Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 33

message: The definitions of PSTS are not critical to NOR because they are not used outside of the PSTS section. I have rewritten that section without using the defined terms: primary, secondary, and tertiary:
====Use of sources====
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. 
*Factual sources - Facts that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse factual sources. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the factual source should be able to verify that the related Wikipedia passage is true to the factual source. Any interpretation of factual source material requires a reliable interpretive source. Examples of factual sources include archaeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
*Interpretive sources draw on factual sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a interpretive source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a interpretive source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published factual and interpretive sources used appropriately. 
*Some publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other sources are more reliable than others; within those sources, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica, and encyclopedias of similar quality, can be regarded as reliable interpretive sources. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used as factual sources so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one.
An article or section of an article that relies on a factual source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on factual sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
=====Comments=====
I tried not to change too much, to remain as true as possible to the original. But once the sacred cows are banished, I think it shows this is not a good example of clarity. It needs lots more work, but we can't get that done until we get over the religious arguments over PSTS, and actually get down to the real work of editing. Dhaluza 01:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a factual source? Are we now reinventing distinctions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact, I was trying to show an alternative to the confusing primary/secondary distinctions using plain English. I think if you ask a friend or relative who has never seen Wikipedia "what is a factual source?" and "what is a primary source?", you will probably get a more reasonable answer to the former than the latter. Dhaluza 11:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 4 Example without PSTS 

message: Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. 
*Factual sources - Facts that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse factual sources. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the factual source should be able to verify that the related Wikipedia passage is true to the factual source. Any interpretation of factual source material requires a reliable interpretive source. Examples of factual sources include archaeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
*Interpretive sources draw on factual sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a interpretive source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a interpretive source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published factual and interpretive sources used appropriately. 
*Some publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other sources are more reliable than others; within those sources, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica, and encyclopedias of similar quality, can be regarded as reliable interpretive sources. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used as factual sources so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one.
An article or section of an article that relies on a factual source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on factual sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
=====Comments=====
I tried not to change too much, to remain as true as possible to the original. But once the sacred cows are banished, I think it shows this is not a good example of clarity. It needs lots more work, but we can't get that done until we get over the religious arguments over PSTS, and actually get down to the real work of editing. Dhaluza 01:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a factual source? Are we now reinventing distinctions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact, I was trying to show an alternative to the confusing primary/secondary distinctions using plain English. I think if you ask a friend or relative who has never seen Wikipedia "what is a factual source?" and "what is a primary source?", you will probably get a more reasonable answer to the former than the latter. Dhaluza 11:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of sources

message: I tried not to change too much, to remain as true as possible to the original. But once the sacred cows are banished, I think it shows this is not a good example of clarity. It needs lots more work, but we can't get that done until we get over the religious arguments over PSTS, and actually get down to the real work of editing. Dhaluza 01:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a factual source? Are we now reinventing distinctions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact, I was trying to show an alternative to the confusing primary/secondary distinctions using plain English. I think if you ask a friend or relative who has never seen Wikipedia "what is a factual source?" and "what is a primary source?", you will probably get a more reasonable answer to the former than the latter. Dhaluza 11:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: SlimVirgin made a series of undiscussed edits to the policy. Also, I linked to the relevant section of WP:V. I am just posting this so people are aware and the changes may be reviewed. Personally, I think changes are mostly a positive revision. My only nit is that "material" should be clearly used as either a word for references or a word for article claims. I think the usage both ways muddles things a bit. At the least, I would recommend restoring the "claim" wording (or "article statement" as a replacement) in the first paragraph of "Reliable sources". Vassyana (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still going over the new revision, but I'd agree with SV's apparent belief that using "claim" is poor word choice. Imagine the WikiLawyering possible over what constitutes a claim...Someguy1221 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a light copy edit, not a change, Vassyana. Please stop this language of "SlimVirgin makes undiscussed edits!!!" whenever I fix some punctuation or tighten wording. There was no substantive content change. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't change the substance (in my opinion, someone else could disagree), but it was a significant rewording. They were undiscussed edits. I didn't revert them. I didn't impugn them or you. On the contrary, I agreed explicitly with the changes, barring a nit regarding a single wording choice. I don't understand this antagonism when I'm essentially agreeing with you. Vassyana (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Without expressing a preference about any particular wording, I want to agree with Smalljim's preference for active rather than passive voice. At times, this policy has been confusing because it was unclear whether it was discussing something written in a non-Wikipedia published source, something unpublished but not written by the Wikipedia editor, or something written by a Wikipedia editor. When we write this policy in the active voice, we tend to make it clear who it is that that wrote the material we are interested in. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Active voice is of course preferred over passive, but second person pronouns are not necessarily appropriate. It is probably better to say "editors should..." and not "you must do this". We want policies to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. While policies should describe good editing behavior from the editor's perspective, it should be readable by anyone. For example consider the perspective of a mediator or arbitrator reading the policy. Dhaluza (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Policies are descriptive and prescriptive, obviously, or we wouldn't be bothering to write the descriptions down. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We write it down to describe how we do things, not to prescribe how we do things. That is a fundamental difference. Dhaluza (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we want to describe if not to prescribe? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that is not how things work in a consensus based system. A consensus means that people agree to follow the consensus opinion. So we try to describe the consensus opinion as best we can, and then we expect people to follow it by consensus. We do not prescribe that because of a "past consensus" you must do things in some rigid precise way. The distinction here is that when differences arise, we invite further discussion to interpret the consensus, and allow that consensus can be difficult to describe and subject to change. In the prescriptive case, the rules can take on a life of their own, and become part of a self-sustaining bureaucracy, which Wikipedia is not. Dhaluza (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that "you should do this" is shorthand for "current consensus indicates that you should do this, else you will probably be reverted". Sounds sensible. Is there then any place in policy wording for must?  —SMALLJIM  12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No place; Wikipedia policies should be phrased in terms of "should" instead of "must". — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this your opinion or is it an existing consensus, Carl? The exhortation appears in all three content policies.  —SMALLJIM  13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very established in practice. In WP:V, the only "must"s are in the nutshell and in a single sentence referring to NPOV, which is a foundation issue not a local policy. Moreover, there are many more policies than the content policies (protection, blocking, deletion, etc.). The biggest violator of the "should" convention is this particular document. I encourage you to look through the policies and search for the word "must" to see how infrequently it is used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I'd expect it to appear more often in the "big three" policies. I think it's really being used as shorthand for "current consensus strongly indicates that you should do this, else you will almost certainly be reverted and warned about it too" (cf above). You seem to be recommending the downgrading of some of the uses of must in this policy.  —SMALLJIM  14:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I agree with "descriptive, not prescriptive".  Wikipedia is driven by consensus.  Policies and guidelines are written to document what consensus has established.  They describe consensus.  They don't prescribe behavior.  Anything else would go against the spirit behind "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" and "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". (And thus "should" is preferred over "must".) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm shooting off at a bit of a tangent here, but if it's true that policies and guidelines document current consensus—and I don't see why that shouldn't be so, it seems a very "wiki" way of doing it—then all the recent discussions that have taken place here (and at WP:EVAL) about the definitions of primary and secondary sources with reference to what external organizations say about them are not only irrelevant but seriously erroneous. What we should therefore be doing here these days is looking around article space, AfDs etc, noting which types of sources are being accepted as primary and which as secondary, and then documenting the results at WP:PSTS. Maybe if we did this it would become evident that much of the P/S distinction is irrelevant…  —SMALLJIM  14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that WP:NOR should include discussion of how the articles that we consider to be the best use their sources, and which uses of sources are commonly rejected. I think that would be more useful than an attempt to choose an arbitrary definition of primary/secondary, which many people will find hard to use because it confliucts with the definition they have already learned. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do now seem to be arguing for two incompatible points of view. I think that's the point you're making. Never mind, it's said to be good exercise :-) And both do express my dissatisfaction with the existing PSTS.  —SMALLJIM  16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I see we are back to people wanting to tag the policy with a "consensus may be changing" tag.  I am of mixed feeling about this, but if we are going to have a tag in the article then it should only apply to the PSTS section (as that is what all the debate is about).  Consensus is definitely not changing as to the bulk of the policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "consensus changing" tag 

message: .... but these discussions are becoming nothing more than a pissing contest. I am taking this page off my watchlist for one month. See you around then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry folks... 

message: Recent attempts to tag the PSTS section to highlight the discussions here have been removed with edit summaries to the effect of "Please do not..." and some form of tag, deface, etc, without discussion, even though the use of the tags have been discussed on this talk page. What is the objection to placing a tag to show the topic is being discussed and consensus may be changing? The tags exist by consensus, so they do have appropriate uses. And there is active discussion, as the links in the last tag show. Yes, that particular tag is rather large, but every other tag that has been tried has been removed as well, including one designed as a compromise. If the tags are unsightly, should we just remove the policy tag at the top instead? Dhaluza (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would very much object to removing the Policy tag at the top.  NOR is policy... and I think there is solid consensus for that designation.  There is also solid consensus for the bulk of the sub-sections within NOR.  The only section that is being discussed and debated is the PSTS section. If anything does get tagged, it should be that secton and that section only. Blueboar (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags on PSTS 

message: Would anyone object if I went through and renamed/moved all the archive pages so their names were of the form "Archive 1" rather than "archive1"?  Doing so will mean User:HBC Archive Indexerbot will be able to index them, and  will be able to auto-list them.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable--we should follow standard convention. Dhaluza (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's done.  There are a freaking huge pile of subpages under this one.  Prefix Index.  A few of the archives even have their own archives.  Unfortunately, the archive indexer bot only knows how to archive one level of pages (per index), so to find a discussion that's in one of the sub-archives, one will still need to go digging.  But it should be better than it was, at least. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. It looks like a big improvement over how it was previously. wbfergus  Talk 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, indeed. Thanks for the good work. Its much better now. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive naming 

message: An important point seems to be missing from this policy article : where is the line between self-evident facts and original research? If I write "George Washington was a male", do I need a source? Please clarify in the article.  Emmanuelm (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ignore this rule if its application would lead to a rediculous result, as with all rules. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If the facts are truly self-evident, it's unlikely they'll be challenged, so a source may not be necessary. If a statement is challenged, the facts may not be self-evident to everyone. In this case it should be easy to find a source for your statement. As for the "sky is blue" example, this is particularly relevant and interesting reading. Chaz Beckett 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you answered my question. I still think there should be a paragraph in the article explaining this. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V. .. dave souza, talk 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at WP:V and still cannot find a clear statement about obvious or self-evident facts. Could someone please write a paragraph to clarify this? I suggest this title : "The sky is blue" -- sourcing common knowledge.   Emmanuelm (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that WP:V requires that facts be verifiable and not verified. Anything that is truly self-evident should have a wealth of sources to support it, and I doubt that anyone would, in good faith, argue that no source exists to support that the sky is blue. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Which part of "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." didn't you read? If it's obvious or self-evident it self-evidently is unlikely to be challenged. Unlike "the sky is blue", which it clearly wasn't here today. A dirty grey earlier, black now. Dunno where you live. .. dave souza, talk 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, the mere fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaocracy absolves us of the need to riddle policy pages with disclaimers to eliminate every possible technicality or loophole. While I am at times disappointed to see that some people take the rules too literally, it's generally sufficient in such a dispute to point out that a rule should be ignored when its application fails to accomplish its goal. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The sky is blue" -- do I need a source? 

message: Does reading the Producer credit on a TV show and then reporting that credit on the producer's article constitute OR? I don't think it does since there's no 'interpretation' of the primary-sourced data being done, but I'm running into an editor (here) who insists that it is. The second half of the questions is: if it's acceptable to note that the person produced the episode, and you provide the credit for every episode of the show made, is it OR to count the number of episodes the person produced and say "He produced ## episodes of Show"? Torc2 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The show is a published source, and reading a source is not OR. Dhaluza (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Dhaluza is entirely correct, there is no OR in stating the contents of a primary source, and TV show credits are highly reliable. As for counting the episodes someone is credited in, it is technically weak synthesis, I believe, however it might well be allowable. LinaMishima (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If the series is incomplete, I would rephrase as "he produced ## of the first ## episodes of Show" for the sake of durability, but I agree that no OR is occurring here. Limited synthesis is always okay, as long as you're not trying to imply some specious argument with it (like "he liked Show A more than Show B because he produced twice as many episodes of it"). Dcoetzee 09:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding synthesis, it is worth noting that most human languages rely upon weak synthesis in order to follow what it being said correctly. More importantly and controversially, researchers rarely publish material that is the product of weak synthesis, such as the trivial counting of something from sources, or observations that those trained in a field would find trivial to make but are deemed complex by those not similarly trained. LinaMishima (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a fun example 

message: WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view says:
:On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics.
:We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them... 
I have noticed that some articles will make a statement like "these are the views of this group" or "there are several views" and present a relevant and sourced list and no problem.  Other pages you try to do the same thing and people delete the comments, saying WP:OR or WP:SYN, thought it seems to be it's really usually because of WP:Idontlikeit.  On the other hand I ran into an example today that LOOKED ok to me, except it needed more sources, but I wasn't sure and just brought up the topic for discussion.
Therefore I think an explicit statement about this lists issue and explanation of and link to WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view is necessary somewhere on WP:OR, probably at Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.  It should say something like:
:However, it is not synthesis to state that some people believe "A" and then list various sourced opinions "A".  Also, per Moral and political points of view on certain topics, especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics, listing all points of views is often necessary and not original research or synthesis.
Comments?
Carol Moore 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any examples of what you think are good and bad articles in this regard, it will make understanding your point simpler, and so help people to know exactly what they are commenting on. Thanks. LinaMishima (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Carol is trying to change the WP:NOR policy to get around WP:NEO; she is trying to do original research, finding a large series of primary sources that use a phrase, and then stringing them together to draw her own conclusions about them. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Make explicit when sourced lists NOT WP:OR 

message: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources
:I think this is going to stop wikipedia from getting access to a lot of specialist knowledge, particularly in the physical sciences. There is a lot of specialist topics that live in the heads of only a few people on this globe and that then often in a rather scattered fashion. To write a good introductory piece for wikipedia that gives easy access to the topic for outsiders is inevitably somewhat of a creative act. If an expert is at all willing to do that they will often not have  (or take) the time to find a suitable citation for every sentence they write. I think the most you can hope for is that they come up with a relevant text book or so. I think this needs to be relaxed and it probably can be relaxed as long as there is no opposition on the topic.
For the record, my changes to paramagnetism are almost exclusively drawn from my personal knowledge and trying to find quotes for everything I remember is really beyond my means. So: if anyone wants to revert it to its previous (rather abysmal) state: be my guest.
Jcwf (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could perhaps use a rewording. But to put your concerns at ease, that section is meant to discourage specialists from adding their personal interpretations of prior research, and findings they've made in their own unpublished and/or unreviewed research. And while ideally every claim made in an article is cited, the fundamental policy here, verifiability, requires that content be verifiable and not verified. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The real policy governing this is WP:V. Things need to be verifiable, which means that you can and should include your specialized knowledge in Wikipedia pages, so long as nobody would disagree with you. For anything likely to be challenged, however, you need a citation. This is how things have worked for years on math and science pages, where there are a lot of conclusions that are simply not disputed by anybody. You can say E=MC2, for example, without actually having to cite Einstein's article. COGDEN 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As long as what you are adding is verifiable in the literature, you will be fine. The spirit of NOR is not to prevent specialists from editing articles, it is to have a page to point to when we remove crank theories from articles. A sense of purpose and perspective is necessary. The best editors (specialist or not) of math and science articles do ensure that they don't add their personal interpretation, but stick to what is commonly accepted in their profession. The scientific citation guidelines give useful advice for sourcing science articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialist knowledge 

message: Based on the comments to date, I think the "product of original research" and "original research synthesis" are just roundabout ways of saying "also original research". So based on this, can we consider the following alternative:
-- Dhaluza (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think it's much improved, but can you remind me what you intend to do with it?  —SMALLJIM  19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need to extend the issue of primary/secondary sources, which I believe will never have complete agreement, into the nutshell. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a proposed nutshell, it's simply a proposed revision to the existing PSTS section. The box simply distinguishes the proposal from discussion. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my mistake, sorry. In the context of PSTS, this is fine with me, although it is somewhat more brief than the current text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also support the revision. --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New revision