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 SteveBaker (talk | contribs) at 20:48, 25 May 2021 (→‎WikiGodel: Sorry - wrong place.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:PRIMARY requires that primary sources are "reputably published." What does that mean?

@Onrandom and I have a disagreement over whether a PDF file hosted by the website of the Clarion Project, a known hate group, may be used as a citation for a primary source on Michael Scheuer. It's my position that this file can't be "reputably published" on the website of a hate group. If it was hosted on JSTOR, for example, I certainly wouldn't have an issue with it. Also concerning is that this is a biography of a living person and WP:BLP applies. Onrandom states that the reputation of the host of the file is irrelevant. What does "reputably published" mean exactly in this context? Am I misunderstanding this? Snuish2 (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the entire section as a result of WP:BLPRS but the answer to the above question about the meaning of "reputably published" would still be very useful for me going forward. Any insight would be really appreciated. Snuish2 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My 2cents would be that while that organisation is guilty of misrepresenting and falsifying claims it’s not been accused of forging a document (as far as I can tell). What they’ve put on their website appears to be a genuine document. It’s certainly sub-optimal using a site like that, and they certainly can’t be used as a secondary source. They couldn’t also be used for quoting a primary source where they are simply quoting that primary source themselves. But displaying a facsimile of a primary...may be ok absent any claims of document forgery. This is on the basis that as an organisation it has come under published scrutiny, and that particular allegation appears not to have been made. i think it would be different if it was a completely ‘unknown’ site where there is no public domain scrutiny - that definitely shouldn’t be used in this way. Interested to see what others think. DeCausa (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with DeCausa on this. It isn't enough to have never been accused of something, it has to be that they have a reputation for reliability. In the case of a primary document, the publisher has to be relied on to accurately identify the document, to not modify it, to not deliberately suppress related documents that show it in a different light, and so on. A hate site cannot be relied on for those important matters, nor can a random tweet, blog or youtube video. So, as much as we would like to use a primary document that we found published by an unreliable publisher, we cannot use it. That's sort of what I take "reliably published" to mean. Zerotalk 01:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is how I've always interpreted the phrase thus far although Onrandom suggested that the host's reputation was entirely irrelevant. I think the policy page could use additional clarity here if editors can come to a consensus about what exactly is meant. Snuish2 (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the history of this page, it seems that the statement was originally "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." That then turned into "reliably published," which was eventually changed to "reputably published." Snuish2 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When "reliably" refers to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it's not possible for something to be "reliably published". What's meant is something like 'primary sources are okay if they appear in magazines, newspapers, academic journal articles, etc. or if there is some other good reason to believe that this is a reliable source'. What's written could be interpreted as disallowing self-published primary sources (in which case, we might as well delete {{Cite Twitter}}). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABOUTSELF creates a narrow set of cutaways (established experts and WP:ABOUTSELF, with some additional restrictions) where self-published sources are considered reliable; therefore, they can be used as primary sources within those restrictions (in fact, they almost can't be used any other way - AFAIK WP:SELFPUB sources are almost always considered primary; they're really the most primary sources we allow.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be good to change it back to "reliable source", since that is better-defined. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I wouldn't want to see "reliably published" again since it doesn't necessarily convey what's intended. However, some additional clarity (via, e.g., a footnote) or changing this back to its original form would be useful because "reputably" is not clearly defined in Wikipedia policies. Snuish (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When a word isn't defined in policy at all, then it is meant to use the normal English-language definition. We define only a very small number of words, such as Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged and WP:Based upon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Wikipedia:Original Research ?

Hello guys! I am a little confused, is this original research?

=== Current president's last college was closed by the US Department of Education ===

The current Nightingale President is Mikhail Shneyder.[1][2][3][4][5]

From 2009 to approximately 2012, Mikhail Shneyder worked at California's Heald College as the Vice President. Due to findings by the Department of Education of misrepresented job placement rates at certain programs of Heald College from July 2010–2015, the department made students eligible to have their debts canceled. Because of a lawsuit alleging that "Heald College...misrepresented job placement rates for certain programs".[6] Heald College was shut down on April 27, 2015.[7][8][9][10]

  1. ^ (October 29, 2013), ABC 4 news interviews nightingale’s CEO Mikhail Schneider, nursing college Utah, ABC.
  2. ^ Becoming a Nurse, ABC.
  3. ^ (April 5, 2012), Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing.
  4. ^ (November 6, 2014), Studio 5 with Brooke Walker, NBC.
  5. ^ Nightingale College Offers New Nursing Education Program
  6. ^ How to Apply for Student Loan Forgiveness if You Attended Heald College, United States Department of Education.
  7. ^ Jill Tucker Corinthian, Heald colleges shut down abruptly, San Francisco Chronicle. April 26, 2015.
  8. ^ Information About Debt Relief for Corinthian Colleges Students
  9. ^ Education/Licensing Committee Meeting, State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, (March 10, 2011) - "Heald College Baccalaureate Degree Nursing Program, Fresno Campus Representing Heald College were Mikhail Shneyder, RN, is Vice President of Allied Health Programs at Heald College Central Administrative Office"
  10. ^ Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing, (April 5, 2012 - in which Shneyder explains he started working at Nightingale in March, 2012).

Infinitepeace (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is 100% WP:SYNTHESIS, which is a form of original research. Woodroar (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Morbidthoughts in quotes:

NUMBER one: "You need one reliable source that says Schneider is CEO of Nightingale."

The current Nightingale President is Mikhail Shneyder.

(October 29, 2013), ABC 4 news interviews nightingale’s CEO Mikhail Schneider, nursing college Utah, ABC.

Becoming a Nurse, ABC.

(April 5, 2012), Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing.

(November 6, 2014), Studio 5 with Brooke Walker, NBC. Nightingale College Offers New Nursing Education Program</ref>

AND


NUMBER TWO: "that he presided over the previous failed schools."


Education/Licensing Committee Meeting, State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, (March 10, 2011) - "Heald College Baccalaureate Degree Nursing Program, Fresno Campus Representing Heald College were Mikhail Shneyder, RN, is Vice President of Allied Health Programs at Heald College Central Administrative Office"


Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing, (April 5, 2012 - in which Shneyder explains he started working at Nightingale in March, 2012).

Woodroar - What is WP:Synthesis about this? READ the sources before you parrot someone please. I am at a complete and total loss as to how you consider this WP:synthesis Infinitepeace (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitepeace, I've read the sources, which is why I commented. I'll break it down. You have 3 basic claims:
1. Mikhail Shneyder is the university president. You added 5 sources, 4 of which are dead and 1 is a public document and unusable for these claims.
2. Some claims about mispresenting job placement rates, debts being cancelled, and a lawsuit. You added a public document about how to apply for loan forgiveness, also inappropriate for BLP claims.
3. Heald College shut down. You added 3 public documents (2 of which are live, 1 is dead) and an article on SF Gate. The SF Gate article is likely the only BLP-compliant source we have.
So right from the start, claim #1 may or may not be original research, depending on what those 4 dead sources say. You'd need to track down archived versions or find better, live sources for us to look at. But that's mostly irrelevant because of the next issues. Claim #2 is WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research, because it doesn't mention Shneyder at all. You can't use a source that doesn't mention a person to support negative claims about that person, period. Now even if the source did mention Shneyder, it's still a public document and not BLP-compliant. Claim #3 is also synthesis because it doesn't mention Shneyder, either.
So yes, this is 100% original research. Woodroar (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got a great idea Woodroar, why not use Archive.org and help me edit the page.
OR
Google Mikhail Shneyder Nightingale college. Let me help: [1]
  1. 1 is clearly knocked out.
I am really troubled by the way you are approaching this. A 2 second google search establishes that he is, in fact, CEO.
Although I am not a newbie, I am thinking about this article: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Especially since you know wikipedia policy very well.
Infinitepeace (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this paragraph is written in a way that implies that Shneyder is responsible for the problems in the second, third, and fourth sentences, even though none of the sources for those sentences mention him (except the Education/Licensing Committee Meeting, which is a WP:PRIMARY source and clearly unsuitable for a WP:BLP-sensitive claim.) In order to connect him to the school's troubles, you need a source making that connection, at least implicitly (by mentioning him), and ideally explicitly if you want to go into any depth. Even with your additional source, taking sources that say "X is in charge of Y", other sources saying "Y failed" (without mentioning X), and combining them in a way that implies that X caused Y to fail is textbook synthesis. And it's not other people's responsibility to find sources for you - if you can find better sources, good! But we're just evaluating the ones you showed us, which are insufficient for what you're trying to say. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitepeace, you come to a policy talk page asking for an opinion on the application of that policy. When someone gives you that opinion, but it’s an answer you don’t like, you complain about them and say, snippily, they should do some research on google and help you edit the page. Huh?! Why on earth would you think they should do that? DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this should get moved to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&oldid=1025120748"