Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:No original research

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LR1988 (talk | contribs) at 11:31, 30 May 2022 (Added content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Remove content Telugu & Kannadiga from Prashanth Neel 's personal life, this citation is needed for only to change the surname not ethencity, https://telugu.abplive.com/andhra-pradesh/prashant-neil-is-a-close-relative-of-ap-congress-raghuveera-reddy-30437

Moved to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard § Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY

– 15:34, 10 May 2021‎ (UTC)

Paraphrasing

@S Marshall, I think we should split off your idea above about writing in your own words.

Wikipedia:These are not original research currently says

==Paraphrasing==

  • Accurate paraphrasing of reliable sources is not considered original research. In fact, in most cases you are actually required by policy to write in your own words rather than plagiarizing the source's wording. This includes:
    • using synonyms rather than quotations;
    • using plain English rather than jargon from a technical source; and
    • summarizing whole pages, chapters, or books in one or two sentences.

Do you think it would help to move this directly into NOR, under Wikipedia:No original research#What is not original research? It's often easier to move long-standing text than to create something new, although I have no objections to writing something new, if you think that would be better.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All this does is add length without saying anything new. In fact it repeats what is already there but worse, as it is missing the important emphasis on the meaning being the same. Here is what the page already says:
Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research....The 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 the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source.
What this will enable is people claiming they are merely "paraphrasing" when they are actually diverging from the meaning of the source material. Crossroads -talk- 03:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just now noticed this, but by definition paraphrasing requires the original meaning to remain intact, so if anyone diverges from the original meaning, then then they are no longer paraphrasing, but just putting in content not supported by the source, and nothing about this enables anybody for doing that because we have plenty to prevent it. Huggums537 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's important that both rules say the same thing. I too have sometimes thought that paraphrasing should be its own subheading in NOR. I wonder whether we should invite Maggie Dennis to opine on the phrasing.—S Marshall T/C 08:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed in principle to adding another subsection to Wikipedia:No original research#What is not original research. However, I think that in order to be worthwhile, an addition should elaborate more on why paraphrasing is not OR, and why it is important. I don't really like the phrasing of the bullet points above, as it seems to imply that policy requires a certain specific set of writing techniques. Policy does not mandate that we "in most cases" summarize a whole book in two sentences! The awkward construction makes it sound like the bullet points might be defining what it means to "write in your own words", rather than giving examples of how to go about writing in your own words. If we're adding anything, I'd rather it be a clean new paragraph, rather than something brought over from an essay that hasn't even reached the guideline status of consensus, and the general vetting of the prose that goes along with that level of scrutiny. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would reduce the proposed section to “Paraphrasing is not original research”.
If more is needed, start with wikilinking Paraphrase. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Structally, paraphrasing or summarization IS OR in many many ways. The defacto rule is that if it's reasonably safe summarization it's OK unless somebody wants to knock the material out, in which case it's not OK. I applaud your efforts to provide some extra guidance in this area, but it won't be easy. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not OR in the ways that count, which means, the creation of new information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note of caution, for editors "paraphrasing" is a bit tricky, because it cannot be close paraphrasing. I agree though that whether "close" or "loose", it generally is not OR. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were referring to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, but I also agree that valid paraphrasing is for sure not OR. Huggums537 (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example:

  • If three sources report a ship's length as 567', 568' and 569' and you put in the article "the ship is approximately 568' long" that is technically synthesis, but it will stick. If you extract and summarize the key facts out of a lengthy paragraph about a hurricane and paraphrase then via omissions you are shifting emphasis and meaning on what the longer paragraph said, but it will say in Wikipedia.
  • If you did the same thing with John Smith (a political figure)'s approx $568 million in donations to charity, and summarize from a paragraph on their other charitable works, a Wikilawyer editor who has opposite politics to John Smith and doesn't want anything good sounding about John Smith in the article will successfully knock the material out on policy grounds.

North8000 (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your examples are correct. The information (e.g., "approximately 568' long") actually is in all of those sources, even though the sources don't use the exact words. That isn't synthesis, "technically" or otherwise. All three of those sources claimed that the ship was approximately that long; none of them said that it was a materially different size. You are not therefore combining sources to produce something that isn't in any of them. You are merely summarizing, in a slightly vaguer way, what is given more specifically in all of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how one might compare paraphrasing as possibly being structurally similar to OR in the off chance event that someone challenges the paraphrasing, or on the other off chance event that someone uses the paraphrasing in abnormal ways such as the examples you gave, but I think normal valid use of paraphrasing would have no meaningful relation to OR in the ways that count such as what Smokey Joe was saying. Huggums537 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Yeah, you're right about my example. I hadn't thought about that angle. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say only the one example about ships is really "incorrect" about being synth, while the other examples are not so much incorrect as they are "irrelevant", because they are really examples of abnormal or malformed paraphrasing. Neither would be allowed, or would stick, so comparing them to OR is kind of a moot point that is really an exercise in futility since neither OR nor abnormally malformed paraphrasing would be living in articles. It doesn't really matter if abnormal paraphrasing has anything to do with OR since they both already have the same boot attached to them anyway. The point of the discussion is determining if normal valid paraphrasing is OR, and I think everyone agrees it isn't. Huggums537 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the answer to the question about whether illegitimate paraphrasing is OR would be sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, but that is not the question we are asking here. The question we are asking here is whether legitimate paraphrasing is OR. We don't need any citations to any reliable sources to know that is question we are asking because it is obvious by context that the question being asked is about legitimate paraphrasing, especially when the passage describes it as "accurate" paraphrasing. Huggums537 (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I've been giving it some more thought, I think it is probably dangerous to be saying that even illegitimate paraphrasing is OR because that would be like saying quotations are OR simply because somebody can use quotations to insert OR into articles. Huggums537 (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing is not OR. Illegitimate paraphrasing is not paraphrasing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. There really is no such thing as illegitimate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is simply a tool just like quotations. People can use them properly or improperly just like a garden tool. We would never say garden tools are illegitimate murder weapons just because people sometimes use them to murder. Not only would it be morally wrong giving the OR policy that much power and authority for banning a useful tool like paraphrasing, but it is also a legal imperative that the tool be free from any encumbrances because of its vital role in copyright violation prevention. Alanscottwalker warned about close paraphrasing earlier, but many times the only thing standing between you and a plagiarism (copy vio) violation is good (or improved) paraphrasing. Huggums537 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As encyclopaedists our job is abridgement (or what my English teacher in the 1980s used to call précis). We work out what the sources say and then we summarize their conclusions more succinctly. It's not possible to do this properly without changing the language the sources use. I'm not clear what you lot mean by "illegitimate" paraphrasing. Is it where we write a summary that doesn't accurately reflect the sources?—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was my fault. I should have said illegitimate OR, not illegitimate paraphrasing. As Smokey Joe, and yourself just pointed out, there is no such thing as "illegitimate paraphrasing". We must use the tool of paraphrasing, abridgement, précis, or whatever you want to call it, and it is always a legitimate tool to use. If some content happens to be illegitimate OR, that doesn't mean the tool used to put it there is OR. Just like citing sources is not inherently unreliable just because some people cite unreliable sources, or just like using quotations is not OR simply because some people use quotations to insert OR content. Huggums537 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this talk about paraphrasing has got me thinking about WP:Close paraphrasing though. This title seems to give all paraphrasing a bad rep because by using this phrasing for the title, the guidance could theoretically be cited against virtually any paraphrasing since it is inherent in any paraphrasing to stay "close" to the original meaning as possible. Also, the guidance appears to be more about the difference between correct, and incorrect use of paraphrasing than it does "close" paraphrasing, so I think the misleading title, and even the misleading portions of the guidance that say, "close" should be changed to "correct", or "incorrect" respectively. "Close paraphrasing", as it is written, is nothing more than a subtle suggestion that could be weaponized to say any paraphrasing is bad. It's just wrapped in shiny copyright paper with a Wikipedia bow on top to make it appear like something much more than just correct and incorrect paraphrasing. Huggums537 (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is a bit of a worry. It appears to be a Wikipedian neologism of 2009, and not well defined.
    Close paraphrasing is a redirect to Paraphrasing of copyrighted material, where "close paraphrasing" is mentioned but not defined.
    There is no wikt:close paraphrasing, nor an entry in other dictionaries I've looked at.
    I think the invention of terms like "close paraphrasing" and "illegitimate paraphrasing" is not valid unless the author defines what they mean by the new term.
    Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has laudable intentions, but a poor foundation.
    I submit that all paraphrasing is "close". Paraphrasing of the source material results in new material that is close, in content meaning intention tone etc, to the source material. Show my some paraphrasing that is not close and I will explain why it is not "paraphrasing", but something different.
    I think it is unexpected that "paraphrasing" is getting attention here at WT:NOR. Paraphrasing is much closer to "copying" than to "original research", or synthesis. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree any paraphrasing is "close", and glad you brought up the redirect because "Paraphrasing of copyrighted material" might be a good title for the WP guidance too, but I'm not sure how easily it would replace "close paraphrasing" being mentioned in the body several times. Huggums537 (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, gentlemen, not all paraphrasing is close and not all of it is a copyright concern. There are online paraphrasing tools which we need to be aware of, mostly designed to circumvent plagiarism-detection tools, but paraphrasing can also mean --- and means here --- giving the sense of what the sources say without using the source's words. This is not a copyright issue as long as you're summarising at least two sources in one article. Paraphrasing a single source is more problematic.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give an example of paraphrasing that is not close? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I would really like to see is that example from a single source that isn't "close"... Huggums537 (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An example? There is more than one way to do it, but: take a published article; change every word you can find a synonym for; even drop some of the original or intersperse it; publish it as your work, with or without citation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You want a way to close paraphrase? Several ways are possible, eg: take something someone else has written; alter every phrase you find with same meaning; even sprinkle it in among other work or excise some of the base work; claim it as your work, with or without providing the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC) (to close paraphrase myself :))[reply]
    I think it would be debatable if that falls under the category of not being close, but even if it did that is exactly the reason why I think the title should change - because of the possibility of this debate. Maybe it isn't close according to the guidance, but maybe it is in the sense Smokey Joe was talking about. Since there is this confusion, and debate, a rename is in order. Huggums537 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be far more beneficial, far easier, and promote less debate, and confusion if we simply described paraphrasing as correct/incorrect, and the examples you just gave are both incorrect (or what the guidance would call "close"), but the question asked to provide an example that is not close. Huggums537 (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Distant paraphrasing example

Using source text I can freely copy-paste
Source text Close paraphrase Distant paraphrase
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. The earth was a formless emptiness in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept across the face of the oceans. "Let there be light," God said, and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he divided the light from the darkness. The light was given the name Day, and the darkness was given the name Night. There was an evening and a dawn on the first day. The Genesis creation narrative comprises two different stories; the first two chapters roughly correspond to these. In the first, Elohim, the generic Hebrew word for God, creates the heavens and the earth including humankind, in six days, and rests on the seventh.

Does this help you?—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps something like, Too-Close Paraphrase, will help. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks like a very good source for close paraphrasing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that helps me understand what you mean. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. Not at all. I hope you did not copy this from any of our guidance. Nothing in the so called distant paraphrasing is supported by what the source says because things being stated in the distant paraphrasing are not being stated in the source text. It comes off to me as making stuff up, and not paraphrasing at all. I see nothing at all in the source text suggesting the given name of creation is "Genesis", or there are two stories, two chapters, Elohim is a generic word for God, or that God takes six days, and a seventh day break. The only thing that even remotely resembles anything from the source is that God creates the heavens and earth. I would have it removed as unsupported text. Huggums537 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am pretty sure the original source was truncated because it's asking too much to present it all here, and all one would need is an assumed ellipsis at the end for two chapters and for the published annotations that are common in bibles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of that was indicated here. If it had been, maybe I would agree with everyone. All we were presented with was some source text, and some distant paraphrasing that failed to retain any of the original meaning other than a small portion of the first sentence in the original text. Huggums537 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How much are you demanding of others, here? 'Close paraphrasing' is a thing, not invented by Wikipedians, and it is a way of writing that has ethical and sometimes legal implications. So, look elsewhere for understanding if you so object to Smarshall's however imperfect attempt to be helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I'm not stupid, or being obstinate. Of course I know from my Sunday school lessons the facts in the distant paraphrasing are easily attributable to most common bibles. I'm just saying this would not be a great example if you imagine somebody never heard of a bible, or don't know who God is. And, I think the only reason it barely passes as a good example is purely for that notoriety. That is exactly why I made my critical analysis of it the way I did. I'm not demanding anything of anyone, only trying to prove the point that distant paraphrasing is easier said than done, and the finished product might still not be acceptable. It makes a big difference if a single passage, chapter, two chapters, annotations, footnotes, or whole bible is being sourced if you are paraphrasing, and we were given a passage. That matters, and you are pretending as if it doesn't. Huggums537 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm not knocking S Marshall's help either. I really do get the idea he is trying to get across based on this example. I just think there could be a better example of it. Huggums537 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing that you understand what I'm trying to convey. I apologise for omitting the ellipsis.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. No problem. Its kind of hard to explain what I'm trying to say about my point because if this example were in an article, it probably wouldn't even need an ellipses (although it should) since it would be obvious from the context of the article that the (whole) bible is the primary source. However, in this case it's not obvious the (whole) bible is the primary source at all until the distant paraphrasing makes references to other parts of it not mentioned in the source text. It's pretty clear we are allowed to summarize whole chapters or books into one or two sentences, but with this example, what it makes it look like you have done is something more like taken a paragraph, and used it to summarize two chapters, and part of a concordance. This might maybe fly in an article where the context/primary source is obvious, but it is kinda bad as an example of the sort of summary we should be doing for paraphrasing even though it does get the idea across that it is possible to summarize without it being too close. Huggums537 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Maybe I'm just an uneducated doofus, but it makes common sense to me this is a wrongful use of paraphrasing. I guess the argument could be made that most people recognize the passage as being from the bible so the context isn't needed since the source is obvious, but then again I never knew what a Quran was, or who Allah is until I was in my late teens, and I might not recognize a passage from it to save my life, sooo... Huggums537 (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to understand what S Marshall means. However, he is conflating perspective of writing, close vs distant, with a measure of alignment to textbook paraphrasing. Instead of “close” and “distant”, the words “tight” and “loose” could be used.
Paraphrase means to say the same thing differently. The degree of difference could be called “close”, where “close” means the difference is small, and paraphrasing becomes copying. In the example, the distant paraphrasing is less close because the writer has changed perspective from close perspective to distant perspective. But I understand what S Marshall means.
The problem here is that “close” is a simple common word that defies hard definition.
Paraphrase means to same the same thing differently. In public, political, discourse, paraphrase often accompanies a change in purpose, keeping the facts the same but changing the POV. In Wikipedia, “POV” is often a badword, but it shouldn’t be, not necessarily. POV is inherent if there is any motivation to communicate. I think in Wikipedia, paraphrasing to alter the POV to a more distant perspective is a good thing. This includes discarding unimportant detail, and adding contextualisation, and consistency in style to the adjoining prose.
At no point, do I see paraphrasing as touching WP:OR; there is quite a gulf between. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's another great idea, "tight" vs "loose". Anything but "close". It just confuses everything. Huggums537 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Encyclopaedias should be using what SJ calls "distant perspective" most of the time. An encyclopaedia gives the view from 30,000 feet high; that's how we produce the abridgement I referred to earlier. There are hard cases where we have to go closer to the sources but "distant perspective" is the default.—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guess I'm sort of okay with "distant paraphrasing" terminology for correct paraphrasing, but I really hate using the "close" terminology for when we are really talking about incorrect, or copyrighted paraphrasing. I took a closer look at the link for "Too close paraphrasing" from Yale provided by Asw, and it doesn't seem to be supporting the "close" naming convention as much as I thought it did because it appears to have been published by an undergrad student in 2020 so they may very well have got their bad ideas for naming conventions from Wikipedia in the first place. Huggums537 (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Close paraphrasing is what universities and colleges call it.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine for them, but they don't have to contend with confusing editing disputes or constantly changing and evolving content like we do. Huggums537 (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think doing something just for the sake of doing it simply because everyone else is doing it at a university level so therefore it "must be good" is a particularly bad reason for doing something, especially if you can see with your own common sense that doing that thing will be problematic for you in your own forum. We engage in a completely different kind of intercourse here on Wikipedia than they do at University, but most of our best editors here are too indoctrinated with academic education to see that. I would gladly reject what all the universities are doing for the benefit of Wikipedia, but I realize some other editors are not willing to do the same because of their indoctrination. I think it's a form of academic bias myself, but that's just my own opinion. Huggums537 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It helps if we use the words at least some of our editors know.—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy that much either. Doctors and lawyers use plenty of words we don't use, yet they are somehow able to adjust them enough to communicate with us, and each other just fine. It would be pretty darned funny if my doctor or lawyer told me that it would help them a lot if I start using the words they know. I mean it probably would help, but if I knew those words, I really wouldn't need my doctor or lawyer anymore... Huggums537 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another paraphrasing example

Using source text I can freely copy-paste
Source text Close paraphrase Not so distant, but otherwise correct paraphrase
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. The earth was a formless emptiness in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept across the face of the oceans. "Let there be light," God said, and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he divided the light from the darkness. The light was given the name Day, and the darkness was given the name Night. There was an evening and a dawn on the first day. The creation story begins on the first day with God creating the heavens, earth, and light (called Day), which was divided from darkness (called Night).

I think this would be a little more like what the paraphrasing example should look like, but even then you could still say it is somewhat "close" to the original. Huggums537 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An apparent contradiction

In discussing the need for citable sources, the current article includes the following: "... 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, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited." What this is intending to communicate is that some sources are so widely-known that they do not need to be made explicit, such as the fact that Paris is the capital of France.

So, it might be clearer to have the text read as follows: "... but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. In cases where a source can be assumed to be widely known, such as Paris being the capital of France, this source does not have to be explicitly cited. As it was not something you thought up, it is not original research, it is easily verifiable and we know that sources exist, and no one is likely to object."

I'm new to suggesting changes; is this something that I can be do if the consensus is positive? Soulfulpsy (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One could simply replace "needs no source" with "does not require an inline citation". Your proposal is rather longer and redefines original research (probably inadvertantly). The former version requires a fact be verifiable (which elsewhere is made clear to require reliable sources) whereas the latter simply requires that it not be invented by the editor themselves. As the policy makes clear, however, reliable sources are required for something not to be OR even if someone is repeating something they heard somewhere else.
Even better, we could replace "needs no source..." with "even if lacking a citation, is not original research" as I don't think we should ever be saying not to cite a fact. The fact it's easily verifiable means it's easy to cite, and whether something is really so obvious gets real fuzzy, real fast. For example, the capital of South Africa isn't so simple. I follow the WP:NOTBLUESKY school of thought. Crossroads -talk- 03:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if you support NOTBLUESKY, but policy supports WP:WTC, by pointing to it in WP:V, and therefore by extension also supports WP:BLUE. One very important reason this is supported by policy, and NOTBLUESKY isn't, is because NOTBLUESKY completely ignores the fact that primary sources can verify themselves. In other words, the subject of the article itself is often obviously the source so a citation is not needed. See the plot section of Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed. The current version of OR doesn't just say "needs no source", it also says, "...even if they are not cited", and "...even if not attributed". The exact opposite of "we should not ever tell editors to stop citing obvious facts", is the absolutely absurd notion that every single little thing needs a citation even if it is already supported by the primary source (AKA the subject of the article). The proponents of NOTBLUESKY always say that if something is easily verifiable, then it should be easy to cite, but as @WhatamIdoing has pointed out before, what could be easier than not citing it, and just letting the reader check the primary source themselves? Huggums537 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest changing the "attributed" language. Wikipedia:Attribution involving a little blue clicky number is meant, but it tends to be mistaken for WP:INTEXT attribution.
I'll have a go at fixing this. @Soulfulpsy is correct that this is unnecessarily confusing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See this change. I hope that solves the "needs no source" concern.
I would particularly appreciate hearing your views about the new footnote, which says of the "The capital of France is Paris" example that This statement is verifiable because you are "able" to "verify" it, e.g., by typing "capital of France" in your favorite search engine and seeing what the reliable sources tell you. Although inline citations are encouraged, verifiability does not depend exclusively upon the sources already cited in the article. This is obviously true (else the example is utterly nonsensical), but I suspect that it will be objected to by the occasional POV pusher or ruleslawyer, since claiming that all unsourced content is a policy violation is a simple way to get the wrong POV out of an article.
The expected drama will run:
  • The policy says your content is bad
  • Oh, oops, the policy says that it's possible for your content to be verifiable even if it isn't already cited
  • Well, let me discredit the policy by saying that there wasn't an overwhelmingly positive, community-initiated, CENT-listed RFC on whether or not to state the obvious, so let's claim that the policy hasn't always said that basic facts don't violate policy merely because they aren't already cited.
Your comments on this footnote could prevent that last bit of drama. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes eliminate the seeming contradiction. Your footnote, for me, works as well. I lack the history to anticipate pushback. The only other time I attempted to offer a correction was to a discussion of A.N. Whitehead, with which I have some expertise based upon my Ph.D., but it was quickly eliminated for reasons of improper approach which was expressed with more than a hint of arrogance. So, proper approach ranked higher than accuracy; and dismissal was preferable to assistance and guidance. I was not impressed and I realized I'm not presently suited for extensive, nuanced, and detailed exchanges of this sort. Soulfulpsy (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia my friend... Huggums537 (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree with these changes. Huggums537 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to assume bad faith when people object by saying it's POV pushing. Like it or not, the WP:BURDEN of supporting a claim lies with inclusionists. Why do you emphasize so much that it doesn't matter if a source is actually cited? Why do you seemingly wish to make it easier for people to add material without citing sources?
We should not be endorsing an approach that implies it doesn't need to be cited if one can just Google it. Google results are not always correct or giving good sources. Why bother with citations at all then? Crossroads -talk- 22:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No bad faith intended friend, and I apologize for coming off that way. Like Waid said, I understand you are simply just trying to improve Wikipedia according to your own different ideas about what it should look like. That's ok. It's not bad at all since I very often have my own different ideas myself. I would be very hypocritical if I tried to make you feel bad for it. Please forgive me if I made you feel that way. Huggums537 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
POV pushers are not usually bad-faith editors. They are almost editors who are trying very hard, to the best of their biased ability, to improve Wikipedia – according to their idea of what "improved" looks like.
I believe that if you read the text of the footnote you removed, you will find the words inline citations are encouraged in it. As for whether it "implies" that some content is verifiable even if it is uncited, this policy has said that directly for years. This is the policy, even if you don't think it's the best policy. Wikipedia has long had a small group of editors advocating for every single sentence being followed by an inline citation. They have not yet managed convinced the rest of the editors that this would be preferable.
Your other objection is to me expanding the description from:
but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.
to:
but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged or that does not require an inline citation.
A source must exist (somewhere in the world, in any language) for all material. It is not clear to me why someone who supposedly wishes to have everything supported by inline citations would wish for this sentence to apply to a seemingly narrower set of content.
Your stated reason for removing this is that WP:MINREF, which is part of the Wikipedia:Inline citation page, is not a policy or a guideline. There is no rule against linking to WP:INFOPAGES, nor even to essays. This policy links to many non-policy and non-guideline pages. In fact, the first sentence of the second paragraph links to the top of WP:Inline citation.
As for this reversion, do you realize that this entire footnote was taken, word for word, in its entirety, from WP:V? And that by removing it, you are causing these two policies not to match as closely as they could and should?
The idea is to tell people that when we require sources that "directly support", we refer to the content of the sources, not to the location of the footnote. If you write Alice Expert wrote a book[1]and the cited source does not say that Alice wrote a book, then the cited source does not "directly support" that sentence, even though the source is placed at the end of the sentence. OTOH, if you write that same sentence based on a reliable source that is all about Alice writing books, even if the citation is formatted as Wikipedia:General references at the end of the page, instead of the more desirable inline citation (perhaps it is added by a new editor who doesn't know how to make the little blue clicky numbers), then that source actually does "directly support" the content in question. (Ideally, someone will re-format the citation into the preferable form, which the lead of WP:CITE encourages experienced editors to do.) The reason we have this explanation about what it means to "directly support" content is because we have altogether too many stupid disputes that amount to one editor deciding that WP:OVERKILL is barely enough citations, and claiming that the "directly supports" language is about the number of linear inches between the material and the little blue clicky number. It isn't. "Directly supports" is about whether the source actually says the thing someone claims it says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although a citation for every sentence is overkill - at the end of a series of clearly related sentences should be fine - I certainly empathize with that view and oppose efforts to move the policy away from that and towards 'write whatever as long as sources somewhere say it'. When was the last time that was discussed anyway? Is it really a minority? All my experience nowadays finds people being quite strict with citations, and for good reason. There's enough misinformation as there is.
Regarding this, the first part, I don't agree with adding further emphasis to the idea that some claims "do not need" inline citation. With the second, my main objection is to endorsing a sort of "just Google it" mentality where lazy Google searches have any bearing on content or on what needs citation. The point about verifiability not needing sources necessarily being in the article already is already in the paragraph. Saying it over and over is unwarranted emphasis.
Regarding this, it doesn't necessarily make sense in this context to quote WP:V verbatim. Yet again saying that a citation doesn't have to be in the article, aside from being undue, makes no sense when it just got done saying that one has to cite sources to demonstrate they are not adding OR. And of course, we want them to add those sources to the respective sentences it supports rather than lumped together at the end or something. Crossroads -talk- 02:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most recent significant discussion about whether everything needs an inline citation was earlier this month; you can read it here.
  • There are two changes in that diff. The first adds a link to MINREF (=a page that tells people that policies require them to cite more than they see in many articles). The second explains why/how this policy says that "The capital of France is Paris", when uncited, is still "easily verifiable". I don't think that either of these changes have the effect of emphasizing the idea that some claims do not need inline citation. I think the first tells people to cite more, and the second reduces confusion.
  • It may not be necessary to quote WP:V verbatim, but it is normally a bad idea for two closely related policies to have slightly different wording on the same subject. Note, too, that the text you removed (" The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material.") does not say that citations don't have to be in the article. What it says is that the location is irrelevant to the question of whether the source supports the material. That is, the US census (=a reliable source) "directly supports" the claim that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people, regardless of whether the source is placed as an inline citation, typed among the WP:General references at the end of the article, or incorrectly omitted entirely. By contrast, Darwin's On the Origin of Species does not "directly support" any claims about the population of Paris, TX, even if you put it in the most beautifully formatted citation template as an inline citation at the end of that very sentence. That's what "directly supports" means. It's about the Wikipedia article content matching the reliable source's content. It is not about where the source is typed on the page. The source can "directly support" the material even if you screw up everything about formatting the citation.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is an MfD for the BLUESKY essay; of course people will oppose deletion of an essay that has any level of community support. When was the last time the community actually endorsed the idea that citations are unnecessary?
Copying a bunch of text verbatim from a different policy without regard for context doesn't necessarily make sense. It was you who added a bunch of extra text that has little to do with the specific issue from the start of this section. In total, this added two extra references to the idea that citations are not necessary, making the lead say it over and over again. This is undue emphasis by any measure. Crossroads -talk- 12:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If editors support an essay that says some (small) number of citations are unnecessary, then that is also support for the idea that some citations are unnecessary, no? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot infer support for an essay's content from opposition to an essay's deletion. One can disagree with an essay while understanding that there are only rarely grounds to delete them. Extrapolating from an MfD to the community in general is also sketchy. Crossroads -talk- 04:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More troubles from this being mostly duplication of wp:Ver. Structurally is says a source is required if it is challenged or likely to be challenged. The latter is good guidance but not directly enforceable but becomes moot when a challenge occurs in which case it becomes simply "challenged". So structurally the core policy says it must be sourced if challenged.

"Not needed" on stuff you consider to be "sky is blue" is an ambiguous statement. It can mean either:

  1. Only: Feel no pressure / guidance that you have to cite it when putting material in. So it will still need to be cited if challenged.
  2. A policy statement that it is never required for those cases. So if you feel or assert that it is sky-is-blue, this policy such overrides the requirement to cite it if challenged.

Number 2 is ludicrous, so "not needed" means simply #1. So there is no policy / structural need to define sky is blue. If somebody challenges a sky is blue statement, you can call them a jerk (or a wikilawyer who wants "sky is blue" removed) but it needs a cite. BTW I advocate requiring a perfunctory statement of concern with a challenge so then the wikilawyer would need to say "I have a concern that "sky is blue" is not source-able" and will probably skip the challenge rather than wanting to look that stupid. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think #2 isn't really all that ludicrous because you don't have to just "feel or assert" it in cases where it is obvious from the context or the primary source (subject of the article) supports it. Why is our only recourse from wikilawyers or POV pushers calling them a jerk? Huggums537 (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I agree with North's idea for a perfunctory statement regarding challengers. Huggums537 (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a pragmatic approach to BLUESKY challenges: It takes far less time (and causes a LOT less aggravation) to simply slap in a citation that isn’t needed than it does to explain why a citation isn’t needed. So just “let the wookie win”. Slap in a citation and be done with it. It isn’t worth arguing about. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with sticking with the rule that if challenged, a cite must be provided, period. But I also think that a perfunctory statement of concern/question about the veracity or sourcability of the statement should be required with the challenge. The reason is to avoid some more common Wikilawyering situations, usually by done using wp:ver/wp:nor in tandem with some other rule. For example, in a hit-piece article which says "John Smith has been accused of kicking dogs". And editor "A" puts in "John Smith said that he does not kick dogs" and source to statement by John Smith on his web site. And a Wikilawyer POV warrior editor "B" knocks it out saying it's not (suitably) sourced because it's not a RS. (primary, or some other reason) If the wikilawyer had to say "I question the veracity of the statement that John Smith said that or the source" he is less likely to make that challenge. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent back and forth

Regarding the recent back and forth of inclusion of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research&type=revision&diff=1085258114&oldid=1085105135 I do support Crossroad's at least temporary removal. From a process standpoint this is newly added material and so removal is reversion to the last stable version. I think that the statement does allude to / try to explain an important point which should be fully covered somewhere. But I think that we should be reducing overlap/duplication between wp:NOR and wp:ver, not increasing it. Also, in addition to being a bit brief and abstract, putting it in that particular location adds to the confusion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads, if you only object to the "whether" phrase, why don't you stick back in the main part of the sentence, which is about the location? The location of any citation is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. (omitting "—including whether one is present in the article at all—") would be closer to WP:V than removing the whole sentence.
On the broader point, the policy says (and has said bascially this for years):
For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified.
I have underlined the words that I believe will confuse some newer editors, namely the statement that completely uncited material can be "easily verifiable". It is not unusual for me to encounter a newer editor who believes that content is only verifiable if it can be verified in the exact source that is cited. Does nobody else encounter these editors? (I freely grant that my editing patterns are not average.) Does everyone else think that this sentence is perfectly clear, and that almost everyone will understand the circumstances under which a completely uncited statement can be considered "easily verifiable"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think “easily verifiable” will be understood… but if we wanted to clarify further, I suppose we could say: “… and so many sources exist that support the statement that it is easily verifiable…” Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any other way to word it? "Many" sources seems to give the impression that a primary source alone could not be sufficient for a simple verification, or that secondary sourcing must be required for simple verification, and I think this is wrong. Huggums537 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, every time I have to say the words, "many sources", or "significant coverage" in a discussion, I always sense the flavor of notability as a bad aftertaste in my mouth, but I'm 100% positive that isn't even close to anything you had in mind when you said, "many sources". Huggums537 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "...because any editor who searched for sources could easily find reliable sources that support this statement that it..."? That removes "many sources", but at the cost of extra words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except, if there are only a few sources that support a statement, then it is hardly a BLUESKY statement - no matter how easy it is to find those few sources. What makes the difference in BLUESKY situations is the shear volume of potential sources that can be used to verify the information. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just talking about BLUESKY statements, and neither should the policy only be talking about just BLUESKY either, I'm talking about plot summary type statements that only need the subject of the article (or primary source) to verify them, and this policy should be talking about that too. Huggums537 (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So there are two cases: one is that reliable sources are readily available and abundant in number (e.g., "The capital of France is Paris") and the other is the source is obvious (e.g., the plot of a named work of fiction).
Technically, a statement like "Romeo and Juliet opens with a fight scene" already contains an inline citation to the source. If you don't refer directly to the work, then there isn't technically a citation, but it is still obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is exactly my point. If you don't refer directly to the work, then it is still obvious that the only citation that would technically be needed is the direct reference to the work, not "shear volumes" of sources to verify it. So, why are we pushing this idea about "shear volumes" when we have just proven the case that a single citation is sufficient for some obvious facts? I'm certain it is not just the case for plots, but other obvious facts that don't need citations as well... Huggums537 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merely adding "the location of any citation" is not helpful either. When people are being told to cite sources to demonstrate they are not adding OR, it does no good to imply that the location isn't that important. It is important. People should be citing their source soon after the claim they are supporting, rather than, say, clumping three paragraphs worth of sources at the end or the beginning.
There is no need for further clarification of easily verifiable. That paragraph already says, must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. And in the footnote: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. Hammering yet more on this point of 'it can be verifiable even if the sources aren't cited' is undue and confusing. It's already perfectly clear that, under the current rules, something can be verifiable even if not currently cited.
Citations not supporting the text they purport to is a problem, actually. Editors caught misrepresenting sources are usually warned, and blocked if they persist. Catching an instance of this after the fact should be commended; worrying about the newbie accidentally misusing the jargony sense of "verifiable" is a case of misplaced priorities. More to the point, I've never seen a newbie use "verifiable"; they usually say that it was not in the source or something like that. And people, such as WP:Student editors, citing sources to support some peripheral point rather than their main claim is a vastly more common issue. There have been many times I check some claim against the underlying source and find it doesn't support it.
That experience is partly why I tire of these efforts to cover in excruciating detail why and when we don't need to cite sources. It has the issues backwards. Wikipedia has far more issues with editor failure to cite relevant sources than anything involving too much citation. Crossroads -talk- 05:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"When people are being told to cite sources", then they need to cite the sources. This bit is about whether people need to cite sources even when nobody is telling them to cite sources for that particular bit of obvious information.
I don't think you're understanding the "location" thing, so we probably need to clarify that. After all, if you don't get it, then lots of less experienced editors won't, either.
So, from the top:
  • Is the US census a "reliable source" that "directly supports" the claim that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people? Yes.
  • Is the US census a "reliable source" that "directly supports" the claim that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people even before it occurs to anyone to put that citation in the article? Yes. (Should they cite that source? Yes. Statistics, even simple statistics like these, are WP:LIKELY to be challenged.)
  • Is the US census a "reliable source" that "directly supports" the claim that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people even if someone (perhaps a newbie) types that citation in the wrong part of the article? Yes. (Does that formatting need fixed? Also yes.)
The US census is a "reliable source" that "directly supports" the claim that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people because the US census actually says that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people. Source says it = source directly supports it.
Now:
  • Is the latest MEDRS-compliant review article in a top-notch medical journal about breast cancer rates in China a "reliable source" that "directly supports" the claim that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people? No.
  • Is the latest MEDRS-compliant review article in a top-notch medical journal about breast cancer rates in China a "reliable source" that "directly supports" the claim that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people even if someone (perhaps a newbie) puts a beautifully formatted citation immediately at the end of the sentence about the population of that city? No.
  • Is there anything an editor can do about the location of this citation that will turn this MEDRS-compliant source into a reliable source that directly supports this statement? No.
The latest MEDRS-compliant review article in a top-notch medical journal about breast cancer rates in China is not a "reliable source" that "directly supports" the claim that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people because that source doesn't say that the population of Paris, TX is about 25,000 people. Source doesn't say it = source doesn't directly support it.
The relevance of this to NOR in general should be obvious; NOR is reminding editors that sources need to actually say the things that they're citing them for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse to keep flow of discussion
What the... ? The population of Paris is just over 2 million no matter what the US census says. What's a TX?—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind, it means you're talking about some also-ran Paris out there in the colonies.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Texas was never part of the original 13 colonies. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, that's so true, but I never bother the brits when they still refer to any of us as the colonies because I don't expect them to know great details about U.S. history. They pushed US history onto us pretty hard just as I'm sure they pushed UK history onto them pretty hard, but we do have a great number of copycat cities across the pond. Texas also has a Rome, and New London among others, and many states have more of the same. Huggums537 (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of Paris, Amsterdam, Peru, and Lisbon in the states! Huggums537 (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, this is off topic. Sorry. Huggums537 (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dvina

Net city Docc day good fun of Gigi been GM meat rent real Earlgooh (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&oldid=1090609915"