Talk:Trypophobia

Latest changes

See the RfC below

QuackGuru, like I stated here (followup note here), "Yes, per WP:Copyvio, there is a reason to use quotation marks when using the exact quote from a source. And there was no WP:Original research. 'It has been determined' will get you a big fat Template:By whom tag. It's rather some data that has indicated that trypophobia is more common in women. We shouldn't be stating something as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, when research on this matter is new." We shouldn't use definitive language when the source itself does not. See WP:YESPOV. The source states, "Other findings refer to trypophobia being more prevalent in women." It states "other findings," which, in this case, is the same thing as "some findings" or "some data." I used "some data" because it makes not a bit of sense to state "other findings" or "other data" for that lone sentence in the "Epidemiology" section, as if that sentence is being compared to the previous paragraph. It isn't being compared at all. It's a lone sentence specifically about gender. And it doesn't present the statement as fact in the way that you did. It clearly states "other findings" and "refer to" (not "show" or similar). We both know, via discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill, that we somewhat disagree on your interpretation of WP:Original research and on some other Wikipedia rules. On that latter talk page, we can see that a number of editors (GoneIn60 in particular) disagree with your interprettaion of certain Wikipedia rules. Regarding this, I originally used "usually." I changed it to "commonly" because the source itself, more than once, makes clear that most people with trypophobia respond with disgust rather than with fear (or that disgust is usually the main response). As that edit shows, however, I've changed the wording back to "usually," but I left in WP:In-text attribution per it being exact wording from the source and the source itself noting that disgust is the main response of those who have trypophobia. The article should not look contradictory on that, by stating that disgust is the main response and then later stating that "trypophobia usually involves an intense and disproportionate fear." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And if you want to continue to argue that use of "some data indicates" is WP:OR because the source does not explicitly use that language, I don't see how the same cannot be stated of your use of "it has been determined." The source does not state "it has been determined." As is clear by WP:Copyvio and WP:Close paraphrasing, we use our own wording to summarize the literature (except for when quoting directly and except for when there are limited ways to say the same thing). Our own wording is not WP:OR simply because a source does not use the exact wording we used. Synonyms are allowed. Conveying the literature accurately is what matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you got the "it has been determined" wording from the "In summary" paragraph of the "Previous Studies about Trypophobia" part of the source. But per what I stated above, that wording should still have WP:In-text attribution and likely quotation marks if it is to be used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Changed to "Research indicates." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

One more thing: As for "than men," the only way I can see "than men" as not being valid is if one thinks that the source was considering genderqueer people, or that the source means that trypophobia is more common in women than in men and children. It surely wasn't considering genderqueer people; otherwise, it would have mentioned it. And I very much doubt that it meant "than in men and children." The source references the first study being about a girl. And its case study is about a girl. Trypophobia is clearly present in childhood, whether one discovers they have it in childhood or not. It's not something that just begins in adulthood. So if more girls than boys have trypophobia, more women than men will have it as well. But I've removed "than men" since the source doesn't state that (although it is implied, and although sources almost always mean "than men" when using such language). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You have not given a reason per policy for adding the quotation marks. The required attribution is in the citation. We are not going to restore unsupported wording such as "some" or "men". Please strike you comment there was a WP:Copyvio. I can copy the entire article into this article and there will not be any copyvio. I disagree with misquoting the source as source as "has common..." when the source said "having common...", especially when you don't need to quote the source. You can copy the source word for word. QuackGuru (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:Copyvio is a policy-based reason. Unless, of course, you can show that the source is not copyrighted. Are you saying that it's not copyrighted because of this creativecommons.org tag you added to the source? I'd be fine with inviting editors from the WP:Copyvio and WP:Verifiability talk pages to weigh in. What I won't do is sit here and debate you for hours. You seem to always think that we cannot use any word that the source does not use. But that is view is incorrect. It's incorrect because, except for when directly quoting, we are supposed to summarize/paraphrase. In other words, use our own wording. If we only used the exact wording of sources, it would lead to WP:Copyvio issues and overquoting. If the source is copyrighted, that you think you can "copy the entire [source] into this article and there will not be any copyvio" is completely opposite of what copyright expert Moonriddengirl has stated on matters such as these, and is seriously disturbing. If WP:Close paraphrasing is an issue, which it is, then why do you think quoting from a source without using quotation marks is not an issue? And in any case, per WP:YESPOV, unless the matter has consensus in the literature, we should not be stating things as fact when sources disagree on the matter. Even when there is consensus on the matter in the literature, we still commonly don't state things in Wikipedia's voice. If you are writing articles without using your own words, that's a problem and is something that needs to be looked into. As for "has common" vs. "having common," I don't know what difference you are seeing there, but it wasn't a matter of "has common" vs. "having common." It was a matter of the source stating "usually involves" while I switched the wording to "commonly involving" after initially using "usually involving." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

We most often do state things in Wikipedia's voice and without adding distracting quotation marks. There is still a misquote in the article. Source did not state "has common". If the quotation marks were removed it would fix the issue. Read the citation for the required attribution. Anyone can copy the source as the long as the citation is properly attributed. Can we remove the quotation marks now? QuackGuru (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Per your latest statement and this, I am bringing others into this matter. I will be leaving a message at the WP:Copyvio, WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research, WP:Manual of Style and WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch talk pages. Your "has common" argument makes no sense to me, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And regarding this, you seriously need to comprehend WP:Weasel and also read Template:Who. Words such as "some" are not banned, and they do not always have to be in the source for us to use them. But I and others have already debated you on this plenty of times. You never listen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the content is too vague. Can you provide verification for the part that includes "some"? I copied the source word for word which is allowed. Please read the citation below and WP:Copyvio before going to a noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

References

See the citation. See "This article incorporates text by Juan Carlos Martínez-Aguay, Renzo C. Lanfranco, Marcelo Arancibia, Elisa Sepúlveda and Eva Madrid available under the CC BY 4.0 license." Why the quotation marks have not been removed? It is not needed. QuackGuru (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I suggest you stop adding contested content and that we do not WP:Edit war. Let's wait for others to weigh in. I have notified the aforementioned talk pages of this matter, which does not only concern the WP:Copvio policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Where was it already covered in the article in that level of detail?

I added new content that was not contested. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for further details. QuackGuru (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You adding redundancy has been contested by me. That content is already covered in the article in its respective sections, using summarized wording. I do not understand why you insist on using the exact wording from sources, but that is not how we write good or great Wikipedia articles. Copying other people's work takes no effort at all, really. And, again, my problem with your edits is clearly not solely about whether there is a WP:Copyvio problem with what you are doing. Like I stated when leaving the notes at the aforementioned talk pages, this matter also concerns "whether or not we should always use a source's exact words. Regarding the latter, the question is whether it's WP:Original research to use our own wording as opposed to a source's exact words and whether wording like this needs to be tagged as WP:Weasel. The discussion additionally concerns stating things in Wikipedia's voice when sources disagree, the research is new, and/or there is no consensus in the literature on the matter." So I again ask you to wait for others to comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Also see WP:Compatible license for when content can be copied.

Please provide verification for the part that includes this part. That content is ambiguous. More details can be added from the source rather than over simplifying things.

See "While some people respond with both fear and disgust, others respond with only one or the other.[5]" Using that wording is too vague and does not tell the reader much. Without context, the wording is unclear. This is far better and more detailed information. All those specific details and numbers are not all redundant. For example, "60.5% reported..." is not redundancy. On medical related topics, specific numbers are frequently included. QuackGuru (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Some content belongs or better fits in certain sections. If that weren't the case, WP:MEDSECTIONS wouldn't exist. I significantly fixed up this article, while you no doubt still had the belief that trypophobia doesn't exist simply because it's not in a diagnostic manual by name. I took an interest in the article because I have trypophobia and I know how to build WP:Good and WP:Featured Wikipedia articles. This article was very poor before I fixed it up in 2017. Seeing that you hadn't edited the article much, I was hoping that I wouldn't have to interact with you much, if at all, at this article, given our heated history. I was hesitant adding material from that review source you added and expanding the article further because I anticipated you jumping in. And sure enough, you did. It's not about WP:OWN; it's about the way you edit truly boggling my mind and that we often clash. We also obviously have different writing styles, because, certainly, just quoting all or most of a source is not WP:Good or WP:Featured quality. The "whether trypophobia resembles more specific phobias or obsessive-compulsive disorder" content is covered in the "Causes" section. The "They found most of the participants who suffered from trypophobia fulfilled the DSM-5 criteria for specific phobia, experiencing disgust rather than fear when confronted with clusters of holes, but not meeting the distress or impairment clinical criterion" aspect is covered in the Classification section (where it fits because of the DSM-5 talk, and fear vs. disgust and their relation to classification content that is already there). As for the other piece, there is no need whatsoever to state the following from the source: "Notably, 60.5% reported mostly disgust when confronted with clusters of holes, while 11.8% reported only disgust, 5.1% reported mostly fear, while 1% experienced only fear, and 21% experienced the same amount of fear and disgust." That level of detail from one study does not improve the article and neither does using the WP:Editorializing wording "notably." The following wording that you call vague suffices: "While some people respond with both fear and disgust, others respond with only one or the other. Disgust is usually the stronger emotion in those with trypophobia." And that wording is not based on that one study; it's based on that study and on other material in the source. I'm not looking to have this discussion become WP:Too long; didn't read before others weigh in, although it's likely already too long for some editors. I'm not looking to have this discussion just consist of me debating you. So I'm going to wait for others to weigh in. If they don't, I will go the next route. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "If they don't, I will go the next route." I asked "Please provide verification for the part that includes this part." You stated "it's based on that study and on other material in the source." Can you provide verification for that content based on other material without violating copyright law? So far, verification has not been provided for this part. That study does not support this wording. It is a copyright violation to add content from the source without the required attribution from the source to the talk page or to quote the source without adding a link to the source. I expect others to follow copyright laws. That means when I quote a source on a talk page I will provide a link to the source after the quote. There is no difference between content added to the article or talk page or a draft, according to copyright law. See "In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required."[1]

You deleted the part "60.5% reported..." as being redundant. But it was not redundant. You disagree with that level of detail. The article and a section where it fits best is too short. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The next route is the RfC you see below. I've already made my case; for example, I have refuted your claim that a source must explicitly state "some" in order for us to use "some." The source is very clear in more than one spot that some people respond with both fear and disgust, while others respond with only one or the other. Percentages that differ from one another very much fall under the definition of "some," unless it's a "many" matter. Nowhere is the word "some" banned on Wikipedia. The source is also clear in more than one spot that disgust is usually the stronger and/or more prevalent emotion in those with trypophobia. I summarized the material. And as stated above, your interpretations of the rules are usually off. The content, in general, was redundant because it's already covered in the article, and in the sections the content should be in. The fact that the exact numbers from that study are not in the article does not make that text any less redundant. Those exact numbers add not a thing since more than one spot (not just that study) in the source is clear that some people respond with both fear and disgust, while others respond with only one or the other. I'm not continuing this debate with you, unless I feel the need to do so after others have weighed in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please provide verification for this part rather than assert it is sourced. Verification was not provided. If you really believe "the source is very clear in more than one spot that some people respond with both fear and disgust, while others respond with only one or the other." then you would not have any problem providing verification for this part. There could be a better way to rewrite the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Flyer 22 Reborn has summarized this multi-issue thread thusly: "The discussion concerns whether or not it is fine to quote this source as much as desired without the use of quotation marks, and whether or not we should always use a source's exact words. Regarding the latter, the question is whether it's WP:Original research to use our own wording as opposed to a source's exact words and whether wording like this needs to be tagged as WP:Weasel. The discussion additionally concerns stating things in Wikipedia's voice when sources disagree, the research is new, and/or there is no consensus in the literature on the matter."

  If this summary is accurate, it can be answered quickly:

  1. We cannot use copy-pasted material from the source without quoting it; even if it's permissible under copyright law. Historically, WP imported the full text of some articles from the out-of-copyright 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and a few other sources, on topics for which the articles were still pretty good, and did this with a few other sources, but always with an attribution template. It's not something we do today for reasons that should be obvious.
  2. It is not OR to paraphrase the source material, or we could not write an encyclopedia at all. This has been covered about 1,000 times in previous discussions at talk pages and especially at WT:NOR and WP:NORNB. (That does not mean that a poor attempt at it can't be OR; it will be if it's a bad summary, injects PoV, or tries to make the source claims things it doesn't actually claim).
  3. If something is weasel-wording it should be tagged as such, or just fixed, though I don't know which wording "wording like this" refers to. As of this writing, the only tag for this I see is here: "While some^{[weasel words]} people respond with both fear and disgust, others respond with only one or the other". That's not weasel wording, unless secondary sources give specific stats (or a range thereof) and we're not providing them. If they don't, the weasel-looking phrase can simply be reworded, e.g. "Trypophobia may manifest as a reaction of fear, disgust, or both."
  4. We cannot state things in Wikipedia's own voice when modern reliable sources conflict, unless the outlying opinions are WP:FRINGE (which probably means the "RS" for them are not actually RS, unless they're simply reporting that the other opinion exists and what it is, not advocating the view).
  5. If the research is new, then it's a primary source, and we have to attribute it, and cannot make WP:AEIS claims based on it, and perhaps should not include it at all. Whether to include something from a primary-research source is a judgement call, but because this is a WP:MEDRS topic, the default will be to not include it until it turns up in reliable secondary sources, such as literature reviews.
  6. If there's no scientific consensus in the current literature, we should note this fact, and summarize what the conflict is.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 SMcCandlish, yes, all of that is what is going on. Thank you. With regard to WP:MEDRS, WP:Med editors weren't treating this topic as a topic that needed to comply with WP:MEDRS or strictly comply with it anyway. This is because enough editors viewed it as something that does not exist or does not clinically exist, and so the editors stuck to primary sources and media sources for the topic. This can be seen in the RfC about the lead image. And this was the state of the article before I expanded it with some book material (and other material). The books I've used are WP:MEDRS-compliant. At the time I expanded the article, trypophobia was getting more attention from researchers and still is. See Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 3#New sources, where med editor Yobol pointed to sources that were "not exactly NEJM (or even MEDLINE indexed...), but certainly could be incorporated into the article." The review QuackGuru added seems to be the latest academic attention the topic has gotten. Because research on trypophobia is still new and there aren't as many reviews as there are primary sources for it, it falls under what WP:MEDDATE states about the matter with the following line: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published."

I'll go ahead and change the "while some people" wording to what you suggested above. But it is frustrating to see editors automatically consider "some people" weasel wording. QuackGuru did provide percentages for the "while some people" wording, but it's based on one study from the review. I feel that it's better not to cite that one study from the review when other aspects of the source are also clear that, like you state, "trypophobia may manifest as a reaction of fear, disgust, or both." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru did provide the specific percentages but the specific percentages did not verify the vague wording "While some[weasel words] people". The specific percentage was deleted and the vague content was left in the article. The specific percentage was copied from the source. See WP:COPYPASTE: "It is acceptable to copy text from public domain sources or those that are explicitly licensed under a compatible licensing scheme." QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are misrepresenting matters to further your viewpoint, but what I stated above (which includes not focusing on that lone study) is clear. Your addition of "There are people who express disgust, while others express fear or both to trypophobic images." is not any better than "While some people respond with both fear and disgust, others respond with only one or the other." I also tweaked it for flow. As for the rest, SMcCandlish and Johnuniq have refuted your viewpoint on copying content. The percentages aspect is not a big part of this discussion. Of course the percentages from that lone study could be given if they needed to be given, but the wording ("notably" and all) would not need to be the same as the source's wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The source is a WP:Compatible license. Any editor can copy the source without using quotation marks per WP:COPYPASTE. Do you refute Wikipedia's viewpoint on copying content in accordance with WP:COPYPASTE? Quoting a source on this talk page without providing a link to the source is most likely a copyright violation and a concern. Source says "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY)." But that does not mean any editor can quote the source without providing a link to the source.

As you stated above (which includes not focusing on that lone study) is clear. It is also clear that the lone study and other material did not verify the weasel word. QuackGuru's addition of "There are people who express disgust, while others express fear or both to trypophobic images." was a WP:COPYPASTE from the conclusion section of the source. It did not include the weasel word "some" because the source did not include or verify the weasel word. I requested verification for the weasel word and none was provided. There must be a reason verification was never provided for the weasel word. Was it because it failed verification? This addition was better than including unsupported weasel wording. We don't tell readers what to think. QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"Some" is telling readers what to think? No. Sighs. Below, SMcCandlish has addressed your copying and paraphrasing arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The most important matter I see in this section is this: Wikipedia near-plagiarizing content that we could legally get away with copy-pasting is something that WP did very early on, and quite selectively, just to get started by having basic articles on subjects of broad historical interest, and we then set about rewriting that material, very little of which remains in copy-pasted form today. This was only ever done with well-respected tertiary-source material. It's not something we do today, especially not with primary or secondary material. Taking a "there isn't a policy that says so, so you can't stop me" attitude isn't going to fly. Policy is a concise summary of points of quintessential consensus without which the project would fall apart, and which come up frequently. This doesn't qualify. Policy is not a codification of every single point of explicit or implicit consensus (otherwise we'd have to update policy every time we closed an RfC). If anyone insists on suggesting that we can copy-paste open-licensed content from other sources and give it in Wikipedia's voice without quotation marks and with no attribution other than a refs-section footnote, they're simply mistaken. We can go have an RfC at WP:VPPOL to prove it, if you like. But the fact that we simply don't do it, despite there being so much GFDL and CC content out there, already proves it.

On the other matters, I decline to wade very deep into this pissing match, which is clearly a personality struggle. I would suggest that if reliable sources – not primary research papers – give some specific figures, then we should use them. If we don't, it's not actually weasel-wording to say "some", it's just glossing over of details, and we do it all the time. This is a deathmatch about nothing. Whether MEDRS editors were originally interested in this page is irrelevant. MEDRS a site-wide guideline, neither owned/enforced by a particular pack of regular editors at its talk page, nor by editors from WP:WPMED (two circles with a lot of overlap). Anyone can invoke it. The article presently has definitely wandered into MEDRS territory, reporting that some sources suggest it clinically exists, DSM or not, what its causes are, what it's effects are, etc. Even if it turns out this is WP:FRINGE stuff, it is the MEDRS standards by which we determine that.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated for others to read WP:FREECOPYING and WP:Compatible license. It is something we do today and editors will continue to do tomorrow. It is common to copy content under a compatible license and there is wide consensus to copy content under the CC BY 4.0 license. That's doing it today. You said "If anyone insists on suggesting that we can copy-paste open-licensed content from other sources and give it in Wikipedia's voice without quotation marks and with no attribution other than a refs-section footnote, they're simply mistaken." The part "with no attribution other than a refs-section footnote". is not explaining the situation properly. It is not just a refs-section footnote. There is a black rectangular box. Editors are allowed to use the specific template for each compatible license. See Template:CC-notice. How are editors mistaken to comply with the current WP:PLAGIARISM policy? WP:COPYPASTE allows editors to copy content. This talk page is for policy-based arguments. If you think editors are mistaken based on policy then cite the policy. If you personably think editors should not copy content when they are allowed to copy content then that is not a policy-based argument. We don't need a RfC at WP:VPPOL to get person opinions of what editors like or don't like. I don't think there is a problem with following policy. QuackGuru (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Should we only use a source's exact wording and/or quote extensively from a source (free or not)?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) The RfC is closed without a decision on the basis of its procedural inadequacy. The issue put forward for discussion is about the use of sources in general. It is telling that no mention nor ineference to the article "Trypophobia" is made in the nomination. Surely, the right place for resolving an issue of such broad relevance is the talk page of either WP:RS or WP:NPOV. -The Gnome (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

---

As seen above at Talk:Trypophobia#Latest changes, there is disagreement on whether or not we should limit text to a source's exact words. In this regard, the question of whether it's WP:Original research to use our own wording as opposed to a source's exact words, and whether summarizing/paraphrasing material by using the word "some" needs to be tagged as WP:Weasel, has come up. The disagreement additionally concerns extensively quoting from a source, free or not, and stating things in Wikipedia's voice when sources disagree, the research is new, and/or there is no consensus in the literature on the matter.

Should we only use a source's exact wording? Is it WP:Original research to summarize/paraphrase a source without using the source's exact words? Should we quote extensively from a source, whether it's free or not? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. On Wikipedia, we commonly use our own wording to summarize the source material. In most cases, this is to avoid WP:Copyvio issues. But even when it's a free source, it is not good practice to mainly quote a source, especially extensively, instead of use our own wording. There is no WP:Good or WP:Featured article that mainly uses the words of a reference instead of an editor's words to summarizing/paraphrase the content. Using our own wording is not WP:Original research as long as the wording accurately summarizes/reflects the source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• A No or Yes vote is irrelevant to this dispute. There is no disagreement that we should use the exact words from the source. There was a question about copyright compatibility with Wikipedia. I repeatedly asked "Please provide verification for the part that includes this part." You stated "it's based on that study and on other material in the source." Can you provide verification for that content? So far, verification has not been provided for this part. That study does not support this wording. Verification was not provided, after repeated requests for verification. There is disagreement about whether the content should be in quotation marks since the content is free to copy. The question, Should we only use a source's exact wording? is not what this dispute is about. Should we use quotation marks such as "an intense and disproportionate fear towards holes, repetitive patterns, protrusions, etc., and, in general, images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies."[5]"[2] when it is not required? There is also a dispute with concerns about violating copyright law by quoting a source on the talk page without providing a link to the source. I think it could be a copyright violation on the talk page when no link to the source was provided after the quotes per this. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  There is is disagreement that we should use the exact words from the source since you are always calling everything OR when it's wording that's not in the source. And this extends to your claim about use of "some." Stated more below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  I did not say we should always use the exact words from the source. I did ask for verification for the part "some", but no such verification was provided. QuackGuru (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  It seemed to me that you objected to any wording I used that was not in the source. You've done this before at other articles with different people. I did not see how it was different at this one. For example, above you stated, "I disagree with misquoting the source as source as 'has common...' when the source said 'having common...'." Even if that had been the case (I explained above that it wasn't about that for me), how is stating "has common" different than stating "having common" in the sense that it is misrepresenting the source or is WP:OR? It's just a change in tense. You were also insistent on using the source's exact words without quotation marks around them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• RfC comment. First of all, I am relieved to learn that it isn't fear of Tryptofish. I am having some difficulty pinning down what exactly is being asked in this RfC, but here is what I can offer as an uninvolved editor. It looks to me like a lot of the question is about the differences between these two diffs: [3], [4]. It also looks like there is some question about whether or not this: [5], is weasel wording. Here is what I think. There is a judgment call as to where the line is between acceptable and unacceptable repetition of words from a source, and as to when small paraphrases of source wording do or do not lead to original research, or alternatively are not accurate representations of the source. So I think: (1) an intense and disproportionate fear towards holes, repetitive patterns, protrusions, etc., and, in general, images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies is a sufficiently specific group of phrases that it must be put inside quote marks and attributed to the source. (2) On the other hand, chronic and persistent is simply typical jargon in the source material and not a unique expression, and therefore the words may be stated in Wikipedia's voice without quote marks. (3) has common co-morbid psychiatric diagnosis, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) is in between the previous two, and would probably best be handled through a simple paraphrase (with a source but without quote marks), such as "is often co-diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD)". (4) Is it weasel wording to say While some people respond...? That depends on what the sources say. If there are differing characteristics of those who respond and those who do not, then those differences should be spelled out and if they aren't, that's weaselly. On the other hand, if the sources present the responders and non-responders as otherwise indistinguishable, then there is no weasel problem with saying it that way. If there are other points I didn't address, please feel free to ping me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• I have no idea what this is about but if text is used from elsewhere it is necessary to quote it (put quotation marks around it with a reference/footnote). Attempts to wikilawyer that by asking for the policy or getting technical about copyright miss the point that copying text is bad writing. Imagine you were writing an essay for a university course and a substantial part of it was copied from somewhere without attribution. Justifying that approach by saying the original was free to use wouldn't cut it at uni and does not cut it here. I have seen QG go into hyperdrive in other articles by opposing paraphrasing and investigation in a couple of cases that I recall showed QG was correct that the paraphrase had a subtle shift in meaning from what the original study said. That puts me on the fence (although I haven't yet looked at the issue here), but unattributed copying is not on. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• These are actually different questions. We do not (any longer) use copy-pasted material from a source without quoting it, even when it's permissible under copyright law. It is not OR to paraphrase the source material, or we could not write an encyclopedia at all; we are supposed to be doing exactly that, though it has to be done properly. It is inappropriate to use large swathes of quoted material, but we do regularly use block quotations when pertinent. These are short enhancements to our own encyclopedic material, not replacements for writing any. This is a WP:MEDRS matter, so the sourcing standards there apply to any medical (including psychiatric) material; that means – among other things – no using primary-research papers to try to do any WP:AEIS, nor giving any such materials WP:UNDUE weight.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  I was apparently wrong – some people are just copy-pasting from CC-licensed research paper with no attribution other than a tiny template in a ref citation and pretending it's WP's work – and doing it with medical and other science material, which is the least safe to do this with. I'll probably draft a WP:VPPOL RfC about this, since it is an off-topic matter for this page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral on what level of paraphrase is appropriate and whether we can quote the text in question as a clearly-marked quotation, but obviously no with regard to unmarked quotation. Edits like this are clear plagiarism and need to be rev-delled, since User:QuackGuru is not authorized to release that text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL as they have done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. It is under a different license. See "Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)" See "This article incorporates text by Juan Carlos Martínez-Aguay, Renzo C. Lanfranco, Marcelo Arancibia, Elisa Sepúlveda and Eva Madrid available under the CC BY 4.0 license." Hijiri 88, it is a WP:Compatible license. I am also allowed to copy the source. See WP:COPYPASTE and WP:FREECOPYING. Quoting a source on the talk page without providing a link to the source is the copyright violation and problem. Source says "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY)." QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

    Well, I haven't looked into it but I'll take your word for it. That said, even if it is a compatible, I still think paraphrasing would be better. Saying "This article incorporates..." doesn't tell the reader what text was taken from them, even with the inline citations. As a general style guideline, we really should not be quoting large chunks of text without saying they are quotations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

    It depends on the content if paraphrasing would be better. This edit was a WP:COPYPASTE. It was split into two separate sentences. I think it is good the way it is currently. Over 50,000 Wikipedia articles incorporate text that is available under the CC BY 4.0 license without putting them in quotation marks. It depends on the content if quotation marks are necessary. For this case, editors don't have to put the content in quotation marks. Editors may prefer to put the content in quotation marks for this case, but if the quotation marks were removed it would not be plagiarism, according to current policy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Void for vagueness - This is a poorly formed RfC. Next time, just phrase the RfC as, "Is content X supported or not supported by reference Y". If you're going to ask subjective questions like this, you've got to give specific examples. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  NickCT, what you suggested is similar to the way I've worded RfCs before. But this matter is very much about whether or not we should only use a source's exact wording. And it is also about whether it is okay to extensively quote from a source, free or not. I did consider what format to use and I acknowledge that this format is not ideal. Thanks for your advice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Flyer22 Reborn: - Maybe I'm blind, but I can't see where you've proposed the wording you're trying to insert and the reference you're trying to use to support that wording.

  Asking a general and vague question, like "should we only use a source's exact wording", will get you a vague answer, like "no". NickCT (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  NickCT, hi again. No need to ping me since I'm watching this article/talk page. As for the question, it's vague because it's not about just one addition. It was about the fact that the other editor seems to think that we must always or mainly use the source's wording and that if we use a word that's not in the source, then it's WP:OR or "failed verification." As seen on the talk page, the other editor seems to have issues with summarizing/paraphrasing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  If there are multiple additions in question, why not just present them all in the simple "Is X content, supported by Y reference" format? You seem to be trying to have a general policy discussion in article space. NickCT (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  NickCT, considering the other editor's views on verification, I have doubt that focusing on just one specific text, or on more than one specific text, would have helped. That specific text would have been cleared, but other text would have been contested by the other editor based on the view that we must always or mainly use the source's wording and that if we use a word that's not in the source, then it's WP:OR or "failed verification." See SMcCandlish's latest statement below, for example. I understand what you mean about "a general policy discussion in article space." Still, sometimes whether an article is following a guideline or policy correctly can be the subject of an RfC, like it is in another RfC I recently started. My "Should we only use a source's exact wording and/or quote extensively from a source (free or not)?" question is meant to pertain to this article specifically, although, yes, it's something that concerns all Wikipedia articles. Instead of "a source," I can see how one can argue that I should have restricted the question to this source since that is what most of the discussion has been about. But again, I have doubt that the other editor would have taken this to mean that the same goes for other sources as well (except for realizing that only using a source's exact wording and/or quoting extensively from a source that is a copyright or plagiarism matter is definitely off-limits). Again, I recognize my error in how I formatted this RfC, and will look to do better with future RfCs (at whatever article). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• No. Paraphrasing a source in not Original Research. It's done in very many articles. It's no more Original research than translating an article from one language to another. Maproom (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose of RfC — The RfC question is malformated and will only lead to a result that is overturned proceduraly. The first problem is that it assumes a general consensus can be come to through this RfC. The RfC as posted here can only give consensus on whether we should paraphrase or quote in this article. There is also extensive confusion from both sides regarding how we treat public domain content.

1) We extensively use public domain content without paraphrasing, and recent GAs such as Heart are based on direct quotations to a very high degree. Other medical articles are often based off US government publications to a high degree. The reason this is rare is because we often must paraphrase, either because the style is inappropriate, or because the text is not PD or under a compatible licence. There is nothing that hinders us from doing it when we have access to high quality sources, and neither should there be. Also regardless, this is the wrong venue to have that discussion.

2) To state that anything but direct quotation is WP:Original research is a WP:STRAWMAN. While those who suggest the paraphrasings are inaccurate may not be in the right — no one has suggested that all paraphrasing is OR. This makes the RfC non-neutral.

So, in summary: Close, rewrite, reopen or just await the results from the two other RfCs on this page.

Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no "WP:STRAWMAN". I think you want just straw man.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That "the RfC as posted here can only give consensus on whether we should paraphrase or quote in this article" is partly what I am looking for. Like copyright/plagiarism expert Moonriddengirl noted in the #Comments on CC BY 4.0 license content section below, "Local consensus cannot make this plagiarism or a copyright violation, [...] but local consensus can determine that paraphrasing or verbatim copying better serve the needs of this article." But per the number of editors opposed to extensively copying from a source verbatim, and per what SMcCandlish and I stated at Moonriddengirl's talk page, extensively copying from a source verbatim is something that needs a wider, new discussion, especially since the other editor would appear to have no issue with copying the whole source into the article. As for "no one has suggested that all paraphrasing is OR," I disagree. As indicated by the other editor's editing and what is stated in the initial part of the #Latest changes section above (meaning the non-RfC content) and lower in the #Failed verfication? section, the other editor does view content as WP:OR or unsourced if we use words that are not in the sources...and if the citation does not support the whole sentence but rather one aspect of the sentence while another citation supports the other part. He's done this for years, across various Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course, words not used by a source can be WP:OR (or a WP:Synthesis version of it), but the other editor is known to treat accurate paraphrased material as WP:OR or unsourced. I can provide a number of examples on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not the right venue for something like that. This talk page is over-personalized as it is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't planning on listing examples here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with SMcCandlish. There is nothing hindering compilation of diffs for discussion elsewhere, but lets keep this on topic. This is also the reason I oppose the RfC, because it focuses on an entirely different issue than the one at hand. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

One thing's clear: the community in general have no idea the extent to which editors in certain topics are basically plagiarizing sources that have [allegedly] compatible licenses, with nothing but barely noticeable attribution in a cite, just because they can legally do it. There definitely needs to be a policy discussion about this, probably at WP:VPPOL. I think a lot of people are going to have a very strong "WTF?" reaction. Anyway, CFCF is correct this particular RfC is a trainwreck, though F22R is also correct that the central issues are pretty clear (and largely WP:NOR interpretation conflicts about using the exact words of the sources only, and about demanding that every cite for a sentence be a source for everything in the sentence. I think we know how these will play out. They need not be RfC topics at all; we already have WP:NORNB and it would probably settle quickly there, though as two separate issues/threads.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Reusing text under appropriate licences is not plagiarism. Certainly, there should be proper attribution such as those from Category:Attribution templates. This practice has been used since at least 2001, and I've never heard anyone express concern before. Disallowing it is in fact antithetical to the idea of Wikipedia which is built upon CC licensing. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a very, very different thing to take wording from the 1911 Britannica and use it as the base to get a lot of WP content started, and replace most of it, than to snarf material wholesale out of research papers (or worse yet, highly politicized bodies like the USFDA) on science which is changing and will soon be obsolete and pretend that this is Wikipedia-researched material – and without quoting or even inline-attributing it but pretending its our work summarizing secondary sources. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

How? If anything a 2018 review article is a far better source than a 107 year old encyclopedia. Also, I will state right out so that there is no confusion, the position that the USFDA is "highly politicized" or inadequate for Wikipedia is WP:FRINGE. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Do not reinstate the paragraph in dispute. As to wording, exact words of the cite are preferred but that does not mean this particular bit of this particular cite is DUE mention or is not excess detail, and does not relate to complaints of CITATIONBLOAT. When using exact words, stylistically it is not in quotes unless the source is particularly relevant, and one wants to avoid long quotes or many quotes. WP:Close paraphrasing is better for lengthy bits or multiple sources, and reducing things to an accurate summary is usually desirable. But there is no “only” here, the answer is “it depends” and coming to some consensus for the specific item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, what do you mean by "exact words of the cite are preferred"? We use some exact words, yes, but we usually paraphrase on Wikipedia unless using direct quotes with quotation marks around the words, a quote box, or limited close paraphrasing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn For a particular conclusion or small section of a work, such as here a short phrase or sentence, one should be careful not to distort it and generally not altering their phrase or line does that “close” part best. To convey the sense of multiple works or a long work in brief, of a paragraph or more, one has to paraphrase but again use of an exact label or phrasing is key to that. To put a bit explicitly in quotes can be undesirable as a distancing indication of POV or dubious material, or a mocking ‘scare quotes’, or of WP editor doing OR by snippet selection and stitching together. It is good to quote iconic lines or artistic works, or the title of a cited work, for a unique work of art or for positions in dispute, or to highlight a label that is particularly key. But for conveying the consensus conclusions of scientific studies one just says it in the language used. For example, one says lunar soil smells like gunpowder , not “like” gunpowder or the same as “gunpowder”, nor say it as odor similar to ammunition. Mostly this is not distort the work, and partly it helps to find the part of the cite being used or parts among cites that relate. Just Follow The Cites is a good rule of thumb. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, I am talking about summarizing/paraphrasing appropriately. As for using a source's exact words, there is no need to do so unless quoting the source in a way that it's not a copyright or plagiarism issue and unless there are limited ways to state the same thing. WP:LIMITED is clear about "limited ways to say the same thing." So is Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism. Even in cases where we appropriately quote directly from a source, there is often no need to do so. In this particular case, it's been stated by a copyright and plagiarism expert that there is no copyright or plagiarism issue. But, as seen above, editors still have a problem with extensively quoting from a source in a way that makes it look like its our own words. My question concerns whether we should only use a source's exact wording, and this is because the other editor has been acting as though we must always or mainly use the source's wording and that if we use a word that's not in the source, then it's WP:OR or "failed verification." Anyway, per above, it seems that this matter will be presented to the wider Wikipedia community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The RfC asks: Should we only use a source's exact wording? Is it WP:Original research to summarize/paraphrase a source without using the source's exact words? Should we quote extensively from a source, whether it's free or not? None of these questions specifically address the dispute. Therefore, the questions are completely irrelevant to this dispute. The RfC is asking questions that are way too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As seen at Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill, it is expected that you will state that an RfC is botched or is inaccurate. No, this RfC is very much the way it should be since you seem convinced that editors must use the exact wording of sources and that it's otherwise WP:OR if they don't, and that it's a good idea to extensively quote from a source instead of use one's own wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You are concerned about a copyright violation in the article, but the required attribution was already added to the citation. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Copyright law also applies to the talk page. Content was copied and quoted on the talk page from this source without a link to the source immediately after the quote. The concern is quoting a source on the talk page without providing a link to the source after the quote.[6]

I did not state editors must use the exact wording of sources. The dispute is about using quotation marks. There is no copyright violation when using quotation marks as long as the formatted citation is properly attributed. See WP:Compatible license. That's not about using the exact words from source. That is about quotation marks.

I requested verification for this content but no such verification was provided. That's the dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Correction: I was concerned about WP:Copyvio. And the discussion shows that I've been concerned about more than just that. I'm not debating you any further on the rest. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And the concern for me was never "quoting a source on the talk page without providing a link to the source after the quote." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You are not concerned about a copyright violation on the talk page. But I am still concerned. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. See Wikimedia:Terms of Use and copyright policies.

Copyright law does apply to the talk page. Editors can't quote a source without a link to the source[7] unless the content is in the public domain.

You stated "I'm not debating you any further on the rest." Does that mean you no longer suggest we must use the quotation marks since the citation is properly attributed? In the citation it states "This article incorporates text by Juan Carlos Martínez-Aguay, Renzo C. Lanfranco, Marcelo Arancibia, Elisa Sepúlveda and Eva Madrid available under the CC BY 4.0 license." Therefore, there is no need to put it inside quotation marks.

It depends on what the sources says if the weasel word is supported by the source. If you can provide verification others can comment and may try to address the concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments are hollow to me. And Tryptofish clearly disagreed with you on the "an intense and disproportionate fear towards holes, repetitive patterns, protrusions, etc., and, in general, images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies" aspect. Like me, he feels that this should be in quotation marks.

Tryptofish, thanks for weighing in. The RfC is focused the way it's focused because, as shown in the edit history, if I don't use the exact wording from the source, QuackGuru calls it WP:OR. He also wants to quote large pieces of the source without quotation marks and feels that this is okay to do because he says the content is free. In the #Latest changes section, he stated, "I can copy the entire article into this article and there will not be any copyvio." Even if true, this doesn't mean that it should be done. We don't write articles mainly using a source's wording. We mainly use our own wording. We should be summarizing, and especially when extra detail is not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

References

You did not make it clear that the content from the source is under the CC BY 4.0 license. Read the citation. "This article incorporates text by Juan Carlos Martínez-Aguay, Renzo C. Lanfranco, Marcelo Arancibia, Elisa Sepúlveda and Eva Madrid available under the CC BY 4.0 license." Based on copyright law, it does not need to be in quotation marks.

Tryptofish stated it is a sufficiently specific group of phrases that it must be put inside quote marks and attributed to the source. That's for copyrighted content. Tryptofish, the source is under a WP:Compatible license. QuackGuru (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Satisfying copyright law is a lower bar than what is required by good writing, at Wikipedia or in academia. WP:Plagiarism. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, are editors allowed to copy content such as this edit from the source when it is under a WP:Compatible license? See WP:COPYPASTE "It is acceptable to copy text from public domain sources or those that are explicitly licensed under a compatible licensing scheme. (In case of the latter, attribution of the original author may be required: see Wikipedia:Plagiarism.)" The required attribution is inside the citation. That means it is not Plagiarism. Copying sources that are in the public domain or have a compatible license with Wikipedia is not Plagiarism when the required attribution is inside the citation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It's important to understand the distinction between copyright violation and plagiarism. WP:Plagiarism can occur even when copyright is not being violated. Plagiarism is completely unacceptable even when there is no copyright violation. You are incorrect when you say "That means it is not Plagiarism." As I explained above, copying just a word or two is not necessarily plagiarism, but copying a more extended or distinctive passage without putting it into quotation marks (in addition to having an inline citation) is unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, copying content without putting it into quotation marks is permissible for the source is question. There is a section titled "Copying material from free sources" in Wikipedia's WP:Plagiarism. See WP:FREECOPYING: "If the external work is under a copyleft license that removes some restrictions on distributing copies and making modified versions of a work, it may be acceptable to include the text directly into a Wikipedia article, provided that the license is compatible with the CC BY-SA and the terms of the license are met." I understand that in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. From the very beginning, the citation is fully attributed.

It is permissible to copy a source as long as it is under a WP:Compatible license according to WP:COPYPASTE. It is not Plagiarism to copy a source when the attribution was added inside the citation for any source that has a WP:Compatible license. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I note with sadness that COPYPASTE is badly written. Under no circumstance would I agree that this is not plagiarism. It's plagiarism, and it's bad writing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:COPYPASTE: "There is a guide for embedding freely licensed content (either public domain or Wikipedia Compatible licenses), at Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia and the Copyright FAQ." That means there are circumstances where editors are allowed to copy content.

According to WP:Plagiarism, WP:FREECOPYING and WP:COPYPASTE it is not a copyright violation and/or plagiarism when the citation is fully attributed. Tryptofish, how would you comply with WP:FREECOPYING and WP:Compatible license in order to avoid plagiarism and also be allowed to copy the content? There are circumstances where it is not plagiarism and editors are allowed to copy the content. How was it plagiarism when the citation is fully attributed? QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The basic underlying concept of "plagiarism" is that it occurs when a reasonable reader is misled into thinking that you wrote the material when it was actually someone else who wrote it. And nothing written in Wikipedia space can change the fact that this is what plagiarism is. On can wikilawyer that an inline citation allows the reader to look at the source and find out that, beyond simply supplying the cited information, the source also supplied the exact wording. But in fact, the inline citation on a page looks identical, whether (as is usually the case) the citation goes to the source of the information, or whether the exact wording was also copied from the source. The reader does not know that the wording was copied verbatim. And various templates do not change that reality. That makes it plagiarism. If I were still teaching college classes and a student did that, I would flunk them. The solution is to put a direct quote into quotation marks (or to not write it as a direct quote in the first place). And I don't care if some current version of a Wikipedia-space page can be construed otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Source says "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY)." The link says "Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)"[8] CC BY 4.0 is a WP:Compatible license. There are instructions on how to format the citation. See Template:CC-notice.

There was no misleading readers who wrote the material because the templated citation clearly provided the full attribution, which in accordance with WP:FREECOPYING and WP:Compatible license. According to WP:Plagiarism, this was not plagiarism per WP:FREECOPYING. The reader can read the citation which explains the content was copied word for word. Editors are allowed to use the various templates in order to comply with WP:Plagiarism. Inside the citation it clearly states " This article incorporates text by Juan Carlos Martínez-Aguay, Renzo C. Lanfranco, Marcelo Arancibia, Elisa Sepúlveda and Eva Madrid available under the CC BY 4.0 license." That tells the reader the content was copied. That makes it not plagiarism, according to WP:Plagiarism. The inline citation in this article looks different, because it has a black rectangular box inside the citation. If you personally think it is plagiarism is a different matter. The content and formatted citation are in compliance with WP:Plagiarism. The content I originally added was split into two sentences but it was not rewritten and is still in the article. Editors continue to use various templates in order to comply with WP:Plagiarism. See Template:CC-notice. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Asked and answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "I note with sadness that COPYPASTE is badly written."

You also wrote "And I don't care if some current version of a Wikipedia-space page can be construed otherwise."

What a person personally thinks and what policy says may differ. Based on current policy, it was not WP:Plagiarism. If an editor thinks policy is wrong then they can try to gain consensus to change policy. Do you acknowledge it was not WP:Plagiarism, according to current policy? If you personally disagree you can try to gain consensus to change policy.

Thousands of Wikipedia articles incorporate text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. That is a strong consensus that sources available under the CC BY 4.0 license are not plagiarism, according to policy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It is your reading of policy and guidelines that this is an open-and-shut case in which policy unambiguously makes it clear that it is not plagiarism. It is my reading that, the way it is currently written, the policy is unclear for situations such as this one, and can be read by one reasonable editor to mean one thing, and be read by another equally reasonable editor to mean the opposite. And it is a fact that no Wikipedia policy can change what words mean in the outside world. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:FREECOPYING. Which policy is unclear? Is it this one?

See WP:Compatible license. Which policy is unclear? Is it this one?

See WP:COPYPASTE. Which policy is unclear? Is it this one?

If policy is unclear for situations such as this one, then what policy is unclear or ambiguous for situations such as this one? I have looked at the various talk pages and edit histories for situations such as this one. I don't see any dispute over policy. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Whatever led you to think it isn't plagiarism, that's it, because it led you to think it isn't plagiarism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

After further review, Moonriddengirl said CC-By 4.0 is compatible. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." I think the arguments there was a copyright violation or copying the content is WP:PLAGIARISM has been put to rest. If anyone thinks policy is wrong this talk page is not the place to debate that. Local consensus cannot make this a copyvio or plagiarism, according to Moonriddengirl. QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Note: The Gnome, the RfC was specifically about this article, which is why I stated, "As seen above at Talk:Trypophobia#Latest changes." That the "exact wording/quoting/summarizing/paraphrasing" aspects were about this article is why WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was mentioned with regard to this article. Most editors agreed that the extensive quoting, especially without quotation marks and in-text attribution, should not happen at this article (although there was sentiment that this type of thing shouldn't happen at any of our Wikipedia articles). If it wasn't about this article, I would have posed the question at a venue for a wider range of replies. But, yes, I do agree with  SMcCandlish that WP:VPPOL is a better place for this type of RfC since this type of thing is a matter that doesn't just concern this article. I'll have more to state on your talk page in a few moments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Trauma trigger

There is nothing in this article to suggest that Trypophobia is in any way related to psychological trauma. The evolutionary explanation suggests the opposite, in fact – that it is an innate rather than learned response. Linking to Trauma trigger is therefore not informative on this topic. The word trigger by itself is standard English for the action of precipitating a response; for instance:

The Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998 triggered the beginning of significant initiatives for regional cooperation and integration.

— The Political Economy of Asian Regionalism

Apparently, star formation began near the west shoulder, and the massive stars that formed there triggered the formation of the stars you see in Orion's belt.

— Astronomy: The Solar System and Beyond

Parboosingh subsequently visited Rome and Florence, where frescoes by Giotto and Cimabue triggered his interest in wall paintings.

— Afromodernisms: Paris, Harlem and the Avant-Garde

So, not "slang" at all. But if the word trigger causes consternation, it could be swapped for cause, prompt, induce, elicit, or any of various other synonyms. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, it's not something I'm concerned with at the moment. As someone who knows the literature on trauma trigger (which I first studied when studying rape), all I wanted to do was briefly note that it isn't restricted to posttraumatic stress disorder. The Trauma trigger article doesn't state that it's only covered within the realm of posttraumatic stress disorder either. It also currently states "although the stimulus itself need not be frightening or traumatic and can be only indirectly or superficially reminiscent of an earlier traumatic incident." In the medical literature, triggers are often defined broadly to mean events or circumstances that may produce an uneasy/uncomfortable emotional response, including anxiety and panicked feelings (which are feelings many with trypophobia have after seeing trypophobic imagery). The Psychological trauma article currently states that psychological trauma "is a type of damage to the mind that occurs as a result of a severely distressing event. Trauma is often the result of an overwhelming amount of stress that exceeds one's ability to cope, or integrate the emotions involved with that experience." Many people with phobias experience that as a result of their phobias. And as the sources make clear, some people with trypophobia respond with enough excessive and distressing fear that it can be accurate to call trypophobia a real phobia in those cases. Even just the disgust is distressing enough for some people, with the imagery repeating over and over again in their heads.

As for slang, I stated "slang-like." It's my personal preference not to use "triggered" without context in a case such as this or as if someone on social media referring to "triggered social justice warriors" or something similar. It's just not that encyclopedic to me without a link, although I'm sure people will know that we mean "'elicit." I could go ahead and create the Psychological trigger article and link that here, but I don't create Wikipedia articles often (I mainly work on improving existing ones), and "psychological trigger" has overlap with "trauma trigger." Really, the Trauma trigger article could be titled "Psychological trigger," but we should go with the more common name for the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

And, oh, per phobias like the fear of heights and the fear of snakes, phobias can also be thought of as innate (that rhymes). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Sangeboeuf, but since using the word "trigger" is automatically going to [ahem] trigger people into linking Trauma trigger, we should just use a different word from Sangdeboef's list. First rule of MoS: see if rewriting around a dispute will make it go away. And we do not need "trigger warning" posts about this article or any images in it. Patterns like this exist everywhere in the world around us, and people who find them squicky have to deal with it all day every day. If they're going to freak out when the see a picture of a plant pod with some holes in it in an article about the alleged condition itself, then they are not competent to edit Wikipedia, since they may encounter such an image at any time in any context. We have images that relate to damned near every DSM-recognized phobia there is yet we do not suppress them or warn about them. Cf. WP:Wikipedia is not therapy, WP:NODISCLAIMERS, etc. I also have to point out that all these OR assertions that try to tie trauma trigger research and phobia stress science to something for which science has not come to a consensus that it's a phobia or traumatic, simply highlights why MEDRS applies to this topic, even if people weren't sure whether it did when looking at an early draft of the article. Some of the above is also distorting the science, seemingly just to try to win an argument. Humans (and many other animals) have innate but entirely manageable and even invertible aversions to heights and to snakes, but these are neither acrophobia nor ophidiophobia. Those are extreme and irrational fears that interfere with the activities of everyday life, often by invading one's thoughts pervasively and lingering despite any actual risk or even presence of the object of the fear. Phobias are not innate, even if a few of them relate to and are reinforced by traits that are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I agree with using a different word. But like WhatamIdoing stated in the debate about whether or not to use the lotus image, we don't actually see images like that every day. Like I stated on my talk page, I've had trypophobia all my life, but that lotus image caused trypophobic reactions that I usually don't have. I actually think there is some level of conditioning since I used to not be sensitive to the sight of bubbles at all, but now, after immersing myself in the topic after stumbling upon this article in 2017, certain bubble patterns make me think of trypophobia and then cause me to get goose bumps. But then again, what incites trypophoba is not the same for every person. If a trypophobe has an aversion to bubbles, they have to deal with trypophobia every day or just about every day. As for the rest, WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages (as I think you know), and I'm basing my commentary on trauma trigger and the trigger term by itself in the medical literature on what I know on the matter. I'm not some undergrad student spouting nonsense. I'm not distorting the science, and certainly not to win an argument. If you look at the research on acrophobia or ophidiophobia, yes, there are scientists that state that the phobia itself is likely innate and is an evolutionary thing. They are not stating that just a general fear of heights or a general fear of snakes is innate. For some people, the fear rises to the clinical level of a phobia. But researchers aren't stating that a fear of heights or a fear of snakes is only innate in those who don't have the phobia and that the phobia is more so a learned thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Taking this to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed "trigger" and "triggering." I'm not strongly opposed to using those words in the article, however (with or without a link). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup

A whole bunch of popular media sources were added to the sections with biomedical information; i've removed them, and also cleaned up the prose. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, like I stated with this edit, that type of sourcing was already in this article. Back when you were mainly editing the article. Why we are just now removing it, especially when research on this matter is so limited? Like I told SMcCandlish above, with regard to WP:MEDRS, WP:Med editors weren't treating this topic as a topic that needed to comply with WP:MEDRS or strictly comply with it anyway. This is because enough editors viewed it as something that does not exist or does not clinically exist, and so the editors stuck to primary sources and media sources for the topic. This can be seen in the RfC about the lead image. And this was the state of the article before I expanded it with some book material (and other material). The books I've used are WP:MEDRS-compliant. In the #Rearranged and expanded article section above, I noted that I expanded the article, and Doc James was fine with it. And, yes, I expanded it with some media sources because the article was already using media sources and those media sources directly concern experts on the matter, and this condition is not officially recognized as a medical condition or a mental disorder. As far as scientists are concerned at the moment, it's just an aversion -- one that might be able to be classified as a phobia. I see no valid reason to have this article so strictly adhere to MEDRS, and I think some or most material you removed should be added back. As seen at WP:MEDPOP and WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources, MEDRS doesn't even completely shun media sources.

Like I also told SMcCandlish, at the time I expanded the article, trypophobia was getting more attention from researchers and still is. See Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 3#New sources, where med editor Yobol pointed to sources that were "not exactly NEJM (or even MEDLINE indexed...), but certainly could be incorporated into the article." The review QuackGuru added seems to be the latest academic attention the topic has gotten. Because research on trypophobia is still new and there aren't as many reviews as there are primary sources for it, it falls under what WP:MEDDATE states about the matter with the following line: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, Jytdog, mainly keeping media sources out of the article, except for the Society and culture section, is probably a good thing for the article's quality, although it will mean documenting less about the topic. Plus, as can be seen, there are now more solid sources on the topic, compared to 2015 when med editors allowed media material to document the topic. I know that you didn't get involved with the article until 2016, though. And the condition's status as a phobia (at least with regard to some people who have trypophobia) has more traction now. I was mainly worried about the Causes section being cut so significantly. But I will add some material from the review about the suspected causes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be ref spamming and failed verification in this article. I think one citation after each claim will slow down the policy violations. WP:MEDDATE and other parts of MEDRS are applicable for a topic with such limited sources. I can usually find plenty of sources. QuackGuru (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Where does each additional source verify the part "The extent to which trypophobia exists in the general public is unknown, but..."?[9] Each source must also verify the part "but". If verification is not provided then I will remove the ref spam. It also decreases the readability of the article to add the additional citations. Only the first citation verifies the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Not this again. We've been over your views at Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill. I reverted you on removing the additional sources because each of those sources make clear that aversion to trypophobic imagery is common. That's what the additional sources were there for. It's not "ref spam." There are two parts to the sentence. If, per WP:INTEGRITY, you want only the first source moved directly after "The extent to which trypophobia exists in the general public is unknown" part and the other sources to support the "common part," that is easily done. I will do it now, but it is quite unnecessary and will cause clutter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And it is completely false that "each source must also verify the part 'but'." Your odd view on summarizing/paraphrasing is what has people disagreeing with you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree this is not strictly medical. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You stated "Your odd view on summarizing/paraphrasing is what has people disagreeing with you above." See WP:FREECOPYING and WP:Compatible license. There is broad consensus to copy content under the CC BY 4.0 license without putting the content in quotes. That's not an odd view and the RfC is vague and poorly framed. Do you understand content is free to copy under the CC BY 4.0 license? QuackGuru (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "And it is completely false that "each source must also verify the part 'but'."". You think the two additional sources do not need to verify the part "but" the available data suggests that having an aversion to trypophobic imagery is relatively common.[1][3][8] Verifiability does not state only part of a sentence should be verified and the other part is okay to fail verification. Citation overkill allows excessive citations after each sentence without taking into consideration the readers. Citation underkill suggests only one citation per claim and supports only content that is verifiable. It looks like Citation overkill supports ref spamming. Ref spamming disrupts the flow of reading. The additional citations can be removed or at least commented out. What about the readers? We should avoid clutter. QuackGuru (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No matter how much you repeat that you are free to plagiarize, you are not. Different editors have told you this, and you are being stubborn about it. That the RfC has been called "vague and poorly framed" by one editor has not stopped others from commenting on your inappropriateness, and commenting on your inappropriateness is exactly what I wanted. I have come to the conclusion that you simply do not know how to put things into your own words and that if things are put into one's own words, you call it WP:OR or failing verifiability. For example, now you are insisting that I can't summarize with "but" and that the sources must state "but." That is asinine. And as seen at WP:INTEGRITY, a sentence may be made up of two parts; what matters is that each part is verified. This does not mean that each word must be in the source. WP:INTEGRITY also shows a "but" example as correct. Each part of the sentence you are now contesting is verified with reliable sources. And editors use two or three citations all the time. WP:CITATIONBLOAT is your contested essay. It holds no standing whatsoever. WP:Citation overkill is also an essay, but it's cited more/accepted more than your essay, and is clear that two or three references may be validly used in cases. If you keep going the route you are going, you are going to find yourself at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why "this condition is not officially recognized as a medical condition or a mental disorder" keeps being trotted out. This article is still making medical claims about it; the fact that RS mostly don't support this being a medical condition is a problem, not an escape clause. As I suggested in thread above, some section on the social-media and pop-culture view of this subject seems reasonable, but devoid of and divorced from medical claims. A long string of such medical material presently dominates the article. Classification, Signs and symptoms, Causes, Treatment, Epidemiology – none of that can come from pop-culture sources or be commingled with them. That's all psych-med material. As long as that commingling is happening, people are going to continue to dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It was trotted because there is no need to be as strict with the sourcing for this topic as, say, we would with the Cancer article. But like I stated elsewhere, the article has undergone recent cleanup that has it mainly sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing with regard to its overall design. The article does not call trypophobia a phobia, and instead notes that it may be classified as a specific phobia under certain circumstances. The sections are appropriately sourced and use appropriate language. For medical articles, our Society and culture sections usually do not need to strictly adhere to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Considering that, with the exception of the Society and culture section, the text is supported by book sources that are indeed MEDRS-compliant, two primary sources (primary sources are not completely rejected by WP:MEDRS as long as they are used with caution and sparingly), and one review, the sourcing is fine. It was my idea to design the article based on the WP:MEDSECTIONS format since it is about a topic that is considered a phobia, or one that closely resembles a phobia (because of the fear and anxiety it induces in some people), without officially being recognized as a phobia. Yes, in my opinion, it is the best format for the article. Editors can challenge the existence of trypophobia if they want to (as they did in the aforementioned image debate), but we go by what the sources state. The sources are clear that trypophobia exists. Whether it should be classified as a phobia, however, is up for debate, and the article is clear about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The whole point is we do need to be strict with sourcing on the med/psych claims. Lack of scientific consensus on how to classify this doesn't make that responsibility go away, and arguably increases it, because there's heightened risk of iffy primary-research claims being mistaken for "proven" facts with broad sci. consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are stating. I think at the time, back in 2015, editors considered this topic similar to something like vaginal steaming in its coverage. If a topic is WP:Notable and borders the line of medical and something else, but there aren't any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for it or there are few WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for it, then how do you handle it on Wikipedia? As you see at Talk:Vaginal steaming, whether to apply WP:MEDRS was discussed with regard to that article. I see Tryptofish commented there too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

How? You make no medical claims about it whatsoever, and do not create sections that virtually force the reader into interpreting them as medical claims. You can say something like "proponents like [insert notable believer here] claim it is a treatment for gout [cite something that is such a claim to prove that the claim has been made]. However, according to a 2017 [major news source here] article, [famous researcher] of [big university] says there is no scientific basis for this idea. A 2017 primary research paper in [medical journal], as reported in [secondary source – this part's important], found no evidence to back the claim, and suggested that further research is needed to be certain." For a case like trypophobia, the overall framing of this article should be similar; it should be about claims and counter-claims, as covered in secondary sources to the extent possible, and framed as public debate like creationism or climate change or whatever; include that the lack of evidence is an issue when sources tell us there's such uncertainty. Let the article become more "sciencey" and certain, organically over time, as sources surface. I realize that following the psych-med article layout was a good-faith endeavor, but it's a poor idea at this article in 2018. Maybe by 2020 there'll be a whole slew of new material out there and the condition will be better understood. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. :-) PS: Thaaanks, now I'm going to have "steamed V" on my mind all night. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Medical claims about vaginal steaming or trypophobia cannot be completely avoided. For example, there are health risks to vaginal steaming, which is why there is currently a Risks section in that article (although it's currently only sourced to media sources despite the academic sources noted on its talk page). For trypophobia, there are health/psychology/cognitive science aspects to it with regard to responses people have to trypophobic imagery and the theorized/hypothetical causes. Formatting the article in another way will not remove the health aspect to the topic. Formatting the article in the way you proposed would open it up to all the media sourcing type of content that the article is best left without, partly for the reasons you stated in the #Needless wording and missing dates section below. The researchers aren't debating the existence of this condition; so it's not like creationism. They wonder if the condition is better classified as a phobia or as an aversion due to evolution. So taking all of that into account, whether the topic has a WP:MEDMOS format or some sloppy format, it is still within the realm of WP:Med/MEDRS. WP:Med editors will still want WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for the topic. And all of that is why I still think that the current format is the best for the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing-wise, I really do think that the aforementioned cleanup of the article was best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation clutter

This is citation clutter. There is no need for a total of 4 citations for one sentence. The first citation verifies the entire sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support removing or commenting out the additional citations. Three additional citations is not needed in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all the citations. It doesn't look cluttered to me, and it's better to provide clear citations than to have a "citation needed" situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Inclined to keep, especially on a topic like this where there's a great deal of debate (not just on-WP) about the topic. Any given source might end up being found faulty for some reason, but it's unlikely that all four would, unless something serious was done on the science side to demonstrate or disprove something. It's also easier to detect OR, and to protect material from false claims of OR. E.g., if you remove two of cites, and there's any doubt in anyone's mind about the exact phrasing used in the summary of the sources that we provide, the remaining two may be insufficient to demonstrate the accuracy, to the satisfaction of whoever's objecting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per SMcCandlish. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. And a perhaps a WP:TROUT slap to QuackGuru for bothering us with such a petty detail. In particular, though he states that there is "no need for a total of 4 citations for one sentence", and that the first citation "verifies the entire sentence", he has not demonstrated that. Nor why we should be concerned with this very petty instance. If he objects to a string of footnote links (the "^[1][3][8]" stuff) then we might discuss how to put multiple citations into a single note (as mentioned below), but that is not what is raised here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
• Keep. All the sources cited are relevant and add to the readers understanding of the article. Maproom (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all three but, if clutter is an issue, we can cut down on repetition of the same reference in a single paragraph. If the first reference verifies the whole paragraph, we don't need it to be repeated three times in the paragraph; Once at the end should be sufficient. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep largely per SMcCandlish. I don't find three or four citations to be clutter in this case. I personally might tweak the citations a bit to only put that first reference just once at the end of the paragraph, as suggested by Kvng. Ca2james (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. per JJ, and Kvng. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Citation clutter

Responded above. Do stop citing your essay, which a number of editors took issue with, as though it holds any authority. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding the additional citations for our readers is not needed. I left the citations but only commented them out. There is no need for 3 citations after each claim for non-controversial claims. I don't think it benefits our readers to have three citations after each claim.

See Wikipedia:Citation overkill: "While adding inline citations is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, making articles look untidy in read mode and difficult to navigate in markup edit mode." Rather than remove the additional citations we can still keep the citations by commenting them out.

See current citations: The extent to which trypophobia exists is unknown,[1] but the available data suggests that having an aversion to trypophobic imagery is relatively common.[1][3][8] That's 4 citations.

With only one citation: The extent to which trypophobia exists is unknown, but the available data suggests that having an aversion to trypophobic imagery is relatively common.[1] That's just one citation. The first citation verifies the entire claim. The other two citations only partially verify the last part of claim. One citation does not disrupt the flow of reading. QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Failed verfication?

Moved from User talk:SMcCandlish § Citation clutter

The other two citations fail to verify the entire claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with your edit summary: "The first citation verifies the entire sentence. The part "The extent to which trypophobia exists in the general public is unknown, but..." fails veriification for the two addtional citations." This isn't a valid argument. It is not required that a citation provided for a sentence verify the entire sentence, only some claim in it. Some like to move the cite to where it's maximally relevant, and others hate this and prefer them all at sentence-end, as less of an impediment to reading (and this is even more common when one cited source does cover the entire sentence, or when all of the combined do so). The clause-by-clause style is generally reserved for cases where the material is highly controversial. (There's no controversy about this sentence, however, only about citation style.) We have no requirement to do it one way versus the other.

The Schacter, et al., source verifies the commonness claim, and even provides figures. (While they're based on primary research, and might be superseded by newer research, it's a secondary source.) The Martínez-Aguayo, et al., source is too long for me to pore over right now, but I find it extremely unlikely that at least the secondary portion of that material (the literature review) doesn't confirm at least one claim in the sentence. The entire nature of that lit. rev. is that there's very little scholarly material to go on yet, so it probably does confirm the "extent" claim, though I would have to read through it all to be sure. The entire claim sentence is "The extent to which trypophobia exists in the general public is unknown, but the available data suggests that having an aversion to trypophobic imagery is relatively common." This contains two actual claims; if either is found in Martínez-Aguayo, et al., it's a valid citation.

They're both useful sources for other material in the page and so should be retained. It's not utterly essential to retain them in this particular spot, but doing so is harmless, and provides additional backup for some of the statements in the sentence. It's normal citation practice. Over-citation looks like: "He moved to New York city in 2004.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}"
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish's analysis. By the way, in cases where there are multiple sources cited in the same place, one option that is available is to combine them into a single inline citation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I sometimes apply WP:CITEBUNDLE style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I too agree with SMcCandlish on all the points he mentions, separately, or together. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

CC BY 4.0 license content

Should we restore this paragraph? It still can be trimmed or rewritten. I disagree with deleting all the content. I followed the instructions at WP:Compatible license and WP:COPYPASTE. QuackGuru (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support restoring the paragraph below. It still can be trimmed or rewritten. I disagree with deleting all the content. If an editor wants to rewrite the content and add it to the article during the RfC I don't have any objections. If editors can't think of a better way to rewrite the content then I would still support the current proposal. It can also be put in quotation marks if editors don't like it to be in Wikipedia's voice.
  Source states "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice."[10] Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) is a compatible license. See WP:Compatible license. See Template:CC-notice for specific templates for each compatible license.
  See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution: "If a Wikipedia article is constructed through summarizing reliable sources, but there is a paragraph or a few sentences copied from compatibly licensed or public-domain text which is not placed within quotations, then putting an attribution template in a footnote at the end of the sentences or paragraph is sufficient."
  If the content is not placed within quotations then a footnote at the end of the sentences or paragraph is acceptable. The content does not have to be it quotation marks, according to Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Not without quoting or paraphrasing. It may not be legally wrong to reuse CC content this way (and the license compatibility is being debated here and in user talk); but it's encyclopedically wrong. It's siding with a source and declaring what it says to be The Truth in Wikipedia's own voice. Plus it's just lazy. And after a few edits no one will be able to tell what material was incorporated from it. And so on. It's just a practice antithetical to what we're here to do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: We do it extensively elsewhere, and you are not invoking any policy or guideline support for that position, so it is at best opinion. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not without quoting or paraphrasing, per SMcCandlish. (And there are an awful lot of RfCs on this talk page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  No kidding! That tends to happen when it's a two-editor deathmatch. LOL. I've been through that myself at some animal-breed-related page and learned to take a different approach. Eventually people see that it's a personality struggle and get angry at being called back for yet another RfC at the same page, which is probably RfCing something already clearly covered in the P&G pages anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As seen indicated at Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill, it's not uncommon for QuackGuru to start an additional RfC when the original RfC is not to his liking. For me, this is not a power struggle; it's about different interpretations of the rules and what I consider to be disruptive editing on QuackGuru's part when it comes to verification. And, as noted, although he is not legally wrong for copying text the way he did in this case, it is problematic and is poor writing. I already know that my RfC format above is not ideal, but I don't think its style is as poor as the style of the followup RfCs. Generally, my RfC formats are decent or good. I obviously don't always choose the right style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support — no rationale to require quotation or paraphrasing. The only argument being brought forth is WP:VOICE — and as the section does not seem controversial in the leastest, this is moot. Note: I may change this support if other arguments are presented here, but as it stands a personal preference for paraphrasing over quotation is not a rational. You can just as well paraphrase it yourself. WP:JUSTFIXIT Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Requests for comments should be worded as a neutral request, not a position statement as in "I think we can restore X". The initial message by QuackGuru merely summarizes their !vote; it should be revised to state what the question or issue under discussion is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• No. Flatout, no strings-attached, because from his earlier edits it appears QG has rejected quoting. And I agree that this RfC is not well formulated. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Not much bothered, but foregoing reservations about quoting, paraphrasing etc, if reasonably (not necessarily formally) applied, seem to me to be quite adequate, to the extent that they might be necessary at all. Death-struggles are boring and some of us are busy. JonRichfield (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral. No particular objection to the paragraph. But all it does is say, at length, "there are various theories about the cause of trypophobia, but no-one really knows." Maproom (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• I cannot participate in this discussion, as I have this phobia, even the picture on the article page giving me serious nausea. Nauriya, Let's talk - 13:55, 8 August 2018. (UTC)

Nauriya, I understand how you feel about the topic and the image (although I never experienced nausea from it, and the image's effects on me are not nearly as strong as they initially were). It's also clear that IPs like this recent one who tried to remove the image understand what you mean. I spoke to that IP on his or her talk page. But you can still vote on whether you think the above contested paragraph should be added to the article as is (without quotation marks), or should be paraphrased and/or downsized in some other way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments on CC BY 4.0 license content

I propose we restore the following paragraph to the Causes section:

The origin of phobias has been attributed to evolutionary principles, to classical conditioning, and to beliefs and cognitive biases related to objects, situations, and attentional focus. A 2018 review proposed that trypophobia may be caused by both evolutionary factors and operant conditioning, where the natural reaction acquired through evolution is disgust towards trypophobic images. This disgust response may thus develop fear over time and then turn into a specific phobia due to negative reinforcement by avoidance as avoidance behavior has shown to contribute to the persistence of fear and the amplification of anxiety over time. This way, anxiety, and anxious expectation would grow with time, adding symptoms of fear on top of the innate symptoms of disgust. A 2018 review stated that their theory does not deal with the origin of trypophobic disgust. However, it provides a framework to understand how a natural response of discomfort found in both clinical and healthy populations can become a specific phobia with all what a specific phobia usually entails. Finally, whether visual discomfort towards trypophobic images comes from an innate aversion towards poisonous animals, scars, sores and illnesses, or dermatosis signs does not explain how an innate response of disgust can turn into a specific phobia.

References

The argument was "Commented out text is inappropriate WP:Close paraphrasing. That it's commented out does not make it any more suitable to remain in the article.)"[11] See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Public domain or compatibly-licensed content: "If the source is in the public domain, such as work of the U.S. government, or is available under a license compatible with the CC-BY-SA license (a partial table of license compatibility can be found at the Copyright FAQ,) then the source may be closely paraphrased if the source is appropriately attributed."

The content is under a compatible license and copyright law also applies to the talk page. See WP:PLAGIARISM, WP:FREECOPYING, WP:Compatible license, and WP:COPYPASTE. It is not a copyright violation or a close paraphrasing violation and no editor will delete the paragraph I added above because it is under a compatible license. It is not plagiarism to use content under a compatible license. QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoa!!! It appears you have gotten entirely onto a wrong track, in confusing use of material (such as covered by copyright), and attribution. When ever we quote someone (and being copyrighted does not preclude quotation), or do a close paraphrase, or otherwise rely on something said or done by someone else, we provide attribution ("who" said it). CC by anything has nothing to do with it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to revise some of this by paraphrasing it less closely? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It would certainly be best. And removing the redundancy as well. And the section should not begin with all of that anyway. I don't know why QuackGuru has such difficulty putting material into his own words, but I seriously think his editing of articles needs investigation. As others have told him, using our own words is best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest just going ahead and doing it that way, and not waste any more time over what to do about that other editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding what more can be done, I've asked copyright/plagiarism expert Moonriddengirl to weigh in. I want to see what she states before I feel that I must escalate the "copying extensively from a source despite what a number of other editors have stated issue" to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

After originally thinking this was all about CC-By-SA 4.0 and jumping to the wrong conclusion, I have reread and am honestly a bit confused as to my role here. :) CC-By 4.0 is compatible. If the source is identified, there is no copyright issue. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly-licensed_sources is clear that plagiarism is not an issue if the direct copying is acknowledged. Plagiarism isn't an issue if the guideline is followed, and copyright isn't an issue if the attribution is provided. Anything beyond that is local consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You correctly stated, CC-By-SA 4.0 is not a compatible license, but CC-By-SA 4.0 is not being used here. After further review, you understand CC-By 4.0 is compatible. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." QuackGuru (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Local consensus cannot make this plagiarism or a copyright violation, User:QuackGuru, but local consensus can determine that paraphrasing or verbatim copying better serve the needs of this article. :) The guideline does not impose one way of handling, of course. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Local consensus also cannot change my personal opinion as to what constitutes plagiarism, and if anyone does not like my saying that, I could not possibly care less. But I'm fine with Moonriddengirl's conclusion that local consensus does have the ability to determine whether another way of writing the content best serves the interests of this particular page. And I will expect QuackGuru to accept local consensus about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, thanks for weighing in. As for your role in this, I contacted you because you are so knowledgeable on copyright and plagiarism issues, and enough editors feel that extensively copying a source's words verbatim is plagiarism. Thanks for clarifying. Like I stated above (including in the RfC I started), QuackGuru seems to think that we must always or mainly use the source's wording and that if we use a word that's not in the source (because we are summarizing/paraphrasing), then it's WP:OR or "failed verification." As seen on the talk page, he seems to have issues with summarizing/paraphrasing. And after looking into QuackGuru's history, I see that others have also had plagiarism or close paraphrasing concerns about his editing. Here, we can see Rjanag stating that QuackGuru committed plagiarism. And here, we have Doc James stating, "They closely follows sources which is generally a good thing. Agree with the concerns around them adding FV tags as sometimes it is appropriate to paraphrase more." Now I know that QuackGuru has repeatedly been saved from being indefinitely blocked partly or mainly because he is seen as beneficial in fighting "quackery" on medical articles, but (like many others) I do believe that there are competence issues with regard to his editing. And I intend to look more into any possible plagiarism he has committed and the faulty "failed verification" issue that causes problems, including discord. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please focus your comments here on the content and not the editor. If there are problems with editor conduct, they should be discussed at dispute resolution noticeboards, but not on article talkpages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The specific approach of QG's that F22R is addressing (before going off into ad hominem land) is actually affecting this article currently; see #Failed verification?. So at least a bit of this is on-topic.  :-/  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Needless wording and missing dates

There is a ridiculous amount of over-attribution in this article. See "A 2018 review by Martínez-Aguayo et al. described trypophobia as" The wording is way too long. It can be shortened to "A 2018 review described trypophobia as". This can be done for all the wording in the article. There are more issues. See "Martínez-Aguayo et al. stated." There is no date and you don't need to state the author's name. See "In a study by Kupfer and Le,". There is also no date and you don't need to state the author's name. Also see "Based on the imagery's visual cues, An Trong Dinh Le, Cole and Wilkins...". There is no date and no mention if it is a study. Other poor wording is "Author Kathleen McAuliffe..." There is also no date and no mention that it is a book. There is also no need to include the author's name. Wikipedia articles should be written for the average reader. It looks like it was written for researchers. QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I intend to improve the readability of the article such as edits like this. What do others think? QuackGuru (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. Like I stated here, including the researchers' names for some material is better than repeatedly stating "research," "researchers" (possibly getting a Template:Who tag) or stating something in Wikipedia's voice as though it's a fact. Stating the material in Wikipedia's voice also echoes what SMcCandlish stated in the #CC BY 4.0 license content section above. WP:YESPOV is clear. Dates are generally left to the references, unless they need to be stated in the text. Considering that there is only one review thus far, it at least makes sense to state that the review is from 2018.

We all know that you love to use a source's exact wording and quote extensively from a source as though you wrote the material yourself, because you seem incapable of summarizing/paraphrasing, but that's not the way the Wikipedia works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

And do enlighten me on how stating "Author Kathleen McAuliffe" is poor wording. We shouldn't identify her as an author? We should have this non-notable name there without any indication of who she is? It's not like she has a Wikipedia article. And we most certainly should not state her commentary in Wikipedia's voice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I see this as something where it could go either way. I partially agree with QuackGuru that there are times when it isn't necessary to spell these things out in such detail. Some of this comes down to whether the fact given in the sentence is one that is generally agreed upon, or is something that is a particular view of the source authors. If it's generally agreed upon in multiple sources by different authors, leave it out entirely – but I also note that on a subject like this, that's actually not going to happen much, so it depends on the specifics. I agree with Flyer22 Reborn that it works badly to say "Researchers found that xyz"; either say that "Smith and Jones found that xyz" or just say "Xyz" with an inline cite at the end of the sentence. And I do think that it's not necessary to add the word "author" to Kathleen McAuliffe. Anyone who wrote a source that we cite is the author of that source. On the other hand, something like "sociologist Kathleen McAuliffe" or "epidemiologist Kathleen McAuliffe" or "journalist Kathleen McAuliffe" or something like that (I haven't looked to see who she is), adds useful information about how the cited person has a particular expertise. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with "those times," but this isn't one of them. As for "author," some people are primarily known as an author. When looking at the source's description of her, "author" seemed best. I do use things like "sociologist" and "sexologist," though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Flyer22 Reborn. Stating "Author Kathleen McAuliffe" is poor wording without stating who the author is. I would replace "Author" with something a bit more informative. I think it can also be improved by adding a date like I did for another sentence. Others may disagree. Other sentences in the article include a date. The revert stated "Undid revision 851689473 by QuackGuru (talk) Incorrect. See the talk page. And Martínez-Aguayo et al. are mentioned again because of a quote that is directly from them. Editors on the talk page disagree with quoting without attribution."[12] I did not remove the quotation marks and there is still attribution with this edit. I did not replace it with "researchers". I just removed the author's name while still keeping the main part of the attribution. Stating both the author's name and stating it is a review is over-attribution. When I quote a source I don't include the author's name as well as stating it was a review. The attribution is "A 2018 review...". That was simple and to the point. I thought there is better wording than stating just "researchers" or stating the author's name without a date. I thought stating "A 2018 review...". would work better than "researchers" or stating the author's name. There are other sentences that can be improved. See "Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins of the University of Essex's Centre for Brain Science extensively published on the phenomenon." There is no citation at the end of the sentence and no date. See "16% of a sample of 286 participants in a 2013 study..." It includes the date 2013. There was no objection to that edit when I added the date 2013. I think the wording improved by adding the date. I was going to add dates to various sentences and improve the readability for this article such as this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you per my and Tryptofish's reasoning above. As for "Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins of the University of Essex's Centre for Brain Science extensively published on the phenomenon," there was a source for it until it was removed. Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins are leading researchers on the topic, and are cited in just about every source on the research (media or otherwise); so they should be mentioned. Plus, they are mentioned in the Society and culture section. It was easy enough to shorten it. If you want to violate WP:YESPOV, I will not be agreeing. Unnecessary dates that can seen from the references do not help improve the readability of article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Shortening the wording like this edit still respects WP:YESPOV, but others may disagree.

As for "Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins published on the phenomenon.", I was unable to track the source down in the edit history. I can't comment about the current wording without a source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first use of "Martínez-Aguayo et al." after "a review," I re-added it because I quote Martínez-Aguayo et al. later on in the section. It makes sense to indicate to readers that the quote is from the aforementioned review. As for who Kathleen McAuliffe is, there is no need to go into detail about who she is aside from letting readers know that she is an author or has some other specific field. The point is making it clear that she is not some random person on the street. I disagree that "286 participants in a 2013 study" is better than stating "286 participants in a study." Readers can get the date information from reading the source. We commonly leave out such date information on Wikipedia, including in our medical articles. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Citing sources advises against such detail. Because of that guidance and what WP:INTEXT states about facts, I commonly avoid such detail as well. But this is not a topic where we can simply state things in Wikipedia's voice. This is not a "washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness" matter (which is an example shown in the aforementioned WP:MEDMOS link). WP:YESPOV should be followed; it is a policy. And despite what WP:MEDMOS states about professional titles, they should sometimes be used. We validly use them all the time on Wikipedia. What we generally stay away from is stating something like "Dr. [so and so]." Furthermore, it's been argued by enough editors that MOS:CREDENTIAL only applies to biography articles.

As for "Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins published on the phenomenon," I was speaking of the fact that they are/were from the University of Essex's Centre for Brain Science. You know, the content that was already in the article before I expanded the article? If none of the sources there support the statement, then I was mistaken. If you are stating that we need a source for "published on the phenomenon," when it is plain as day that they published on the phenomenon, I disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Citing_sources: "The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation."

The sentence says "16% of a sample of 286 participants in a 2013 study reported discomfort or repulsion when presented with an image of a lotus seed pod and its authors found that non-trypophobic individuals also experienced more discomfort when viewing trypophobic imagery than when viewing neutral images.[1]" The citation says "Irena Milosevic, Randi E. McCabe (2015). Phobias: The Psychology of Irrational Fear." The date in the sentence is 2013 while the date in the citation says 2015. It is not needlessly duplicating the date in the citation. Therefore, it is not repetitive. See "In 2017, trypophobia received media attention when..." That is repeating the 2017 date in the citation. QuackGuru (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do I need to look at that when I'm already quite familiar with it and pointed to it? Yes, it currently states "list in the citation," but it also means that needlessly duplicating what can be found in the citation is poor practice. This is why its "washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness" example doesn't include the 1997 date. Again, sometimes there is a need to state the date of the study. There is a no need to give a date for each of the studies in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree with F22R on the general matter: It is better to attribute specifically, especially on a controversial topic, than to wander into weasel-wording by saying "researcher" and "research" over and over again. That wrongly gives the impression of lots and lots of research and a scientific consensus, when there's been a grand total of something like 10 studies, most of it primary research. We have no systematic review, and the only literature review I'm aware of is embedded at the end of another primary-research paper, a one-individual case study. This is nothing like, say, scientific consensus that cigs cause cancer; this is very new territory, and citation precision is to be preferred because of that. Few if any of these claims have been verified by large-scale repeated research, and there's nearly no high-quality (scientific, not journalist) secondary source material available yet. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but an encyclopedia is not about with, it's about accurate and neutral information, including indications of when that information is not generally accepted fact but recent, unconfirmed research claims.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Some of the over-attribution issues and wording is being cleaned up. Let's keep it going. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good! I'd like to point out that I took the approach of emphasizing attribution to whoever said it, while removing what I consider to be extraneous words. So, for example, instead of changing "A 2018 review by Martínez-Aguayo et al. described trypophobia as..." to "A 2018 review described trypophobia as...", I changed it to "Martínez-Aguayo et al. described trypophobia in 2018 as...". That's because it is more important to name the authors who gave the description than to say that it was a review. That's different from what was reverted back and forth earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit is fine with me, but now I don't see a need to state "2018" anymore since we don't note that it's a review and since the other material in the section does not give in-text dates. And we do commonly note that something is a review in our medical articles; see, for example, Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Trypophobia article isn't a full-fledged medical article, but it is within the WP:Med/WP:MEDRS realm. As for this edit, I'm fine with it as well, and I considered stating "writer," but I don't see "writer" as that much different than "author" except for the fact that "author" is more specific...or rather more indicative of someone who writes books. In this case, I think "writer" fits better since she writes magazine pieces and has written columns. "Editor," though, can make readers ask: An editor of what? Well, I think that they are more likely to wonder what she is an editor of than what type of author/writer she is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if we should give "Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins" some type of in-text academic attribution, such as "Researchers Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins." Or maybe note something similar to what was is in the article before regarding them, but without "the first" (unless verified) and without "published on the phenomenon." This is because they did initiate the research that is now being done on the topic. That first report mentioned in the "Previous Studies about Trypophobia" section of the review didn't do that. Like I stated above, "Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins are leading researchers on the topic, and are cited in just about every source on the research (media or otherwise)." As for the others, "et al." indicates to readers that these are researchers we are talking about. And the first mentioned pair are what set the tone for readers to understand that the others are also researchers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

About 2018, I'm neutral about it, and would have no objection to removing it. I was just trying to avoid changing things more than necessary. It might be different on other pages in other contexts, but here, "review" added zero useful information: presumably, we would not have cited it in the first place if it were an unimportant source.

About "editor", I included it because pretty much every description of her mentions it prominently (she is an editor of Discover magazine, but that's too much detail for here). "Writer" and "author" are two different things, because a writer is implicitly a professional writer, whereas anyone can author something without it being their main profession.

About Cole and Wilkins, if they are actually the researchers who first started the study of the field, then OMG, of course that has to be stated explicitly, but it has to be in a form that is clear. Also, if they started the field in 2013, that should be stated too, and is a reason to retain 2018 for Martínez-Aguayo. But the point is that they were the originators of the field (assuming that's the case), not that they are just "leading", which is too vague. And we should be clear about what kind of researchers they are, what their scientific field is. It might even be worth pulling that out to a "history" section that covers when it was first noted in popular media and then when it was first studied scientifically. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "review," I think the reason it's used in a number of our medical articles is to identify the importance of the source -- that it is a review of the literature. And WP:Med editors and WP:MEDRS really love reviews. All of that is the reason I use or keep "review." But I usually just state "A review" with the date. The names usually are not needed. I explained above why I included the names in this particular case; it's because I quote them using in-text attribution later on in the section.

Regarding "writer" vs. "author," they aren't necessarily different things. They are used as synonyms at times. But, yeah, as is clear above, I also see some difference between them. To me, though, "author" sounds more professional. I think people usually think of someone who is published/has written books when they see or here "author." An author of a blog or a fan fic is not assumed, for example, unless the context indicates that. With "writer," readers may think "some writer of a blog or something like that." Seems like we have reversed views on "writer" vs. "author." It's not a big deal for me, though. Again, I'm okay with the wording you used. "Editor of Discover magazine," which is wording I also considered after reviewing your changes, seems fine to me as long as she is still an editor of Discover magazine. We use such wording for reception material in our Wikipedia articles. And we currently have "Writing in Popular Science, Jennifer Abbasi" in the article. But then again, McAuliffe has written and/or edited other things.

As for "leading," per WP:PEACOCK, I wouldn't use such wording. There was a History section. But after this edit, I combined it with the Society and culture section, because the History section contained just two small sentences and a section for a little of material usually is not needed, as made clear by MOS:Paragraphs. I noted similarly to Doc James after first expanding the article. Beyond that, I've never felt that "history" and "society and culture" need to be separate in our Wikipedia articles (except perhaps for certain cases), and I've stated this before at MOS:MED when we were discussing how to design anatomy articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment since there seems to be a lot of rewriting behind the scenes, I'll opt out until there is another request for opinions or edits. However, I strongly disapprove of suggestions along the lines of Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins are leading researchers on the topic, and are cited in just about every source on the research (media or otherwise); so they should be mentioned. This is not a popular journalistic article, but an encyclopaedia entry, and it is an entry about the topic, not the authors. If they are notable enough they can have their own articles, and this is not one of those articles. They get all the exposure they need (or no doubt want) in the citation. We don't want to know what they had for breakfast or how thrilled they are about their work. Most of our readers have never heard of them and unless they refer to the citation, they are unlikely to care, or to want the distraction. JonRichfield (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

JonRichfield, Tryptofish stated above, "if they are actually the researchers who first started the study of the field, then OMG, 'of course' that has to be stated explicitly, but it has to be in a form that is clear." That is what I agree with. We name the first researchers to study something all the time in our Wikipedia articles, and doing so does not make us any less encyclopedic. It's makes us more encyclopedic, and comprehensive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In case there was any lack of clarity in what I said before, I would support saying (assuming adequate secondary sourcing) that they were the first researchers in the field, but I would oppose saying that they are the leading researchers in the field. Being historically first is encyclopedically significant, whereas being "leading" is editorializing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and I noted that, per WP:PEACOCK, I would not use "leading." Not even if the source used the term, unless I'm directly quoting (meaning with WP:In-text attribution). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)