Wikipedia talk:No original research

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

When will Wikipedia start allowing original research?[edit]

When will Wikipedia start allowing original research? 2601:646:8B00:D590:A8D8:A7CD:CD01:F7C5 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's unlikely that we ever will.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no good reason for us to do that, and it's not consistent with being an encyclopedia. If you have something new that you want to tell the world, post on social media, or start your own website, or send it to an academic journal, or write a book. Ideas and information that the world has never seen before belong in those places, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In great line I'm agree.
    But I can imagine some ones can be still confused.
    For example:
    Someone is an emeritus professor.
    He or she is a specialist in what he or she knows.
    If I understand correct you, he or she may put his or her facts on Wikipedia what he or she knows and that is published. But he or she is not allowed some facts he or she knows wich isn't published yet. Shy Aroace (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Wikipedia is not the right venue for presenting facts that have not yet been published. A professor emeritus (a specialist in her field) would know this - and would also know what the correct venues to publish new information are. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s unlikely that someone in that position would wish to share unpublished research, and it would likely go against the policy of any university or paper that that research is meant to be published by.
    Someone in that position would be aware that if they’re the first person making the claim that they will be expected to provide evidence.
    Them simply saying that the evidence is in unpublished research is an issue because it both asserts something without a reliable source or verifiability, and that it asks other editors to trust their claim based on their position.
    If the evidence will be published then adding it to Wikipedia can wait. If it isn’t publishable for some reason then it shouldn’t be here in the first place. Cbrfield (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I changed my mind on this. I think we will start allowing original research within the next 5 years—with some possible estimates being as short as 100 hours until the ban on original research is finally lifted. Remsense诉 04:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this original research (kinship)?[edit]

Mike is Andy's son.<ref>Book X: "Mike is Andy's son."</ref>
Otto is Mike's brother.<ref>Webpage Y: "Otto is Andy's son."</ref>

Is the latter sentence original research if the ref #1 doesn't mention Otto at all and the ref #2 doesn't mention Mike at all but Andy in both refs is the same person? So, if there's no source that actually says that Mike and Otto are brothers, we can't write that they are brothers even though we are 100% sure that they are based on those two refs? 2001:14BA:9C98:7100:6132:C1E2:214:2A0E (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would you be sure of that? Even if it's true in some sense, it may be wholly undue: two examples that come to mind are that Mike and Otto could only be half-brothers or stepbrothers—in which case it's potentially misleading to just call them brothers—or they may not consider each other to be brothers, which I think matters even more. Remsense留 15:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to differ. "Brothers" is a vague enough term (unlike "full brothers" or "full siblings") to encompass both of those categories, and if the sources say "father" not "step-father" even assuming a step-relationship might be what was meant would be OR. As for the latter point, that might matter more in someone's personal relations, but its only significance for an encyclopedia would be if the sibling rivalry were well-documented and covered enough to merit inclusion by passing WP:DUE and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE; even if it did, it would not change the fact that they are siblings from an encyclopedic perspective. Various medieval royalty who were brothers murdered one another outright, but we don't say they weren't brothers just because they fatally hated each other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike and Otto could be the same person that uses both names. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is true, and yet it would not normally be considered a violation of this policy to make simple logical "calculations" like this. Based on the information in the sources, the sentence is true, using one of the normal definitions of the word brother. That there are other definitions (e.g., "full brothers" or "biological brothers") is irrelevant.
This is particularly important for Wikipedia because sometimes the exact thing the source says ("The painting is entirely dark, intense colors") isn't the clearest way to explain the material ("The painting was not light colored", e.g., if the key point is why it wasn't noticeable in a dark room). This is just part of writing in our own words, which required by the third paragraph of this policy.
There are limits. It's fine to go from "Andy had two children, Mike[1] and Otto[2]" to "Mike and Otto are siblings[1][2]", but you really can't go much further than that. These hypothetical sources would not support a claim of being biological siblings, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR/V/BLP dispute about pronunciation keys in lead sentences[edit]

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: WT:Manual of Style/Lead section#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Pronunciation – What began as seemingly a style question about a particular handful of articles has turned into a broad OR and sourcing debate, most especially as it pertains to pronunciations of individuals' surnames. This could really use input from NOR regulars not just MoS regulars.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SECONDARY LINKBOX and the AEIS shortcut[edit]

User:SMcCandlish has repeatedly added his AEIS shortcut to the WP:SECONDARY linkbox. It fails the WP:LINKBOXES criteria. It is not much used. It is possibly not used by anyone by User:SMcCandlish. Adding everybody’s personal favourite shortcut to linkboxes creates clutter, and confusion as to which newcomers to the policy page are recommended to use. The LINKBOXES contain the shortcuts to be recommended to be used. Removing excess shortcuts from a LINKBOX doesn’t stop the shortcut from working. I think it is clear that AEIS doesn’t belong in the linkbox. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reasoning. The frequency of shortcut usage is almost entirely determined by visible listing at the page in question. The single most important point in that entire section is that analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis require secondary sourcing. Suppressing awareness of a mnemonic shortcut for this serves no purpose, and the notion is completely tautological: You want to hide it because it's not used much yet, but the reason it's not used much yet is because you and probably someone else earlier have hidden it. While we should not list every shortcut anyone ever makes (or various sections of various P&G pages would have dozens), but we should certainly make use of those that serve a clear purpose in making the important material memorable and easy to find. Not all shortcuts are equal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one but you uses AEIS. You really think people using SECONDARY should consider using AEIS instead? Why? WP:SECONDARY is very well recognised. What editors would benefit from seeing your new shortcut used instead? I think some people using AEIS to refer specifically to SECONDARY will confuse far more than help. In all the usages I look at (all by you), I definitely consider it to be confusing.
analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis. You added this here, although your edit summary suggests it was there previously. These four words are a mere subset of descriptions of creative addition that makes a secondary source. If these four are so important, why aren’t they listed at secondary source? I think your advocacy for AEIS analysis belongs in an essay, not a WP:LINKBOX SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t care one way or the other about having this shortcut… but I will say that I had no idea what the initials “AEIS” stood for until this discussion. The string of initials are not that intuitive for the user. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the set, WP:PSTS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY are extremely intuitive and good, and the addition of other lesser shortcuts decreases the quality of the policy page.
One thing that I think is really good about WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY is the correspondence to mainspace articles linked in bold by the opening words of each section. It challenges anyone who does understand, or agree, this policy is not making up theories of scholarship, go and read the articles. If the articles are wrong, fix them.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My own preference is to have only one shortcut shown for sections/individual anchors, though I wouldn't make it a firm rule. Two might be appropriate if, e.g., two different ones are equally commonly used. My main reason for this is that I want everyone speaking the same 'language'. People get confused when it sounds like WP:PSS and WP:FSS require something different from WP:PSTS and WP:RSTS and WP:PSTSGUIDE, which is different again from WP:INTERPRET. Those all point to the same section of this policy. We should advertise the most popular shortcut, so that we maximize the chance that editors will know what the other people are talking about, and we won't end up with one editor saying that WP:PSTS requires it to be my way while another is saying that WP:INTERPRET requires quite the opposite.
(Of course, if your goal is to make them go read the actual policy, then feel free to choose one of the lesser-known ones. But let's not encourage a sort of biodiversity in shortcuts by advertising the lesser-known ones. It's hard enough to keep straight the common ones, such as when WP:UPPERCASE and WP:ALLCAPS go to different pages, or all of those awkward pairs that differ only by plural, like WP:MAP and WP:MAPS. The fewer shortcuts people are confronted with for a single point, the better.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just for the regulars who spend a lot of time talking about policies, if you're using the Reply tool with the toolbar, please make use of that link tool. It will look up your favorite shortcut for a page and give you the option of spelling out the whole title. Editors might not be sure what a shortcut like WP:CV redirects to, but they'll have no trouble figuring out what you're talking about if you link straight to Wikipedia:Copyright violations itself.
I use the keyboard shortcut for the link dialog all the time. It's ⌘k on a Mac, with a similar shortcut for Windows and Linux boxes. (It's also super handy if you aren't sure how to spell someone's username or the name of an article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We want everyone speaking the same 'language'. Very much agree. Most of the most time-wasting arguments boil down to people disagreeing on unstated definitions.
Arguments in SHORTCUTLANGUAGE is very prone to misunderstanding, and squarely fits the definition of jargon, which means there is a barrier to newcomers getting involved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book, Film, and Play Synopses[edit]

I am troubled by something, and it has been claimed it is not original research, but by the terms specified in this policy, it seems to dead on hit the original research policy on the nose. That, of course (if you read the title) is a synopsis of a "work", i.e, a book, a movie, or a play. Consider: At some point an article about a work will be created, and it will describe and summarize the plot, i.e. it is a synopsis. Where does the content for the synopsis come from? Why, the memory of the person who saw the movie or play, or read the book or text of the play (which is clearly forbidden original research), not a restatement of an existing published synopsis (which is not).

I mean, in some if not most cases, there clearly is no way to provide a reference to a third-party source for the work in question in an article, the only way to provide a synopsis of the story and plot is to simply describe what you saw or read when you experienced it. But, if you do that for any other article, that is original research.

Either there needs to be an explicit exemption for movie, book, and play synoposes from the rule prohibiting original research, or someone needs to explain why this very behavior (stating one's own understanding of the issue) on other articles is prohibited original research, but the exact same behavior on a synopsis (stating ones own opinion on the content and story of a work), apparently is not.

I appreciate your time in reading this missive, and I await a reply.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Wikipedia routinely allows and requires what is technically synthesis (summarization is often technically synthesis). I think that this policy is read to preclude creation of anything (even a thought or impression) via synthesis, especialy anything that is challenged. There's also a second wp:ver angle on these. If challenged, they don't comply with verifiability. I think that the defacto situation is that the normal interpretation of wp:NOR does not preclude them and if challenged (which they seldom are) they would need to get removed. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and made similar arguments at /Archive 64#Quibbles about the definition of primary sources. The responses I received varied, as I perceived them, from misunderstanding my point to making a false claim that something else that to me is obviously WP:OR is a reasonable primary source, to a comment that other Wikipedia users can look at the source book and verify for themselves that something is true, which is irrelevant to whether that's WP:OR.
I believe, under the current policy, the plot we give about a work should be sourceable to commentary about the work, not to the contributor's having read the work. The work is not a primary source about the subject, it is the subject. If they want to make an exception, that's fine, but it should be explicitly acknowledged as an exception. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under current policy, the plot summary is sourceable to the work itself – so long as what the plot summary says is simple description, as in straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The policy has also explicitly endorsed plot summaries: For example,...an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. That means you can write things like "Hamlet kills Polonius in Act 3" but not something like "Hamlet's killing of Polonius was due to his increasing mental strain" (unless you have a secondary source for the latter). I think that the examples in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully and the explanation in Wikipedia:These are not original research#Works of fiction and non-fiction will be useful to @Rfc1394 and others.
Also, I'd like you all to think about parity issues here. You can't seriously think that my memory is good enough to provide an accurate summary of scholarly works about technical subjects – indeed, to find and read a dozen of them to determine what the proper WP:BALANCE of facts and WP:DUE WEIGHT of opinions is – and yet somehow I'm too demented to be able to remember whether it was Hamlet who killed Polonius, or if it might have been the other way around. If we assume that an editor can read, understand, and remember the contents of a secondary source in between reading it and using it in Wikipedia, we should should assume that an editor can read, understand, and remember the contents of a primary source in between reading it and using it in Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using OR to omit information[edit]

The policy is clear that we can not use our own original research to state something in an article. What is less clear is whether we can use our own original research to omit something from an article. As an example: say an article says X occurred, cited to several (reliable) newspapers reports saying that X occurred. But an editor digs a bit, and discovers that X didn't actually occur… that the papers got the story wrong. That editor can’t add “However, X didn’t occur, and the papers got it wrong” based on his original research, but he CAN discuss his research on the article talk page and gain a consensus to omit the statement that X occurred. Should we mention this in the policy… or is the situation rare enough that spelling it out in the policy would just confuse people? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should put the big unspoken reality / need into words. Which is "Wikipedia editors are editors" and then that would be one of the zillions of types of situations covered by it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a reliability issue? The best sources are still only generally reliable, they can be wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that editors should be encouraged to use their own WP:Editorial discretion. (I also think we need another policy statement, probably in WP:BALANCE, that says editors should be writing an encyclopedia article.)
The problem that I foresee is illustrated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#MEDRS sources on curcumin supplementation. If you look towards the end of that section, I've evaluated one of the disputed sources against the actual criteria. It turned out to be an ideal: systematic review in a top-rated journal, no COIs, etc. Given the person who reverted it, I can make a good guess about what the real problem is: it said something somewhat positive about a substance that isn't already approved by the FDA as a regulated drug. Many of our anti-woo warriors (for whom I truly am grateful; Wikipedia would have worse content and more spam without them) would cheerfully use their editorial discretion to blank anything that gives the "wrong" answer about an unregulated dietary supplement. I assume that POV pushers of all sorts would do the same: I think all the sources saying that X happened are wrong, so we should omit them all: no Moon landing, Elvis didn't die, etc.
On the one hand, I don't believe that any WP:VOLUNTEER should be forced to add a source that they suspect is incorrect, but I also don't want to say that they can remove it (and force others to accept that removal). If you have a consensus to omit, then consensus should prevail; if you have a consensus to include (despite your own objections), then you should let one of the supporters add it to the article.
If you need a simple example for discussion, the OED regularly provides information about the first known use of a word in writing, and a trip to books.google fairly often proves it wrong (for entries that haven't been updated for a while). The uncontroversial solution in such cases is to silently omit the OED's claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need to allow editors discretion. Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion, and there are valid reasons to exclude information that can be verified. On rare occasion, there may be multiple different reports in multiple different sources, and it may make more sense to omit the contradiction than to report it. Or it might simply be too tangential or detailed for a summary style article. Deciding that something isn't relevant is the essential job of an editor. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are degrees of WP:Relevance which enter into those decisions. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit of 3 respected sources that confirm the subject of the article was a terrorist.[edit]

Is there a consensus to revert to the edit I made this evening? These are the sources.

https://www.bbc.com/news/extra/xkbwldvmb5/exposed-the-secret-army https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-footage-of-martin-mcguinness-showing-kids-bomb-and-gun/38473261.html https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/new-footage-shows-martin-mcguinness-building-car-bomb-and-giving-bullets-to-kids-943764 Jaymailsays (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete misrepresentation of the objection. You changed several existing sentences;
  • In response, McGuinness said the statements were "fantasy", while Gearóid Ó hEára (formerly Gerry O'Hara), a Derry Sinn Féin councillor, stated that he and not Ward was the Fianna leader at the time
This was changed to;
  • The terrorist act, injured at least 26 people and cast real doubt on Gearóid Ó hEára (formerly Gerry O'Hara), a Derry Sinn Féin councillor, statement that it was he and not Ward who was the Fianna leader at the time, the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled
The second sentence originially read;
  • The inquiry concluded that, although McGuinness was "engaged in paramilitary activity" at the time of Bloody Sunday and had probably been armed with a Thompson submachine gun, there was insufficient evidence to make any finding other than they were "sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"
You changed to this to;
  • The inquiry, based on the evidence available at the time, concluded that although McGuinness was "engaged in paramilitary activity" at the time of Bloody Sunday and had probably been armed with a Thompson submachine gun, there was insufficient evidence to make any finding other than they were "sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"
As I already said, there isn't any dispute McGuinness was in the IRA at the time. But you can't use the existence of a film made several weeks after Bloody Sunday (1972) to try and cast doubt on the findings of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing changes to the NPOV policy, I would suggest taking this to the talk page of the article in question. But one point to remember is that just because something can be verified doesn't guarantee inclusion, rather inclusion requires that something can be verified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place for this discussion. This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the WP:No original research page and policy. The best place to start your discussion is at the talk page of the article that you are writing about. There are ways and places to take it farther after that if needed. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, @Jaymailsays might find it more appropriate to take the question to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. It sounds to me like this is more of an NPOVN question (i.e., some sources cast doubt on the inquiry's findings, and other sources do not), but if @Kathleen's bike really believes the main problem is adding up multiple sources to create material that isn't in any source at all ("SYNTHESIS"), then NORN would be the better choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a NPOV issue. None of the three sources above cast any doubt on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry findings, the text added saying the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled is Jaymailsays's own constructed narrative, no sources say that at all. As I posted at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Synthesis and false narrative Martin McGuinness's own evidence to the inquiry in 2003 has him involved in the IRA at that time and covers the bombing campaign directed at businesses in Derry, so this video (known about since 2019) is, if anything, consistent with his testimony not casting any doubt on it. Kathleen's bike (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&oldid=1218219488"