Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
The text here about avoiding statistics, algebra, or calculus calculations doesn't fit actual practice. In practice, calculations that would be clear to someone with a first course in the area are used with no complaints. The idea that calculations must be clear to someone with no training also seems to contradict the permission on translations; if everyone could translate already, we could just quote the text in its original language. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Trouble arises not so much when someone introduces "advanced mathematics" to a subject where such is the norm; one would expect an article on thermodynamics or econometrics to be full of calculus. Trouble arises when people introduce "advanced mathematics" to a study in which such is novel -- or introduces novel mathematical or statistical material to an existing study. Thus an attempt to use a mathematical formula to determine what creates human happiness would likely be "original research".
It is often not so much the mathematics that creates problems; a typical college graduate probably knows his first-year calculus if he has kept up with it; it is with the formulas that one creates. Few have a problem with the perfect gas formula
pV = nRT
(p is pressure, V is volume, n is the measure of atoms of gas, R is the gas constant, and T is absolute temperature), and it proves useful in many physical contexts. For example, what happens to a gas as it expands or contracts without radiating off heat?
or the quantity theory of money in economics:
MV = PQ
M is money supply, V is velocity of money (rate of spending), P is the price level, and Q is the quantity of transactions. It too proves useful in explaining that if the money supply increases that the price level can be expected to rise some -- slightly in a time of monetary insufficiency (1933, USA) or roughly proportionally in an overheated economy (1923 in Germany).
Neither the perfect gas law nor the quantity theory of money is original research in their respective fields.
Application of new formulas to a study or novel interpretations of existing formulas is original research. If someone contends that the rock surface of Venus is hot and the rock surface of Mars is cold in contrast to that of the Earth's water, ice, and land/life surfaces entirely because of differences in pressure, then such is likely original research even if one uses the perfect gas law.-- Paul from Michigan ( talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
statements (such as A+B=B+A) can be proven step by step. Doubt if that's the case with all economical math. Boeing720 ( talk) 05:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
JeffUK ( talk) 13:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
As I explained here we need a rule that allows for unsourced arguments/derivations. I suggested this formulation:
This violates the ban on complicated derivations. But if you read this, you have to agree that only allowing simple arguments, referencing statements to the literature, did not work well for the thermodynamics articles. Of course, one can point out that in theory it could have worked. But that's irrelevant. My point is that in practice it didn't work (like communism, great in theory, in practice it didn't work well). Huge errors remained uncorrected for two or three years in the articles and that is a very serious matter.
In the many other articles that have been free of these problems, the ban on complex derivations is not adhered too. So, it would be a good thing if Wikipedia legalizes this successful practice. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the second paragraph from the "Simple calculations" section pending discussion. It read:
I think this paragraph implies that we allow a level of calculation that we don't actually allow. There is no way that an editor can or should use partial differentials to build a statement. That simply does not pass WP:CALC, no matter what the topic. A particle physicist probably finds differential calculus "Simple"... but a particle physicist is more than just "reasonably educated" he/she would be classified as highly educated. I think this needs to be reworked. Blueboar ( talk) 14:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I respect the desire to use foreign language material as sources, but having seen dozens of sources misinterpreted in a simple summarizing reorganization (i.e., from English to English), I believe the potential for mistranslation and misinterpretation is even higher for a Wikipedia editor-translated source. Also, even assuming a professional translation, the problem cited for any mathematics other than the most simple applies -- checking a source other than in English requires "skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors." I do not believe that the desire for a less English-centric encyclopedia overrides the need for editors to be able to verify sources without special training. At the very least, the translator should be cited along with the original source, following the principle outlined in Wikipedia:CITE#Say_where_you_found_the_material. Blackworm ( talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I am curious. Articles on specific phrases often include the "first use". In many cases, this is a well-known phrase. However, what if a Wikipedian finds- and cites- an earlier use of said phrase? (For examples, in the talk page on Where no man has gone before, I cited a use prior to the date of said article, which someone else added in later. A similar situation may occur with Behind the sofa or Faith-based (See the talk pages of said articles for my contribution).) Orville Eastland ( talk) 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
i wondered how editors felt about moving what i think is the least controversial section to NOR. as NOR allows routine calculations, routine syllogisms should be included there not here because arithmetic implicitly contains logical "calculations". in fact language itself is fundamentally built on (among other things) syllogisms. we make them all the time, we just don't realise. for example, using a pronoun involves a syllogism-- Mongreilf ( talk) 09:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue of whether basic logical deductions (and especially syllogisms) should be allowed or not has come up again at the main NOR article... the consensus seems to be fairly clear that a logical deduction can be OR... and that we should not exempt such material from the policy. I have therefor removed listing them in this essay. Blueboar ( talk) 17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've come into a discussion on Talk:App Store which involves the limits of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL, which might be of relevance to this essay. I added to the article App Store a sentence saying that "some have started using 'app store' as a generic term referring to any similar service", and then giving three references to such use in notable sources. Another editor claims that this is synthesis, since none of the sources say that the term is used in this way - although he agrees that the sources are using the term in the way I say. My point here is, that maybe this is an example of something that should be addressed either in the Simple or direct deductions or Compiling facts and information section in this essay? To me, the edit in question seems to represent the same kind of thinking that lies behind the "Simple or direct deductions" section, but in a different field of knowledge (language rather than mathematics or logics). Could something be added to this section to include similar kinds of deductions that don't necessarily belong strictly to the fields of mathematics or formal logic? -- Anderssl ( talk) 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If I record something that I see and report it in Wikipedia without any additional comment, is this research or not. The item that I have in mind is in the article M3_motorway. Towards the end of the article is an exit list with headings "Northeast exits", "Junction" and "Southwest exists". Recently roadsigns have been erected which identify the Northeast carriageway as being the "B" carriageway and the Southwest carriageway as being the "A" carriageway. I cannot find any documentary evidence about this, but I frequently drive on that motorway and I can verify the fact for myself (as can anybody else who is able to drive there).
Since I describe it in an unambiguous manner without interpretation I have recorded the source as "Verified ... in situ ... on <date>". Comments? I am assuming of course that the signs will be there for the foreseeable future. Martinvl ( talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think moving this page was a good idea. For setting that this or any page page is an essay/policy/guideline or what it comes, the template in the begining is enough, it's not needed to tell it in the page name. If someone takes an essay as policy, he should be explained better, and if someone tries to enforce an essay as if it was policy, it should be pointed that way.
Besides, if someone attempts to turn a lowly watched essay into a policy or guideline, for later enforcing it, there are bots that would warn so at the village pump. MBelgrano ( talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
An issue has arisen here Talk:Anti-Americanism#Latin_America over whether this text [ [1]] should be retained as resonable contextualisation, or does it constitute OR. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Material that I posted here was on the wrong notice-board. I am moving it. Martinvl ( talk) 12:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin removed this:
Now I seriously doubt that SV thinks that if Town A is in District B, and that District B is in Province C, that Town A is anywhere other than in Province C. But perhaps there is a more significant concern, e.g., people trying to pass of complex "logical" deductions as being acceptable? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Bruce's ongoing effort to get his findings on the phrase conspiracy theory presented as the Truth™ is getting a little old.
Yes: Sources may be wrong.
Yes: If you can produce published evidence that the source is wrong, then you may omit the erroneous information. You may use WP:Editorial discretion to prevent WP:Inaccuracy in articles.
However, No: If you cannot produce a published source that says some other source is wrong, then you may not say, or imply, or even hint, that the other source is wrong.
For example, imagine a typo in a statistic. 99.999% of sources say that 5% of American women die from breast cancer. One lonely source says that 55% do. We know from both personal experience and the overwhelming balance of sources that this one source is factually, obviously, definitely, absolutely, unquestionably wrong. But we do not say, "One source says that 55% of American women die from breast cancer, although all other sources say that only 5% do." We silently omit the erroneous information as WP:UNDUE and against our better editorial judgment. We do not hang the bad source out as proof that someone screwed up. We just say, "5% of American women die from breast cancer" and stop there.
Which is exactly what Bruce ought to be satisfied with in the dispute that he's wrapped up in, rather than trying to re-write all of the advice pages to support his side in the dispute. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTOR expressly states that presenting "characterizations" of conflicts is NOT OR. The idea that presenting a source meeting Verifiability showing other source may have an accuracy problem (unless people are suggesting Oxford University Branch doesn't meet Verifiability which is a real huh?)
This is a variation of the same kind of nonsense the Jesus myth theory article went through ( Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition Talk:Christ_myth_theory/POV_tag give good overviews to some of that nonsense). Anything that showed there wasn't a single unified definition of "Christ-Jesus myth theory" was called OR by some editor and it took a two year battle before the conflict of definition was put into the article space.
That WhatamIdoing wants to unilaterally remove the following from this article space shows that he does not understand what OR and Verifiability really mean:
An
accuracy conflict is when a source presents something that is not accurate (Example: one source states that a certain phrase first appeared in 1920 but other sources show the phrase was used before that year.)
[...] For example, you may not, with these sources, say "Source A gave the town's population as 5,000; however, this is disproven by the following sources and circumstances, and the true population was at least 7,000 in 1990." but you can in the talk page point out "Source A claiming this phrase was first used in 1920 is wrong as there are sources before 1920 that use the phrase" (it is not a good idea to do this in the article page however). |
I would like to point out that administrator User:Will Beback stated regarding this: "When equally reliable sources give different accounts we should include them both. In the words of the great American philosopher Yogi Berra, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it.""
When I presented how conflict between Schweitzer and Sir James George Frazer was resolved in the Jesus myth theory:
Despite Sir James George Frazer stating "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" in volume 9 of The golden bough in 1913, [22] Schweitzer continued to group him with John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in subsequent printings of his The Quest of the Historical Jesus and repeated this classification in his 1931 autobiography Out of My Life and Thought with the statement "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." [23][24]
(22) Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412 (23) Schweitzer (1931) Out of My Life and Thought page 125 (24) Bennett, Clinton (2001) In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images page 205 |
one editor flew off the rails claiming 'yes this is OR via SYN' even though the conflict itself was referenced (Bennett)
Lambiam over as Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_51#Contradictory_sources gave examples of Verifiability but inaccurate information to which I add the following examples:
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." - Neil Armstrong July 29, 1969. (Multidisciplinary units for prekindergarten through grade 2 ISTE (Interntl Soc Tech Educ)
"On July 29, 1969, over 600 million people watched their televisions. They saw astronaut Neil Armstrong become the first human to step on the moon." Greathouse, Lisa E. (2007) The Wonder of Our Solar System Teacher Created Materials pg 15)
(The date for both these events is July 20, 1969)
The conflict between the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and Vrej Nersessian, in Essays on Armenian music regarding the birthdate of Komitas Vardapet (October 8 vs September 26) is a prime example as it could be a correction between the Rumi calendar and Gregorian calendar or a miscorrection of an already Gregorian date.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 06:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Quale, In Blueboar's analysis wikipedia has greater freedom to contrast a difference in opinion than it does to point out an outright factual error, even when the impeachment is well sourced. Yes, in some cases, but not all, exactly. We are free to note difference of opinion found in reliable sources, especially if they are secondary sources. If A says Y and B says X, we can note each, assuming each is reliable. But if a most reliable source contains a statement that is in error about the date a term was first used, and we cannot find any secondary sources that say that statement is in error, but rather go about and do our own research and discover that the statement is in error, we should not, by NOR, make the statement that "C says Z, but it's really S"--that is, strictly speaking, SYNTH. Your point about UNDUE (I assume that's what you meant) is well taken, as if we cannot find secondary sources contradicting the source we have, we should be asking ourselves whether the information is significant to be included--after all, if the error is not noteworthy by those in the field, it's probably not worth including in an encyclopedia. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 18:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
In regard to freedom, one can always invoke IAR, and I appreciate this is a subtle issue. Also, thank you for continuing this, it is helping me refine some of my notions in this area.
It seems to me a key issue is phrasing, and another is purpose. The titles that a chess master holds or held is an important matter. In Yakov Estrin you all noted that some reliable sources claimed he was a GM, and that other reliable sources "report only that he was an IM and ICGM". The position of "only" there is critical, as you all are not saying that these sources report that he was "only an IM and ICGM", but rather that the only thing they say is he was an IM and ICGM. I see no conclusions being drawn there, implicitly or explicitly. I agree that the phrasing is a bit awkward, but I think it is about as good as can be managed given the sources--you really have to say something about the titles given the subject, you have high quality reliable sources which contain a implicit contradiction, so you list what the sources say and you leave it up to the reader. You all did make an inference in preparing the article, but you did not imply a conclusion in the text of the article or the footnote--it's a fine line, but I don't think you crossed it, and if you did, you didn't go far over the line (which isn't bright in any case).
In the Conspiracy Theory article, Knight is a reliable source for the subject in general, but not an expert in etymology. He makes a statement about the earliest usage of the term here, and that was found to be an incorrect statement. The statement there just contrasts that the phrase has been around a while but entered common usage in the 1960s. The latter part of that is admittedly interesting, especially since the term is largely been used since then as a pejorative, but I would argue that the particular year mentioned in the first part isn't really important but for the contrast it established--if Knight had said the earliest usage was 1805, or 1700, or 345 BCE, it doesn't really change the meaning of what he is saying in that article. And Bruce Grubb, to his credit, dug up another bit by Knight that suggested his source for that date was the 1997 Oxford dictionary, which suggested the first recorded usage was in a 1909 article in the American Historical Review. So it appears that Knight made an assumption about the accuracy of the dictionary, which is understandable since he's not an etymologist, but a lecturer in American studies, and turned out to be incorrect.
If, having found that Knight is incorrect about the first recorded usage, we simply said "the term was in use as early as date X", based on a primary source that simply uses the term, that seems fine to me. If there were a debate between him and another reliable secondary source about first usage, documenting that disagreement would also be fair game, but that's not the case here. Removing the material that is incorrect also seems fine to me, and that's what we did about a month ago. But to juxtapose the known incorrect statement by Knight with primary sources showing him up as wrong does not simply provide accuracy and correct the mistake, it also implicitly brings into question his reliability as a source by correcting his error through our own research. And, although we know he's wrong about that particular datum, I would suggest there's no value created in the article by saying he's wrong--really, all we're doing there is saying he said X, but he's wrong, as if we were Hollywood in 2 Stupid Dogs. And I think that's what bothers me about this particular example. And I think that does clearly cross the line into OR, and we cannot, I think, justify that action with IAR as the datum in question is of very limited or no substantial value (which, arguably, one could in regard to Estrin, since the issue there is important). I hope that makes some sense. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 09:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I reworded most of this, please take a look and correct me as necessary. I think I improved it, but others may likely disagree. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 16:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems there is a dispute over adding Wikipedia:Inaccuracy and mentioning it in Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources. Maybe someone could start by trying to summarize the lengthy "Accuracy conflict" section above, or is the just more WP:DEADHORSE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz ( talk • contribs)
The point getting missed in all this is this is actually covered under the Caveats about expert material section ("Experts are human, and can publish statements that are contradicted by known facts, or otherwise erroneous") Claiming that this is a deadhorse when the point is already in the article is curious to say the least.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
This was argued at length in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage and Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Clarification_of_focal_infection_theory and several sources talking about "modern" oral FIT being a revival of the version seen during Price's active research on the matter in the 1920s were produced. Contrary what WhatamIdoing is remembering the 2002 version of Ingel's actually states "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection and called for a return to constructive rather than destructive dental treatment." on Pg 63 while Sol Silverman's Essentials of oral medicine printed the exact same year by the exact same publisher states "The detrimental effect of focal infection on general health has been known for decades" on page 159 and that "the dental profession readily accepted the notion that bad teeth were one of the major sources of infection".
Note the bad teeth reference. Price himself stated "Each dental caries, dental abscess, gingival and alveolar inflammation and necrosis, has been interpreted as essentially infective processes, and hence their extent is essentially a measure of the infection."
Ludwig's angina, septicaemia, brain abscess, and meningitis are all modern version of a dental abscess based FIT something Price himself noted in his self published 1923 work: "These, incidentally, appeared simultaneously with a very severe overload occasioned by the illness and death of her sister, whose fatal illness had been caused by a septicemia resulting from a dental infection which had remained in a chronic condition for many years..."
Furthermore RS sources after 1940 in support of FIT including Grossman were found clear into the 1950s showing the Ingel's reference to be in error and in fact the 2008 version is worded slightly differently: "In the 1930s and 1940s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection and called for a return to constructive rather than destructive dental treatment." The 2009 PDQ Endodontics companion to the 2008 edition gives thanks to Pallasch who makes it clear that the "modern" oral version of FIT is simply a revival of the oral version seen in the 1920s and has essentially the same problems.
The point that keeps getting lost in all this is focal infection was NOT Weston Price's theory. At best all he really did was present evidence others used to justify what was already being done (extractions and surgeries due to FIT were said to be out of control as early as 1918...some five years before Price even published his book) His work on nutrition seems to be of the same stripe--not a pioneer but a follower of ideas prevalent for his time.
I don't blame the editors but the quality of the material they can easily get a hold of. The enormous amount of effort to get a demonstrable inaccurate statement referenced to Stephen Barrett removed (see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F for that mess) demonstrates the problem. Price's own words showed Barrett didn't know what he was talking about with regards to Price but it took a ridiculous amount of arguing to get that nonsense removed from the article.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 19:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently BruceGrubb changed WP:DUCK, an essay about Wikipedia internal procedures, to make it apply to article content: [2]. Slightly before those changes BruceGrubb inserted links to WP:DUCK in this essay, so that it reads "An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit" unless it falls under WP:DUCK." This seems to be saying that an unpublished synthesis can be published if the synthesized argument seems obvious to the editor who puts it in. Well, editors who insert synthesis always think it's obvious, don't they? So this change seems to be opening the door to putting SYNTH in articles.
I think this is a bad change in and of itself, but it's even more troubling because BruceGrubb and I are in a content dispute at Christ myth theory over this very issue: he's inserted original analysis of sources that he thinks are conflicting into the article, and in the discussion of that issue at Talk:Christ myth theory#Removal_of_synthesis_tags he's cited this very essay—in other words, he's edited this essay to give himself ammunition in a content dispute. I don't think this is a good way to go about resolving a dispute. For these reasons I'm going to remove the changes. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've started a new discussion here to ask about whether a particular edit constitutes synthesis. Could interested, experienced editors offer their viewpoint? Nightscream ( talk) 23:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I added a section, Wikipedia:These are not original research § Accurately contextualizing quotations. There are probably simpler examples, or we could use a hypothetical, but I liked this one because it illustrates not only how the surrounding context of the article shows that the quotation needs to be clarified with a [bracketed insertion], but also that misinterpreting it as applying to a broader context would very radically change its meaning (i.e. there's a danger of OR in the opposite direction), and further illustrates why we could want to use it despite it needing a contextualization, since it's a secondary source interpreting a primary source for us. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I was reading the following:
And then, there was a reference to Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. If the above is a quote, we should note it as such. If its a paraphrasing, its unclear what the original intent of Sagan's comment was. Can someone explain? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey!
I'm doing an article on a train accident, a first for me. I have pulled up several newspaper articles days within the incident. They state a lot of inconsistent numbers. The NTSB report states one number, and another newspaper article 8 years after the incident reports another number inconsistent with the NTSB report!!
Is it ok if I:
Thanks in advance! I haven't edited on Wikipedia in like TEN YEARS! lol. I help dןǝɥ I 04:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I've added a new section at the top, about the definition of what OR actually is. If it doesn't fit the definition, then it's just not OR, full stop. I hope that will eventually reduce the number of people who claim OR on the basis of a single already-cited source. (Of course, Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so maybe it won't actually help.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Huggums537: its actually you who needs to get consensus to include disputed content. Please do so. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
As someone who understands French, I can translate that statement to:La Loire prend sa source sur le versant sud du Mont Gerbier-de-Jonc au sud-est du Massif central et coule vers le nord jusqu'à Orléans avant de tourner vers l'ouest à travers Tours, Angers et Nantes et de se jeter dans son estuaire près de Saint-Nazaire.
which then backs the sample statement above. Perhaps I could find a similar source in English, but I'm not required to do so. This theoretical French source would be accepted.The Loire originates on the southern slope of Mont Gerbier-de-Jonc southeast of the Massif Central and flows north to Orléans before turning westward through Tours, Angers, and Nantes and emptying into its estuary near Saint-Nazaire.
The text that was removed by Hors Eye's Back on 19 March 2023 was
* Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, may be used to provide source information. Interpretation of such media is not original research provided that it is done in a routine manner observing any limitations usually associated with the medium concerned, and such interpretations are readily verifiable by anybody who has access to the same source.
It was in the "Translation and contextualizing" section. I support using information from reliable sources that is in a form other than text, including maps and graphs. But I have problems with the disputed text. It isn't exactly clear what "source information" is.
Also, using the word "interpret" is used at WP:PRIMARY:
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
It's likely that some editors will decide the essay and the policy contradict each other. I feel the word "interpretation" in WP:PRIMARY is unfortunate because it fails to distinguish the allowable process of drawing information from a primary source in exactly the way the author intended, versus whatever WP:PRIMARY is really getting at. Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I guess I don't really care whether it is in the essay right now or not. The fact that it was there for over 11 years is unchangeable, and the RFC will moot it. -- Rs chen 7754 00:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This should remain at least until the current RFC at VPP is over. It's apparent from that RFC that whatever the result there will need to be further discussions about what the level of what is acceptable, but the outcome of that RFC will determine where to start that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 14:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I wrote the original draft of this essay back in 2006, but have stayed away from it for at least 15 years. Coming here now I'm amazed how it's changed, & how one hope I had for the essay seems to have been lost: "This essay is offered as a contribution the ongoing discussion -- and as an attempt to help avoid Wikilawyering. For if we have a consensus on what this prohibition is meant to cover, as well as what it was not meant to cover, then we do not need worry about quibbles over the precise wording", even though I had cited an authority in a footnote for my statement. I guess the Wikilawyers will prevail in every instance, no matter our hopes. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
The text here about avoiding statistics, algebra, or calculus calculations doesn't fit actual practice. In practice, calculations that would be clear to someone with a first course in the area are used with no complaints. The idea that calculations must be clear to someone with no training also seems to contradict the permission on translations; if everyone could translate already, we could just quote the text in its original language. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Trouble arises not so much when someone introduces "advanced mathematics" to a subject where such is the norm; one would expect an article on thermodynamics or econometrics to be full of calculus. Trouble arises when people introduce "advanced mathematics" to a study in which such is novel -- or introduces novel mathematical or statistical material to an existing study. Thus an attempt to use a mathematical formula to determine what creates human happiness would likely be "original research".
It is often not so much the mathematics that creates problems; a typical college graduate probably knows his first-year calculus if he has kept up with it; it is with the formulas that one creates. Few have a problem with the perfect gas formula
pV = nRT
(p is pressure, V is volume, n is the measure of atoms of gas, R is the gas constant, and T is absolute temperature), and it proves useful in many physical contexts. For example, what happens to a gas as it expands or contracts without radiating off heat?
or the quantity theory of money in economics:
MV = PQ
M is money supply, V is velocity of money (rate of spending), P is the price level, and Q is the quantity of transactions. It too proves useful in explaining that if the money supply increases that the price level can be expected to rise some -- slightly in a time of monetary insufficiency (1933, USA) or roughly proportionally in an overheated economy (1923 in Germany).
Neither the perfect gas law nor the quantity theory of money is original research in their respective fields.
Application of new formulas to a study or novel interpretations of existing formulas is original research. If someone contends that the rock surface of Venus is hot and the rock surface of Mars is cold in contrast to that of the Earth's water, ice, and land/life surfaces entirely because of differences in pressure, then such is likely original research even if one uses the perfect gas law.-- Paul from Michigan ( talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
statements (such as A+B=B+A) can be proven step by step. Doubt if that's the case with all economical math. Boeing720 ( talk) 05:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
JeffUK ( talk) 13:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
As I explained here we need a rule that allows for unsourced arguments/derivations. I suggested this formulation:
This violates the ban on complicated derivations. But if you read this, you have to agree that only allowing simple arguments, referencing statements to the literature, did not work well for the thermodynamics articles. Of course, one can point out that in theory it could have worked. But that's irrelevant. My point is that in practice it didn't work (like communism, great in theory, in practice it didn't work well). Huge errors remained uncorrected for two or three years in the articles and that is a very serious matter.
In the many other articles that have been free of these problems, the ban on complex derivations is not adhered too. So, it would be a good thing if Wikipedia legalizes this successful practice. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the second paragraph from the "Simple calculations" section pending discussion. It read:
I think this paragraph implies that we allow a level of calculation that we don't actually allow. There is no way that an editor can or should use partial differentials to build a statement. That simply does not pass WP:CALC, no matter what the topic. A particle physicist probably finds differential calculus "Simple"... but a particle physicist is more than just "reasonably educated" he/she would be classified as highly educated. I think this needs to be reworked. Blueboar ( talk) 14:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I respect the desire to use foreign language material as sources, but having seen dozens of sources misinterpreted in a simple summarizing reorganization (i.e., from English to English), I believe the potential for mistranslation and misinterpretation is even higher for a Wikipedia editor-translated source. Also, even assuming a professional translation, the problem cited for any mathematics other than the most simple applies -- checking a source other than in English requires "skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors." I do not believe that the desire for a less English-centric encyclopedia overrides the need for editors to be able to verify sources without special training. At the very least, the translator should be cited along with the original source, following the principle outlined in Wikipedia:CITE#Say_where_you_found_the_material. Blackworm ( talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I am curious. Articles on specific phrases often include the "first use". In many cases, this is a well-known phrase. However, what if a Wikipedian finds- and cites- an earlier use of said phrase? (For examples, in the talk page on Where no man has gone before, I cited a use prior to the date of said article, which someone else added in later. A similar situation may occur with Behind the sofa or Faith-based (See the talk pages of said articles for my contribution).) Orville Eastland ( talk) 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
i wondered how editors felt about moving what i think is the least controversial section to NOR. as NOR allows routine calculations, routine syllogisms should be included there not here because arithmetic implicitly contains logical "calculations". in fact language itself is fundamentally built on (among other things) syllogisms. we make them all the time, we just don't realise. for example, using a pronoun involves a syllogism-- Mongreilf ( talk) 09:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue of whether basic logical deductions (and especially syllogisms) should be allowed or not has come up again at the main NOR article... the consensus seems to be fairly clear that a logical deduction can be OR... and that we should not exempt such material from the policy. I have therefor removed listing them in this essay. Blueboar ( talk) 17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've come into a discussion on Talk:App Store which involves the limits of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL, which might be of relevance to this essay. I added to the article App Store a sentence saying that "some have started using 'app store' as a generic term referring to any similar service", and then giving three references to such use in notable sources. Another editor claims that this is synthesis, since none of the sources say that the term is used in this way - although he agrees that the sources are using the term in the way I say. My point here is, that maybe this is an example of something that should be addressed either in the Simple or direct deductions or Compiling facts and information section in this essay? To me, the edit in question seems to represent the same kind of thinking that lies behind the "Simple or direct deductions" section, but in a different field of knowledge (language rather than mathematics or logics). Could something be added to this section to include similar kinds of deductions that don't necessarily belong strictly to the fields of mathematics or formal logic? -- Anderssl ( talk) 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If I record something that I see and report it in Wikipedia without any additional comment, is this research or not. The item that I have in mind is in the article M3_motorway. Towards the end of the article is an exit list with headings "Northeast exits", "Junction" and "Southwest exists". Recently roadsigns have been erected which identify the Northeast carriageway as being the "B" carriageway and the Southwest carriageway as being the "A" carriageway. I cannot find any documentary evidence about this, but I frequently drive on that motorway and I can verify the fact for myself (as can anybody else who is able to drive there).
Since I describe it in an unambiguous manner without interpretation I have recorded the source as "Verified ... in situ ... on <date>". Comments? I am assuming of course that the signs will be there for the foreseeable future. Martinvl ( talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think moving this page was a good idea. For setting that this or any page page is an essay/policy/guideline or what it comes, the template in the begining is enough, it's not needed to tell it in the page name. If someone takes an essay as policy, he should be explained better, and if someone tries to enforce an essay as if it was policy, it should be pointed that way.
Besides, if someone attempts to turn a lowly watched essay into a policy or guideline, for later enforcing it, there are bots that would warn so at the village pump. MBelgrano ( talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
An issue has arisen here Talk:Anti-Americanism#Latin_America over whether this text [ [1]] should be retained as resonable contextualisation, or does it constitute OR. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Material that I posted here was on the wrong notice-board. I am moving it. Martinvl ( talk) 12:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin removed this:
Now I seriously doubt that SV thinks that if Town A is in District B, and that District B is in Province C, that Town A is anywhere other than in Province C. But perhaps there is a more significant concern, e.g., people trying to pass of complex "logical" deductions as being acceptable? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Bruce's ongoing effort to get his findings on the phrase conspiracy theory presented as the Truth™ is getting a little old.
Yes: Sources may be wrong.
Yes: If you can produce published evidence that the source is wrong, then you may omit the erroneous information. You may use WP:Editorial discretion to prevent WP:Inaccuracy in articles.
However, No: If you cannot produce a published source that says some other source is wrong, then you may not say, or imply, or even hint, that the other source is wrong.
For example, imagine a typo in a statistic. 99.999% of sources say that 5% of American women die from breast cancer. One lonely source says that 55% do. We know from both personal experience and the overwhelming balance of sources that this one source is factually, obviously, definitely, absolutely, unquestionably wrong. But we do not say, "One source says that 55% of American women die from breast cancer, although all other sources say that only 5% do." We silently omit the erroneous information as WP:UNDUE and against our better editorial judgment. We do not hang the bad source out as proof that someone screwed up. We just say, "5% of American women die from breast cancer" and stop there.
Which is exactly what Bruce ought to be satisfied with in the dispute that he's wrapped up in, rather than trying to re-write all of the advice pages to support his side in the dispute. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTOR expressly states that presenting "characterizations" of conflicts is NOT OR. The idea that presenting a source meeting Verifiability showing other source may have an accuracy problem (unless people are suggesting Oxford University Branch doesn't meet Verifiability which is a real huh?)
This is a variation of the same kind of nonsense the Jesus myth theory article went through ( Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition Talk:Christ_myth_theory/POV_tag give good overviews to some of that nonsense). Anything that showed there wasn't a single unified definition of "Christ-Jesus myth theory" was called OR by some editor and it took a two year battle before the conflict of definition was put into the article space.
That WhatamIdoing wants to unilaterally remove the following from this article space shows that he does not understand what OR and Verifiability really mean:
An
accuracy conflict is when a source presents something that is not accurate (Example: one source states that a certain phrase first appeared in 1920 but other sources show the phrase was used before that year.)
[...] For example, you may not, with these sources, say "Source A gave the town's population as 5,000; however, this is disproven by the following sources and circumstances, and the true population was at least 7,000 in 1990." but you can in the talk page point out "Source A claiming this phrase was first used in 1920 is wrong as there are sources before 1920 that use the phrase" (it is not a good idea to do this in the article page however). |
I would like to point out that administrator User:Will Beback stated regarding this: "When equally reliable sources give different accounts we should include them both. In the words of the great American philosopher Yogi Berra, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it.""
When I presented how conflict between Schweitzer and Sir James George Frazer was resolved in the Jesus myth theory:
Despite Sir James George Frazer stating "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" in volume 9 of The golden bough in 1913, [22] Schweitzer continued to group him with John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in subsequent printings of his The Quest of the Historical Jesus and repeated this classification in his 1931 autobiography Out of My Life and Thought with the statement "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." [23][24]
(22) Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412 (23) Schweitzer (1931) Out of My Life and Thought page 125 (24) Bennett, Clinton (2001) In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images page 205 |
one editor flew off the rails claiming 'yes this is OR via SYN' even though the conflict itself was referenced (Bennett)
Lambiam over as Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_51#Contradictory_sources gave examples of Verifiability but inaccurate information to which I add the following examples:
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." - Neil Armstrong July 29, 1969. (Multidisciplinary units for prekindergarten through grade 2 ISTE (Interntl Soc Tech Educ)
"On July 29, 1969, over 600 million people watched their televisions. They saw astronaut Neil Armstrong become the first human to step on the moon." Greathouse, Lisa E. (2007) The Wonder of Our Solar System Teacher Created Materials pg 15)
(The date for both these events is July 20, 1969)
The conflict between the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and Vrej Nersessian, in Essays on Armenian music regarding the birthdate of Komitas Vardapet (October 8 vs September 26) is a prime example as it could be a correction between the Rumi calendar and Gregorian calendar or a miscorrection of an already Gregorian date.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 06:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Quale, In Blueboar's analysis wikipedia has greater freedom to contrast a difference in opinion than it does to point out an outright factual error, even when the impeachment is well sourced. Yes, in some cases, but not all, exactly. We are free to note difference of opinion found in reliable sources, especially if they are secondary sources. If A says Y and B says X, we can note each, assuming each is reliable. But if a most reliable source contains a statement that is in error about the date a term was first used, and we cannot find any secondary sources that say that statement is in error, but rather go about and do our own research and discover that the statement is in error, we should not, by NOR, make the statement that "C says Z, but it's really S"--that is, strictly speaking, SYNTH. Your point about UNDUE (I assume that's what you meant) is well taken, as if we cannot find secondary sources contradicting the source we have, we should be asking ourselves whether the information is significant to be included--after all, if the error is not noteworthy by those in the field, it's probably not worth including in an encyclopedia. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 18:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
In regard to freedom, one can always invoke IAR, and I appreciate this is a subtle issue. Also, thank you for continuing this, it is helping me refine some of my notions in this area.
It seems to me a key issue is phrasing, and another is purpose. The titles that a chess master holds or held is an important matter. In Yakov Estrin you all noted that some reliable sources claimed he was a GM, and that other reliable sources "report only that he was an IM and ICGM". The position of "only" there is critical, as you all are not saying that these sources report that he was "only an IM and ICGM", but rather that the only thing they say is he was an IM and ICGM. I see no conclusions being drawn there, implicitly or explicitly. I agree that the phrasing is a bit awkward, but I think it is about as good as can be managed given the sources--you really have to say something about the titles given the subject, you have high quality reliable sources which contain a implicit contradiction, so you list what the sources say and you leave it up to the reader. You all did make an inference in preparing the article, but you did not imply a conclusion in the text of the article or the footnote--it's a fine line, but I don't think you crossed it, and if you did, you didn't go far over the line (which isn't bright in any case).
In the Conspiracy Theory article, Knight is a reliable source for the subject in general, but not an expert in etymology. He makes a statement about the earliest usage of the term here, and that was found to be an incorrect statement. The statement there just contrasts that the phrase has been around a while but entered common usage in the 1960s. The latter part of that is admittedly interesting, especially since the term is largely been used since then as a pejorative, but I would argue that the particular year mentioned in the first part isn't really important but for the contrast it established--if Knight had said the earliest usage was 1805, or 1700, or 345 BCE, it doesn't really change the meaning of what he is saying in that article. And Bruce Grubb, to his credit, dug up another bit by Knight that suggested his source for that date was the 1997 Oxford dictionary, which suggested the first recorded usage was in a 1909 article in the American Historical Review. So it appears that Knight made an assumption about the accuracy of the dictionary, which is understandable since he's not an etymologist, but a lecturer in American studies, and turned out to be incorrect.
If, having found that Knight is incorrect about the first recorded usage, we simply said "the term was in use as early as date X", based on a primary source that simply uses the term, that seems fine to me. If there were a debate between him and another reliable secondary source about first usage, documenting that disagreement would also be fair game, but that's not the case here. Removing the material that is incorrect also seems fine to me, and that's what we did about a month ago. But to juxtapose the known incorrect statement by Knight with primary sources showing him up as wrong does not simply provide accuracy and correct the mistake, it also implicitly brings into question his reliability as a source by correcting his error through our own research. And, although we know he's wrong about that particular datum, I would suggest there's no value created in the article by saying he's wrong--really, all we're doing there is saying he said X, but he's wrong, as if we were Hollywood in 2 Stupid Dogs. And I think that's what bothers me about this particular example. And I think that does clearly cross the line into OR, and we cannot, I think, justify that action with IAR as the datum in question is of very limited or no substantial value (which, arguably, one could in regard to Estrin, since the issue there is important). I hope that makes some sense. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 09:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I reworded most of this, please take a look and correct me as necessary. I think I improved it, but others may likely disagree. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 16:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems there is a dispute over adding Wikipedia:Inaccuracy and mentioning it in Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources. Maybe someone could start by trying to summarize the lengthy "Accuracy conflict" section above, or is the just more WP:DEADHORSE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz ( talk • contribs)
The point getting missed in all this is this is actually covered under the Caveats about expert material section ("Experts are human, and can publish statements that are contradicted by known facts, or otherwise erroneous") Claiming that this is a deadhorse when the point is already in the article is curious to say the least.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
This was argued at length in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage and Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Clarification_of_focal_infection_theory and several sources talking about "modern" oral FIT being a revival of the version seen during Price's active research on the matter in the 1920s were produced. Contrary what WhatamIdoing is remembering the 2002 version of Ingel's actually states "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection and called for a return to constructive rather than destructive dental treatment." on Pg 63 while Sol Silverman's Essentials of oral medicine printed the exact same year by the exact same publisher states "The detrimental effect of focal infection on general health has been known for decades" on page 159 and that "the dental profession readily accepted the notion that bad teeth were one of the major sources of infection".
Note the bad teeth reference. Price himself stated "Each dental caries, dental abscess, gingival and alveolar inflammation and necrosis, has been interpreted as essentially infective processes, and hence their extent is essentially a measure of the infection."
Ludwig's angina, septicaemia, brain abscess, and meningitis are all modern version of a dental abscess based FIT something Price himself noted in his self published 1923 work: "These, incidentally, appeared simultaneously with a very severe overload occasioned by the illness and death of her sister, whose fatal illness had been caused by a septicemia resulting from a dental infection which had remained in a chronic condition for many years..."
Furthermore RS sources after 1940 in support of FIT including Grossman were found clear into the 1950s showing the Ingel's reference to be in error and in fact the 2008 version is worded slightly differently: "In the 1930s and 1940s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection and called for a return to constructive rather than destructive dental treatment." The 2009 PDQ Endodontics companion to the 2008 edition gives thanks to Pallasch who makes it clear that the "modern" oral version of FIT is simply a revival of the oral version seen in the 1920s and has essentially the same problems.
The point that keeps getting lost in all this is focal infection was NOT Weston Price's theory. At best all he really did was present evidence others used to justify what was already being done (extractions and surgeries due to FIT were said to be out of control as early as 1918...some five years before Price even published his book) His work on nutrition seems to be of the same stripe--not a pioneer but a follower of ideas prevalent for his time.
I don't blame the editors but the quality of the material they can easily get a hold of. The enormous amount of effort to get a demonstrable inaccurate statement referenced to Stephen Barrett removed (see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F for that mess) demonstrates the problem. Price's own words showed Barrett didn't know what he was talking about with regards to Price but it took a ridiculous amount of arguing to get that nonsense removed from the article.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 19:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently BruceGrubb changed WP:DUCK, an essay about Wikipedia internal procedures, to make it apply to article content: [2]. Slightly before those changes BruceGrubb inserted links to WP:DUCK in this essay, so that it reads "An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit" unless it falls under WP:DUCK." This seems to be saying that an unpublished synthesis can be published if the synthesized argument seems obvious to the editor who puts it in. Well, editors who insert synthesis always think it's obvious, don't they? So this change seems to be opening the door to putting SYNTH in articles.
I think this is a bad change in and of itself, but it's even more troubling because BruceGrubb and I are in a content dispute at Christ myth theory over this very issue: he's inserted original analysis of sources that he thinks are conflicting into the article, and in the discussion of that issue at Talk:Christ myth theory#Removal_of_synthesis_tags he's cited this very essay—in other words, he's edited this essay to give himself ammunition in a content dispute. I don't think this is a good way to go about resolving a dispute. For these reasons I'm going to remove the changes. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've started a new discussion here to ask about whether a particular edit constitutes synthesis. Could interested, experienced editors offer their viewpoint? Nightscream ( talk) 23:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I added a section, Wikipedia:These are not original research § Accurately contextualizing quotations. There are probably simpler examples, or we could use a hypothetical, but I liked this one because it illustrates not only how the surrounding context of the article shows that the quotation needs to be clarified with a [bracketed insertion], but also that misinterpreting it as applying to a broader context would very radically change its meaning (i.e. there's a danger of OR in the opposite direction), and further illustrates why we could want to use it despite it needing a contextualization, since it's a secondary source interpreting a primary source for us. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I was reading the following:
And then, there was a reference to Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. If the above is a quote, we should note it as such. If its a paraphrasing, its unclear what the original intent of Sagan's comment was. Can someone explain? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey!
I'm doing an article on a train accident, a first for me. I have pulled up several newspaper articles days within the incident. They state a lot of inconsistent numbers. The NTSB report states one number, and another newspaper article 8 years after the incident reports another number inconsistent with the NTSB report!!
Is it ok if I:
Thanks in advance! I haven't edited on Wikipedia in like TEN YEARS! lol. I help dןǝɥ I 04:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I've added a new section at the top, about the definition of what OR actually is. If it doesn't fit the definition, then it's just not OR, full stop. I hope that will eventually reduce the number of people who claim OR on the basis of a single already-cited source. (Of course, Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so maybe it won't actually help.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Huggums537: its actually you who needs to get consensus to include disputed content. Please do so. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
As someone who understands French, I can translate that statement to:La Loire prend sa source sur le versant sud du Mont Gerbier-de-Jonc au sud-est du Massif central et coule vers le nord jusqu'à Orléans avant de tourner vers l'ouest à travers Tours, Angers et Nantes et de se jeter dans son estuaire près de Saint-Nazaire.
which then backs the sample statement above. Perhaps I could find a similar source in English, but I'm not required to do so. This theoretical French source would be accepted.The Loire originates on the southern slope of Mont Gerbier-de-Jonc southeast of the Massif Central and flows north to Orléans before turning westward through Tours, Angers, and Nantes and emptying into its estuary near Saint-Nazaire.
The text that was removed by Hors Eye's Back on 19 March 2023 was
* Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, may be used to provide source information. Interpretation of such media is not original research provided that it is done in a routine manner observing any limitations usually associated with the medium concerned, and such interpretations are readily verifiable by anybody who has access to the same source.
It was in the "Translation and contextualizing" section. I support using information from reliable sources that is in a form other than text, including maps and graphs. But I have problems with the disputed text. It isn't exactly clear what "source information" is.
Also, using the word "interpret" is used at WP:PRIMARY:
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
It's likely that some editors will decide the essay and the policy contradict each other. I feel the word "interpretation" in WP:PRIMARY is unfortunate because it fails to distinguish the allowable process of drawing information from a primary source in exactly the way the author intended, versus whatever WP:PRIMARY is really getting at. Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I guess I don't really care whether it is in the essay right now or not. The fact that it was there for over 11 years is unchangeable, and the RFC will moot it. -- Rs chen 7754 00:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This should remain at least until the current RFC at VPP is over. It's apparent from that RFC that whatever the result there will need to be further discussions about what the level of what is acceptable, but the outcome of that RFC will determine where to start that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 14:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I wrote the original draft of this essay back in 2006, but have stayed away from it for at least 15 years. Coming here now I'm amazed how it's changed, & how one hope I had for the essay seems to have been lost: "This essay is offered as a contribution the ongoing discussion -- and as an attempt to help avoid Wikilawyering. For if we have a consensus on what this prohibition is meant to cover, as well as what it was not meant to cover, then we do not need worry about quibbles over the precise wording", even though I had cited an authority in a footnote for my statement. I guess the Wikilawyers will prevail in every instance, no matter our hopes. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)