Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 27 October 2019 (→Proposed change to WP:PRIMARY: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

view · edit Frequently asked questions I disagree with the definition of secondary source. Misplaced Pages mostly follows the definition in use by historians, which requires more than simply repeating information from some other source or rearranging information from the author's notes. The earliest definition of a secondary source in this policy was in February 2004 "one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources". This published, reliable source is engaging in original research. We allow our reliable sources to engage in original research of their own – indeed that's their job, and we rely on them to do so. Our job as Misplaced Pages editors is to put reliable sources' research into article form. I've proven that general relativity is wrong, but the physics journals won't publish my proof. Can I use Misplaced Pages to publish my ideas about how Einstein was wrong? I can cite lots of sources in the article to support each piece of the puzzle. No. If you want to put a whole idea in Misplaced Pages, you need to be able to cite a source that contains the whole idea, not just isolated bits of it.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64

Rewrite 2004-2005: Draft • Talk "Primary v. secondary sources" subpages "Change needed": Proposal • Talk "Various examples": Examples • Talk "Transclusion example": Example • Talk List all subpages

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Proposed change to WP:PRIMARY

Hey all,

I propose adding the following verbage to WP:PRIMARY:

"Primary sources may be used, uncritically, to support assertions in the article that the author of the primary source claimed something. For instance, a Tweet from Chris Noble that says 'I love Pizza Hut' may be used to cite a claim in the article that says, 'Chris Noble claims to love Pizza Hut'."

I think this is so common-sense as to be absurd, but just think this needs to be clarified. Red Slash 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if necessary too add but as per wikipedia:CLAIM stated in a better term to use over claim.--67.68.29.177 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)--67.68.29.177 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This definitely is not needed (see WP:BLPSPS) nor appropriate. --Masem (t) 02:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Per IP user, Masem, and other problems with this addition. For one, it violates this very policy. The policy already explains how primary sources may be used, and it definitely does not include cherry-picking random tweets, and this addition seems to suggests. Judging that a primary source like a tweet is significant enough to be highlighted in an article is a form of interpretation, and needs to be based on non-primary sources. Eperoton (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see the reverted addition as needed. But, per WP:About self, we do use primary sources in that way. We'd avoid "claim" per WP:Claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per "uncritically" without even reading the rest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, though I disagree with Eperoton that judging significance is interpretation. Our interpretation of a source (primary or not) may form part of an argument of significance, but it doesn't have to. Judging significance is something we have to do with all sources. Zero 12:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above except Eperoton's disputed point. Basically, it's redundant, since we already have how to use primary sources laid out in PSTS, and the exact kind of scenario the OP is concerned about is already addressed in ABOUTSELF. At most we'd need a cross-reference.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

OR and talk page discussions

Some users argue that making logical conclusions during talk page discussions is an original research. In connection to that I would like to know if such statement as:

"It is clear from the source X that that source is based solely on the source Y. Therefore, the article's text should avoid creating a false impression that the source X and the source Y are two independent sources"

is a legitimate statement, or it is an original research.?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be original research, but that's completely permitted on talk pages - OR only applies to article content. It is literally impossible to assess notability, significance or reliability without engaging in a bit of original research and argumentation, nor is it possible to determine what the neutral point of view is without attempting to analyze the points of view taken by the sources. I couldn't give a more detailed opinion without a more detailed question. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Someguy1221. Actually, a more concrete question is:

The NOR policy prohibits adding original research to the article space, however, as you correctly noted, a decision about inclusion/exclusion of some content, and about giving a due weight can be usually done based on some speculations, analysis and synthesis of some materials. That means, the "No Original Research" policy actually means "No Original Research in the article space" policy.

Is it correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the most succinct statement is that no article should state or imply something that cannot be found in a reliable source. How editors decide which sources to use, and for which statements, is not limited by the original research policy. To suggest otherwise would imply some bizarro version of Misplaced Pages where we are only allowed to use reliable sources, but are also prohibited from discussing those sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, this edit would indeed be WP:OR because this is article space, and because this is not "according to the data of the tabloid newspaper", but according to other multiple and a lot more reliable sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Came here from a discussion on Talk:Femininity, citing Someguy1221's statement that OR only applies to article space. I'd clarify that a bit, in that talk page discussions can feature a lot of freewheeling discussion/analysis/interpretation of published sources, but that original interpretations and opinions about the subject matter don't belong, as per WP:NOTFORUM. In my experience, discussions can easily slip from one to the other under the guise of "discussing improvements to the article". It seems to mostly be a habit of less experienced users, however. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, I didn't cite Someguy1221's statement. I first cited where the policy page states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." I then cited this discussion reinforcing what the policy page states. We are not going to limit article talk page discussion in ways to appease your odd interpretations of our rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Another thing I've observed (not necessarily recently) is users indulging in blatantly SYNTH-y screeds on talk pages in a way that clearly has no bearing on creating or refining content to be used in the article itself, justifying this with "OR doesn't apply to talk pages" (ignoring WP:TALK#USE in the process). So I would personally avoid citing this exemption too freely. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  From reading that discussion, I see Flyer22 and others attempting to have a discussion about improvements to the wording used in the article, while Sangdeboeuf attempts to lead the thread into a pointless tangent on the distinction between discussing the article and discussing the subject of the article. It is explicitly helpful to explain the rationale behind statements in an article - Flyer22 was obviously making a descriptive statement. Interrogating him her as if he she were making normative statement is not helpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what discussion you saw, but in fact I've been repeatedly trying to steer the discussion towards reliable sources and away from users' personal opinions, as per WP:CON: "Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy". If a rationale isn't based in published sources, it isn't much of a rationale. Normative statements don't enter into it at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's not what you were doing. And nothing I stated there about the literature is based on my personal opinion. On a side note, Someguy1221, I'm female. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Struck "personal opinions". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Normative statements don't enter into it at all. One of us has completely missed the point. Flyer22 was explaining the prior consensus (descriptive statement). You demanded that Flyer22 justify that consensus (as if assuming Flyer22 was making a normative statement). Flyer22 refused, as her prerogative, and shared her own thoughts on the article wording in a separate subsection. There was no point in that specific thread continuing unless it was your intention to dispute the characterization of the prior consensus, much as there is almost no point in continuing this very discussion. This is how the discussion should have gone: Why is the article like this? Discussion led to consensus . Please provide sources proving the wording is good. No, thanks. I was just answering your question on why it's like this, not arguing that it should be like this, let's discuss how the article should be written down below. Okay. You're welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know why we're talking about this. I stated my thoughts about OR on talk pages in general, and put in a link to the page where I was made aware of this thread, just so nobody would think I was gaming the system. Others are free to take my comments on board, or not, as they see fit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages user is also an author, references own work

Hello,

I am unsure how to proceed. When attempting to improve upon some articles, I ran into a situation where the author of books on a topic has created pages on those topics and contributed significantly to others. On at least one occasion, the article made reference only to the author's original work. Does this qualify as original research? (Cjstepney (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC))

Assuming the content matches the source, it is not technically original research, but if the sources were self-published, it is sort of an end-run around the policy. It would technically (potentially) fall under WP:SPS/WP:RS, and if the sources present literally original research, it may be WP:FRINGE as well. Citing one's own work is generally considered a form of WP:COI, and editors are cautioned against it. Often new editors think that as long as there is no direct financial motive there is no COI, but anything that might be seen as an attempt to draw attention to one's off-wiki activities may be reasonably interpreted as one. Recommending sources on article talk pages, or submitting new articles through AFC, would be preferred. And any article that only cites sources from a single author is in danger of being deleted as non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)