Wikipedia talk:No original research

Proposed modification of WP:OR regarding figures

Should this addition be made to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images?

"In the case of figures intended to illustrate text, even if nothing like a proposed WP figure exists anywhere else at all, it is acceptable on WP if it faithfully depicts text that is not OR. Whether a figure of this type constitutes original research is contingent only upon its accuracy in representing the accepted text it illustrates."

I understand the present policy to be consistent with this proposal. This addition would rule out explicitly a view such as "A diagram is not exempt from normal sourcing rules". Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments.

• I believe there are a great many figures on WP that are completely original illustrations of accompanying text, and some of which are unrelated to any published figure. Nonetheless, there are misconceptions regarding WP policy in such matters, so an amendment is needed. The issue is not gray, but black and white - either a diagram on WP must approximate one in print (inviting copyright restrictions), or that is not necessary, and felicity to text is a sufficient criterion. Present policy says the latter, and suggesting policy is consistent with personal judgment about this requires a rewrite of policy. Brews ohare (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this change. Editors should use their best judgment in every case, which may include a very strict interpretation of verifiability in contentious articles. There are misconceptions in both directions here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• As noted above this is a content dispute. You should not be trying to rewrite policy to help you win a content dispute; you've tried this many times before so should know this by now. Resolve the issue on the talk page, recruiting other editors perhaps on a project talk page if there are only two involved.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Blackburne: You are wrong - you mistake a general issue with the instance leading to it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If this really has nothing to do with the dispute, then feel free to come back here a couple of months after that dispute has been resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Why on Earth should a general issue have to wait for a minor dispute between two editors to end? Your reason presumably is because you cannot see that this is a general issue, even when it is stated in general terms that depend in no way upon this other matter. Brews ohare (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it is very difficult for editors to completely separate a proposed change from a particular instance, and it is impossible to avoid some people believing that it is an attempt at WP:GAMING. Additionally, the resolution of the particular, concrete dispute can provide some insight into how the community sees the matter in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This issue can be dealt with on a case by case basis according to appropriate policy and guidelines that already exists. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Steve: The appropriate policy is WP:OR#Original images. It encourages Editors to upload their own original figures. Now, this policy may be clear to some, but to others, any original figure is OR or SYN. Why do you not favor ending any perceived ambiguity by making policy explicit that an original figure illustrating some WP text is required to be an accurate depiction of the text, and the policy of original research applies to the text not to the figure illustrating it? Brews ohare (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• No way I just posted at RSN where "is a map a reliable source?" was asked. The answer is no. For everyday "the sky is blue" questions, a map or diagram are fine as sources. For anything remotely contentious, a secondary source is required to interpret the document. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq: I wonder how this process you envision takes place. Here is a possible way to do this that you might comment upon:, An explanation is made in text, in words, with sources, and this text is critiqued to be sure it doesn't exhibit OR or synthesis. Then a figure illuminating this text is created, and this figure is then criticized as to whether it accurately portrays the text. Thus OR and SYN apply to the text, but fidelity to the text applies to the figure. I am sure this process works; do you have an alternative that might work too? Brews ohare (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, but coming here straight after the RSN section I linked above, my mind was directed towards a different issue from what you have raised. Sometimes an editor will say that a diagram they found somewhere verifies fact X (the diagram is given as a reference for X). I now see that the issue under discussion concerns when an editor-created diagram is original research. That's much more tricky. In general, everyday matters which do not raise objections are not original research and are good ("the sky is blue", or the diagrams at parabola). I do not think there is anything useful that can be said as a generalization regarding when a diagram is a faithful depiction of verifiable facts—it's yet another issue which would need to be discussed, if objections are raised. I have not looked at the background that you linked above, but I have struck my "no way" as that was a misunderstanding, and I might just sit on the fence, although from what I've just said I don't think any general text would really be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq: Thanks for a thought-out response. I feel that the application of OR and SYN to text is documented. On the other hand applying these policies to an original figure as allowed by WP:OR#Original images is nigh impossible, and is just a quagmire for unending dispute. You have said the same. My view is that for that subset of figures used to illustrate text, an approach based upon the figure's accuracy in depicting the text is a more straightforward way to proceed. Brews ohare (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think insertion of the proposed text will be read to imply that original images that are not based on text, but which can be verified by reference to reliable sources in some non-text media, would be disallowed. For example, there may not be any pictures of a living person who is the subject of a biography that have copyright licenses compatible with Wikipedia, but there are many such photos in reliable sources that can be viewed for verification. A Commons editor takes a photo of the article subject and puts it in the article. That is entirely compatible with existing policy, but the proposal would imply that it is not acceptable. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Jc3s5h: Thanks for the observation. You point out that a figure sometimes can be authenticated by comparison with published figures, for example an original photograph claiming to be that of a pigeon can be compared with published photos to ascertain that it is indeed a picture of a pigeon. The proposal doesn't intend to eliminate this kind of verification. But in cases where there is a completely original figure involved, and a similar figure is not available in print, an approach to verification is to compare the figure with the text it describes. This proposal is an alternative, not an exclusive, means for critiquing figures, and sometimes the only way to do it. Perhaps you could suggest some rephrasing of the proposal to make this point obvious? Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for new policy

(This proposal was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Limitations of RS+NOR, with a solution, but I was asked to post it here and at WT:RS.)

Limitations of RS+NOR, with a solution:

The motivation for this discussion is my frequent annoyance over the years with articles that don't explain things well, or don't give enough information, because experts can't simply write what they know, due to NOR and the need for RS.

An example is Sailing faster than the wind, where section "BOLD EDIT NOTICE" of its Talk page presents an excellent explanation (the analogy of a geared transmission) that couldn't be included in the article due to NOR and lack of RS. Note that I don't care if this explanation is correct or not: that is immaterial to the problem I wish to discuss here. I'm giving this as a motivational example, but I am discussing WP policies and guidelines here, not details of the example.

Now to get to it: reliance on the availability of good RSs leads to a good encyclopedia, but this technique has limitations. Once in a while a Talk page provides some NOR explanation that is clearer that the one given in the article. This example, I believe, is such a case. While this isn't the purpose of a Talk page, it is a very valuable service for WP readers who read the Talk pages as well the articles, as I do.

It also shows an inherent limitation of the RS+NOR policies, as applied to articles. An improved WP policy, and the solution I'm offering for discussion here, would be to allow NOR explanations or knowledge in articles and Talk pages, without a reference, until someone provides a good NOR reason to object to them, or an RS is found that supports a good replacement.

This would be an additional policy, modifying the RS and NOR policies, or would be a modification of the RS and NOR policies themselves (I'm not proposing which). David Spector (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the above comments and proposal.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Question. What is the threshold for a "good" reason for objecting? As things stand, material which is in contention is kept out of an article until doubts are resolved. I'd be concerned that this proposal would result in bad, unsourced content remaining in articles while discussion about whether it should be removed goes round and round in circles without consensus. Formerip (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the Talk page amendment due to the inevitable unintended consequence of the WP:NOTAFORUM problems it would allow. Besides, the practical current application of WP:NOR to Talk pages already allows questions based on speculation like you're describing. The second part of this, allowing WP:OR in articles until someone objects, is basically how it works now. Questionable unsourced material stays in articles until it's challenged, and then it has to come out. There is no need to change the policy. Zad68 13:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Re David Spector's comment "an excellent explanation ... that couldn't be included in the article due to NOR and lack of RS. Note that I don't care if this explanation is correct or not: that is immaterial to the problem I wish to discuss here." — If there's uncertainty about whether it is correct, then it seems like a poor example to support what you want for WP:NOR. Note that the purpose of an explanation is to make something more clear and that introducing uncertainty works against that goal. The purpose of NOR is to keep out material that may be misinformation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - requiring that everything published here be able to be WP:CITEd and WP:VERIFYed without debuting any type of novel research in any form has been at the core of several of the project's permanent cornerstones from the beginning. Not a chance anyone could change it like this. On the other hand, I hear that there is a Wikimedia project at V: where original research is allowed and encouraged. You may like that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not see any insurmountable objections to my proposal. Here are my responses to all previous responses. Interspersing them would interfere with their flow, so I've grouped them all here. Please feel free to continue the discussion. David Spector (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Gautier lebon, Thank you.
• Formerip, I don't understand your "threshold" comment, but I do agree with your next point. If needed, the proposed policy could be augmented by a clarification that material in contention should be kept out of the article during Talk discussions. My proposal applies only to uncontroversial material.
• Zad68, I agree that the proposal must not introduce discussion of edits into articles, but if you want such discussion to be kept out of Talk pages, I would have to disagree. The content of articles should be discussed in their Talk pages. But note also that my proposal applies only to uncontroversial material. As soon as the OR material is revealed to be controversial, it is forbidden without RS, as at present. "Talk pages already allows questions based on speculation like you're describing." That's true, but current policy forbids moving the results of such discussions into the article without RS, which may not exist or be difficult to find. That's the whole point of the proposal.
• Bob K31416, "If there's uncertainty about whether it is correct, then it seems like a poor example to support what you want for WP:NOR." Good point. Sorry, I worded that poorly. I feel rather certain that the explanation of why a boat sailing downwind can sail faster than the absolute wind speed is correct. I was trying to emphasize that when the proposed policy will be invoked, it may not be known by all readers that the material is correct. That certaintly may only be held by the person making the edit. Other editors still must agree that it is correct.
• Til Eulenspiegel, I hope you are not implying that CITE and VERIFY apply to external Web references inward to WP articles. They do not. As to CITE, my proposal does not change it. Citations still must conform to stated requirements, without any novel research. Nor does my proposal allow unrestricted OR in WP. However, your concern about VERIFY is correct. My proposal would change VERIFY in the same way it changes NOR and RS. I will add my proposal to WT:V as well, modifying it to include VERIFY.

David Spector (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I realize at this point, with mostly Oppose votes, that my continued defense is not worthwhile. If I'm seeing value in the proposal, but no one else is, the probability is that I'm wrong and everyone else is right. I therefore yield to the vast majority and sincerely thank everyone for considering my ideas. I know that present policies are not quite good enough to encourage some with good personal knowledge to offer it, so maybe I'll be back here again someday with a better and less objectionable proposal. David Spector (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Leading section

I think that it is more clear if in the leading section the two words must exist are in Italic, in stead of only the word must right now. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be even clearer if we said must have been published and still be accessible to at least some members of the public. I've forgotten the details, but at some point we actually had a problem with someone claiming that his source "existed" (original copies of handwritten letters by his grandmother or something) and was therefore useable, even though it had never been published anywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Revised proposal regarding OR and figures

An earlier proposal met with difficulties, so a revised version is presented below intended to meet those problems by carefully restricting the type of figure to which it applies.

Should this addition be made to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images?

"In the very specific case of a figure in the form of a flowchart or graph illustrating a specific text in an article, such a figure is acceptable on WP provided it faithfully depicts the associated text, and that text itself meets WP policy on OR. Whether a figure of this type constitutes original research is contingent only upon its accuracy in representing the accepted text it illustrates. Of course, meeting OR is not the only possible criterion to apply in accepting a figure." Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As things stand at the moment, objections have been raised that figures that are a combination of published figures, or are variations of published figures are declared to be original research simply because of original elements or organization, even though these diagrams faithfully depict text established to be acceptable. Argument over these matters is directed by mistake at the originality of the figures themselves instead of their accuracy in depicting the text they illustrate. Brews ohare (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• There are a great many figures on WP that are completely original illustrations of accompanying text, and some of which are unrelated to any published figure. Nonetheless, there are misconceptions regarding WP policy in such matters, so an amendment is needed. The amendment makes clear that the OR issue is not gray, but black and white - either a diagram on WP must approximate one in print (inviting copyright restrictions), or that is not necessary, and felicity to text is a sufficient criterion. Present policy is sometimes interpreted as saying OR policy on such figures is open to personal judgment, but that is is too vague. Policy is governed by felicity to text, and not upon extraneous considerations. Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Will be interpreted to require removal of perfectly acceptable, uncontentious figures. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Jc3s5h: Would you please elaborate upon this scenario? Brews ohare (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The present policy is clear and fine. Whether any particular image matches the policy can be decided on a case by case basis, and disputes can be resolved the usual way. Frankly it comes up very rarely: images are far more likely to be removed for relevance or copyright/fair use reasons, or as better ones are found.--JohnBlackburne^words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"deeds 17:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Brews ohare, Could you explain how the following excerpt from policy doesn't already cover what you are trying to add?

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

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Bob: Thank you for the opportunity to explain the need for this change. As I said myself, present policy is consistent with this proposal. However, as is abundantly clear from others' remarks here, there is a faction that thinks present policy leaves the matter open to 'interpretation' as to when OR or SYN has occurred in a figure, and that judgment has nothing to do with the text the figure illustrates. In my opinion, and in yours, there is no such thing as OR and SYN in a figure if it sticks to faithfully illustrating acceptable text. If the amplification of policy suggested here is included, that erroneous attitude would be eliminated, leaving one less breeding ground for the rancor it generates, and cases ArbCom must deal with. Brews ohare (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please consider the possibility that the problem isn't with the way policy is currently worded when it comes to a particular content dispute. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Bob: Thanks for another opportunity to elaborate the reasons for this proposed clarification. The origin of my objection, as you point out, has nothing to do with the possible value of this clarification. If the policy clarification would plead only a single special case, as Blackburne suggests, or introduce collateral damage that was unacceptable as Blueboar suggests, then no change should be made. However, the scenarios of Blueboar where unintended consequences could occur actually are not possible under the clarification, and the argument of Blackburne that the only case of its sort ever to arise is the one subject to this RfC is improbable in view of the opinion expressed by several here that applying NOR and SYN to figures is just fine even when they accurately reflect acceptable WP text. So in answer to your suggestion, yes, the problem is indeed with the way policy is currently worded. Brews ohare (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, if as you assert this is a widespread problem please provide links to the disputes. You may think it "improbable" that it's only come up once but as the editor wanting to change policy it is for you to provide evidence that there is a problem that needs addressing. If it is a serious problem it should be easy to find examples.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Blackburne: I think clear arguments are presented that a minor clarification would make WP:OI more useful. Neither your objections nor Blueboar's discredit the proposal. Engaging in a dispute over whether problems are 'widespread' and just what criteria specify a 'real' example adds nothing to the discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• COMMENT - I think our current wording works best... specifically because it is flexible and doesn't try to spell out in detail what is and is not acceptable. In broad terms, I appreciate what Brews is attempting to say. If a user created chart/graph/data presenting image sticks to simply illustrating the text of the article in graphic form, it should be OK (as long as the text itself is well sourced and not OR). However, it is very easy to unintentionally slide over the line into OR (especially SYNTH) when presenting data in pictorial form... even when we try to "simply illustrate the text".

This potential for OR makes it very difficult to write definitive policy statements about user created data presenting images... So much depends on examining the specific data presented in the image. For example, 99% of the information presented in an image might be absolutely fine, with only one small bit of data slipping into OR. Take that one bit out, and the rest of the image is acceptable.

And because so much depends on the specifics of the individual image, I don't think we can (or should) say more than we currently do. Each image has to be judged on a case by case basis. As long as we focus on the principles that underlie WP:NOR when making those judgements, we generally get it right... attempting to create a more narrow definition of what is and is not acceptable, and in what situations, will just create more problems than it resolves. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar: You express unease that a figure may 'slide over the line' into SYN or OR and WP needs a sufficiently 'flexible' policy to allow handling such cases. You example a figure 99% right and only 1% wrong, and thus slipping through the cracks. Does the suggested policy change facilitate such problems? No, it does not. If the data in the figure is represented in the text, then the error in the figure is also in the text. The proposal suggests that the erroneous text should be challenged and corrected. Of course, fixing the figure will follow the fixing of the text. On the other hand, if the figure presents material not in accompanying text, but presents information supplemental to the accompanying text, it is immediately clear that this figure does not fall into the category of the proposal, which is limited to figures faithfully illustrating accompanying text.

The problem with the present wording, Blueboar, as your comment illustrates, is that its 'flexibility' not only allows for incorrect interpretation, but invites it on a case-by-case basis. This case-by-case orientation suggest criticism that should focus on incorrect text should be directed instead at the accompanying figure, and this focus injects the notion that these figures can somehow be judged for OR and SYN independently of the text they faithfully illustrate. Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I should expand on my comment as I think it's relevant here. I think the current image policy exists mostly for two reasons. To allow for photos of e.g. buildings, people, animals, artworks to illustrate articles. These photos are easily created by editors and can also be found online with suitable licenses. And for diagrams, often ones that exist in books, such as textbooks used as sources. The diagrams can't be used directly, much as the text can't; while the text can be paraphrased the diagrams can be recreated.

In almost all cases the diagrams on WP are similar to those in textbooks, academic papers and similar sources; there is no OR as the editors can point to those sources. They rarely need to as those working on the topic will be familiar with the sources and so know what is appropriate and relevant. Editors rarely need to create diagrams unlike those in sources. If none exist, in any of the sources, then it is likely the topic does not admit to a graphical representation. This is the case in many mathematics articles, where the topic is to abstract to be easily diagrammed.

So whether an image is OR very rarely arises; almost always it's a photo or a diagram like those in sources. As such is is best resolved on a case by case basis, and doesn't need a change in policy. This might change if the issue arose again and again, so e.g. if there were many disputes over image OR that editors find it hard to resolve within the current policy. But I can't think of any, apart from the one preceding this discussion at Talk:Conceptualization (information science).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There are very many examples of original and acceptable figures that do not fit into your scenarios, Blackburne. Here are a few. The reason they have not been subject to ridiculous objections is just that there weren't ridiculous ill-informed editors to raise them. However, policy should be clarified to make sure the ridiculous does not happen. Brews ohare (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean instances of disputes over images. As for the rest of your comment: WP:NPA.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Brew's I suggest you redact (not strike) that remark fully, given your block history its enough to earn you another lengthy one. The problem at the article concerned is that (in my opion) you are using the diagram to create a synthesis of material in several sources. So you are not illustrating the material you are creating something original not fully contained in the test. The fact that you keep coming here to try and get policy changes to support your position on a content dispute on an article is disruptive of itself.----Snowded ^TALK 06:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: It would be helpful if you read the discussion here. Besides other matters, it discusses the use of a figure to describe text. In such cases, many here feel the present policy is clear that 'original' figures are fine if they do not introduce controversial material without sourcing. In particular, if they simply illustrate text that is considered acceptable, the figures also are acceptable. Your approach is a clear indication that the policy is not clear to you, and for editors like you, a clarification would be helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop assuming that because people disagree with you that they can't have read the material. I have, including the multiple comments from editors who think there is no need to change policy. I have also read the personal attacks and if you don't redact them I am going to raise an ANI report, or ask an admin who has handled you before to look at the issue. Your call, but consider this fair warning. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Nothing you say above relates to the consideration of the proposed clarification. I reiterate that you do not understand the policy as written, and that this misunderstanding is very clear from your remarks about it. Therefore, a clarification would be helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see you redacting or apologising for the 'ridiculous ill-informed editors' comments. If you don't do that by tomorrow UK time I am going to raise it along with your various edit comment summaries. Your call ----Snowded ^TALK 20:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: This discussion is hardly the place for threats. If you interpret my remarks personally, that is upon you. Stick to the discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Difficult not to take "ridiculous ill-informed" other than personally Brews. Also its not a threat its a promise. You have a long track record now of snide comments and direct attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere. It matches behaviour for which you have previously received both blocks and topic bans. Your call where you take this. I am going to bed, but will put time into a report tomorrow if needed ----Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Another thought... consider the following situation... an article contains a complex chain of information in the text. It combines information from several sources, but in a way that does NOT violate NOR. Then someone comes along and says "you know, we could make all this much easier for the reader to understand if we present it in graphic form". He/she creates an image. At this point that image would meet Brews's proposal... faithfully illustrating acceptable non-OR text. Now, lets say another editor says "Wow...yeah... that is much easier to understand. In fact... it is so much easier, why do we even bother trying to explain it in written words? Why not just present the information in graphic form." So, that editor removes the complicated chain of text that the image was illustrating. Does the image suddenly become unacceptable OR because it no longer illustrates information presented in the text? If we accept Brews's proposed language, I could see someone arguing that it would. That bothers me. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar: You raise the important point that history can enter into the use of policy, and the policy must think ahead. The example you suggest is that a figure that was once included under the proposed change can, through later editing, become a stand-alone figure if the text is removed as a result of the 'one figure is worth 1000 words' principle. However, once the text is stripped away, the remaining figure is no longer within the category of 'figures faithfully illustrating accompanying text', so the newly stand-alone figure must stand or fall under OR and SYN applied to itself. Any policy change must make this point clear. Brews ohare (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely that a stand-alone figure challenged on the basis of OR or SYN will result in some supporting text being added to supply sources where the information underlying the figure can be found. That will bring the figure back into the category of 'figures faithfully illustrating accompanying text'. The discussion is then brought back to a consideration of text. Brews ohare (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What should not happen is that a figure be labeled SYN because it illustrates points raised in several sources (for example, definitions) or OR because it uses a graphical organization somewhat different from published figures (for example, bars instead of pies). Such 'artistic license' is explicitly allowed by policy if it is clarified that all the figure must do is correctly illustrate an acceptable WP text. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Meta comments

Brews, have any of your proposals for NOR ever been accepted? It seems like there's a new one every time I turn around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

He only comes here when he has a content dispute elsewhere :-) You could also ask him if anyone has ever responded to his multiple RfCs etc. etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you two care to take a little time off your food fight to comment regarding improving policy in this area? Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the policy. What is wrong is trying to change policy to win a content dispute. To do this repeatedly, despite being already warned about it, is disruptive.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Blackburne: Unwarranted unsubstantiated pure bull. The discussion stands on its own as a clarification of policy, and your spite and bile have no place here. Brews ohare (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Brews, this isn't spite and bile, at least not on my part. The question is about your effect on this page. You seem to make a lot of proposals here, and I can't remember any of them having any result other than a refusal. If my impression is accurate, then it would probably be best overall for you to stop making policy-related proposals. (By "best", I mean that you would quit wasting your time making these doomed proposals, and multiple other people would quit spending hours refusing to accept any proposal that you make.) I'd rather have this be voluntary, but we could look into an RFC/U or see whether ArbCom is willing to consider expanding your existing TBAN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there! There's no earthquake here, no seismic activity, no Amazon butterfly's wing causing chaos in Kansas. No need for venting or vomit. It's just a proposal for a tweak of policy. No hidden conspiracy, no unholy contagion. WP:AGF, bro. Brews ohare (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, Brews. (And I'm "ma'am", not "bro".) But I'm beginning to lose my ability to assume competence. Being a useful encyclopedia editor does not make you a capable policy writer. It's a different skill set. If you're not very good at writing policies (e.g., if you've noticed that your proposals are never accepted), then it would be efficient for you to give up on policy proposals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake in gender. My assessment is that changes in WP policy hardly ever occur. I don't think this rigidity stems from a lack of good proposals for change, or a lack of need for change. But despite the situation, one can try to clear things up so unending Talk page disputes can be reduced by having very clearly stated policies that don't require ArbCom actions to settle them. If things on WP were different, those with more skill in drafting policy could help to address a problem when one surfaces. Instead we have this kind of flack. Brews ohare (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I helped improve a guideline just the other day, based on a good talk-page suggestion from an unregistered editor. On the same talk page, there's another editor griping about how it's impossible to get consensus to make any changes to that particular guideline. I don't think it's impossible to change guidelines and policies. I do it fairly regularly. It depends more on the proposals you making. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well... it does tend to be hard to make changes to our core policies (like this one). Even small changes can require a lot of discussion and debate before a consensus forms to either accept them or reject them. Of course, I happen to think that is a good thing. Our core policies shouldn't change easily. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please help to conclude discussion about numerical data

The discussions about WP:CALC and summaries of numerical data are on hold: the detailed rules and recommendations are "in consolidation and review" here.

Please collaborate with critiques, editions, etc. at the essay Wikipedia:About Valid Routine Calculations.

--Krauss (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About Valid Routine Calculations

Someone has started an essay Wikipedia:About Valid Routine Calculations intended to augment WP:CALC. Ostensibly it seems to me to be much more permissive than the WP:CALC, and to disregard the consensus of many past discussions on this talk page. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... it does seem a tad more permissive than was intended by CALC. I would suggest either working with the essay's author to amend that, or starting a "counter-viewpoint" essay of your own, to express your interpretation of the policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Justifying "widely" by using numerous sources

Often an article says "X is widely regarded as Y", without providing a reference that actually says "widely", in whatever words. Instead, some number of references are supplied, each saying "X is Y" or "X is regarded as Y". It is left to the reader to judge whether this number of references equates to "widely".

IMHO, merely providing a bunch of references, then saying "widely" should be regarded as Original Research. (After all, an equal number of references saying "X is NOT Y" could possibly be found.) Also IMHO, the definition of Original Research should be expanded to explicitly include this situation. Lou Sander (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what you are referring to. Sometimes X really IS widely regarded as being Y. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's normally considered original research to determine that something is "widely" the case without good sourcing that says so. Formerip (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I would go even further: it is not even OR; it is a typical WP:WEASEL: how widely? why says so? how widely the 'opposite-X' is regarded as 'Y'? etc. Sounds seriously but in fact close to useless as fact under close inspection. Of course, we may not be able to prevent wikipedia from entering such weaselisms from sources, but better not multiply them ourselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I find that this problem is best addressed by all the editors doing an open-minded review of the available sources, and then honestly asking themselves whether this description is accurate. If it is, then they should accept it in the spirit of accurately summarizing the entire corpus of sources (i.e., what editors are supposed to be doing here); if it's not, then they shouldn't permit it. You simply aren't going to find an explicit statement for some things, e.g., that the current US President is "widely regarded as being a US citizen" or "the Earth is widely regarded as being mostly round" because these facts are so widely accepted that nobody felt it necessary to expressly say so: they just say that he is a US citizen and that the Earth is round. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anybody would want to put the two your explicit examples into wikipedia either. I stand to my point that "widely regarded" is "mostly widely weasel". Case in point: your first example: the phase "the current US President is widely regarded as being a US citizen" may sound rather ridiculous for one who is aware that POTUS is a CITUS by definition of the office, unless one have heard you know what. But in the latter case the "widely regarded" may sound as a snide remark, rather than encyclopedic information. And in fact, a complementary statement would be encyclopedic instead: "some attempted to argue that the current US P to illegally occupy the office". And most surely both your and mine statements about POTUS can be readily supplied with solid refs, if challenged. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Therefore I'd rather reuse yours: "the editors doing an open-minded review of the available sources and then honestly asking themselves," why would anyone write "widely regarded"? Is there a significant dissent? Was there a small but vocal controversy? etc. If an answer on one of these provocative questions is "yes", then it is probably a topic of a paragraph or two, and while writing one will readily come with both good references and more sensible phrasing. Otherwise your version of "open-minded review" is plain post-factum OR (WP:SYNTH). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that saying "widely", etc. without a source that also says it, should be specifically identified as Original Research (though maybe it's enough to call it weaseling). The specific activity that I've often seen is to say "widely", then support it with a bunch of citations, none of which says "widely". The second paragraph of Rupert Sheldrake contains an example. Lou Sander (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually (IMHO) the use of "widely" in the second paragraph of Rupert Sheldrake could be OK, because the secondary sources cited in support do make statements about the general view among scientists. The sources cited say, "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash." and "...most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash...". As long as the sources used are reliable (I haven't checked), that use of "widely" is supported. Zad68 03:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually in is not OK. I am sorry to rephrase myself for the third time, but please, please try to remember that the words "widely" and "general view" are way not the same. (I trust you may find 10 differences and a partridge in a pear tree yourself.) And there is no reason to substitute one for another, especially with these sources cited at hand. Of course, there are legitimate usages of the word "widely". There are even cases when 29% is wide enough to be "widely". At the same time English language is flexible enough in expression: "vast majority", "significant majority", "a large number of", "vocal minority"... -- all of them may be collapsed into "widely", but will it be informative? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, if I were doing a GA review of an article and saw such a use of the word "widely" like that I'd flag it as WP:WEASEL and ask for it to be corrected. WP:WEASEL gives "it is widely thought" as an explicit example. It can be a WP:OR problem as well, as laid out in the original question (who is doing the counting of the sources? how are we sure all the most authoritative sources are being reviewed?) but WP:WEASEL should stop it in its tracks before we even have to worry about that. Zad68 02:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Historical inaccuracies" sections

A recent thread on the OR noticboard ("The White Queen (TV series)#Historical Inaccuracies") has brought up an issue that has been bothering me for a long time. It is quite common for articles on historical novels, films TV shows etc to have sections about historical inaccuracies. It has long been asserted by some editors that it is WP:SYN to list such alleged inaccuracies unless they have been noted by WP:RS with specific reference to the film, novel etc in question. In other words, the argument is that it is not enough to cite a reliable source on the historical facts themselves. I want to question this, because I think it's one of those areas in which anti-OR dogmatism damages the project. The point of WP:OR is to prevent people presenting their pet ideas as though they are accepted fact, are more significant or have more justification than mainstream opinion asserts. In this case, the effect is actually to suppress mainstream opinion in order to leave deviations from historical fact unchallenged. This is because the content of the novel or film can be described without citation, but comment on it cannot. I have long felt that this is a kind of perversion of the spirit and intent of WP:OR and that we should stop repeating the mantra that reliable sources have to have directly commented on "inaccuracies" in films and TV shows with historical content before we can note these.

As far as I can see cases like this are similar to the issue of whether making arithmetical calculations (WP:CALC), or writing translations, are OR. If there is nothing to dispute then the concept of OR is inappropriate because there is in fact no "synthesis" occurring. If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film/novel shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original research, because no new idea is being "sythesised". It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year. Now, I accept that there are ambiguous cases, but uncertainites about the facts are a separate issue. By adopting the approach advocated by some editors we damage the encyclopedia by excluding information that is verifiable and which serves the purpose to inform. In addition, as I said above, this is actually one of those aspects of historical fiction that people are most interested in, for perfectly good reasons. They want to know how much of it is true. We do not serve readers by excluding information that is not in dispute. I think we need a clarification of OR policy similar to WP:CALC to address this issue. Paul B (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a very real and good point here, although I see one possible problem, even if it is a minor one. There are a lot of "alternate history" fiction out there, like that of Harry Turtledove, which is more or less based on the "what if" scenario. Articles on such works of fiction could easily be bogged down with the specific details regarding how they deviate from reality. Also, the same could be said about a lot of contemporary fantasy, including a lot of comic books, like say Aquaman, which seem to be based on what is more or less the real world, with some variations, like, with Aquaman, the existence of his Atlantis. Personally, I wouldn't want anyone to think Braveheart is historically accurate, it isn't, but I don't know how much space in our content to give such material in general. Having said that, personally, I wouldn't find making it possible to add a little material along the lines of "a fictionalized account of (whatever)" in a lot of cases of this type, although, I suppose, in at least some cases, the movie or whatever might be based on a seriously "alternative" (or fringe) theory which isn't necessarily "fictionalized." And I don't know how many might qualify as that. I agree there is a problem, but be damned if I myself know how to rewrite things to address it. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies sections, like "differences from the book" or the like, fall into WP:TRIVIA and even if obvious (like a show stating an event happened in one year when there's universal agreement it happened in a different year), should only be included if other sources have pointed them out, unless, as John Carter points out, this is intentionally part of the show's fiction, a "what if" show if certain events happened in different ways. (I can't think of any immediate clear examples, but one close case that comes to mind is the alternate universe in Fringe (TV series) where certain events happened differently and shaped that universe in a different fashion that leads to the fundamental premise of the show. However, at the same time, these differences have been noted in sources so there's no guesswork here). So unless the historical inaccuracy is critical to the show's plot, such sections should be avoided unless called out by sources. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

strongly support Masem. "historical inaccuracies" in a work of fiction are only important in an encyclopedia article if we can include a an answer to a "Why should we care?" or "What was the impact?"- and both of those require that third party sources have noted the inaccuracy and its impact. If inaccuracies are important and relevant to an encyclopedia article, then reliable sources would have covered them. We do not do the investigation and research, we merely aggregate what professionals have already published about the topic. CALC covers a very different situation from what is being suggested. I dont believe there is any way to write guidance about interpretations of history or cultural programs that can effectively identify clear cut boundaries.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

These responses are, I think, to some extent addressing a separate issue. Yes, articles can be bogged down in pointless detail when people want to list too many of the deviations-from-fact, and there is a tendency for such sections to grow out of control like those "in popular culture" ones. That's also true of the "differences from the book" sections, as you say. But that's a quite different question from the matter at issue: which is what constitutes WP:OR. I wouldn't want to add pointless material like "King Fred was 5 foot tall, but the actor portraying him in the film is 5 foot 6". Of course that's silly, but that's an issue of undue weight, not of OR. Where the historical context is significant and relevant I think we should be able to add content without being accused of WP:SYN. Re John's comment about rewriting, I don't think the SYN section needs to be rewritten, but we could have a clarification paragraph like WP:CALC. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(e-C) You're right, but the hard part there can be determining in some cases if there is someone out there somewhere who honestly thinks that the movie might be presenting "the truth" as they see it. So, for example, I could see something like "the movie presents a fictionalized account from the perspective of a person not known to history" for some movies about history told from the viewpoint of an unknown, like Forrest Gump or Apocalypto, or maybe "the story presents a version of the Battle of Trafalgar in which the Egyptians win" or "promotes the view that Richard the Lionheart was a bisexual" or some similar phrasings like those. I can certainly see maybe allowing some such constructions in instances when the context is significant to the work in question. But there might well be all sorts of problems in determining how significant they have to be.

Regarding the addition about a clarification paragraph, I could agree with that, if we had RS which indicated the "nonstandard" nature of the ideas being discussed. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If we can do it for these cases, what's different about doing it for fringe stuff such as Where Troy Once Stood? Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We really have three situations here:

1) Historical Fiction... ie purely fictional stories set in the past. We don't expect fiction to be historically accurate, so pointing out where some work of fiction gets history wrong really is TRIVIA. That said, in the case of Alternate History fiction (or "what if" fiction) to note the point of divergences (as these are important to the plot.)

2) Biographical fiction... ie novels and movies that claim to present the life of a historical person. We do expect a biography to be accurate... but we also understand that biographical fiction may take liberties. So pointing out where a work of biographical fiction gets it's history wrong is appropriate if the error is a doozy... but don't note minor trivial errors. To prevent OR, only note errors that have been highlighted in sources.

3) Pseudo-scholarship... ie books where the author is at least claiming to present fact... actual history. We expect scholarship to get facts right... and if the author does not, I don't think it wrong to highlight it. For example, if an author makes a big point of saying that King Athelstan traveled to York on a given date... and reliable sources say that Athelstan actually was in Winchester at the time, note the disagreement and cite the reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have always thought to correct approach to historical inaccuracies in fiction was simply to link to articles on the actual historical figures/events. Readers who want to learn the actual history will follow the links. People do not read about a fictional TV series to learn about history, and if they do, we can't help them. The same goes for lists of "scientific inaccuracies" in the articles of some sci-fi movies. If the inaccuracies are so significant that journalists/historians/scientists have written about them, then they may be appropriate to mention. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad approach, but it presents a problem regarding what Blueboar above calls pseudo-scholarship, including some of the whack-job pseudoscience. I know for a fact, for instance, that there have been a lot of recent popular books regarding the field of early Christianity which have put forward ideas which have little if any support in the fields of biblical studies/ancient near east studies/christian studies, but which have gotten generally neutral-to-favorable reviews along the lines of "interesting idea," but may not be submitted to any academic journals. So, the library reviews might say "recommended" because the conspiracy theory people like books like these, even though the academic journals, if the works were submitted to them, might call them unfounded, irrational, highly speculative, or, well, nuts. In such cases, yeah, the material based on the independent reliable sources under the current structure would be generally positive, even if, unfortunately, the ideas presented in the works are, maybe, held to be about as reliable as saying that the Greek or Egyptian equivalent of John F. Kennedy was the bastard descendant of their equivalent of Abe Lincoln by their equivalent of Sally Hemmings. In a lot of material of that type, the existing library journal reviews might basically say, "could be" (because no one knows enough to say it can't be) and "interesting" (because it is interesting and appealing to those who find such appealing), and might even recommend that libraries buy it. But that don't mean anyone in the relevant academic community thinks the writer said anything worthwhile. And, unfortunately, that sort of situation happens more than I think a lot of us would like. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about articles on pseudoscholarship-related topics, or the use of pseudoscholarship sources? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably, to some degree, both. Some editors probably know more about this than me, but at least in the broad fields where history and religion interact there have been claims in the past when people have attempted to use a recently released popular book as evidence of some new and groundbreaking theory, and in some cases, like Zoroastrinaism, let's say, which doesn't get a lot of coverage, it can be really hard, and sometimes impossible, to say that a popular book by an academic might not be in some way reflective of an idea gaining broader acceptance. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR/WP:SYN and retroactive use of new names

FYI, I have started a discussion here about whether or not using a person's new name when discussing periods of their life during which they were known by another name violates wp:Verifiability, wp:No original research and/or wp:Synthesis (as some have claimed).

The note at the top of this page suggested I post this to WP:NOR/N, I but decided that because it pertained to a phenomenon (the retroactive use of a new name), not just to any specific instance of the phenomenon, it made the most sense to leave the notice here.

-sche (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at how we deal with cities that have changed their names... we refer to St. Petersburg for most of the article, but use Petrograd and Leningrad where historically appropriate. I don't think there would be a problem doing this with people. Blueboar (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources required for music

Hi all, can anyone advise on whether sources are required when describing music? If I can hear a flute in the excerpt of a tune freely available at iTunes, is it Original Research for me to state there is a flute in that tune, if I can't cite a documentary source? I couldn't see a rule on this in the Talk Page archive, although it is discussed in the last ten paragraphs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_28#I_Challenge_the_Following. (The reason I ask is the reversion of my 6 Sept edit to Sven Väth). (Chorleypie (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC))

if you were just stating there was a flute in a flute solo, the knowledge of what a flute sounds like is probably common enough knowledge that it probably wouldnt need a source (although, today synthesized flutes make the actual identification pretty difficult). However, your edit inserts quite a bit more than "there was a flute solo" and would need a reliable source to support that depth of analysis and commentary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. To me, the edit is the same depth of analysis as stating a genre in the infobox, yet I've not seen a single citation for any genre in any musical article; so maybe they should all be deleted. (Chorleypie (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC))

It probably wouldn't serve you well to rush out and do so. But, yes, if the genre classification is ever challenged, the editor wishing to restore it is supposed to provide a source to back their claim. And if the genre is sourced in the body, it does not need to be specifically sourced again in the infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Identifying the main genre for a work is akin to noting a flute in a flute solo - it should be intuitively obvious and sourcing not really required (but helpful). On the other hand, to identify sub-genres that are not obviously would be identify a flute instrument in the lead but backed by a full orchestra, that its presence no longer is obvious by sound alone to the untrained ear, and thus should have sourcing. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Genoa, Italy was where Christopher Columbus was born.

No one is truly sure of where Christopher Columbus was born because many say Genoa, Italy but some say Ireland and Germany!

and some say the earth is flat.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Routine Calculation

Can high school mathematics and formula derivation be considered as routine calculation?

Leungcwd (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally nothing more complex than basic addition / subtraction / multiplication / division. Converting into percentages.

If you are talking about high school pre-calc, no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR and article structure

As a matter for general discussion I'd like to solicit comments regarding a particular form of WP contribution, a form common in academia, but perhaps not so well accepted on WP. An example can be found in a typical section of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It takes the form of a series of statements supported by citations to various sources, often primary sources.

This form of contribution is subject to various reservations. Most noticeable are these two

1. Has the source been fairly represented, or is its position oversimplified or otherwise misstated?

2. Have the chosen sources been selected to convey the full spectrum of opinion, or have they been cherry-picked to represent a particular view of the subject?

Now it seems to me that answers to these queries should take a detailed form:

Query (1) is is best approached by a skeptical WP editor on its Talk page by referring to the source in question and discussing various possible alternative quotations from that source, or with quotes from other works by that author, to determine whether the author's position has been adequately presented. Or, by quoting from a general survey that summarizes that author's position.

Query (2) is best approached by a skeptical WP editor on its Talk page by citing other sources that espouse a different viewpoint. Alternatively, a review article or encyclopedia article can be cited that shows a wider spectrum of opinion exists.

However, I find that WP editors often do not approach the matter in this way. Instead the matter is approached with one of these statements:

A. The contribution uses primary sources, and that is inadmissible according to WP:Primary.

B. The contribution is in conflict with WP:OR simply because this particular selection of sources is the contributor's choice (regardless of whether that selection is objective and wide-ranging, which assessment is taken to be simply irrelevant).

C. Such contributions are on the very face of it inadmissible by WP:OR unless they are a paraphrase of 'third-party' treatments and use the same sources. (According to the definition of 'third party' in WP:THIRDPARTY as "one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered", reviews like those comprising the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not qualify as third-party sources, because they are written by experts in the field, who are far from 'independent' of the subject, but instead are most often actively contributing to the literature they review. In short, 'third-party' sources are largely a chimera, an unrealizable dream.)

By using approaches A - C the skeptic can short-circuit the possibly lengthy Talk page interactions that the previously suggested detailed approaches might entail. Instead the skeptic can use a short in-line editorial comment like Violates WP:OR or Violates WP:Primary and revert the contribution without further comment. A protest by the contributor is met with the reply Read the policy, a rather baffling rebuttal that refuses further engagement, and is actually a misuse of policy. Such 'hit-and-run' reversions are extremely common on WP, and I think they are damaging the encyclopedia by making it unduly difficult to add to articles.

I would like the policy to be worded explicitly so that cursory rejection of such academically structured contributions can be forced instead to provide the more detailed and source-oriented response that this type of contribution deserves. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I would send the following notice to every editor (especially the new ones)...

• YOU JUST GOT REVERTED... NOW WHAT? Wikipedia has lots and lots of policies, guidelines, and rules... and, sooner or later, you will contribute something that another editor thinks violates one of these Policies, guidelines and rules. When this occurs your contribution will be reverted. This is part of the normal give and take of editing Wikipedia... so DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. Everyone gets reverted eventually. If you have had a contribution reverted:
  • 1) DON'T PANIC. All the hard work that went into your contribution has not been lost forever. Your work has been saved in the article's history, and can easily be retrieved (just ask an experienced editor for assistance).
  • 2) DON'T SIMPLY UN-REVERT. Instead, find out why you have been reverted and try to resolve the concern. If you do not understand why your contribution was reverted... go to the article talk page (or to the other editor's talk page) and ASK for clarification. If you are lucky, the other editor will take the time to fully explain his/her concerns... but, more often, he/she will start off by simply pointing you to the relevant policies and guidelines... Read them... and then (if you still don't understand) come back and ask further questions until you are clear as to what the other editor's concerns are.
  • Finally 3) see if your contribution can be amended or adapted in a way that resolves his/her concerns. Work with the other editor, not against him/her.
• If after reading the relevant policy page and a discussion with the other editor, you still do not understand why you were reverted, you can often get additional guidance from neutral uninvolved editors, by asking questions at the relevant policy talk pages and noticeboards.

If a notice like this were posted to every new editor when they first log into Wikipedia, it would do a lot to help editors realize that being reverted is not the end of the world. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My purpose here was not to lament the end of the world, but to point out a misuse of the one-line edit summary in a manner intended to shut off discussion by peremptory reference to WP:OR or WP:Primary without further explanation beyond Read the policy. In more detail, for the type of contribution considered here, namely an academic presentation of a variety of sourced opinion about a topic, I would like to see comment upon modifying the policy WP:OR to explicitly caution against a fallacious rush to reversion based upon items A-C listed above. Brews ohare (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Academic writing has as its intended purpose the author taking Fact A + Fact B to lead the reader to a novel conceptualization of the world not specifically identified by A or B.

That purpose and method is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's core policies. And one line edit summaries cutting off endless talk page about something that is not allowed in Wikipedia is probably a good thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom: The purpose of some academic writing, as you point out, is for the author to state some background and then go on to make their original contribution. That is not the subject here. The subject here is contributions that attempt to summarize a topic and support the accuracy of that summary with citations. Such activity is nature of most encyclopedias (for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, and so on) and WP is not an exception to this. However, the one-line edit summary is easily (and often) misused to make cursory reversion of such contributions, usually based upon the erroneous justifications A-C listed above. Avoidance of such events is the topic of this discussion, and it is not what you are talking about. Brews ohare (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Brews, to be truly honest, what's happening is your method of additions and what you believe is proper encyclopedic material conflicts with what WP considers to be true. As Red points out above, academic writing is free to introduce hypothesis and analysis - we cannot - we have to stop at summarizing sources and need to avoid the next step of even potentially directing the reader to a novel conclusion not given in sources. Further, the issues you have with limited edit summary use are out of line. Given that nearly all your edits over the past month have been on Dilemma of determinism and its talk page (and thus expected to have a reasonable handle on what has been discussed on the talk page before), and that you are established editor that should have a good handle on how editing and talk pages work, being reverted with a simple "see talk page" is completely reasonable - that means you should either find established discussion or a new section by the reverting editor to explain the reasoning for the change. (It would be bitey if it was a newer user). Further, you tend to break the WP:BRD cycle a lot, so even on 2nd and beyond reverts, short summaries are completely appropriate since the message was given in the earlier ones. I don't see this as an OR issue, but a behavioral one. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: I have tried to be extremely clear about this matter in my response to RPoD, and I will repeat myself to you. There is nothing in what is under discussion that involves original research. Nothing at all. There is no introduction of hypothesis unless that hypothesis is that of a published author in a reliable source. There is no analysis except that published in a a reliable source. There is no construction of novel conclusions not found in published sources. The presentation of a WP editor's personal hypothesis or personal analysis are clear violations WP policy and there is no argument about that here.

I am not interested in reducing this discussion to the particulars of my experience on Dilemma of determinism. I am interested in fixing WP:OR as a matter of general policy, independent of the peculiarities of any one example, where there are multiple complicating red herrings of personality, past history, and deafness of ear that muddy the waters.

This all being so, can we discuss the issues that are actually raised about the misuse of the excuses A-C to justify erroneous reversions? Brews ohare (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the policy which needs 'fixing', or at least you have not identified any. Nor is there anything wrong with BRD. It should be used with care with new editors not familiar with it but you are not a new editor and are very familiar with WP's guidelines and practices, or should be. They have been explained to you many times before, you do not need a detailed explanation every time you ignore them. Finally you are no position to advise other editors how to use edit summaries given your repeated refusal to use them properly yourself. You persist in using meaningless single word and blank edit summaries when making content edits, even though the guidelines on this are clear and have been pointed out to you many times.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Blackburne: No comment has been made here so far about WP:BRD. Rather, the issue identified above is the listed A-C misuses of WP:OR to support cursory reversion of contributions of a specific structure, a structure like those used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The suggestion up for discussion is that invalid excuses like A-C be made explicitly and obviously unusable by appropriate rewording of WP:OR. You are yourself a champion of the 'hit-and-run' reversion technique based upon the cryptic one-line edit summary, so I understand your reluctance to address the real issue here and, instead of being on topic, devote your remarks to my chastisement. Brews ohare (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, a core policy is not going to be changed because you don't like it. If you really feel you have valuable content to contribute, but WP's guidelines prevent you, there are many other places you can contribute it to, from general encyclopaedias like Citizendium to endless specialist ones such as those hosted on Wikia. But the guidelines aren't going to be reworded, i.e. rewritten, to accommodate you. It's simply not going to happen.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly here because you can't get your way at Dilemma of determinism where you've been told repeated that your additions, though not "wrong", aren't in the spirit of our polices on OR. The fact that you have repeated added the same point over and over and repeat the arguments ad infinitum (as you also did for Whaam! and its FAC) despite the rest of the participants saying "no" is just beating a dead horse, and so when you go add again' the same information, a curt edit summary is completely fair. You're trying to change this policy to win your battle there to make it difficult for your additions to be reverted without a detailed summary, but that's exactly why we use talk pages, since the edit summary only has so many usable characters. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: No thanks for the accolade. Again you divert the discussion to a discussion about myself, and avoid the topic raised. Your assumptions about my motivations are bogus, and violate WP:AGF. BTW, your last sentences appear a bit incoherent. Yes, I am against misuse of the in-line summary, so consequently, although you seem to think my position is different, I support a Talk-page discussion (based upon the listed 'Query 1' and 'Query 2'), but one that is not erroneously based upon the fallacious reasons A-C. Maybe you could be clearer? Brews ohare (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Because you gave no context for your original statement, I had to go back to your user contribution history to figure out possibly where this was happened as to why you've brought it up here (a common action anyone would do if they found themselves stuck in an argument over policy on a talk page). And when I see pages after pages of the same article and its talk page as the only contributions from you from the last month-ish, and reading those contributions, it's clear why you brought the topic up here. The points A-C are all present in that article, but your statement here lacks context. For example, there is no restriction against point A about using primary sources - they can be used to supplement secondary and tertiary sources. But you can't take a primary source and one or more other sources and make novel claims from that, which, reading through the Dilemma's discussion, is part of why you are being reverted. Especially in the case of Dilemma where most of the data is going to be qualitative and not quantitative, editors are going to be very careful of introducing novel thoughts. The same applies with B+C too. There are reasons on articles that are about metaphysics to stay as close to the sources as possible. And actually I'm assuming AGF in what you're doing - you're free to raise the issue and which you did on the talk page which is completely correct - the problem is that you can't back away from the discussion and continue to beat the dead horse after being shown consensus against your additions. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: Thank you for your more temperate response. Of course, my concern over this matter has an origin in my history, and the events on Talk:Dilemma of determinism are part of that. However the issue as I have proposed it, whatever its inspiration, exists in the abstract, and is independent of the circumstances of its birth.

As I understand you, you agree that points A-C are incorrect interpretations of WP:OR. I believe that your points about correct criticism of the type of article I am discussing is indeed of the form listed as 'Query 1' and 'Query 2'. You have not, however, offered any opinion upon the advisability of changing WP:OR to make such misinterpretation less likely.

As for beating a dead horse - this is of course, your advice about how I should conduct Talk-page discussion. I would be happy to engage further with such advice on my Talk page if you would be interested to do that. In particular, I would like to discuss with you whether 'beating a dead horse' is really what is going on there. I'd argue that my 'beating a dead horse' is my repeated exhortation that editor Snowded actually engage. Further discussion of these events is not germane to this thread, however, and I invite your attention (and Snowded's, should he so desire) on my Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree A-C are "wrong", but again, you didn't have context and I had to look back, and its clear from the discussion that you oversimplified what their replies were to the situation. Yes, they told you primary sources can't be used, but that was in relation to making a novel thought, for example (and highlighting that for a primarily metaphysical topic like that, its very easy to introduce novel thoughts). And again, I see the same behavior there on Dilemma as I saw on the FAC with Whaam - you make a suggestion (which is good), you're told that's not appropriate, and then you continue to argue the point. The reason Snowded hasn't bothered to engage more recently is that you've made the same points over and over, and they've responded back at the start, and thus there's no reason to repeat the arguments over and over, and hence why the reverts have terse change messages. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: Whatever the merits of your assessment (and I would debate them elsewhere), the gist of your comment as it applies to this thread appears to be that although the proposed A-C are incorrect uses of WP:OR, their misuse does not arise on WP, so there is no reason to change WP:OR. If I wish to proceed with my advocacy, I must come up with enough examples to demonstrate a statistically meaningful problem and not just a possible problem. These examples will then be dissected one by one to establish that they are indeed examples, and not just my imagination. Cases from my own experience are not to be counted, as they automatically exhibit a conflict of interest. If enough cases survive this winnowing process to seem an issue, then some policy change can be discussed. Have I got that right? Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This section starts out unclear and then hops all over the place making it very hard to know what it is actually about. I think that some here have been ignoring or deflecting or seeking to disparage Brews ohare's intelligent points with the "you're just angry that you didn't get your way at an article" bit.

A couple comments on Brew's initial point, and this is without any knowledge or analysis of the situation that it may have arisen from.

The backbone of well-written articles (which is intelligent weighted summarization of what is in sources) is illegal under a strict interpretation of wp:nor / wp;synth. If the summarizaiton looks problematic or if someone doesn't like it, they will invoke policies to knock it out. If not, it gets left in. While it sounds like I am describing a very hypocritical or screwed up situation, it actually works 95% of the time. It would be such a difficult and complex task to fix it that most first attempts would do more harm than good. For example, if you require that people have to "make the case" in order to remove material (vs just citing policies)(as is I think your main point) then you will tip the balance and have Wikipedia quickly fill up with crap. For years I have argued for what would be a good solution, that, in areas like this, someone would need to also voice (voice, NOT defend) a non-policy concern about the material when knocking it out but so far no success. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Per Blueboar: I also think Brew's points to new editors could be very useful. If I can understand his other points. I agree that often intelligent discussion is shut down with one line invocations to policy. This kind of thing is often the narrowest view and as such can support inaccurate content in articles.I could point out a couple of examples right now. What needs to be looked at is the volume of sources from authors, and comparisons of what is said in those sources. Then, decisions made about what sources most accurately represents the accurate viewpoint. At the same time there is room to include more fringe to this "mainstream" view point especially if the fringe views are in line cited. The problem I've seen is that many editors use the narrow view to support their POV versions and are afraid to venture into a larger discussion where their POV text would be dissolved in rational discussion. In my experience, I have only twice in all of my time on Wikipedia seen editors in a discussion approach an article in this more intellectually strenuous way. One was in Yogo Saphire and the other Grace Sherwood, both discussions led for the most part by Pumpkin Sky. It requires trust in and for all of the editors, and, well, maturity. I am thankful Brews brought this up. but as long as we have editors who use the policies narrowly to support POV content rather see the policies as the guides they are to create accurate content, and an accurate representation of the topic/subject, I don't see a way to bring two kinds of editors together.(olive (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

These are both completely valid points, in that there can come issues of OWN-type reactions to removing material that doesn't fit, and there's a fine line between removal because of OR concerns and removal because of IDONTLIKEIT reasons. It is important to understand that Brews' comments above came after the volume of talk page discussion on the Dilemma page (which for me I have zero interest in), which is a topic that can only be described in the qualitative sense and a subject of expert opinion without a lot of distinct facts. It would be far different if we were talking something much more tangible and less subjective, where if the matter being added met WP:V/WP:NOR/etc, and the editors removing it were doing it because they just didn't like it. But my impression on the Dilemma talk page is that the main editors there are carefully walking a tightrope on what is appropriate to include within the topic and what goes off kilter. Fortunately, there's not be editing warring here over it, just a lot of discussion following BRD-type inclusion by Brews, and reading through the highlights of that, I get the impression that the material that Brews wants in there is being appropriately removed to avoid disrupting the balance (I have no statement if that's factually correct or not since that's nowhere close to my knowledge base). In general, I would agree that if material added by an editor is removed and the reason for that removal is not clear to the editor that added it (that is, this would not include obvious vandalism poor/unsourced statements, or misinformation), then a good edit summary or a talk page discussion should be started to explain it, or for that user to add it. That way, it should become clear if the removal was due to OR concerns, due to IDONTLIKEIT, or other subtle reasons. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I am so happy that Littleolive oil and North8000 have recognized the issue and made substantial comments. Apparently Masem found your comments useful too.

Masem: Your belief that somehow a topic like Dilemma of determinism is different from another topic like, maybe Idée fixe (psychology), is correct as to differences in subject. However, there is no 'tightrope' requiring careful admission or denial of sources for philosophical subjects. There is no 'fine line' providing an opening for objecting on the basis of a cryptic reference to WP:OR to support an editor's personal gut feeling of "I don't like it". The correct approach to sources is (i) present the full spectrum of opinion and (ii) support those views with sources. If the sources are provided, and if the various POV's all are presented, the main objections available are about emphasis or selection of sources. Neither of these objections is a violation of WP:OR, or can be adequately summarized in a one-line edit summary. I suspect you agree with these remarks, but your preamble above seems to leave some kind of elbow-room for a merely opinionated objection, without reference to adequate sourcing but relying upon cryptic reference to WP:OR. Without even a specification of how it is violated, or what material is supposedly in violation. That kind of stone-walling is what I have objection to. Can you be more clear about how your views fit in? Brews ohare (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Brews you have a track record of trying to use policy forums to win content battles. Editors who have not had to deal with you, or who have not checked your lengthy record of blocks for disruptive editing may not immediately realise this, but it is pretty self evident. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Brews, in the Dilemma talk page, you rightly presented some alternative sources and viewpoints to include after you had been reverted (rightfully following BRD). But those viewpoints were rejected as not being appropriate to the topic of that article and trying to take the article in a direction that would call for creating OR to diverge from what the editors considered the topic to be. This is partially because of the metaphysical topic and highly subjective, and thus editors like Snowded are trying to keep a rein on the article going to weird places. But they did argue this point and did not ignore your initial statements, but you keep pushing which is the problem here. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: You raise an interesting point, which is the decision about what is relevant to a topic. That subject is, of course, outside the scope of WP:OR and so apparently is a side issue for this discussion. However, to engage in this diversion for a moment, it would seem that a skeptical editor could avoid the entire issue at stake here, and not resort to an erroneous appeal to A-C, but simply suggest that the material, however factual, is irrelevant. Now how is that to be settled? If there is a source that contends the material is part of the discussion of a topic, presumably that takes precedence over the opinion of the skeptical WP editor. Whatever decision about relevance is made, however, there should be Talk page discussion, and a willingness to compare notes. A WP editor should not rely on the one-line edit summary to settle such an issue.

To return to the proposal here, unrelated to evaluation of relevance of a contribution, the issue is whether to revise WP:OR to make clear that A-C are not valid uses of this policy. It seems to be agreed that this is so; the question then is whether policy can be rewritten to do that without running up against the issues raised by North8000 of making rejection of material too difficult. Frankly, if the policy has to be so loose in order to work that it allows a skeptical WP editor to invoke A-C as if that were a matter of interpretation of WP:OR, it is a problem, and an unnecessary one. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW (as one of the editors involved at Dilemma of determinism) I agree that what Brews here calls A-C should not be considered valid responses to a new contribution in and of themselves. However, I do not believe those are the kinds of responses that have been made at the article which prompted this request, so I am not sure that any change of policy is required. An OR-based reversion of the kinds of contributions Brews is trying to protect should supply more reason than just "that's OR", and in this case those kinds of reasons have been provided: reasons exactly like what Brews here calls "query 1" and "query 2". However, an objector to a new edit should not have to engage the new contributor in an unending debate about whether the new contribution accurately and neutrally summarizes the sources it is citing. Other editors saying "you are applying a biased or inaccurate interpretation to this material" should be enough.

I don't want to make this discussion about the content debate at Dilemma of determinism, but it provides a clear example of what concerns me: it appears to me that Brews does not understand the material that he is citing. He cites relevant authors with accurate quotes, but uses those to support a position that, speaking as someone well-versed in the subject, the quoted material simply does not in any way appear to support, unless by gross misunderstanding of what the quoted material is saying. Supplying counter-quotes would be a futile endeavor because the material I would quote to show what the author is really saying is the same quote Brews has already provided.

So to echo North8000, not all "intelligent weighted summarization" should be automatically rejected with nothing but an "original research" objection. But if one person's "intelligent weighted summarization" proves contentious, the relevant policy to cite for an objection to it is WP:OR, and the burden of proof should then on the new contributor to convince the other editors that his "intelligent weighted summarization" is indeed accurate and balanced, and if continued edits and reversions occur, citing WP:OR and previous objections on the talk page should suffice; it is, in effect, saying "you've still not presented anything new to convince us this is an accurate and balanced summary".

For an analogy to another policy: while you don't need to cite that the sky is blue, as soon as someone honestly doubts the veracity, in that context, of the assertion that the sky is blue, WP:V becomes a valid reason to object to the addition of that assertion, and the burden is then on the contributor to supply what objecting editors will accept as a verifiable citation that the sky is blue (as that statement is meant in that context), or else modify the statement to one that nobody finds controversial. Likewise, while you shouldn't have to simply regurgitate summaries that other sources have already written, and well-balanced and accurate summaries of fields cited to primary sources should in broad principle be as allowable as an uncited claim that the sky is blue, as soon as someone honestly doubts the accuracy, weight, relevance, etc, of the original summary, WP:OR becomes a valid reason to object to the addition of that summary, and the burden is then on the contributor to supply what objecting editors will accept as an accurate and well-balanced third-party summary, or else modify the summary to one that nobody finds controversial. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: The possibility of my personal gross misunderstanding of material related to the Dilemma of determinism is not pertinent here, as you recognize but still introduce here, and that possibility is a matter for discussion on that Talk page.

What is your relevant point in the context of the present thread? It appears that you are introducing what may be taken as a hypothetical situation in which a contributor refuses to accept a judgment arrived at after due Talk page discussion, and insists nonetheless to introduce material in main article that overrides the opinion on the Talk page. That is, of course, a matter for concern. You suggest that WP:OR has a place in rejecting such a disputed addition. In effect, you are raising Masem's point about relevance, and suggesting with Masem that WP:OR is useful to reject such additions. Technically a claim of 'original research' cannot be applied to sourced and sound material, whether or not it is irrelevant, and WP:OR should never be interpreted as applicable to arguments about the relevance of sound and sourced contributions. WP:OR is not about relevance.

It may be very difficult to demonstrate that an aspect of a topic should not be discussed in the article about that topic. It boils down, not to WP:OR but to two different things: (i) demonstrating clearly by argument or sources that this aspect is not properly part of the subject (that is, it is not an aspect at all), or (ii) demonstrating that mention of this aspect is a violation of WP:UNDUE. For sound and sourced material, I'd suggest that it is improbable that complete removal of all mention of an aspect is necessary to satisfy WP:UNDUE, and that probably any such 100% censorship is a violation of WP:NPOV. I do not think questions of how to establish 'relevance' belong in this thread.

You bring up WP:BLUE, perhaps as a counter theme? Can you elaborate upon the connection to this proposal? Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Brews, we're trying to make this not about the particular article, but if we ignore it / not learn the particular case, then I don't see a specific proposal in the above. And we're bringing up the blatantly non-existent missing-from-Wikipedia (or missing from wp:npov) degree-of-relevancy guideline. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000: The specific proposal is that A-C are invalid appeals to WP:OR. It would seem from opinions assembled here, that this assertion is taken to be valid. That might suggest the policy is clear on this matter, were it not that some, like Masem and possibly Pfhorrest, take the view that sometimes they are OK, and the entire matter is one of that ephemeral quality, WP editor judgment. As for revision of WP:OR to take this matter out of the hands of WP editor interpretation, I take your previous comment as saying any attempt to explicitly deny the validity of A-C would be counterproductive in facilitating introduction of poor contributions. So it seems there is an issue here, and it is not dependent at all (IMO) upon Talk:Dilemma of determinism. Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What happened on Talk:Dilemma is critical to understand what you're asking for. Take your A case "The contribution uses primary sources, and that is inadmissible according to WP:Primary." Out of context, that of course is a wrong statement - we do allow primary sources. In context, however, it was clear the editors were saying "you're making this connection from a number of primary sources, that's wrong", which is correct per SYNTH. We're missing half the story by your original post, and thus when we go back to see what that context is, its obvious that you're trying to change policy to counter the established consensus and their careful handling of potential OR on a touchy topic. I absolutely agree on the larger point that when reverting on claims of OR, what those OR claims should be obvious or otherwise discussed, but there's really no need to change OR based on what you've posted here and reading the discussion there. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: The way forward here is definitely not to become embroiled in a specific example. Whether some particular argument on some particular talk page can be interpreted as you wish to interpret those matters is irrelevant. The way forward, taking your complaints into account, is to formulate the abstract argument better. If the wrong statements A-C can in fact sometimes be correct in some (still to be identified) situations, a position not so far established, then some change of phrasing is needed to avoid that problem. Your underlying argument is not this one, but is again that unless changes are proven necessary by assembling a list of vetted examples, changes are not needed. Brews ohare (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Then propose the change in wording you think needed. Then editors can say yay or nay, and it will be clear whether there's support for it or not. If you think this policy needs changing say how. This talk page is meant to be for discussing changes to the policy, not abstract discussions about policy.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My point that you're missing is that your three bullets, A-C, were never used alone as arguments. You pulled those out of context. Yes, they are, in general, wrong statements, but they are wrong because this or other policies already address them. As John just notes above, you need to prescribe language that you think it better suited to your concerns, but my caution here is that knowing what happened in context of the Talk:Dilemma discussion, this is not an issue with how OR is written. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Or to put it another way - you are absolutely right that there is a right way and a wrong way to revert additions under the claim that it fails OR. I don't think the issues raised require policy changes but it would make for a good essay (possibly guideline), along the lines for Blueboar's comment, of how to properly revert OR additions and to respond to such. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll think about some phrasing of a revision. However, if that is to meet your objections, Masem, I need to understand the circumstances in which you think A-C can be a correct use of WP:OR. I can't think of one, but you and Pfhorrest seem to suggest that it can fill in for WP:UNDUE or some other (unnamed) criterion for rejecting material entirely because it is deemed to be not pertinent to a topic by some editors. North8000 seems to think collateral damage introduced by denying use of A-C will make that change too difficult to even attempt. Any suggestions? Brews ohare (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are missing my point again. With no other context to understand why the statements were evoke, then yes, A-C are not correct in light of OR and other policies - our policies spell that out, and thus there's no need to change it. But we also do say that Primary sources may never be used for synthesis, which is the context that was used in the talk page; you reduced that argument here to just "Primary sources may never be used." This is why context is very important when you make these claims. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Brews, you wrote above: "What is your relevant point in the context of the present thread? [...] You bring up WP:BLUE, perhaps as a counter theme? Can you elaborate upon the connection to this proposal?"

The analogy to WP:BLUE is my relevant point. WP:BLUE is to WP:V as your proposal is to WP:OR.

To echo North8000 again, under the strictest of possible interpretations of OR (and V) Wikipedia could only regurgitate exactly what existing sources reporting on the same level as Wikipedia (i.e. other encyclopedias) have said, as anything else would be synthesis. That would obviously not be a good state of affairs as it would leave this project adding nothing of value to the world. BLUE is about making common-sense relaxations of V and not requiring citations of obvious and uncontroversial statements. I.e. it is not good editing practice to revert an addition simply for the sole reason that no citation was given; the reversion should be made because there is some honest doubt about the veracity of the addition. But when that doubt is raised, the appropriate defense of the addition's inclusion is to provide a citation in satisfaction of V, and when the addition is being reverted until that is satisfied, the relevant policy to cite is V. (Or of course you can propose a different addition which is not so contentious and so per BLUE does not demand a citation).

Likewise, you could write a BLUE-like essay about making common-sense relaxations of OR and not requiring an existing third party source to have already summarized exactly the information you are trying to summarize. Something to the effect that it is not good editing practice to revert an addition simply for the sole reason that nobody else has summarized the exact particular things you're summarizing before; the reversion should be made because there is some honest doubt about the accuracy, balance, relevance, etc, of the summary. But when that doubt is raised, the appropriate defense of the addition's inclusion is to find an existing (well-balanced and neutral) third-party summary of the issue to paraphrase and cite, and when the addition is being reverted until that is satisfied, the relevant policy to cite is OR. (Or of course you can propose a different summary which is not so contentious and does not demand a third-party source to have already said it for you). --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Brews, my general comment is that primary sources are such that any editor can create or summarize anything they want out of them that they want to. In the fuzzy Wikipedia system, if that summary is obvious and neutral, people will probably let it stand. If it is creative, objectionable etc. someone is going to use the rule to knock it out, roughly following A-C. (even though you mis-wrote A). I don't see any practical alternative. If you are saying that they need to discuss and win the debate in order to take it out, you are tipping the balance to filling Wikipedia up with crap. While people can go overboard with wp:burden (and I have butted heads with them), on the whole I think that the way that it tips the balance is essential.

Regarding the mechanics of your proposal (and how people are asking you to get more specific) logically you haven't really made a proposal. You have just sort of said that a particular three step reasoning which you listed is not to be a valid basis for removal. How would that read? Anybody who uses (all of) those exact three steps doesn't get to remove material? None of those steps is a valid reason for removal? Etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone WP:SNOW close this. Its obvious there is nothing like the consensus needed to alter policy and that the discussion such as it is, is leading nowhere fast. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD: It has taken a while, but it seems things are beginning to gel. To close the discussion down at this point would be a mistake. However, I will be unavailable for a few days, so it will be a while before I can propose an amendment. Brews ohare (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What can go wrong

I'm breaking up this long thread to reply to North8000, who has some sensible reservations about explicitly banishing the erroneous use of WP:OR based upon the incorrect interpretations expressed in A-C.

North: I think some back-and-forth about your concerns would be helpful. As a start, let's look at your first sentences above. They read:

"Primary sources are such that any editor can create or summarize anything they want out of them that they want to...If it is creative, objectionable etc. someone is going to use the rule to knock it out, roughly following A-C."

Of course, primary sources can be misused, and I suggested two ways a contribution using primary sources could be questioned:

1. Has the source been fairly represented, or is its position oversimplified or otherwise misstated?

2. Have the chosen sources been selected to convey the full spectrum of opinion, or have they been cherry-picked to represent a particular view of the subject?

Now I wonder if you have some additional concerns beyond these two?

Sticking with these two abuses, they are about adequacy of coverage: adequacy in stating the views of selected sources and adequacy in selecting the sources themselves.

Now, misstating a source's view by quoting some phrases out of context is not a violation of WP:OR, but it is objectionable. Presumably a critique would consist of providing the context of the misappropriated quote that shows it is wrongly interpreted. That critique is not based upon WP:OR. Perhaps you can help me identify what policy governs mistaken quotation? If the WP editor states a view that cannot be supported by a properly selected quotation or source, then that unsupported view is open to a charge of WP:OR.

Selecting sources on a parochial basis is a different kind of abuse that is a violation of WP:NPOV and can be attacked on that basis by providing sources that express alternative views.

So, going back to your assertion: "Primary sources are such that any editor can create or summarize anything they want out of them that they want to...", it seems to me that I've outlined two ways of preventing this kind of abuse. They do not depend upon the erroneous use of WP:OR via the excuses A-C. If you think the above two methods for limiting abuse are insufficient, and that in fact the incorrect A-C have to be allowed, perhaps you could elaborate further? If A-C are to be allowed, BTW, then WP:OR should be rewritten to make their use clearly a part of policy.

For the sake of easy reference to them, I'll repeat the incorrect interpretations of WP:OR below:

A. The contribution uses primary sources, and that is inadmissible according to WP:Primary.

B. The contribution is in conflict with WP:OR simply because this particular selection of sources is the contributor's choice (regardless of whether that selection is objective and wide-ranging, which assessment is taken to be simply irrelevant).

C. Such contributions are on the very face of it inadmissible by WP:OR unless they are a paraphrase of 'third-party' treatments and use the same sources.

Brews ohare (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet another different abuse of sources is over-weighting one point of view compared to the rest. This abuse is addressed by WP:UNDUE, and also does not rely upon the mistaken reasons A-C. Brews ohare (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This reads more like a NPOV issue than NOR issue, but I don't think its also as cut and dried as "are all sides of the argument fairly represented". Particularly on these subjective topics, there may be several different viewpoints. An article covering one of those viewpoints in detail may be omitting the other viewpoints, and that may seem an NPOV issue, but if there's also separate articles for all those other viewpoints, as well as an encapsulating article that covers the larger topic, then there's no reason to discuss the alternate viewpoints in that first viewpoint article. (eg: I'm not checking, but for example, I'd expect that we'd have articles on Creationism, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, as well as a comparison of these three (if not more); as such I would not expect to have to talk about Creationism in the Evolution article and vice versa). --MASEM (t) 23:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

But again this is not a proposal. It's another page of hard to follow text that seems to be quibbling over a minor point: which policies can be applied when reliable secondary sources aren't used, as they should be. But that is not a topic for this talk page which is changes to this particular policy. Absent such a proposal or anything like one I second the call to close this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is about my last 5 minutes on the internet before I go off the grid for about 9 days. Brews, briefly, it is not a matter of objectively summarizing what a primary source said, it is that they are "raw material" which is subject to cherry picking and interpretation in any way that anyone pleases. IMHO the Wikipedia system says that it's better to have someone else (and who has the imprimatur of having been published and in a way that has been theoretically subject to review by somebody else) do the selection/cherrypicking and summarization than the Wikipedia editor. This is an imperfect system that often mis-fires, but I think that that is more a problem with a lack of metrics to assure that a wp:rs is actually reliable (with respect to the item which cited it) than a problem with the limitations on the use of primary sources. What DOES go wrong, is that people often quote non-existent urban legends of what the policies are rather than what they actually are. The most common case of this with respect to primary sources is for people to pretend that they can disparage /deprecate them in general, (and use that as a basis for knocking out material) even when they are properly used within the limits defined by Wikipedia policies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: Of course you are right that situations can arise where separate articles are needed to adequately cover various viewpoints. Again, that is not what this is about. What it is about is using A-C to incorrectly justify reversions as though A-C were what WP:OR actually means. I don't think you disagree with this point, but you are wandering off-issue here. Am I right? Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Blackburne: Yes you are right, this proposal concerns the use of primary sources. But it is not about misuse of these sources, but about the misuse of WP:OR to block use of these sources with the erroneous reasons A-C. I don't agree that the role of primary sources is as a poor substitute for secondary sources, and I don't think that attitude is a reason to use WP:OR incorrectly to support suppression of primary sources using A-C. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000: I'm sorry you will be unavailable for an extended period. You repeat your worry about cherry-picking sources and misreading them or incorrectly reporting their content. Of course, abuses can occur but there are a few ways to contain such abuses. The way to do that does not include incorrectly interpreting WP:OR by using the wrong arguments A-C. I don't think you disagree with this point. You raise a different point involved in rejection of material based upon primary sources - rejection by a believer in an 'urban myth' about the content of these sources, leading the reverting editor to the impression these sources have been misconstrued when it is the urban myth that is wrong. Of course, as you point out, WP policy already disallows such bias, and would suggest that some Talk page discussion of the original source should occur. Were it a perfect world, as you say, this discussion would reveal the inaccuracy of the urban myth. While this example shows the futility of good policies, I don't think that means revision of WP:OR to clearly denounce A-C is a futile effort. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change in WP:OR

Pursuant to the various discussions above, a concrete wording is suggested below for a revision to WP:OR. The revision concerns primary sources, so this proposal should fit into the section WP:Primary. Below is the pertinent section of WP:OR as it now stands:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

Here is a proposed additional paragraph:

A common format for encyclopedia articles states or summarizes the views on a topic provided by reliable sources, including WP:Primary sources, and documents those statements with citations identifying those supporting sources. This type of contribution, however, is particularly prone to violations of WP:Syn and WP:NPOV. Thus, it is a violation of WP:Syn to string sources together with an original narrative thread, like beads on a necklace. Any narrative thread must itself be sourced. Likewise, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to cherry-pick sources and ignore alternative viewpoints, and a violation of WP:Undue to overweight any particular view. It may also be noted that such a contribution can be a stand-alone article only if it satisfies WP:Notability, but there is no such requirement for an addition to an existing article.

Comments

• The existing paragraph quoted at the top can be read as supporting the proposed paragraph. However, as the discussion earlier on this Talk page shows, there is need for greater clarity regarding this particular form of contribution, particularly as these abuses involve not only WP:OR but other policies as well. Several participants have suggested that the abuse of this format is common, so identifying polices commonly abused is useful.

On the other hand, WP:OR can be used incorrectly to reject such contributions that are not violations. For example, by insisting that primary sources are inadmissible without a secondary source that describes that primary source. The proposed addition makes clear that primary sources can be used alone, provided the narrative connecting them is not original research.

I'd suggest as a possible shortcut for this paragraph, WP:Necklace . Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Likewise, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to cherry-pick sources and ignore alternative viewpoints..." is not really correct. This should be the overall aspect of WP as a whole, but when applied at an article level, it doesn't work. Case in point: I would not talk about Creationism in an article about Evolution or Intelligent Design, or vice versa, but that statement suggests that we would have to. But in actuality, I would expect that considering all articles on these three subjects, all under the concept of the development of life on earth, the coverage of all three would be reasonably fair and balanced.
• Also, I would argue that where it may be appropriate to include alternate viewpoints that those only coming from primary source (eg where that alternate viewpoint hasn't been supported by secondary sources) is also then not appropriate to include. That is, without requiring some secondary source to note that viewpoint, a lot of fringe theories would "have" to be included but supported only by primary sources. Once you've established the viewpoint with the secondary source, expanding on it from primary is just fine, but that secondary has to be there. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem raises the point that some topics by their very nature do not satisfy WP:NPOV, and mentions Creationism as an example. Of course, within the topic of Creationism itself there may be a variety of views, and what this proposal intends is that WP:NPOV be applied within the topic, and no one school of creationism should be unduly advantaged. If that is a possible ambiguity, wording could be changed slightly to make that clear. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem also suggests that, within an existing main article, it is improper to introduce a different point of view that is supported only with primary sources, because that would open the door to minor or fringe points-of-view that aren't sufficiently important to be included. However, WP:Undue covers undue emphasis, not WP:OR. To quote undue: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". Accordingly, it is not necessary to establish notability by citing a secondary source for a nuance of the main topic; primary sources are fine. As neither WP:OR nor WP:Notability suggest this need, I'd like to know if there is any policy suggesting a primary source is an inadequate basis for bringing up a viewpoint missing from an established article. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

With the first point, the idea is to understand that sometimes editors have chosen specific bounds for a topic, understanding that there is more that could be covered in a border level, and thus it may not be appropriate to pollute that carefully chosen balance with issues of other viewpoints. If a idea or theory is supported by 100s of blogs - but these are otherwise not experts or the like in the field, and that theory is not covered any further by secondary sources, we now would never include it, but your language would allow it permissible. There is a reason that we use secondary sources to make any claim that is otherwise OR for us to make. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: I agree with your point that blogs are not reliable sources. That is not an issue here. You also are concerned with WP:Undue, and perhaps that policy needs to be elaborated upon to avoid the 'imbalance' issue. The proposal here is clearly restricted to reliable sources as governed by WP:RS and to observance of WP:Undue. As a modification of WP:OR, this proposal does not deal with improvement in those policies. It also is entirely consistent with WP:Notability, and I think you are attempting here to rewrite that policy to require secondary sources in a manner inconsistent with WP:Notability as it is presently written. To claim that any statement based only upon a reliable primary source is inadmissible without a secondary source to establish notability is not policy. Brews ohare (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

From this policy: Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Secondary sources is significant to this, and it's not an attempt to introduce notability to this. We should only be including alternate viewpoints on a topic if they are discussed in secondary sources as a significant alternate viewpoint ; once you've shown that, then primary sources can be used to expand (appropriately) the discussion of that viewpoint but without that initial secondary reliable source that assures its a viewpoint to consider, we need to veer away from it. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Narrative thread" is way to broad. It would prevent comparing any two items that have never been compared before. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jc3s5h has suggested that this proposal would make it impossible to compare two items that are not compared by any single source. I don't think any straightforward comparisons (New York is larger than San Francisco, say) would be affected by this proposal. On the other hand, if the comparison is considered to be less than straightforward by some skeptics, sourcing can be requested on the basis of a possible violation of WP:OR. So it seems to me a policy allowing a request for sourcing of a narrative line is necessary. If there is a different kind of problem in mind, perhaps one could be suggested? Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this: "it is a violation of WP:Syn to string sources together with an original narrative thread". That is actually a description of every article that uses multiple sources. WP:Syn is only violated when the narrative introduces analysis or conclusions that are not provided by the sources. I realise that the word "original" is there to capture that aspect, but it is too imprecise and easily missed. Zero^talk 12:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Zero0000: I understand that the description of an 'original thread' is imprecise. Can you improve upon this text? Brews ohare (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Brews has attempted to edit along the lines he proposes on several articles. Each time all other engaged editors have rejected it as OR or synthesis. He is now coming here to try and change policy to allow him to do so. OK he has that right but the level of persistence in arguing cases on multiple articles despite getting zero support is becoming problematic. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: The 'problematic' issue here is your consideration that disagreement with you alone (there being nobody else around in the philosophy workgroup that takes any interest) constitutes a lack of support. Your views are abundantly clear from your comments on Essays, which show an intolerance for contributions that do not agree with your predilections. Brews ohare (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• oppose No problems have been identified with the current policy and that poorly written and unclear paragraph would simply confuse things.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed problems have been pointed out, so I'd guess Blackburne is requesting evidence based upon verbatim transcripts of problematic occurrences? Perhaps the confused reactions to this proposal exhibited in this and the preceding threads constitutes clear evidence that WP:OR is seen by many as being consistent with statements like A-C above that are in fact clear misinterpretations of WP:OR? If the proposal is poorly written and unclear, perhaps some suggestions could be advanced to improve the text? Brews ohare (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)