Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:No original research

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newystats (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 24 May 2024 (→Election Percentages: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

When will Wikipedia start allowing original research?

When will Wikipedia start allowing original research? 2601:646:8B00:D590:A8D8:A7CD:CD01:F7C5 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's unlikely that we ever will.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no good reason for us to do that, and it's not consistent with being an encyclopedia. If you have something new that you want to tell the world, post on social media, or start your own website, or send it to an academic journal, or write a book. Ideas and information that the world has never seen before belong in those places, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In great line I'm agree.
    But I can imagine some ones can be still confused.
    For example:
    Someone is an emeritus professor.
    He or she is a specialist in what he or she knows.
    If I understand correct you, he or she may put his or her facts on Wikipedia what he or she knows and that is published. But he or she is not allowed some facts he or she knows wich isn't published yet. Shy Aroace (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Wikipedia is not the right venue for presenting facts that have not yet been published. A professor emeritus (a specialist in her field) would know this - and would also know what the correct venues to publish new information are. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s unlikely that someone in that position would wish to share unpublished research, and it would likely go against the policy of any university or paper that that research is meant to be published by.
    Someone in that position would be aware that if they’re the first person making the claim that they will be expected to provide evidence.
    Them simply saying that the evidence is in unpublished research is an issue because it both asserts something without a reliable source or verifiability, and that it asks other editors to trust their claim based on their position.
    If the evidence will be published then adding it to Wikipedia can wait. If it isn’t publishable for some reason then it shouldn’t be here in the first place. Cbrfield (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I changed my mind on this. I think we will start allowing original research within the next 5 years—with some possible estimates being as short as 100 hours until the ban on original research is finally lifted. Remsense诉 04:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish has repeatedly added his AEIS shortcut to the WP:SECONDARY linkbox. It fails the WP:LINKBOXES criteria. It is not much used. It is possibly not used by anyone by User:SMcCandlish. Adding everybody’s personal favourite shortcut to linkboxes creates clutter, and confusion as to which newcomers to the policy page are recommended to use. The LINKBOXES contain the shortcuts to be recommended to be used. Removing excess shortcuts from a LINKBOX doesn’t stop the shortcut from working. I think it is clear that AEIS doesn’t belong in the linkbox. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reasoning. The frequency of shortcut usage is almost entirely determined by visible listing at the page in question. The single most important point in that entire section is that analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis require secondary sourcing. Suppressing awareness of a mnemonic shortcut for this serves no purpose, and the notion is completely tautological: You want to hide it because it's not used much yet, but the reason it's not used much yet is because you and probably someone else earlier have hidden it. While we should not list every shortcut anyone ever makes (or various sections of various P&G pages would have dozens), but we should certainly make use of those that serve a clear purpose in making the important material memorable and easy to find. Not all shortcuts are equal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one but you uses AEIS. You really think people using SECONDARY should consider using AEIS instead? Why? WP:SECONDARY is very well recognised. What editors would benefit from seeing your new shortcut used instead? I think some people using AEIS to refer specifically to SECONDARY will confuse far more than help. In all the usages I look at (all by you), I definitely consider it to be confusing.
analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis. You added this here, although your edit summary suggests it was there previously. These four words are a mere subset of descriptions of creative addition that makes a secondary source. If these four are so important, why aren’t they listed at secondary source? I think your advocacy for AEIS analysis belongs in an essay, not a WP:LINKBOX SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t care one way or the other about having this shortcut… but I will say that I had no idea what the initials “AEIS” stood for until this discussion. The string of initials are not that intuitive for the user. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the set, WP:PSTS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY are extremely intuitive and good, and the addition of other lesser shortcuts decreases the quality of the policy page.
One thing that I think is really good about WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY is the correspondence to mainspace articles linked in bold by the opening words of each section. It challenges anyone who does understand, or agree, this policy is not making up theories of scholarship, go and read the articles. If the articles are wrong, fix them.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My own preference is to have only one shortcut shown for sections/individual anchors, though I wouldn't make it a firm rule. Two might be appropriate if, e.g., two different ones are equally commonly used. My main reason for this is that I want everyone speaking the same 'language'. People get confused when it sounds like WP:PSS and WP:FSS require something different from WP:PSTS and WP:RSTS and WP:PSTSGUIDE, which is different again from WP:INTERPRET. Those all point to the same section of this policy. We should advertise the most popular shortcut, so that we maximize the chance that editors will know what the other people are talking about, and we won't end up with one editor saying that WP:PSTS requires it to be my way while another is saying that WP:INTERPRET requires quite the opposite.
(Of course, if your goal is to make them go read the actual policy, then feel free to choose one of the lesser-known ones. But let's not encourage a sort of biodiversity in shortcuts by advertising the lesser-known ones. It's hard enough to keep straight the common ones, such as when WP:UPPERCASE and WP:ALLCAPS go to different pages, or all of those awkward pairs that differ only by plural, like WP:MAP and WP:MAPS. The fewer shortcuts people are confronted with for a single point, the better.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just for the regulars who spend a lot of time talking about policies, if you're using the Reply tool with the toolbar, please make use of that link tool. It will look up your favorite shortcut for a page and give you the option of spelling out the whole title. Editors might not be sure what a shortcut like WP:CV redirects to, but they'll have no trouble figuring out what you're talking about if you link straight to Wikipedia:Copyright violations itself.
I use the keyboard shortcut for the link dialog all the time. It's ⌘k on a Mac, with a similar shortcut for Windows and Linux boxes. (It's also super handy if you aren't sure how to spell someone's username or the name of an article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We want everyone speaking the same 'language'. Very much agree. Most of the most time-wasting arguments boil down to people disagreeing on unstated definitions.
Arguments in SHORTCUTLANGUAGE is very prone to misunderstanding, and squarely fits the definition of jargon, which means there is a barrier to newcomers getting involved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book, Film, and Play Synopses

I am troubled by something, and it has been claimed it is not original research, but by the terms specified in this policy, it seems to dead on hit the original research policy on the nose. That, of course (if you read the title) is a synopsis of a "work", i.e, a book, a movie, or a play. Consider: At some point an article about a work will be created, and it will describe and summarize the plot, i.e. it is a synopsis. Where does the content for the synopsis come from? Why, the memory of the person who saw the movie or play, or read the book or text of the play (which is clearly forbidden original research), not a restatement of an existing published synopsis (which is not).

I mean, in some if not most cases, there clearly is no way to provide a reference to a third-party source for the work in question in an article, the only way to provide a synopsis of the story and plot is to simply describe what you saw or read when you experienced it. But, if you do that for any other article, that is original research.

Either there needs to be an explicit exemption for movie, book, and play synoposes from the rule prohibiting original research, or someone needs to explain why this very behavior (stating one's own understanding of the issue) on other articles is prohibited original research, but the exact same behavior on a synopsis (stating ones own opinion on the content and story of a work), apparently is not.

I appreciate your time in reading this missive, and I await a reply.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Wikipedia routinely allows and requires what is technically synthesis (summarization is often technically synthesis). I think that this policy is read to preclude creation of anything (even a thought or impression) via synthesis, especialy anything that is challenged. There's also a second wp:ver angle on these. If challenged, they don't comply with verifiability. I think that the defacto situation is that the normal interpretation of wp:NOR does not preclude them and if challenged (which they seldom are) they would need to get removed. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and made similar arguments at /Archive 64#Quibbles about the definition of primary sources. The responses I received varied, as I perceived them, from misunderstanding my point to making a false claim that something else that to me is obviously WP:OR is a reasonable primary source, to a comment that other Wikipedia users can look at the source book and verify for themselves that something is true, which is irrelevant to whether that's WP:OR.
I believe, under the current policy, the plot we give about a work should be sourceable to commentary about the work, not to the contributor's having read the work. The work is not a primary source about the subject, it is the subject. If they want to make an exception, that's fine, but it should be explicitly acknowledged as an exception. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under current policy, the plot summary is sourceable to the work itself – so long as what the plot summary says is simple description, as in straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The policy has also explicitly endorsed plot summaries: For example,...an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. That means you can write things like "Hamlet kills Polonius in Act 3" but not something like "Hamlet's killing of Polonius was due to his increasing mental strain" (unless you have a secondary source for the latter). I think that the examples in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully and the explanation in Wikipedia:These are not original research#Works of fiction and non-fiction will be useful to @Rfc1394 and others.
Also, I'd like you all to think about parity issues here. You can't seriously think that my memory is good enough to provide an accurate summary of scholarly works about technical subjects – indeed, to find and read a dozen of them to determine what the proper WP:BALANCE of facts and WP:DUE WEIGHT of opinions is – and yet somehow I'm too demented to be able to remember whether it was Hamlet who killed Polonius, or if it might have been the other way around. If we assume that an editor can read, understand, and remember the contents of a secondary source in between reading it and using it in Wikipedia, we should should assume that an editor can read, understand, and remember the contents of a primary source in between reading it and using it in Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using OR to omit information

The policy is clear that we can not use our own original research to state something in an article. What is less clear is whether we can use our own original research to omit something from an article. As an example: say an article says X occurred, cited to several (reliable) newspapers reports saying that X occurred. But an editor digs a bit, and discovers that X didn't actually occur… that the papers got the story wrong. That editor can’t add “However, X didn’t occur, and the papers got it wrong” based on his original research, but he CAN discuss his research on the article talk page and gain a consensus to omit the statement that X occurred. Should we mention this in the policy… or is the situation rare enough that spelling it out in the policy would just confuse people? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should put the big unspoken reality / need into words. Which is "Wikipedia editors are editors" and then that would be one of the zillions of types of situations covered by it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a reliability issue? The best sources are still only generally reliable, they can be wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that editors should be encouraged to use their own WP:Editorial discretion. (I also think we need another policy statement, probably in WP:BALANCE, that says editors should be writing an encyclopedia article.)
The problem that I foresee is illustrated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#MEDRS sources on curcumin supplementation. If you look towards the end of that section, I've evaluated one of the disputed sources against the actual criteria. It turned out to be an ideal: systematic review in a top-rated journal, no COIs, etc. Given the person who reverted it, I can make a good guess about what the real problem is: it said something somewhat positive about a substance that isn't already approved by the FDA as a regulated drug. Many of our anti-woo warriors (for whom I truly am grateful; Wikipedia would have worse content and more spam without them) would cheerfully use their editorial discretion to blank anything that gives the "wrong" answer about an unregulated dietary supplement. I assume that POV pushers of all sorts would do the same: I think all the sources saying that X happened are wrong, so we should omit them all: no Moon landing, Elvis didn't die, etc.
On the one hand, I don't believe that any WP:VOLUNTEER should be forced to add a source that they suspect is incorrect, but I also don't want to say that they can remove it (and force others to accept that removal). If you have a consensus to omit, then consensus should prevail; if you have a consensus to include (despite your own objections), then you should let one of the supporters add it to the article.
If you need a simple example for discussion, the OED regularly provides information about the first known use of a word in writing, and a trip to books.google fairly often proves it wrong (for entries that haven't been updated for a while). The uncontroversial solution in such cases is to silently omit the OED's claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need to allow editors discretion. Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion, and there are valid reasons to exclude information that can be verified. On rare occasion, there may be multiple different reports in multiple different sources, and it may make more sense to omit the contradiction than to report it. Or it might simply be too tangential or detailed for a summary style article. Deciding that something isn't relevant is the essential job of an editor. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are degrees of WP:Relevance which enter into those decisions. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit of 3 respected sources that confirm the subject of the article was a terrorist.

Is there a consensus to revert to the edit I made this evening? These are the sources.

https://www.bbc.com/news/extra/xkbwldvmb5/exposed-the-secret-army https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-footage-of-martin-mcguinness-showing-kids-bomb-and-gun/38473261.html https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/new-footage-shows-martin-mcguinness-building-car-bomb-and-giving-bullets-to-kids-943764 Jaymailsays (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete misrepresentation of the objection. You changed several existing sentences;
  • In response, McGuinness said the statements were "fantasy", while Gearóid Ó hEára (formerly Gerry O'Hara), a Derry Sinn Féin councillor, stated that he and not Ward was the Fianna leader at the time
This was changed to;
  • The terrorist act, injured at least 26 people and cast real doubt on Gearóid Ó hEára (formerly Gerry O'Hara), a Derry Sinn Féin councillor, statement that it was he and not Ward who was the Fianna leader at the time, the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled
The second sentence originially read;
  • The inquiry concluded that, although McGuinness was "engaged in paramilitary activity" at the time of Bloody Sunday and had probably been armed with a Thompson submachine gun, there was insufficient evidence to make any finding other than they were "sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"
You changed to this to;
  • The inquiry, based on the evidence available at the time, concluded that although McGuinness was "engaged in paramilitary activity" at the time of Bloody Sunday and had probably been armed with a Thompson submachine gun, there was insufficient evidence to make any finding other than they were "sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"
As I already said, there isn't any dispute McGuinness was in the IRA at the time. But you can't use the existence of a film made several weeks after Bloody Sunday (1972) to try and cast doubt on the findings of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing changes to the NPOV policy, I would suggest taking this to the talk page of the article in question. But one point to remember is that just because something can be verified doesn't guarantee inclusion, rather inclusion requires that something can be verified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place for this discussion. This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the WP:No original research page and policy. The best place to start your discussion is at the talk page of the article that you are writing about. There are ways and places to take it farther after that if needed. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, @Jaymailsays might find it more appropriate to take the question to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. It sounds to me like this is more of an NPOVN question (i.e., some sources cast doubt on the inquiry's findings, and other sources do not), but if @Kathleen's bike really believes the main problem is adding up multiple sources to create material that isn't in any source at all ("SYNTHESIS"), then NORN would be the better choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a NPOV issue. None of the three sources above cast any doubt on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry findings, the text added saying the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled is Jaymailsays's own constructed narrative, no sources say that at all. As I posted at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Synthesis and false narrative Martin McGuinness's own evidence to the inquiry in 2003 has him involved in the IRA at that time and covers the bombing campaign directed at businesses in Derry, so this video (known about since 2019) is, if anything, consistent with his testimony not casting any doubt on it. Kathleen's bike (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested on whether usage examples require sources

Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion about usage examples at linguistic articles, and whether they require sources: Talk:Franglais#Are usage examples "original research"? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for WP:SYNTH, is semantic change relevant?

if the socially recognised term for an article has been coined after a source had been posted (or before the term was popularised), is that source valid or is that WP:SYNTH? for example, if an article is detailing lemons, but does not mention 'lemon' by name because the word (hypothetically) had not been invented yet or was extremely novel and esoteric at the time, is that source a valid source? NotQualified (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i would argue there is precedent WP:TRANSCRIPTION, as sources from different languages refer to the same idea but with different terminology yet still can be sourced. we need to outline clearly in the rules whether semantic change is or isnt covered by WP:SYNTH. basically, does it invalidate a source if the term was not used in verbatim? NotQualified (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, how far can semantic change be tolerated? what if the source being relevant to a topic could be highly likely but still with reasonable doubt? are only sources that are irrefutably discussing a topic without mentioning it by name acceptable, if even any are? or are sources beyond reasonable doubt also okay? NotQualified (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this, in context, is this:
The consensus among Wikipedia editors is that certain terms, such as the Great Replacement and Cultural Marxism, refer in their plain meaning to what the best sources available understand to be conspiracy theories. The articles at those titles are therefore articles about those conspiracy theories.
Where there are real-life phenomena or concepts that the conspiracy theorists appropriate for their political fictions, like White demographic decline and Marxist cultural analysis or the Long march through the institutions, enwiki has separate articles on those topics. What we avoid doing is incorporating real-world phenomena into articles about conspiracy theories in a way that might lend credence to the fictions (and in this we follow WP:FRINGE). Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
whats your take out of context, in a more general sense. it still needs to be defined in rules if semantic change is acceptable NotQualified (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. There's no such thing as a rule about language "out of context". Remsense诉 10:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no i mean, if we had to clarify if semantics is or isnt convered. ignoring the context of where i initially was stumped by the allegation it wasnt and i broke rules and rather just thinking in terms of wikipedia. does WP:SYNTH disqualify semantic change affected sources. if not, this needs to be clarified NotQualified (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, we're writing an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. What that means here is, if the meaning of language has significantly shifted since a source has published, it's often not a source we rely upon when writing an encyclopedia. For example, we consider many ancient sources like the Book of Han to be primary sources to be used with caution, even if we certainly can't omit them entirely from some articles. We rely on more recent secondary sources to put those primary sources in context. So in your initial example, if no other source includes the earlier mention of lemons, it's probably not within the scope of what we're writing about. We reflect the body of sources about a topic, which usually does a good job of clearly defining the thing we're writing about. Remsense诉 10:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question: I don't think we have a rule (about semantic drift, say) that applies universally on enwiki regardless of context. What we do have - starting with WP:N and WP:PAGEDECIDE - is a set of rules, guidelines and practices about topics and the scope of articles. Where reliable sources treat terms as synonyms - like the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory as a synonym for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - our articles treat them as the same topic. When reliable sources distinguish between the meanings of terms - like Social justice and Political correctness - our articles distinguish them. And our articles are, broadly speaking, supposed to follow reliable sourcss in defining the boundaries of a topic.
As an aside, I have frequently seen "it doesn't mention the article title!" used as a lazy reason to exclude a source from an article, which is not grounded in policy. In many cases, however, this argumentation is shorthand for another argument that is based in policy, namely, that the statement for which the source would be used is out of scope for the article for which it is proposed and it would be a SYNTH violation to include it. Whether a source is usable or not, however, doesn't depend on the presence or absence of a keyword but rather on whether the statements for which it is reliable fall within the scope of the article for which it is proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's usually pretty clear when writers are talking about the same thing because they'll usually mention each other. Remsense诉 11:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
im having a disagreement with a writer for if a source is related to the article and they dismissed it saying the title wasnt mentioned verbatim and id inevitably get banned for putting it in. they did correctly remove a bit i wrote that was unsourced, but that was due to me not adding the source in the article but in the talk page which on reflection was massively stupid lmao. NotQualified (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • stupid of me
NotQualified (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what precisely you're referring to, but a constantly recurring problem with articles like Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Great Replacement is that editors arrive and try to impose their BOTHSIDES interpretation of NPOV, where one of the "sides" has no significant support among WP:RS. What typicallly happens is that either those editors will seek the inclusion (for "facts") of what are at best WP:RSOPINION sources, or they will do their own "research" into a topic the conspiracy theory is interpreting and seek inclusion of related statements in the article, as if to say, "here is the actual phenomenon that the conspiracy theory is interpreting".
The problem with the latter is the inevitable WP:SYNTH violation - unless reliable sources actually tie the conspiracy theory back to real world phenomena (usually by contrasting one with the other), editors are forbidden from doing so in articles. What is more, even if one source does this, it may be WP:UNDUE to mention in article space if the vast majority of sources do not see a clear connection between thr conspiracy theory's claims and actual phenomena. And WP:FRINGE tells us to be very careful about allowing wikipedia articles to become amplifiers for fringe claims, including those by conspiracy theorists. So while the key question is not actually, "does the source name the article topic?", there are lots of sourced statements that would be completely inappropriate to include in articles - especially articles on FRINGE topics - because of SYNTH concerns. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what precisely you're referring to NQ is referring to this discussion: [1]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how did you get the cool text around your usrrname? NotQualified (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:CUSTOMSIG. I think mine is exactly the maximum allowed size—because I had to use a lot of characters for a <span>...</span> tag to properly tag the Chinese character as being in Chinese. Remsense诉 12:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When a term is coined isn't usually relevant. Actually the semantics rarely matter a lot, on Wikipedia -- it's really the meaning that matters. Our articles have to mean what the sources mean, but they don't have to use the sources' wording. However, if the purpose of your post here is to develop an argument about Great Replacement or other topics related to the far right or alt right, then my advice would be to leave those topics alone for the time being. Editing them isn't usually a pleasant or productive thing to do, even for very experienced editors, and for newer people they're no fun at all.—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am very new to this and youre right it's exhausting. it's fierce and obvious ideologically blockading. im a leftist but im able to be objective to anything yet im told that i cant edit the theory in any way that 'launders' it, even when im sourcing objective facts and quotation. they are biased. however, no i am not just here for that. i genuinely do think semantics need to be addressed within this rule as this confusion has to be quashed on if it's sound or not. if group consensus says it's fine, im going back to edit it. if not, i'll find new sources. NotQualified (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your welcomingness marshall NotQualified (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic, if a reliable source sources an unreliable source, do i take it that the reliable source fact-checked the unreliable one? NotQualified (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Sources aren't just "reliable" or "unreliable"; they're a continuum, where some sources are more reliable than others. Generally speaking, the pinnacle of reliability is an academic meta-analysis or systematic review. Less reliable, but still very reliable, is a peer-reviewed study in a scholarly journal. News articles aren't brilliantly reliable but might be the best available for some topics, in which case I'd prefer a recent or current news article published by a newspaper of record. Where a seemingly-reliable source turns out to depend on an unreliable source, then we'd usually say that's a consideration that makes the seemingly-reliable source more unreliable. But be careful. Make sure that, for example, the reliable source isn't quoting the unreliable one in order to debunk it.—S Marshall T/C 08:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    right, thanks. lots of info to take in. i'll make a talk page discussion if the semantics argument is approved in rules and have you review my writing to ensure no rules are broken, if you wouldnt mind NotQualified (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i feel like we have broad consensus now on what policy should be, would you like to edit this article to mention this and i close this topic? NotQualified (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel this isn't too necessary an addition, as we're mostly just summarizing how we already understand the policy to be. Generally, less is more with policy—you want the minimum possible verbiage with enough flexibility but also so that no one can ever get anything twisted in an argument. But it's always worth asking what other editors think! Remsense诉 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors need to Wikipedia:Use our own words. If a word is unclear (e.g., because people from different generations or English varieties understand it differently), then use a clearer word, or add an explanation. I find that editors are more likely fight over the article titles ("No, my diet is the One True™ Ketogenic diet, not this rare thing for kids with epilepsy that's been called by that name for more than a century!") but not individual words. When you do get someone who fights over clear writing, you may be dealing with an editor who seems to believe that if it's not a copyvio (or at least plagiarism), then it's a NOR violation. Resolving that usually takes some work and sometimes some help, but it's usually achievable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election Percentages

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Is there a Manual of Style on Election Percentages?
 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Presidential Election in North Macedonia on 8 May and I and StephenMacky1 are in dispute regarding the manner in which the percentages of votes should be displayed in the Lead Infobox. This is because the source is The Electoral Commision, which reports percentages by dividing by the total number of all votes (including blanks). Before we get into a giant dispute, I would wish to have input from those more familiar with working on such articles.

I maintain that we should use percentages of valid votes in the Lead Infobox, which is how identical issues were handled in the previous election (compared with page 32 here). I inserted hidden text into the infobox with that reasoning and restored the percentages to the fraction of the total without blanks.

StephenMacky1 absolutely disagrees and reverted things for the current version of the page. They maintain that we should report it EXACTLY as the sources do and that the other election does not constitute a precedent or even implied consensus, but is in fact an indicator that the article is itself in error by not abiding due to not abiding by the sources perfectly. This also causes an internal disagreement on the page itself, because the results use Template: Election results that do not allow us to use blank votes as a valid part of their calculation and mean that the table refuses to display anything, but the percentage of effective votes contrary to StephenMacky1's wishes for percise reporting of what the sources state.

Does anybody know if the Manuel of Style addresses this? I have not been able to find such a specific rule, but I may have not been thorough enough. Is No original research so broad that, recalculating the numbers in the way the Template: Election results already does and placing that in the infobox at the top, would constitute a violation?

Also how does one call StephenMacky1 into this conversation, since I have previously not done this? Do I just request their presence on their talk page? 212.79.110.147 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recalculating numbers doesn't sound like a good idea. Gawaon (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calculation is not a matter of style. This is a WP:NOR issue. NebY (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is now also placed for discussion at their talk page. See: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Election_Percentages 212.79.110.147 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY: This is pretty clearly allowed under WP:CALC. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is or not, this is the wrong place. WP:CALC is a section of WP:NOR, not a style matter. NebY (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calculating a percentage is not "research", original or otherwise. It is presenting information, entirely within scope for wikipedia Newystats (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This was placed here on suggestion at the Manual of Style talk page that it should be discussed here) 212.79.110.147 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: StephenMacky1 has been invited. User:Number 57 has edited the page for the election to use percentages of the total vote again at 22:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC). I have invited him here at 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I've put a pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. NebY (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting that, NebY.
212.79, both of these approaches are okay under our policy. The ideal approach is likely to be naming both, i.e., "65% of all votes cast and 69% of valid votes". You could also add an Wikipedia:Explanatory footnote (using the {{efn}} template, if you'd prefer) to provide that information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP. Thank you for informing me. I was not aware of this change by the Electoral Commission. It was not necessary for this issue to appear on multiple talk pages. I agree with the suggestion above. A note could be added to explain how the percentages were calculated. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement to use {{Election results}} and we often don't. Why not present the results in the body of the article and the infobox in a way that accords with the source, e.g. by using the {{Election box}} family in the body? NebY (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any kind of general preference between these possibilites for displaying it? I am personally biased toward Version 3, but will defer to senior editors if there are strong feelings against it.
Version 1
Percentage 69.01% 30.99%
Of All Votes 65.14% 29.25%
Version 2
Of Valid Votes 69.01% 30.99%
Of All Votes 65.14% 29.25%
Version 3
Percentage 69.01%[a] 30.99%[b]
Version 4
Percentage 65.14%[c] 29.25%[d]
  1. ^ 65.14% if including invalid votes
  2. ^ 29.25% if including invalid votes
  3. ^ 69.01% if including only valid votes
  4. ^ 30.99% if including only valid votes

212.79.110.147 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Version 4, the percentages declared by the Electoral Commission, being of the "Total number of voters who voted" i.e. turnout. The body of the article should also present that percentage. However, I can't see what the basis is for calling the invalid votes "blank"; the English-language version of the page says "Total number of invalid ballots" and Google Translate gives the same. Why not call them "invalid"? I'd add that I am in sympathy with the Electoral Commission's choice, given that a formidable 5.6% of the ballots were invalid. NebY (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I called them blank, because I forgot North Macedonia doesn't distinguish Invalid and Blank votes like the 2024 Panamanian general election, which I have also edited recently, does. I have altered the above version accordingly.212.79.110.147 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It turns out that we can use {{Election results}} and still produce candidates' percentages as a % of turnover, per the North Macedonia Election Commission. I've adapted the article's table at User:NebY/sandbox/election. NebY (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of an infobox question than whether the calc is forbidden by WPNOR. In cases like this, explanation needs to be included. Sometimes that means leaving it out of the infobox and just covering in in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just over a week ago we had local elections in the UK. I have checked the official sources for some of the results, and I find that the percentages take invalid votes into account - so for example with this result, the only way that you can reconcile the 25.82% turnout is by adding the 13 rejected ballot papers to the (469 + 220 + 936 + 187 + 121) = 1933 valid votes: (1933 * 100 / 7537) = 25.65% but ((1933 + 13) * 100 / 7537) = 25.82%, as shown on the results page. This convention will not necessasarily be observed elsewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion concerns the percentage assigned to the candidate rather then turnout numbers. I have always seen turnout reported for all votes including invalid and blank one and am in agreement with you there. I don't think there even exist an election, where the turnout is reported in a different way.
I also noticed that the Cherwell Council page over here would seem to be doubly incorrect according to your proposition that all votes be used as per the source. The percentages reported there, at the moment at least, divide by the valid votes (1933) and not all the votes (1946), since Matt Hodgson has 48.4% and not 48.1% next to him, and report the turnout as 1933 in absolute numbers, while having the percentage set to 25.82%.212.79.110.147 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was Icc27 (talk · contribs) who added the percentages there, I don't know what their source was. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be normal to display turnout figures including the rejected votes, but for candidate percentages to exclude these.
As for reporting the turnout figure in terms of number of ballots I think it would be more normal to include those rejected, but I'm not aware of a general standard in this case. Icc27 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. Standard election results presentation is for candidate/party percentages to be calculated using valid votes, and turnout to be based on all votes cast (valid and invalid). Some electoral commissions publish candidate/party percentages that have been calculated by including invalid votes (or in some cases excluding certain types of valid votes) but this is usually because their electoral law says that the calculation of the electoral threshold (for winning seats or whether a second round is required) includes invalid votes. Cheers, Number 57 03:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. To add: I would say that it is fine but not necessary to include invalid votes in percentage calculations if (and only if) the number of invalid votes is specifically published, but undervotes should virtually never be included in percentage calculations. A topline election may have a 2% undervote while a simultaneous downballot election has a 20% undervote, but they should be treated the same. The undervotes would never (to my knowledge) be included in percentages for races with high undervotes, so they should not be included for races with low undervotes. Thus, invalid votes should only be included in percentages if they are distinct from undervotes. Star Garnet (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the same conflict is now present at the Lithuanian Presidential Election from 12 May, although it won't effect the first infobox just yet until the second round in two weeks. They also report their results of percentages of the total vote at their results page. There might need to be some sort of official ruling or this might cause an identical editing conflict there. 212.79.110.147 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC), user accessed the page from a computer at 88.146.220.100[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&oldid=1225434091"