User:Donner60/sandbox 2

This is a second user sandbox of User:Donner60. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. In this case it includes large excerpts from Wikipedia policy or guideline pages have been copied here for background and information on the principles to be applied to article development.

I may cut these excerpts down or otherwise edit them, although I am reluctant to even paraphrase text that may be used or cited in the evaluation so that a neutral presentation can be maintained. I have also moved some material from the Main Sandbox here because it is similar to the content of this page. Some may be duplicative and I will cut it back when I have more time. I have removed the note about developing an article or paper on a particular subject because that was accomplished quite some time ago.

I have noted that some users have these type of references or guidelines on their user page, though perhaps usually smaller in number. This reference page is meant to keep the total size of my user page shorter than it would be if the material was there.

{{Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the community of people who build it: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are. —Wikipedia:Five pillars}}

This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.

A Barnstar for You

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For you many contributions to military history articles and to the Wikproject Military History, I award you this barnstar. Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:References

References Citation Style 1 templates {{Cite arXiv}} arXiv preprints {{Cite AV media}} audio and visual media {{Cite AV media notes}} AV media liner notes {{Cite bioRxiv}} bioRxiv preprints {{Cite book}} books and chapters {{Cite CiteSeerX}} CiteSeerX papers {{Cite conference}} conference papers {{cite document}} short, stand-alone, offline documents {{Cite encyclopedia}} edited collections {{Cite episode}} radio or TV episodes {{Cite interview}} interviews {{Cite journal}} academic journals {{Cite magazine}} magazines, periodicals {{Cite mailing list}} public mailing lists {{Cite map}} maps {{Cite medRxiv}} medRxiv preprints {{Cite news}} news articles {{Cite newsgroup}} online newsgroups {{Cite podcast}} podcasts {{Cite press release}} press releases {{Cite report}} reports {{Cite serial}} audio or video serials {{Cite sign}} signs, plaques {{Cite speech}} speeches {{Cite SSRN}} SSRN papers {{Cite tech report}} technical reports {{Cite thesis}} theses {{Cite web}} web sources not covered by the above See also Specific-source templates Citation Style 1 wrapper templates Wikipedia:NPOV dispute Wikipedia:Request for page protection WP:RFPP Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Talk:Islamophobia/Sources Wikipedia:Citing IMDb {{vandalism information}} Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCE Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid Help:Interlanguage links Link search Help:Linksearch WP:Template messages WP:List of guidelines Help:Special page {{Xsign}} Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Editing
Wikipedia:Editing Help:Wiki markup Wikipedia:Picture tutorial Templates Category:Inline cleanup templates {{tlx}} {{od}} {{non-free reduce}} This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version... {{formatnum}} {{Inflation}} Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing {{subst:Welcome-anon-unconstructive| * * * * |Donner60}} WP:SURNAME WP:CREDENTIAL WP:HONORIFIC

Wikipedia:Welcome
Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates {{W-FAQ}} {{subst:W-FAQ}} {{wtw}} {{subst:wtw}} {{Welcome-unconstructive}} {{subst:Welcome-unconstructive| ***article*** }} ~~~~ {{signatures}}

......................
Draft

Wikipedia policy or guideline pages that concern content of articles for use in evaluating verifiability, reliable sources, due weight, original research, synthesis and neutral point of view.

Wikipedia:Verifiability states in pertinent, and large, part:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.

For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

Responsibility for providing citations

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

}Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

...............

Reliable sources

Help:Referencing for beginners

What counts as a reliable source See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

• The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
• The creator of the work (for example, the writer)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)

All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Magazines
• Journals
• Mainstream newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

…................

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. ...............

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

see also Wikipedia:Fringe theories Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Verifiability and other principles Copyright and plagiarism

Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.

Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.

Neutrality See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.

Notability See Wikipedia:Notability If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Original research See Wikipedia:No original research The "No original research" policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

….....................................
End of excerpts from Verifiability
….....................................

Wikipedia:No original research states in pertinent, and large, part:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)

The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.

Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see the NOR noticeboard.

Using sources

WP:STICKTOSOURCE

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.

Reliable sources

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.

In general, the most reliable sources are:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see self-published sources for exceptions.

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:

• Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

WP:ANALYSIS

• A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

• Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles).

Synthesis of published material

Wikipedia:Synthesis See also Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

Here are two sentences showing simple examples of improper editorial synthesis

• In this first sentence, both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

• In this second sentence, the opposite is implied using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.

Here are two paragraphs showing more complex examples of editorial synthesis.

They are based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones.

• This first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute:

Y Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

• This second paragraph demonstrates improper editorial synthesis:

N If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

• The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

….................

Related policies

Verifiability

Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described here.

Neutral point of view

The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

….....................................
End of excerpts from No original research
….....................................