Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 13

message: The policy states that "Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material." - I am only going to comment on this statement. As an academic myself, I would dispute that secondary sources "summarize" primary sources. In fact, the more scholars summarize, the worse a book or article is because they are not presenting their own interpretation of the texts or historical events (this is primarily a problem in the humanities). The aim of secondary sources in the humanities is to provide an interpretation of events or of a set of texts (or both). SparkNotes and things of that ilk try to "summarize." Awadewit 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think secondary sources summarize and/or analyze and/or interpret primary sources. Crum375 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this not covered in the policy in the line "A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources."? Surreptitiously 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the journalist example says it, but the generic description did not, so I just modified it. Let's see what others think. Crum375 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, a definition that must rely on examples is not considered a good definition; it is vulnerable to attacks based on the specifics of those examples. In this case (secondary sources), examples are certainly not necessary for definitional purposes; they are illustrative only. I think that Crum375's changes are good. Awadewit 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on secondary sources

message: Is there any official Wikipedia policy prohibiting the use of resources that can be found in a real brick and mortar library rather than a blog or online version of a magazine?  An editor removed sourced and relevant content from an article based on the argument that I was using offline sources of information, and he demanded that I provide online sources in order for the content to stay online.  This is the first I've heard of such a standard, and it seems to me profoundly anti-intellectual.  Can anyone comment? csloat 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  I read through the entire *issue* including your Talk page.  The block was inappropriate, imho, and you are correct that citing offline magazines like Vanity Fair is certainly appropriate. Wjhonson 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Because it is usually difficult to get something published on paper without a fair amount of editorial oversight, offline sources are often more reliable than online ones.  (This is not always the case, see vanity publishers.  Also some online sources can have perfectly good editorial oversight.)  It can be frustrating for other users who are unable to look at the offline source and check your work, but so long as the source is reliable, they should trust you.  However, since offline sources can be hard for others to check, I would recommend using inline references to make it as unambiguous as possible which information is based on the offline sources.   Also try to provide the ISBN to make it easier for others to find the book. —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick responses!  I have complete copies of the articles if anyone really doubts they exist, but I don't think anyone truly does.  I've been editing for a while now and have not had problems before with citing offline materials. csloat 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uploading the copies to Wikipedia would likely be a copyright violation, however I doubt anyone would mind if you sent them by email to another involved editor.  Also note that attribution is most likely not the only relevant policy.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to note that most truly scholarly material in the humanities is going to be offline or inaccessible to the general public. Unfortunately, the databases that cover the major humanities journals are available only to those who have access to research libraries that subscribe to them (they are very expensive) and the most important work done in the humanities is almost always published in book form. If you want an excellent article on Jane Austen or Charles Dickens, for example, do not demand online sources. In my own editing on wikipedia, I have tried to follow the inline citation idea Armed Blowfish mentioned above, but it can get silly. See Mary Wollstonecraft and Anna Laetitia Barbauld. I also prefer offline sources since online sources can disappear and change (i.e. the information you cited may disappear from the page). Asking readers to dig up a cached version of the page is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Awadewit 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK hold on though, (I just found out about this discussion) we're not talking about "scholarly material" here, but allegations that Hitchens is an alcoholic and speculation that it's "getting the better of him". As this is sloat's replacement for poorly sources blogged insults which clearly violated BLP, it's reasonable to demand checkable citations to insure it's compliant. <<-armon->> 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations are clearly "checkable" Armon.  I have checked them myself, and you are welcome to as well -- as is anybody else in the world!  And there is no evidence that any of this violated BLP, so please stop making that false claim. csloat 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In this specific case, although everything does appear to be well sourced, it isn't clear that having such a long section is NPOV.  I moved it to the talk page (it is well-sourced, so not an apparent BLP problem) for discussion. CMummert · talk 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AN/I it. This sounds like a classic case of an unreasonable Admin using his/her powers inappropriately. If I'm wrong, he/she should have no problem justifying his/her actions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand -- the user in this case who appears to be acting inappropriately --   -- is not an admin.  He's not using any special powers against me that I know of; just reverting sourced and relevant text and making demands on the talk page. csloat 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I misunderstood, I thought that he had blocked you for your actions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of printed material rather than online sources 

message: I have never ever seen that done before. Apart from the back that it makes old discussions confusing, what if I want to link to the old policies? -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki's change, if you want to be sure something will be there you need to include a revision number in your link. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my point. My point is that some people might want to link to V and OR, and they are now shortcut-less. -Amarkov moo! 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to link to those pages. Everything that was there is here, so you can link to WP:NOR and be taken to the correct section here, or link to WP:V or WP:RS and be taken to the section about sources; or WP:ATT if you want to refer to the policy as a whole. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They can still use the proper names. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone always could use the proper names. But people don't, because it's inconvenient. And I don't see what benefit comes from redirecting here; anyone who knows the old shortcuts knows about this, and people who don't won't ever have reason to use them. And being superseded does not mean that V and OR are now wrong, which they aren't. -Amarkov moo! 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But WP:OR goes to the current #No_original_research section, and WP:V goes to the current #Reliable_sources section. I think it is more important to link to the current state of those concepts than some historical, old revision. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of this merger if they're still being treated as seperate concepts? I thought the idea was to treat verifiability and original research as different parts of "attributability". If it's not, why was this done? -Amarkov moo! 05:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A single concept can have more than one facet, that is why we have headings. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with redirecting to sections within the new policy. It's very important and appropriate during a transition in a commonly-used resource to give legacy content a smooth path to the new resource as a matter of pragmatically managing a complex system without disruption.  Providing a smooth transition is well worth the price involved, particularly prices consisting of esthetic or conceptual purity. --Shirahadasha 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are used to the old redirects, so letting people type WP:NOR rather than WP:A#NOR or something similar is helpful. You'll notice that the same thing happened when WP:VAIN became WP:MOREPOLITICALLYCORRECTTERMFORVANITYPUBLISHING. --tjstrf talk 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are all the old redirects hijacked? 

message: Previously the issue has arisen here, or on WP:NOR about a Wikipedia wanting to post their own Original Research into an article.  If my memory serves me, which it may not, the suggestion has always been, post your link/material to the Talk section and see if another editor will add it for you, instead of you adding it yourself.
The suggestion provides a way of vetting or peer-review if you will.  Now I've done that on the Talk page of Michael Huckabee and a complaining editor has taken a case to WP:AN/I here.  I would appreciate it if someone could comment here on whether my actions were or were not appropriate, and if not what the appropriate actions would have been in this case.  Thanks. Wjhonson 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material to be added should be published by a reliable source, whether it was written by a Wikipedia editor or not. The source, superficially, appears to be a wiki, and would be unreliable unless demonstrated otherwise. --Gerry Ashton 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of having a wikipedian ask another editor to review and add material that he/she came up with is not a way around NOR, but a work around to prevent Conflict of Interest.  For example, an author may have published something that he/she feels is relevant to an article.  Since there could be COI problems if he/she adds it him/herself, it is better for him/her to ask someone else to do so.  However, the rules for ATT still apply... the material should be reliably published as outlined on this policy page. Blueboar 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  Now that you mention it, I remember the COI issue more clearly.  So I guess what I did was pointless, I could just add the underlying sources to the article itself since they are all published by third-party reliable sources.  I collected them all in one spot, but I suppose the act of collecting and presenting the information in a certain set format with interpretive clauses, would itself be considered OR.  It's just a little annoying doing that work and then essentially having to do *part* of it all over to post each underlying citation here ;)  Thanks for your guys input. Wjhonson 07:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In effect, a synthesis which has not been fact-checked or peer-reviewed would be original research, no matter whose it is. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've given me an interesting idea.  Sort of similar to Jimbo's idea of having a "stable" article and an editable article.  This particular page, I've *locked*.  It would be interesting to have a peer-reviewed site for genealogy.  I don't really think there are any yet. Wjhonson 07:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to thank the three editors here who hve all clarified for WJhonson that his efforts do go against WP:ATT. Thank you. ThuranX 12:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused by this policy. Say wikipedia were lucky enough to have X, one of the foremost scholars on Y, contributing to an article on Y. Could they not cite their own scholarly works on Y, along with other scholars' works? In my field,  English literature, scholars often cite their own work in this way (especially if they are writing a book that includes ideas from a previously published article). I just want to be sure I understand the policy so that when I become the foremost scholar on something, I'll know what to do. :) Seriously, we shouldn't discourage scholars from quoting their own works, particularly if they are significant. Awadewit 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note "has not been fact-checked or peer-reviewed" is original research. If the work has been fact-checked or peer-reviewed, and we would under any other circumstances accept that source as reliable, there certainly would be no problem with a scholar citing his own work. The problem would arise if the person wished to engage in synthesis which had not yet been fact-checked or peer-reviewed. But sure, anyone can cite a reliable source, regardless of whether (s)he also happened to write it. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 15:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are usually unable to confirm that the self-proclaimed expert has the credentials he claims if he does not give his real life name on his user page. We just went through the embarrasment of a "noted theologian, PhD, professor of theology, and former department head" who in editing fell back on his credentials to argue others into submission, and who turned out to be an imposter with respect to the credentials. Someone who claims to be a doctor, lawyer, rocket scientist or Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist may be none of those. If they have published something in a respected journal which satisfies WP:ATT they or anyone else can cite it. Edison 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Research by a wikipedian

message: We're having a bit of a problem currently with the Dancing puppets trick article - the information in the article has been mentioned or alluded to in a variety of different websites, but none of them can be counted as reliable sources.  To date, one article has been found which does seem to fulfill the requirements, but it's behind a paywall.  A recent deletion discussion resulted in no consensus and a relisting in two weeks if no attributable sources are found.  Anyway, my questions are the following... first of all, does anyone know the rules for paywalled articles? Also, I've found several photographs online of the thing which is described in the article.  Can these photographs be used as evidence?  The pics in question: ,  Esn 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always OK to cite a printed newspaper article (from a reputable newspaper). Linking to the newspaper's site is what's known as a "convenience link", and is not required, but you should give the exact day and if possible the page number. --NE2 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with citing reliable sources that must be paid for, whether online or printed. Last time I checked, bookstores were not giving away books free. The only objection would be a conflict of interest, where the editor who writes the citation somehow profits from sales of the material that is cited. --Gerry Ashton 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the photographs you point to are not adequate to support the article, which talks in-depth about details that are not visible in the photographs.  I'd also be concerned that your newspaper article is unlikely to be anywhere near as in-depth as the article we have.  JulesH 07:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generally tend to think that an editor's own interpretation of a photograph would be original research in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does have serious citation (ie none) and NOR issues.  The list of where this scam has been observed, for instance, seems pure OR - relying on the personal observations of the editors who have seen it in action.  It should be deleted or majorly re-worked. Blueboar 15:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographic evidence, paywalled sites allowed?

message: So, the old policies don't get force. That's reasonable, it would be hard to keep them updated. Then they don't get shortcuts. I disagree, but I can fix that with a Javascript hack to give me buttons to put the names it, so it doesn't matter that much to me. But now they don't get talk pages? Why don't we just go ahead and slap on a protected redirect, if nobody is allowed to do anything with them? -Amarkov moo! 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; it's incredibly silly. The "old" policies are here, on this policy page, so why would anyone want to post on the old talk pages? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Think of the old policies as an archive, if you want to bring something up, come the this page, the current page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they're not just archives. They're policies that existed for years. -Amarkov moo! 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were expressions of policy. There is nothing sacred about the form we give to policies, otherwise policies would be carved in stone. The policies and guidelines that were formerly expressed on the pages Wikipdia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are now expressed on this page. Those superseded pages are now historical, of interest in reviewing the history  of our policies, but no longer the living expression of our policies. -- Donald Albury 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not why would anyone WANT to post on those pages.  Rather the issue is a small group of editors trying to suppress any posting to those pages.  Whether we want to or not, should not be in the hands of people who don't *want* us to.  We should be able to post comments to *any* talk page we feel like posting.  There could any number of reasons why we would want to, but that isn't relevant.  What's relevant is that we should have the freedom to do so, without getting attacked. Wjhonson 03:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wjhonson, you are saying that you want to do something that many or most of us consider disruptive, without telling us why, and because "you feel like it". The only motivation I can see at this point is WP:POINT. Please invest your resources in more productive directions. Thanks, Crum375 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Change is the nature of wikis, the same policy still exists, just on this page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose you can talk there, but decisions will not be binding because it is done away from where the main populations of editors discuss such things. It is not about censorship, it is more that we are holding the meetings somewhere else now. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wjhonson, when you start posting to old/mothballed/historical pages, it creates a disruption because editors must now monitor multiple pages referring to the same topic, and because newcomers may mistakenly be attracted into a thread on an old page, not realizing it is obsolete. It can also lead to conflicting and/or overlapping threads about the same topic. All of these are totally unnecessary and highly disruptive. Crum375 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously this man does not feel he is part of 'we'. There is never a good reason to remove or otherwise obstruct the use of a talk page unless it is being used to violate policy. Jtrainor 04:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruption and WP:POINT, per my comments above, and the impeding of the building of our encyclopedia, is a violation of policy and can result in a block after appropriate warnings. Crum375 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk: pages are for the purpose of improving article content. Since these are defunct policies, the Talk: pages can no longer be used for that purpose - in fact, they have no purpose any more, and are as defunct as the policies themselves. Wikipedia is not a message board or blog; if you feel you need places to have conversations with your buddies, please find more appropriate ones. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, it's disruptive because it's causing this disruption, and there's no need for it. The problem with keeping the old talk page active is that new editors may see the discussion, not realize the policy has moved, and then things will be discussed there rather than here, meaning other editors have to monitor both pages, and on and on with yet more pointless time-wasting. The policy moved and the policy talk page moved with it, and to ask people to cooperate with that isn't censorship, just common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So add a link to this page at the top of the old talk page with a notice that that policy is now obsolete. Problem solved. Jtrainor 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've done that. Problem unfortunately not solved because some people could find problems in heaven itself. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that argument circular.  You punch me in the face, I complain, but somehow I should accept getting punched in the face.  My complaint "don't punch me in the face" is disruptive.  If the comments had been left alone, as they should have been, this discussion would never have started.  If anything is disruptive it's what occurred to *start* this, which is the wiping out of the Talk page comments.  That is disruptive to the smooth editing of the project. If those editors who wish to force us to not talk on that page i.e. censor us or suppress us would leave us alone instead, they would show that they are not being disruptive. If you could explain how a person would *not* see it as antagonistic I'd appreciate it.  But I'm not about to accept that those of us who wish to not have our comments wiped are being disruptive as opposed to the few who wish to wipe the talk comments of other people who are merely exercising their right to post comments on talk pages.  Do not wipe the talk page comments of others unless you can point to a policy that those comments are violating.  That's a pretty basic, civil request.  I'd like to see an argument against it. Wjhonson 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops... in reading over AGF I see that I shouldn't accuse someone of violating AGF "...without presenting supporting evidence". So my supporting evidence is that my Talk page comments were wiped out three times in as many hours, with no imho just cause and the last time was by an admin who then posted a personal Talk page comment asserting that I may be being disruptive and WP:POINT when really I was just annoyed that my Talk page comments were getting wiped in the first place.  Those edits did not WP:AGF from my point-of-view, they WP:ABF which is rather insulting.  So that's my evidence ;) Wjhonson 08:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin said:  "...and are as defunct as the policies themselves.".  No, the policies are not defunct.  The policies have not changed.  Wikipedia:Verifiability is still policy.  To change the policy, there would have to be a consensus-building process which checks whether there is any major objection to demoting the old policies.  This was not done.  Instead there was a question as to whether there was any major objection, linked to statements that the proposed procedure would not be changing any policies. --Coppertwig 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point of information: I said no such thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Coppertwig - You take Slim's words out of context.  The concept of "verifiablility" is still policy (as it is included in this policy), but the policy page "WP:Verifiability" is defunct.  There is a difference.  Also, you seem to be confusing consensus with unanimity.  There certainly is a consensus in favor of this policy, but there is not unanimity about it.  Blueboar 14:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (conflict) Yes it was done. The talk page for this policy was advertised in numerous locations, including on the talk page of Verifiability on multiple occasions, with the clear suggestion that it was a proposal to replace V. Objections were discussed and the vast majority of those who had objections were happy to drop them once minor changes to the phrasing of this policy were made to accomodate their views. This process lasted several months, during which time anybody was free to comment. The question about major objections was merely the last step of the process, one final check before going live, once we were already nearly certain that consensus had been achieved. JulesH 14:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is silly. 

message: Where is the reference in wikipedia that sources have to be independent of each other? I'm sure it is somewhere, but with the changes that have been happening I can't quite see what has happened to it. I'm looking through WP:ATT but can't find any reference to independence of sources. I'm presuming they can not all be a repeat of each other. For instance if Australian Associated Press gives a press report about an incidence which is then published in a hundred newspapers unchanged we can not solely use that as a basis for an article when no other sources exist? At least I'll presume that is what is meant by independence, or am I missing something? Mathmo Talk 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources don't have to be independent of each other in the sense that the previous guideline (WP:RS) said, but they also shouldn't be duplicates. If the AP reports something which is repeated by 100 newspapers, you can't use those as 100 separate sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is what I thought. Indepent = not duplicate.  Mathmo Talk 06:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Sources, means not duplications? Or does it mean more than that? 

message: The introduction to this statement of policy mentions the "burden of evidence". I've never heard of the burden of evidence. Ought it not read "burden of proof"?  DavidCBryant 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's really required is some evidence that backs up the editor's claims, not necessarily definitive proof. Evidence is really a minimum requirement since without any evidence there's certainly not proof. ChazBeckett 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement means that the burden of providing evidence to back a claim (ie a citation to a reliable source) is upon the person wishing to add the claim to the article. Blueboar 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and not to be confused with the burden of evidence about the truth of the cited assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. If we said "the burden proof" people would think in terms of the truth of the assertion ... by saying "burden of evidence" we make it clearer that we are talking about who has to add sources.  But perhaps "burden of providing evidence" would be clearer yet? Blueboar 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burden of evidence 

message: What is the rule concerning a user who removes text because of Original Research of their own? For example, a use who removes an argument because they think its false based on their own original synthesis of other sources?--Urthogie 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we should not have argument based on an editor's original synthesis in the first place, the editor not only may, but is encouraged to remove it.  If you like the argument and wish to keep it in the article, go look for an independant secondary source that states it. Blueboar 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand my question.  I'm saying when the removal itself is based on the removers OR.--Urthogie 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not prohibited.  Neither, however, would restoring the information be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JulesH (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is prohibited. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JayJg - Which is prohibited, removing or restoring?  Blueboar 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's not policy violation to restore non-OR (unless its 3RR).  My question, though, is if its a policy violation to remove something because you find it to not be true based on your own obvious original research.  And this is assuming everyone editing agrees with you that X isn't true after you show your evidence.--Urthogie 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is prohibited to remove relevant material sourced to reliable sources because you have done some original research and decided the reliable source is actually wrong. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (unindenting) I'd say it depends. If by "original research" we are talking about an experiment, I'd say no: if you have come up with a rigorous experiment that contradicts received opinion, the best thing to do would be to see how you can get your results published in the appropriate periodical. If by "original research" we are talking about a secondary source that claims that source X had a given passage in it, & you have read source X & found that it does not -- I'd say that is possible grounds to remove that use of the secondary source. I'd try to find one or more Wikipedians who know the subject, show them your findings, & solicit their input first, though; there may be good reasons why this happened. -- llywrch 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Llywrch is addressing the issue. Sometimes editors reading about "original research" get it confused with "source-based research".  Original research must assert a new fact, doing research to find that person X asserted a new fact is not itself "original research", but rather "source-based research".  So perhaps the original poster can give us the specific example in this case? Wjhonson 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:ATTFAQ says that "[t]raditionally published encyclopedias are reliable sources". All the same, unsigned encyclopedia articles are hardly desirable sources. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about application of [[Wikipedia:Attribution]] 

message: In the article Norouz as celebrated by Kurds, this source has been used:
"Rasbridge, Lance Andrew; Kemp, Charles (2004). Refugee and Immigrant Health: A Handbook for Health Professionals. Cambridge University Press, pg. 236. ."
To support a statement regarding legends behind a spring festival. This book is obviously focused on something completley different, not only to the festival, but to the ethnic group we are discussing here. I believe there was just a note regarding this festival to explain hazards probably regarding injuries caused by jumping over a fire (a tradition of this festival) or something similar.
I wanted to know whether this can be used as a primary source to support a statement and whether it can be called a "weak" source. It must be appreciated that the statement has another reference too so I am just using this as an example and do not object to the statement that the reference has been used for here. Regards, --Rayis 16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source should be fine if the statement within it is reliable and supports the claim.  The need for a claim to be a primary subject in the souce is critical to establishing notability but doesn't make the source weak.  Of course, if there is completely contradictory information from a more reliable source on the matter, such as a scholar of Kurdish issues, the scholar should accordingly receive more weight.  The Behnam 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak sources or sources used outside context 

message: In a recent AFD discussion where someone was complaining of the sort of sources used in an article on a fictional subject, I had attempted to provide them a link to the section in the old WP:RS that discussed non-scholarly sources.  When i discovered the recent merger and that the section was no longer included i looked  and discovered that the section had been removed from the original RS on Feb. 24th without any discussion.  I am restoring the section to the main page here, as it was removed without consensus in the first place. If anyone would like to discuss changes to the section I invite them to do it here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-scholarly sources 

message: 65 pixels
40 pixels
28 pixels
In SVG format, that scales well and text is readable in small sizes. Hope it works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At my resolution, the 28-pixel size is unreadable and the 40-pixel size is barely readable.  I don't think that it's a good idea to include text in the icon, and I agree with Netscott that the familiar green checkmark should be used.  —David Levy 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I find this "seal" pretty loathesome.  I'm not sure why.  It looks kind of like some sort of "Kid Safe!" seal on bin of PlayDoh or something, and I think it sends the wrong underlying message whatever it would look like - that some far-away body of comptrollers in an ivory tower has declared something inviolate and sealed it forever and with regal authority (look into the origin of "seal" in this context and you'll see why that implication is present).  WP policy doesn't actually work that way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The many-pointed edge makes it look like something you would see in a print ad containing lots of exclamation points. Thumbs-down; sorry. —mjb 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official policy" seal

message: By the way, this random policy page is an unbelievably inappropriate venue for trying to decide how to visually mark official WP policies. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong venue

message: There is an ongoing dispute about whether to change the policy from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributable ... not whether it is true".  
I put the following at the top of this page to reflect the fact that there is a dispute and that there is not consensus:
:(However, there is a dispute about the change of policy from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributable, ... not whether it is true."  See "Role of truth" below. --Coppertwig 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that is not a dispute. The current version that has been worked on for the last fourth months, represents a fair consensus of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been repeatedly pointed out to Coppertwig, the two statements mean exactly the same thing.  There is nothing to dispute.  This is getting tiresome .... see WP:POINT. Blueboar 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It's becoming disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no dispute. We changed one word to go from an oxymoronic claim that made some sense at a shallow level but literally meant "truth, not truth" to one that is clearer and says what it actually means. How is this even disputable? --tjstrf talk 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Verifiable" and "true" do not have the same meaning, and "attributable" isn't even the same thing. "Verifiable" means "could be verified". If I cite a scholarly paper, you can go and verify that the paper says what I claim it does. On the other hand, I can say "I had a turkey sandwich for lunch today." It is true, I really did. It's even attributable (to me), I said so. What it is not is verifiable, there is no reasonable way anyone can verify that what I said is true. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The "verifiability, not truth" wording very accurately describes a long standing, and very important, point of policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To verify is normally to demonstrate the truth of,  so Tjstrf is right when he says the previous phrase was almost contradictory, though in the context we were using the word, it was, as HighinBC says, an important part of our core policies. One of the reasons for the move to Attribution was so we could retain what was important but ditch the misuse of the term "verifiability." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of the new wording along the lines of "Attribution to a reliable source, not truth", but this "not whether it is true" seems a bit awkward. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the old and new wording mean exactly the same thing, let's solve this dispute by going back to the old wording, which was shorter.  In my opinion they do not mean the same thing. --Coppertwig 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They mean the exact same thing, but the new wording fits the name of the new policy better, and "verifiability" was being misunderstood. There is consensus on this. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not a consensus on this so-called policy.  Saying that there is does not make it so. --Henrygb 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither does saying that there isn't make that so.  Hundreds, if not thousands of editors have been through here and seem happy with the change.  It has been discussed extensively.  A small minority are unhappy with it.  This doesn't mean there isn't Wikipedia:Consensus.  The policy tags have been on the page for some time now. JulesH 08:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The present wording is far more useful than the previous one. I have come across editors telling me that they can verify a subject's notability because they have met them (cue messy discussion of what is meant by "verifiability"). qp10qp 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The present wording takes the amateur's side at Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur.  Does the so-called consensus? --Henrygb 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if the amateur can cite the suggestion that the moon is made of cheese to a reliable source.  I.e., no it doesn't. JulesH 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a herring. Made of Double Gloucester. qp10qp 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: NASA is a reliable primary source and Google's use of NASA imagery is therefore a reliable secondary source.  Go to http://moon.google.com/ then put an Apollo landing site in the centre of the screen and zoom in as far as possible. You may have to adjust the colour settings on your screen.  So, as I said above, this page supports the amateur. --Henrygb 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're suggesting is taking your own interpretation of a reliable source that isn't explicitly backed up by the words of the source.  It may look like cheese, but it requires an expert to interpret it and publish explicit results in a reliable source before we could cite it.  So, as I say, no it doesn't support the amateur. JulesH 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All your arguments are those of the amateur not the astronomer.  The moon is not made of cheese, you know it, I know it, and basing everything purely on sources is not how encyclopedias are written.--Henrygb 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Moon/cheese fights aside, it appears to me that Henrygb, Coppertwig and Seraphimblade have all raised essentially the same issues and that the matter needs further discussion and consensus-building, but I wouldn't support a go-in-and-change-it move right now because the material has been in place for some time; there certainly isn't (yet?) a consensus as to what to change it to either. (Contrast this with the addition of material being objected to elsewhere, which should simply be removed for now pending further discussion, because it didn't achieve consensus before being added.)  I hope this is a helpful clarification.  I'm trying to show some paths for more cooperative editing and less bickering.  If I get shot a couple of times in the crossfire, that's OK.  I have thick skin. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Bringing up WP:POINT and "disruptive" which has a very specific meaning in some important Wikipedia contexts (e.g. WP:VANDAL and WP:POINT itself) when all that's happening here appears to be an honest and good-faith disagreement about some wording, doesn't seem very helpful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag 

message: I understand you are one, if not the, originators of this essay. Your input, as to, if the scientific POV should be privileged or not would be greatly appriciated. Thx, Fossa?! 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPOV]] 

message: Sorry for intruding, but we could use some WP:ATT expertise at Talk:Johann_Hari#Request for Comment: Disputed Photo.  Briefly summarized, the parties dispute whether an image is usable in the Johann Hari bio article - Hari denies that the picture is him, but some editors believe that the image is unmistakably him, and the image is captioned (on Flickr) as being a photo of Hari taken at an event that he later wrote about.  Is the picture subject to WP:ATT, and, if so, does it meet the requirements?  The full explanation is here, and comments are welcome here.  Thanks, TheronJ 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments needed 

message: The discussion was previously at Reliable sources, now putting this here for lack of a better place:  US$1 billion Youtube lawsuit.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're you going to add this to the article, or what? Alex43223 T | C | E  01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't actually have any idea what to do with it, or what to make of it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube

message: Can you give your opinions about application of NOR in Talk:White_people#Behnam.27s_view? Basically he says that the sources must explicitly mention "white people" to be included in the article. And I say info about European people may also be given because that info is relevant to the topic as long as we do not make a synthesis (ex: because X is true for Europeans, X is also true for whites). The relevancy of Europeans to the topic has also been sourced by many sources throught the article. Lukas19 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:NOR ... "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."  The genetic studies Lukas19 is trying to add weren't about white people, or even used to bolster the 'genetic' view of white people.  But Lukas19 is using them to add to the 'genetics' view.  Hence, OR.  Also, if you do investigate, try taking a look at the whole page rather than just one section.  We could use some help.  Thanks.  The Behnam 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I told you many times before, "directly related to" does NOT equal to "having the same topic".  It exactly means that, directly related. European people and white people are related topics. This has been sourced.Lukas19 05:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOR 

message: Could someone take a look at the article Unholy Alliance.  My take is that there is a lot of original research and synthisis involved, but I need a second oppinion.  Also, the article uses a google search result as a source... I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source.  Perhaps one of the pages that came up IN the search might be a good source, but not the search itself. Blueboar 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: never mind... it's being nominated for deletion on exactly those grounds. I consider my querry answered.Blueboar 19:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering if we need to specifically point somewhere else for queries of this sort. (Did I just spell "queries" right?—I hate that word). Wikipedia talk:Attribution and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view etc. are meant to discuss the policies themselves, not specific cases. Not to discourage you Blueboar, but on a talk page that is rapidly becoming unreadable due to it's length, we should point things like this elsewhere. Marskell 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attribution Noticeboard? WAS 4.250 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attribution Talk (Policy) and Attribution Talk (Application)? I'd also really really appreciate if any of you can comment about the above section. Lukas19 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We used to deal with things like this on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.  Also, examples are a good way of considering how policies/guidelines work practically, furthering our understanding of the spirit of the policy/guideline, and helping us reconsider if it is properly worded to handle as many different circumstances as possible so that minimal use of WP:IAR will be needed.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I definitely think it would be useful to have a talk page that is dedicated to answering querries.  At WP:RS we used to get at least two or three "is this reliable?" querries a week.  I expect that before too long similar querries will be directed here.  (Note: often the answer to these querries was, "Yes, but..."  The majority of these types of questions were about reliably sourced statements of opinion, as opposed to statements of fact... and could be answered by pointing out the distinction between these two conscepts.  We might save ourselves some hastle by including a statement about that distinction on our FAQ page). Blueboar 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Original Research? 

message: I never thought I'd return here to see that Wikipedia:Attribution had finally made it. I thought the arguments from the past year or so would still be continuing in a never-ending cycle. Which archive should I look at so see how it finally came to fruition? Carcharoth 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. So maybe this wasn't advertised widely enough. The discussions are still ongoing and see this for the latest. Carcharoth 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations! 

message: A serious but common sin is to copy an attribution from a third party without look at it.  For example, to copy a newspaper reference off a random web page without looking at the newspaper or mentioning the web page in the edit.  This has long been discouraged as a guideline on WP:CITE, but I think it is very relevant to this page and ought to appear here as a policy.  For convenience, here is the present text from WP:CITE:
It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.
I propose to add the same or similar to this page. (I'd change "your article" at the end to "your citation".) --Zerotalk 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like something that should be mentioned in the FAQ/advice guideline. Blueboar 13:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that it should not be just a guideline; it should be an enforcable policy.  Violations of this rule are a serious problem which is hard enough to deal with without people claiming the rule is optional. --Zerotalk 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is "enforcable policy". The FAQ explains enforcable policy with examples and details. This information explains what we mean by "source". If you did not look at it, then it is not your source and must not be listed here as the source used for the claim being sourced. WAS 4.250 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealing attributions from somewhere else. 

message: It seems sensible to protect this page from pages move vandalism , given that's an official policy page. ChazBeckett 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you... please do. Blueboar 13:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm not an admin, I was just making a suggestion. ChazBeckett 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect from moves 

message: Having pairs of subsections with synonymout sitles looks confusing to me (like, "No Original Research" and "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought")
IMO the section "Key principles" must be trimmed to the very nutshell and refer to detailed explanations in the subsequent sections with synonymous titles. 
Alternatively, I'd suggest a more logical subsectioning:
*Key principles
** "No Original Research": Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought
***Details
**"Reliable Sources": Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources
***Details
Any thoughts? `'mikka 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This version went through about five months of discussion by hundreds of editors before being accepted, Mikkalai. I don't see the advantage of opening that up again, to be honest. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Slim; the current version is comprehensive, yet succinct. — Deckiller 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Respectfuly disdagree. My very point that it is not succinct: the structure is confusing and repetitive. "Hundreds of editors" is not a valid argument. Please address the merits of the proposal, not intimidate me with the head count. `'mikka 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merits are that it follows inverted pyramid structure, which is useful because it aids understanding by putting important points first then elaborating on the details of them.  Trimming the key principles section any further is likely to make it incomprehensible or misleading.  Restructuring as  you suggest means we lose the advantage of having a key principles section.  JulesH 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. `'mikka 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excess verbosity