His past work and talk page arguments primarily involve (carefully selected aspects of) primary sources. The rest is the addition of related conditions (like Chronic fatigue syndrome) that line up with his POV (and surely they're practically the same thing, because many of the symptoms are the same). He asserts that his work can't be "original research" because some of the studies are more than 100 years old. Thus he believes that he's only reporting someone else's original research, and (inevitably) drawing conclusions from those papers that just happen to support his novel, non-notable idea.
Now you know, and I know, that drawing novel conclusions from primary medical studies is practically the definition of WP:SYNTH. But this editor doesn't seem to know that. I am honestly wondering whether he's ever read this policy. Instead, he seems to think that I (and the other involved editors) are just invoking SYNTH as a form of anti-Truth™ wikilawyering.
I don't think that he needs a bunch of people to jump on him -- he's probably feeling pretty embattled already, and he's remarkably unfamiliar with basic WP conventions, like "{{ Otheruses4}} belongs at the top of an article", so I think WP:BITE might apply -- but I do think it might be helpful if several editors who are particularly familiar with this policy would leave a polite note on the RfC's talk page to indicate that, indeed, the community consensus is that drawing your own novel conclusions from 100-year-old medical reports really is a violation of WP:SYNTH, and not just something that the other editors have invented as a means of obstructing him. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Is applying a definition of a term an act of SYN?
In other words, for example, if the definition of discrimination is to treat people differently on a basis other than merit, and I can show source indicating a case where people are treated differently according to merit, is it SYN to therefore say that the case was one of discrimination, is that synthesis? Do I need an explicit source that actually associates the exact word with the topic? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them." -This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it.
As the example illustrates, WP:SYN has long prohibited the specific thing being done here -- an editor claiming a person has or has not done a wrong based on the editor's own application of a definition of that wrong to a set of facts. That's what the plagiarism example says can't be done, and that's what's happening in the example you gave here. Hope that helps. If you're requesting that this longstanding interpretation of the policy be changed, I wouldn't support such a change. The fact that the example you're giving is (like the plagiarism example) one where claims of legal wrong are involved, together with the fact that claims of legal wrong are fraught with pitfalls, makes me even less inclined to dare to tread, let alone rush in. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The WP:OR article defines trial transcripts as primary sources, and thus out of bounds. But what about a published decision? In my opinion, published decisions should be considered secondary sources (for the limited purposes of WP:OR), and potentially citable/quotable in WP. One relevant passage from WP:OR is: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." Certainly a published court decision meets this qualification. Verklempt ( talk) 06:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The classification of a source as primary versus secondary depends on context – on what elements from the source are being used to substantiate what points in the article. The majority of publications are primary sources for some new theses, syntheses, facts, findings, analyses, etc., because without offering some novelty, the only nonfiction works that would get published are textbooks, surveys, and encylopaedias. (If we forbade the use of all sources that contain ANY primary material, we would essentially limit ourselves to tertiary sources.)
In the case of a published court transcript, such a document would clearly be a primary source for details related to the subject matter of the case – it would be an error to cite deposition X as establishing fact Y. Fact-finding is left to judges and juries.
However, a properly published court transcript is a secondary source for some factual points – such as venue, parties to the case, dates of proceedings, and perhaps (depending on publication medium, transcription method, etc.) for reliable transcripts of verbatim testimony, establishing what statements were made by whom. Again, the transcript would not establish truth of falsehood of issues being addressed by the case, but rather about facts and events related to the court proceedings. Thus we could say "the transcript establishes that Smith said X" but not "the transcript shows X.") This at least is my reading of policy. Spinality ( talk) 20:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A phrase from Emanuel Ringelblum is literally quoted in History of the Jews in Poland as an alleged secondary source. I believe it's still a primary source if we don't quote the comment in Polonsky. Xx236 ( talk) 12:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
An issue related to original research in titles is under discussion at Talk:Chinese wén, specifically the use of common names of currencies as currently recommended by the style guidelines as well as WP:OR. If interested, please discuss a resolution of a titleing issue and give suggestions there. — AjaxSmack 01:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping someone could help me out here, specifically someone with a good idea of what constitutes
WP:OR. There's an increasingly-bitter argument going on at
Talk:UEFA Cup 2008-09 over whether the inclusion of a table of goalscorers for the competition which includes goals scored in qualifying should be allowed. UEFA doesn't consider goals scored in qualifying to be part of their Golden Boot (top scorer) award, and so does not list any qualifying goals in their table of top scorers. We tried adding them to the Wiki article, on the basis that just because they are not part of the Golden Boot competition, doesn't mean the information isn't relevant. However, a couple of people who objected to this step have used the "OR" term as a reason we should discount this and revert to the previous format (no qualifying goals shown). Now, I am confused by this step because it doesn't seem at all like Original Research to me. It's hardly original, the goalscorers are known and published by UEFA and countless other media sources, and there are also numerous websites, some reputable, some not, who compile their own lists of goalscorers including qualifying goals and have done since way before we started doing it here a week or two back. To my mind, it's also certainly not research because it's not in any way an argument, speculation or idea; it's not analysis or synthesis and doesn't serve to advance a position, and the only facts here as said above are published, not unpublished. To me, that discounts any possible idea of it being Original or Research. The counter-theory appears to basically be that any compilation of facts about football not already compiled by the football organisation relevant to it (i.e. UEFA for the UEFA Cup) is Original Research, and I've seen one person as good as say that because qualifying goals don't count towards the Golden Boot then they officially don't exist, making them unpublished facts (I've already presented my opposition to this above).
The argument has now gone on long enough that I decided to come here for assistance - I'm picky about these things, and while I don't mind being told that I'm wrong, I'd really like to find out what really constitutes OR in this instance, so I can get my facts straight. Any advice from those with a clear sense of what OR is would be much appreciated.
Falastur2
Talk 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
All right, I don't understand why this is controversial, someone fill me in on the history. It says "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I would delete (or at least tone down, or at the very least remove the bolding from) the first clause, since it seems to have nothing to do with originality of research (the topic of this page), and therefore distracts attention from the message. Can anyone explain why it's there or what it's supposed to mean?-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There were many reasons for including "directly related"... go through the archives of this talk page and you will probably find several. The most obvious to me is that it limits editor's ability to cite sources out of context. Blueboar ( talk) 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Auf analysierende oder interpretierende Aussagen, selbst eine selektive, suggestive Aneinanderreihung von Primärquelleninhalten, muss verzichtet werden, bis entsprechende Sekundärliteratur verfügbar wird.
Editors must abstain from making any analytic or interpretative statements, and abstain even from presenting a selective, suggestive string of primary source contents, until relevant secondary literature becomes available.
I was visiting wikiversity, and they are very interested in having original research moved to that website. Multiple pages in wikiversity discuss trying to establish a policy of having claims of original research in wikipedia examined by/for wikiversity, and possibly being moved there. In fact, this article was linked from just such a page. How do other people feel about mentioning this in this page, or elsewhere? Does the idea have merit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.130.94 ( talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
...is being discussed here. I started the discussion out of the concern that such illustrations, which are necessarily speculative when based only on a fossil record, violate WP:OR, at least when no cites are provided to any sources upon which the images are based. There seems to be a presumption in some of the comments that illustrations are categorically excluded from OR considerations, or that there's no difference between articles including speculative illustrations first published in a reliable source and speculative illustrations first published on Wikipedia. Postdlf ( talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Directional Michigan concerning original research. Essentially, "Directional Michigan" is a term used to refer to as a single group the following: Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, and Western Michigan University -- particularly their college football programs, although it can extend to other sports and even outside sports.
The issue at hand is that if an editor finds sources for budgets and game attendance of each university's athletic department, is it original research to add those numerical amounts together and come up with a sum total of athletic budget and game attendance for the group of schools that make up "Directional Michigan" ?? One editor says yes, another says no... a third (me) is now totally confused.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved — I copied this discussion to Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Synthesis question in college football article since that appears to be the correct place to get more eyes to view it. Any further discussion should probably occur there rather than here. — X96lee15 ( talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:Sources states
Clear enough, but I've seen wikilawyers use the claim that peer reviewed studies are a "primary source" to oppose and block reporting of studies in Wikipedia, arguing that text books or even newspaper articles covering the study (if they exist) are preferable because these are secondary sources. This has the effect of closing the door to reporting any newer studies which have not been included in text books or in media reports. This "block" thereby limits the scope of the encyclopedia as a comprehensive summary of known information on a subject.
I therefore believe the defininition of a secondary source should be clarified to include all peer reviewed journal articles, except in those rare circumstances where the article has been retracted by the journal...but even in those cases it may be especially important to report that the article was published and retracted.
Further reasoning is as follows:
1. Lab notes and raw data are clearly primary sources. Published raw data collected by national regisitries, surveys and the like are also primary sources.
2. Once these notes and data (whether collected by an indivdiual research or third party compilations of data) have been analyzed and intepreted by a researcher, or team of researchers, and this synthesis and analysis and review of data and literature has itself been reviewed by peers with expertise in the field and published in a peer reviewed, indexed journal, that publicaion is now an reliable secondary source, by definition. Afterall, the information has been vetted by experts and considered at least worthy of consideration as having added information useful to the field. That is roughly speaking the standard and purpose of peer review. While peer review is sufficient, I add "indexed journal" as an additional level of quality verification since the academic journal indexing houses verify that the journal, even a new journal, has editorial processes worthy of the journal being indexed.
3. A core policies are reliability and verifiablity...not truth. That some wikipeida editors do not find peer reviewed studies convincing does not justify wikilawyering efforts to block their inclusion in articles. Peer reviewed sources are and should remain highly valued and not subject to suppression by ideologically driven editors.
I've read previous discussions of this subject and believe the policy is currently correct, but it is frequently being misinterpreted and should therefore be clarified. -- SaraNoon ( talk) 17:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We do say that peer-reviewed journals etc. are the most reliable sources. The problem may lie in the inclusion of "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" under the subheading of "primary sources". This would include results published in peer-reviewed journals, given the present wording. I can see the concern that published experimental results are sometimes found to have been in error, or prove irreproducible by others; so there may be good reasons for caution. On the other hand, if some groundbreaking research results are published in Nature, or some other mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal – say, the discovery of a new particle or element – are we really saying that we should not mention this in Wikipedia? And what about sociological studies, for example, published by the sociologist who has done the fieldwork? Surely, such studies are reliable sources, certainly more reliable than newspaper articles.
Where did you have these problems, SaraNoon? Which scientific fields are involved? Jayen 466 22:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed sources are generally primary sources and are always subject to the WP:PSTS issue. ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If a peer reviewed article is later challenged by another such article, per NPOV we ought to mention both, in particular when it concerns scientific disputes. WP:V and WP:OR do not preclude the inclusion of competing views, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
@DGG" Though many review articles are themselves peer reviewed , sometimes quite heavily, they remain to be understood in most cases as being the personal view of the people who write them. ... which makes these personal viewpoints perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia articles if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the thread above, I brought it up here because I've seen WP:PSTS, which is part of No OR, cited by wikilawyers as an excuse to exclude any mention of citations -- even from major journals. They simply argue, as ScienceApologist did above, that peer reviewed journal articles are generally primary sources.
This conflict over how peer reviewed sources (whether from a fantastic journal or a "any opinion goes" journal) is therefore a source of ongoing of editing conflicts and edit warring. Clarifying this definition would help to reduce such editing conflicts. In my view, this clarification should be done in a manner which encourages inclusion of more material and tries to discourage exclusion of material.
In short, I can see why the definition at WP:PSTS can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with WP:Sources. Therefore, WP:PSTS it should be clarified to reiterate that peer reviewed sources are highly prized as verifiable sources with an explanation that they often combine both primary and secondary material. In that regard, editors should be reminded that any use of the primary material (raw data) should be used with caution and not with OR, and that it is generally best to rely on the scondary source materail from the peer reviewed source, which is usually in the form of the textual description of results and discussion. The "background" sections are also valuable secondary sources as they often provide a review of the relevant literature undergirding the new paper.
Some of these points should be developed in guidelines explaining this policy. But as this is a policy page, it should be clarified in a way that reduces conflicts between interpreting WP:PSTS and WP:Sources.
Regarding guidelines, as stated above, I believe in inclusion rather than exclusion. If some editor thinks that a third rate paper from a third rate journal should be cited in an article, I would be all for keeping the citation, but might insist that it be just that, an additional citation associated with better cites to the same point raised. After all, even a third rate paper is verifiable and rather than edit war, it is best to find at least a nominal place to include it out of respect for the other editor's insistence that it should be included.
My main point then is not that every peer review paper deserves equal weight or discussion. Not at all. But I do object to POV pushers deleting peer reviewed papers simply because the findings and opinions expressed conflict with what the editors insist (usually without sound basis) is the "accepted" viewpoint....often relying on well known newspaper or magazine articles as "reliable secondary sources." In my view, peer reviewed sources should always be more highly preferred than newspaper articls...unless you are looking for a synthesis of what so and so said at this political rally, of course.-- SaraNoon ( talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
-- SaraNoon ( talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Are patents really always primary sources? They are indeed nominally published by the person who was involved in the research, and I suppose the first telephone patents would clearly be considered as primary sources in most contexts, but is a patent by a large, modern corporation, which is based on lab data, edited by company policymakers, vetted and further edited by company or third party patent attorneys, and finally reviewed by the patent office really a primary source? I would rather say that lab notebooks, original research data, emails etc. would be the primary source in this case, and that the patent itself would be a secondary source.
As for research papers, I have similar questions. Isn't the lab notebook (which often comes up in court cases) the real primary source here? After all, a peer-reviewed paper has been edited and commented on by third parties, and usually modified in response to editorial and peer review commentary. -- Slashme ( talk) 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I guess I can go along with that definition then. -- Slashme ( talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Granted that the primary/secondary/tertiary terminology has been dragooned from historiography to serve Wikipedia's particular needs. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable mapping for scientific articles.
Its not quite the same thing, but the same general concept applies. Robert A.West ( Talk) 02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations)#A_census_as_a_source_of_notability about whether or not a census is a primary source (and hence a basis for notability under WP:N). AndrewRT( Talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in this too. At John Howard we have a newspaper that erroneously quotes a reputable poll. Under the current WP:NOR policy, the newspaper reference cannot be refuted. (side note: I have a big problem with the assertation that mainstream newspapers are among the most reliable sources - bad journalism abounds everywhere) -- Surturz ( talk) 05:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone, once told me "Phenylalanine, what needs to happen is to gather sources and then write the article from sources that use the article title [...] You should google the article title and use those sources and their content to avoid violating WP:NOR." But what about "descriptive" article names, such as Evolution of the human diet or Environmental effects of meat production. Must the sources use the exact words "Evolution of the human diet" or "Environmental effects of meat production" to avoid WP:NOR? For example, if I create an article called "Sustainable diet", is that title a general "descriptive" name (that doesn't have to appear in the references) or a specific term that must appear in the sources? Thank you. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) One very obvious reason why sources don't have to use the exact words of the article title is that Wikipedia allows foreign language sources, which won't even use the same script. Also, WP:Naming conventions explicitly says not to use the terminology in the "best" sources, it says to use the most easily recognized name, which will be the terminology most used in common English. It also says to prefer common expressions to specialized, limited-use ones. The reason for this policy preference is that the purpose of article titles and sourcing are different. Article titles need to use the terms that users who want to know about a topic are most likely to include in a search. Thus, they have to take into account users as they are and the search terms they actually use, whether specialists agree or not (Users have to find the article to be informed, so if we use a title they won't be able to find we've done nobody any good). Sources, on the other hand, need to reflect the expertise and often the jargon of specialists. For this reason, there are many situations where an article title should (if WP:Naming conventions is followed) use a common term for a subject, while the "best" sources may use a formal or specialized term. This convention isn't always followed (if it was, we'd have more human anatomy and behavior articles with four-letter titles and fewer with latin names then currently). But it is the guideline. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 08:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You have to use editorial judgement and creativity. To some degree you can use a source that says something equivalent to the title; but if someone objects, then move that data to a related article with a similar but different title that reflects terminology used in that source. For example in an "Evolution of the human diet" article you may put in a claim related to "Evolution of cooking" or "Evolution of human teeth" or "History of farming techniques" and someone may delete it as original research. You can then create new articles on those subjects, add the data there, and link to those new articles in the "Evolution of the human diet" article. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your responses. I see a fundamental difference between descriptive article names, such as "
Evolution of the human diet", or perhaps more clearly, "History of the human diet", and article titles that correspond to specific terms such as "
Sustainable food system". In the case of the "history of the human diet", it is not necessary to define the expression in the article lead, the expression being quite clear, while "Sustainable food system" appears to be more specialized, it being necessary to define the term in the article lead. In the case of descriptive article titles, any sources and material about the topic should be acceptable in my opinion (when the article name is unusual, one or two sources using the exact article title in their terminology should be sufficient). For articles with specific titles, sources using the article name in their terminology are necessary in my opinion. For example, in the article "Sustainable food system", I could examine how the term is defined in expert sources and see that a "sustainable food production system" is part of a "sustainable food system", and use sources employing the term "sustainable food production system", but not "Sustainable food system". This in my opinion would constitute original research (correct me if I'm wrong). But is "Sustainable food system" an acceptable article name, considering that article titles must correspond to commonly used terms, as indicated by Shirahadasha? Shirahadasha, are you saying that I have to create an article like "sustainable diet" (commonly used and understood term) and then discuss "Sustainable food systems" (more specialized term) in the body of the article "sustainable diet" (perhaps including a section in that article on "Sustainable food systems"), sourcing the information added on "Sustainable food systems" with references that use the expression "Sustainable food systems" in their terminology? Thanks. --
Phenylalanine (
talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG's classification of sources at Notability_(Geographic_locations), and I added a note to that effect there. Census reports, for example, are compilations of census forms.
But then I started looking at the sources listed in the notes (2 through 4) used in WP:PSTS I see the definitions and examples are all over the place. For example, this one lists Encyclopedia Britannica as a secondary source, while most put encyclopedias as tertiary.
Actually, I would actually agree that some encyclopedias, like Britanica, are compiled secondary soruces since they commission experts to write the articles, which are therefore essentially review articles by an expert who synthesizing his or her interpretation of a body of knowledge. In my book, I wouldn't object to WP editor starting an article using a Britannica source (though defined as WP as tertiary), though it is always better, in my opinion, to move sources back to peer reviewed scholarly articles whenever possible.
To me, in regard to definining the quality of sources for WP source material, tertiary includes not only distance from the original source but expertise. A newspaper article reporting what a scientists says at a press conference is a great secondary source documenting that scientist's statements. The same article providing a summary of what "most scientists believe" or what "most research shows" is reflecting a tertiary view, expressing the view of a reporter with limited expertise who has most probably looked at only a few sources and spoken to a few scientists. But a Britanica article by an expert, while in a compiled encyclopedia, is closer to being a reliable secondary article.
And there is part of the rub. Primary, secondary and tertiary vary depending on use, authorship, ane even intent.
Another source of confusion: many sources contain both primary, secondary, and even tertiary material. For example, peer reviewed science article typically includes introduction which will contain a literature review of studies related to the subject of the stdy and in a concluding section where the authors discussion, synthesize and intepret the results of the study. Whether the results reported in the tables are primary material (since this is the first reporting of the findings) or secondary material (since this is a synthnsized statistical analysis of raw data which is not reported, but is the true primary source) depends on one's preferences for defining primary and secondary sources. But the presence of primary material does not change the fact that the introduction and conclusions are secondary source material representing the peer reviewed opinions of an expert in the field.
The current NOR page contributes to much edit warring and wikilawyering because there is no universally clear definition for primary and secondary sources in all contexts and fields. In addition, it makes two "definitive" but (at least to wikilawyers) competing statements: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" and "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care."
A policy that breeds confusion and contention isn't very helpful. The main point of NOR is to stick closely to the source, whether one believes it to be primary or secondary. That should be the focus, not trying to define secondary or primary sources (where there is plenty of room for contention).
I will post a recommendation for clarifying policy in the near future. At the very least, the policy should state that secondary sources are preferred but primary can be used (provided they are used without adding interpretations) within the same sentence. But first, what are your thoughts? -- SaraNoon ( talk) 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the SYNTH section is already far more important than PSTS, which has problems we're talking about. I'd like to move PSTS below "Citing oneself" without any other changes. Doing so not only helps to bring readers to the SYNTH section first, but may help alert those watching policy to look in on this discussion regarding rethinking the PSTS section to join in the discussion.-- SaraNoon ( talk) 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this page should be split.
I think that the information here is great, but that few people will read it.
The initial section on sources in particular should be required reading for all Wikipedians.
But few do, simply because of the name of the page. The page name suggests that this is a page outlining what not to do, when it (the sources section at least), is a great guide.
So I'd like to see this split between the two concepts.
(I'm not placing a split template yet, because I want to first discover if there are any obvious reasons (for or against) that I may be unaware of.) - jc37 02:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I found this comment on a discussion board regarding original research, it's a quote from a user called IPMan, can someone comment on this qoute, I suggest it should be included in the OR article.
"That would be a descriptive claim about the contents of a primary source whose applicability is easily verifiable and obvious to any reasonable, educated person without the need for specialized knowledge — and therefore not OR." The link is to the original article that the quote was taken from. [ [4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holamitch ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the following text or information be added to the article:
To ensure that information added to a Wikipedia (WP) article has been published in reliable sources in relation to the WP article's subject, which is described by its title, the information should be verified by reliable sources that include in their text, and in the proper context, the term(s) used in the WP article's title or synonyms of this/these term(s).
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this proposed addition makes more clear the existing meaning of this policy. It does not change this policy. Whether this additional clarity should be added is the question. Is it needed? I don't know. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 21:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This sounds more like an issue of presentation and attribution within articles on fringe theories than one of Original Research. To take the "Raw foodism" example above, while those claims could be construed as original research the way they are written in the example text, they could be appropriately represented by wording along the lines of "The health benefits of eating raw foods are accepted by mainstream nutritionists in certain cases, such as examples and study citations go here. In the case of other foods such as other examples and study citations go here however, cooking is considered essential to the prevention of disease." -- erachima talk 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
My rationale for this proposal can be better explained by the following example: Imagine a researcher who has knowledge of all and only that information that is published in reliable sources where a specific topic, e.g. the concept of " Raw foodism", is described/mentioned. Now, suppose the researcher looked at the Wikipedia article "Raw foodism" and noticed aspects or research which he/she never read about on that particular subject (Raw foodism). In my opinion, such information would constitute original research.
I have found the proposed approach to be very useful and helpful in keeping articles on topic and in ensuring that they accurately reflect, in a neutral manner, the body of published research on their subjects, and I would hate to see this proposal rejected out of hand. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
My interpretation of "Wikipedia:No original research" is that: Information can be considered directly related to the topic of a Wikipedia (WP) article, for example the concept of "Raw foodism", when a WP editor considers this information to be relevant to "Raw foodism", not based on his/her analysis of the concept of "Raw foodism", but rather based on the WP editor's readings of reliable sources which describe/mention Raw foodism and his/her consequent interpretation of what these particular reliable sources specifically describe as being relevant to Raw foodism. This interpretation of the NOR policy has the merit of greater promoting a "neutral point of view", since if the editor's interpretation of the relevance of information to a WP article, e.g. "Raw foodism", is based on his own analysis of the subject-matter of an article, then, IMO, there is a greater possibility of misrepresentation, in terms of undue weight, of what the whole spectrum of reliably sourced points of view are saying about Raw foodism, and thus greater risk of breaching the WP:NPOV policy. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 04:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
After further reflection, I can see that there are counterexamples to my proposal. For example, take an article such as the " Environmental effects of meat production", I don't think it would constitute OR, under any reading of the OR policy, to add information to the article that is verified by sources referring to the environmental effects of "intensive livestock farming", even if the sources don't use the exact term "meat production" or synonyms thereof. I also see that focusing on terms is not the right approach since there will be cases where the sources will not explicitly mention the relevant terms but will still refer to the concept described by those terms by indirect means. The key issue here is the specific concept described by the article's title. There are articles, where it seems to me obligatory to use sources that refer to the concept described by the article's title. Such would, IMO, be the case for articles like " Sustainable food system" and " Raw foodism". Perhaps the reason is that in the case of "Sustainable food system", we are dealing with a term defined within a very specific discipline or field of study. While, "Raw foodism" is not defined within a specialized field, it refers to a concept that is based on a point of view. " Raw foodism" is based on the belief that uncooked foods are better than their cooked counterparts. In this article, it would, IMO, be unacceptable to provide information intended to contextualize (i.e. contrast with opposing research/evidence or with mainstream views) the statements supporting/contradicting/criticizing the Raw foodism concept if the contextual information were not verified by sources that refer to the concept designated by the article's title. I believe that this approach should be followed for all articles about concepts based on points of view, even when the articles are about a fringe theory (in which case the lack of contextualizing information verified by sources that refer to the concept designated by WP article's title signals the lack of notability of the fringe theory and therefore indicates that it does not belong on Wikipedia). I therefore amend my policy clarification proposal as follows:
“ | In a Wikipedia (WP) article about a specific concept that is defined within a discipline or specialty field or about a concept that represents or is based on a point of view, information added to the WP article should be verified by reliable sources that refer to that particular concept, in order to ensure that the information is presented in these sources in relation to the WP article's subject. | ” |
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 02:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Kotniski, the policy says that "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". I'm saying "you must cite reliable sources that provide information which these sources directly relate to the topic of the article." For example, if the subject of an article is "raw foodism", you could find sources that provide information which you judge to be directly related to Raw foodism, for example, information that contextualizes, i.e. that contrasts with opposing research or compares with mainstream views, the statements supporting, contradicting or criticizing the Raw foodism concept. However, you may not be able to find and cite reliable sources that directly relate some of this contextual information to the concept of Raw foodism (i.e. that present/examine/review some of this contextual information in relation to Raw foodism), in which case this particular information would constitute original research according to my policy clarification proposal. For a specific example of this situation, see Raw foodism#Criticism and controversies. In that section, the following statements would constitute original research by the OR definition I suggest above, but not necessarily according to the current policy definition: Most other anthropologists oppose Wrangham, contending that archeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East.[38] This stance of Wrangham's, re cooking leading to bigger human brains, [can be] contrasted with several studies showing that average human brain-size has actually decreased in the last 35,000 years by 11%.[39][40][41] If you click on the refs, you'll notice that none of the sources discuss/mention/describe the concept of Raw foodism. None of the references for these two statements directly relate the information to the concept of Raw foodism. The first statement is verified by a source which refers to (i.e. criticizes) Wrangham's arguments suggesting that cooking played a major role in human evolution, but without mentioning (i.e. directly criticizing) Wrangham's criticisms of the concept of Raw foodism which are based on a number of arguments including the arguments in question which suggest that cooking played a major role in human evolution. The second statement is verified by sources that don't even mention Wrangham. Nevertheless, the editor who included these two statements considered that they were both directly related/relevant to the topic of the article (presumably because these two statements serve to contextualize Wrangham's criticisms of Raw foodism). IMO, both statements should be considered as original research, and consequently the the current definition of OR needs to be clarified, per my proposal, in order to account for this example of original research. It is not our place, as Wikipedia editors, to decide on our own (based on our analysis of the subject-matter of the article) what is relevant and what is not relevant to the topic of an article. As I explained above, what is relevant to the topic of an article, in the case, Raw foodism, should be determined based on what reliable sources indicate as being relevant to this topic. I can provide further specific examples to illustrate my proposal such as the Raw food controversy example provided above, if requested. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 02:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kotniski, I have been reflecting on your comments about fringe theories and I think you're right, applying an overly strict OR policy, such as the one I proposed above, will render the NPOV policy ineffective. An (WP) article's subject, as well as, claims made in an (WP) article regarding it's topic may be considered POV if not properly contextualized, i.e. contrasted with opposing research or compared with mainstream views. Consequently, here's my new policy clarification proposal:
“ | As a rule of thumb, information added to a WP article and that is intended to describe, support or criticize its subject should be verified by reliable sources that directly relate this information to the topic of the WP article, and in the same way that the information is presented in the WP article (said another way, in the sources cited, the information should be intended to describe, support or criticize the subject of the article). However, in order to ensure a neutral point of view in clear cases of violations of the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" policy, it is sometimes necessary to (temporarily) ignore this general guideline, when no sources consistent with the guideline can be found, to be able to properly contextualize (i.e. contrast with opposing or mainstream views) statements describing, supporting or criticizing the topic of the WP article. Nevertheless, in building WP articles, editors should always strive to follow the general guideline and sources compliant with the guideline should always have precedence over non-compliant ones. | ” |
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Per the above discussions, there appears to be a consensus that the section on PSTS needs some changes to minimize the many conflicts that arise over defining primary and secondary sources. Most believe that much of the material in this section would be better handled in Guidelines where more specific examples and suggestions could be made.
As also previously proposed, since there has been no objection to moving the current PSTS, without changing it, to a lower place in NOR policy, I have done so. This reorganization is intended to not only to shift focus of readers to more important material, but also to signal to all watching this policy that a policy change and new guidelines are being proposed. I have therefore moved the PSTS section as discussed.
I have also created a page that contains both (1) a draft of the proposed policy change for the PSTS section and (2) a draft of the proposed guidelines to give more examples and discussion of PSTS in a fashion that doesn't unduly burden the NOR policy page.
Please join us in the discussion and work on this policy change and guideline at WP:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources. For the sake of bringing people up to speed on the discussion, I've also copied a bunch of the last year's discussion of this issue from the archives of NOR to the talk page of Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources.-- SaraNoon ( talk) 21:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
An interesting question came up today about use of maps as citations in road transport articles. Working toward my first highway FA, and an editor at FAC opposed. His principal argument for opposing was that map citations violate WP:NOR, since he says reading a map constitutes original research. I hadn't really thought of the matter that way before (just followed existing precedents). If he's right then the editors in this FA drive will need to obtain different sources. Before heading to the library I'd like to get the opinions of uninvolved editors, (partly in hopes it might save a trip) but mainly because nearly every existing highway FA is sourced to maps. A few examples follow:
So, is this original research? Durova Charge! 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Per discussion regarding my previous proposal, I believe the following text or information should be added to the NOR policy. For an explanation of my rationale and specific examples of how this proposal differs from the current NOR policy wording, see this discussion.
“ | When adding content to a Wikipedia (WP) article, the
Wikipedia:No original research policy states that you must cite reliable sources that (1) provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that (2) directly support the information as it is presented.
As a general guideline, you should also ensure that (3) the reliable sources which you cite directly relate this information to the topic of the WP article, and in the same way that the information is presented in the WP article. For example, if the information added serves to criticize the subject of the WP article, then you are required to cite sources where the information is clearly presented as a criticism of this topic. Whether the information added serves to contrast certain aspects of or statements about the subject-matter with opposing or mainstream points of view, or to support such statements or aspects, or even to point out aspects related to the topic of the WP article which happen to cast the subject-matter in a more favorable or unfavorable light, the same principal applies. When developing the context for a subject described in a WP article, if no sources can be found that comply with the above guideline, you may occasionally cite reliable sources that provide information relevant to an aspect of that subject, but which do not directly relate that information to the topic of the WP article. However, to avoid breaching the Neutral point of view policy, you should never do this when adding information that may misrepresent any aspect of the subject or cast it in a more favorable or unfavorable light, for example if the information supports, discredits, highlights or downplays any aspect of that subject. |
” |
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following to the introduction:
I think this would be a good way to encourage those who just can't curb themselves from original research to find a welcome venue for their ideas. Any support or objections to this proposal?-- SaraNoon ( talk) 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
<undent>W.r.t. this edit, I must say I agree with Vassyana's basic take on it above, though not necessarily the "modest list" below. For the moment, I didn't want to unilaterally revert it, so I've pared it down to a simpler statement here, making clear that Wikinfo is only an example, as Vassyana has pointed out. I figure the next step, consistently with what Vassyana says above, is someone else cries "foul! we've got an OR website too!", then I imagine in short order it is likely to be a place where virtually every "OR friendly" website will want to post their names and URLs, perhaps next we'll need to collectively decide which of the numerous blogs meet WP:Notability, etc., etc. Perhaps the statement might be consensused to be appropriate without any specific mention of particular sites wherein it is permissible for users to publish OR? Either way, the proposed statement appears to me to require the scrutiny of a somewhat broader sampling of the WP community than has weighed in on it thus far. ... Kenosis ( talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Following SaraNoon's lead above, it would be appropriate to make a modest list of places where original research is welcomed (adding such a section before or after "See also"). It would be easy to make a short list such as:
Some Wikipedia sister projects welcome original research:
Some external collaborative projects welcome original research:
Starting a new wiki accommodating original research can be done at wiki farms:
Thoughts? Vassyana ( talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)