Misplaced Pages

talk:No original research: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:45, 13 June 2006 edit217.162.113.116 (talk) →Reasonable inference: But that is exactly what the policy says← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:42, 8 January 2025 edit undoThryduulf (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators98,989 edits →Editor-created images based on text descriptions: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{shortcut|]}}
{{metatalk}}
{{policy talk}}
{{tmbox
|image = none
|text = If you want to know whether particular material constitutes ] or ], please use the ]. Questions about the policy itself may be posted here.
}}
{{FAQ}}
{{Shortcut|WT:OR|WT:NOR}}
<!--


-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Template:Notable Citation|''Stvilia, B. et al. ''''. University of Illinois U-C.}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 64
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--


-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5"
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Archive index
| align=center|]
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Archive <#>
|-
|leading_zeros=0
| ]
|indexhere=yes
|
}}<!--
|}

'''The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.'''


-->{{archives|small=yes|index=/Archive index|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=60 days|
----
* Rewrite 2004-2005: ] • ]
* ]
* "Change needed": ] • ]
* "Various examples": ] • ]
* "Transclusion example": ] • ]
* ]
----<!-- line to separate the bot notice -->
}}<!-- end archive box -->
__TOC__ __TOC__


== New articles based on primary sources ==
== Discussion about NPOV, NOR, Verifiability etc. on ] ==

I have been asked to mention ] here. - ] (] • ]) 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Primary information as "research" ==

If my interpretation is correct (and I believe that it is, judging from the spirit of the rule as it has been applied in existing articles), the name of this policy may be misleading. I suggest that mention may be added to the policy page of the distinction between what is commonly considered research and the term "research" as it is used by the policy.

Hypothetical example: Historical Individual was tried in 1763, and a large quantity of commentary exists in the form of contemporary primary documents indicating that this happened on May 3, 1763 in Specific Place. This information is available to Editor and is non-controversial in that it is not disputed among secondary sources. Editor sees that the article on Historical Individual does not mention the date or place, or does so incorrectly. Perhaps Editor even brings this to the talk page to verify, if indeed the information is incorrect. Is Editor permitted to make the addition of this information if it is not available in any known secondary sources?

The answer would seem to me an obvious "yes", but I really can't say whether this qualifies as original research as per the WP standard any more than does "researching" secondary sources. This seems to me an ambiguity, and I think it should be clarified in the policy article. Because the policy is so established (and because it would be impractical), I don't recommend a name change (such as to "original data or analysis"), but I think some visible, official clarification would do the job just as well. ] 06:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:I see "original research" versus "ordinary" research as a continuum depending on the amount of interpretation that you apply to your source. If you see a photo of George Bush waving and state that George Bush waved, that's just research. If you see a photo of George Bush waving and claim that it's symbolic of his inner turmoil, that's original research. On the other hand, if you find an article by a researcher claiming the same thing, then you can write that and cite it. OR is defined by the "gap" between the source and the claims in the article. How wide a gap is too wide? It's highly subjective and I would expect a lack of consensus over certain items. ] 06:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::I would, too. Which is why I brought this forward--I'd like to hear more on the topic. I still think "original analysis" is a better description of what is inappropriate (again, if I do not misunderstand). ] 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I think you may be right that "original research" can be misread: it might be read as saying "You are not permitted to go to the library, research a topic, and post changes to the article based on that research". That's clearly not what NOR is about. We would encourage this kind of research, especially when citing the primary sources. I think the reason "original research" is the term is that the original main purpose of this policy was to stop the many physics cranks on Usenet from posting all their theories here as fact; "this theory is the product of my original research into how to build a perpetual motion machine."

:::Not sure if "original analysis" is a better description. An example of "original research" that isn't "original analysis": I happened to be a guest at the White House, and I heard the president go on a 5-minute, profanity-full tirade against broccoli. I was the only witness. I posted about this to the president's article, the broccoli article, and a new article I authored called ]. Actually a more accurate term for this would be "original reporting" rather than "original research". ] 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Altered photos ==

I was discussing with Shawnc a photo he had altered (]) when he called my attention to an altered photo and a "synthetic animation" that have been promoted to Featured quality:

*]
*]

As stated here at ], altered photos are not to be used to illustrate the main Misplaced Pages namespace, as they are essentially original research. These two examples are both extremely beautiful, but they should not have been promoted to Featured quality for this reason. They should also not be used to illustrate Misplaced Pages articles.

The reason for the rule is that an altered photo purports to illustrate something that is not true. It captures a moment in time that never occurred. It is false. When the photo retoucher performs his work, he is creating a fact, by himself. This is a clear violation of what the NOR rule is supposed to prevent.

The debate over altered photos is of course not original to Misplaced Pages; altered photos have been an interesting topic in journalism ethics classes for several decades; see the article from 1988. I will expand the rule here on NOR to try to explain 'why' but it sounds like word of the rule needs to be spread to the people who frequent the featured photos discussion. ] 06:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:I think you have a grave misunderstanding of WP:NOR and its implications. ] (]:]) 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::Less cryptic, please. ] 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: The image in question is ], and is used on ] and ] where it illustrates both articles quite adequately. Each frame in the animation is assembled from a sequence of many cycles of water dropping from a tap, so that consecutive frames do not show the same droplet. It's a reasonable technique and illustrates droplet formation under free fall quite well. --] 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:The image is not presenting an original theory of how water droplets fall or form, only aiming to illustrate the conventional understanding of the subject in a visual way. If it were OR to illustrate conventional understanding, it would be OR to write about it in a new or creative way as well, which is pretty much all we do. ] 05:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::Interesting. If one's position is that ] is an illustration, then it is of course acceptable. If one's position is that it is a movie of an actual water droplet falling, then it is not acceptable, because it isn't. A compromise that preserves the integrity of the articles might be to label each instance as an 'illustration' or the like. ] 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:::''All'' pictures on Misplaced Pages are used as illustrations; if they were used as evidence of something, they ''would'' be original research, ''regardless'' of whether they were claimed to be genuine or not. Presenting images as factual evidence ''might'' be appropriate on ], but not here. Of course, not only are all the images discussed here used as illustrations, but the fact that they were digitally altered is clearly documented on their image description page. Thus, there should be no problem here. —] <small>(])</small> 12:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Disagree; the above paragraph includes a good deal of wishful thinking about the way that a reader considers a photograph. A photo is evidence of something. People have been conditioned to believe this from decades of reading the newspaper, reading magazines, and watching TV. A photo illustrating a Misplaced Pages article will be taken to be evidence. An altered photo, then, misleads the reader. This is no different from an altered photo in a newspaper misleading the reader. ] 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Agree with the above. This is a ridiculous suggestion. "A known disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo" I think is the excerpt you are basing this on? Well I think a key word is "distort". Image editing can certainly be used to manipulate a photo to enhance the illustrative power of the image. This is not distorting it in any way. --] 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Untrue. When National Geographic moved the pyramids closer together to "enhance the illustrated power of the image" on their cover, this was a distortion of reality and is not allowed. ] 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:We have several paintings, drawings, and diagrams on Misplaced Pages which capture a great deal less reality than a real photograph with the top of somebody's head Photoshopped on. But they illustrate what's going on and add colour to the page. If people say "it's in a picture, so it must be true" then that's sad, but Misplaced Pages is not responsible for other people's incredibly lazy scholarship. And it's certainly not original research to present an illustration of something in an article, no more than it's original research to write the same article in your own words. ] 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== Evidence.... ==

Will evidence of innacuracy or problems be shown in place of edited material?
Call someone a liar or disprove a fact then another fact has to replace it.

--] 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:Are you asking a question? ] 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

::I think that if secondary sources conflict, what you have is a scholarly controversy and not "disproof". So both sides should be documented and both sides should cite sources. ] 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== This policy must be destroyed ==

This policy must be destroyed, and have its rotten corpse dragged through the dirty streets, for the good of Misplaced Pages.

Where do I sign? I'm almost sure that there is a "destroy the WP:NOR policy" committee already. If not, I sign here.

#] 12:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:Would you care to explain why? If we removed the original research policy Misplaced Pages would have to take every crank theory and unproveable assertion. No article could be relied on. It seems like a wise princip]]] 12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::First of all, Misplaced Pages can not ever serve as a stand-alone, authoritative source of information, which is what "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia" means, as long as everyone is granted the right to freely edit every article. That simple fact just destroys any sort of authority Misplaced Pages might want to claim - And thus, shouldn't. Instead, Misplaced Pages should just try to be a "good" source of information, not an authoritative (encyclopedic) one. For further info, see ].
::Secondly, the policy does not do the job it was implemented for. IIRC, Jimbo created the policy as a means to deal with crank physics theories, whose inventors tried to add legitimacy by having it appear on Misplaced Pages. ] as well as ] keeps most of the total nonsense out. Also, ] Gives fringe theories their share: Stuff like ] is allowed, as long as the article makes it clear that the theory in question is a fringe view and not accepted by the general (scientific) mainstream.
::Thirdly, in conjunction with ], which is not-negotiateable international law, WP:NOR can be used to censor almost all information on Misplaced Pages. If a censor wishes to act within the system, and wishes to censor a bit of information, he can variously invoke either policy to have that bit of information removed. Because, if consequently and anally used, WP:NOR would mean that nothing on Misplaced Pages that isn't largely a carbon copy of a ] is allowed. And ] prevents carbon copied stuff from almost all sources except those in the public domain, such as the US Government. So WP:NOR means the only allowable content on wikipedia are carbon copies of US government statements.
::Finally, since NOR isn't doing the job it's supposed to do (keeping nonsense out), it is used by various censors and POV pushers as a tool to censor information and harass legitimate users - i.e. keeping the good stuff out. Let me give you a real world example: ]
::Summing it up: There's a paper from a ] that says that surgical operations (cuts, wounds etc in a hospital environment) to infants would greatly increase the risk of MRSA infection, a highly anti-biotics resistant and dangerous strain of bacteria. Now, circumcision is quite a cut, and is most commonly done to infants, so a responsible writer would of course want to add that bit of information to the ] article. But oh wait - The censors (who try to keep out any bit of information about circumcision that makes the practice look less favorable) find: While the article talks of all manners of surgical operations performed on infants as a risk factor, he does not specifically name circumcision as one of them. Of course many reliable sources as well state that circumcision is a serious surgical operation, especially when done to an infant - But to combine these two items would violate WP:NOR - Thus one can not state in the circumcision related articles that neonatal circumcision may facilitate an MRSA infection, due to WP:NOR.
::Now, even when one finds a quality source online that actually does that thought (geniuses, huh) and publishes this, the source is rejected as being POV. This should tell you that WP:NOR isn't the only problem, and that there is a lot of shit going on near the ] articles, but it still illustrates how ] has become mainly a tool to harass and censor, and does not at all serve the interests of Misplaced Pages (being a good source of information). ] 15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:::NOR does not prohibit ''all'' original interpretation or combining of sources - whether research is original research depends in a qualitative and subjective way on the degree of interpretation applied. We necessarily engage in some degree of interpretation in the course of ordinary presentation of facts. I would personally consider your particular case acceptable, but others might not. Anyone can cite a policy to try to win an edit war, but that doesn't mean the policy is wrong. ] 17:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Point taken. I said this was but one particular case. It is not the only one, I believe that WP:NOR is fundamentally flawed and ultimately more than just harmful - outright dangerous - to the integrity of Misplaced Pages. And that is why this policy must be destroyed. I can see it use as a friendly, although redundant recommendation not to try to publish original research on Misplaced Pages, but as a policy that - if taken strictly - prohibits writers from their journalistic duty to interpret and present - then that policy has to go. And that is just how the policy is used right now, and that is how it will continue to be used if the policy is not removed. Allowing journalistic integrity is paramount to the continued function of wikipedia, and any policy that just as much as touches this must be revoked as soon as its harmful possibilities can be recognized. And WP:NOR doesn't just touch journalistic integrity, it rapes it, murders it, and pees on its corpse. Not necessarily in that order. ] 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::We're not journalists. ] 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::He didn't say we were; he said we had a journalistic duty, which I think is close to the mark. Actually it's an editor's duty. I think Dabljuh's concern can be addressed by modifying the policy; NOR doesn't have to be destroyed to allow what you are talking about. I do agree to some extent, by the way, on your concern, and think NOR could use some modification in this area, and the overlap with ] should be eliminated. Incidentally, and I know this is the wrong page to discuss it, I would say that in the circumcision debate linked to above that seems to have inflamed your hatred, I find the argument powerful that the MRSA link must be marked as purely speculative - but I would call this an RS argument and not an OR argument. ] 18:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::The MRSA link *is* purely speculative as the relationship with neonatal circumcision and MRSA has not been investigated yet (MRSA being a very young danger). But even making it clear in the article that this is, as of now, a speculative link would be prohibited by WP:NOR. ] 19:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I think the ] policy is misrepresented in these arguments, just as is the concept of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is, if you work with the premise that every statement is a subjective argument, a ''collection of arguments'' and their justifications (in the sense that the theory of gravity is an argument--just a very, very popular one). As such, NOR prevents WP from being hijacked by editors as a means of disseminating new arguments. NOR is crucial to maintaining NPOV, because (at least in theory) the representation of existing arguments as just that produces a neutral work, one that is a compilation rather than a collection of novel syntheses. This is very much in line with notions of journalistic integrity, and I would argue that it is a superior (or at least more exclusive) standard. What it comes down to is this: Misplaced Pages ''could'' be a source of original analysis, but that would redefine its purpose entirely. Everything2 is an example of a source of original analysis, and its mission is quite distinct from that of Wiki. The example you cited, Dabljuh, is to me not an example of truly original research but rather the superficial application of existing commentary into a discussion. If circumcision = surgery and surgery = a cause of this problem, then circumcision = a cause of this problem (but if any of those relationships are suspect or unverifiable, the entire thing becomes OR). It's a gray area, and I think it's one that should be elucidated by the NOR page. Not everyone would agree with me, but I think it comes down to a question of the "spirit of the rule". ] 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not a gray area - ] is very clear on the matter:
:''An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:
:(...)
:''It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
And that is technically exactly what "circumcision = surgery and surgery = a cause of this problem, then circumcision = a cause of this problem" is. There is nothing gray or shady about it. And there is no reason to believe that this simple, logical thinking would be false - it simply violates WP:NOR.
Now of course one begins to wonder, what the hell are you supposed to write in wikipedia then if you may not even draw the most obvious conclusions from given, verifiable data? When you are forbidden from stating the obvious? I told you: Carbon copies of US government statements in the public domain. ] 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::If it is obvious, the connection will have been made before. Summarise it encyclopedically, ] ]. ] 19:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Exactly. And that, in summary, is what an ''encyclopedia'' is: the collection of all the information from ], nothing more, nothing less. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia to the extent that it follows ] and ]. You want to create something that is not an encyclopedia. You are of course free to do this, just not here. ]]] 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Failing that, if a relationship is absolutely ''implicit'', I don't think it violates the spirit of NOR. I would even venture to say that this occurs tens of thousands of times in Misplaced Pages's million-odd articles, but that it's only really a problem when the conclusions are controversial. Which is probably a good thing--if it's controversial, a more careful inspction (and a stricter interpretation of NOR) is probably valid. As it is, I don't think the rules are too strict--I just think people take them as gospel, valid in every possible circumstance, when they are really just principles, tools editors can use in disputes to ensure that a valid approach is being taken in addressing the topic. My interpretation, of course. ] 20:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"If it is obvious, the connection will have been made before." Not necessarily. The big, big advantage Misplaced Pages has over classical paper encyclopedias is that it is most up to date. This is one big reason why Misplaced Pages is successful. The threat of MRSA in this example is a very new one - and despite its obvious ramifications with circumcision, it may take months or years until someone writes a paper detailing circumcision risks of MRSA. I mean, if I'd ask a doctor, any doctor, if he'd write a paper detailing MRSA and neonate circumcision, it'd be something like "Hey, yeah, circumcision facilitates MRSA infection" - That is not really anything new. We knew that already. Because it is so obvious. The time of doctors is limited and when things are very obvious, there is just no incentive at all to release a paper that states the obvious, unless one wants to assault his peers with boredom.
Lets make a different, fictious example. "Marilyn Monroe was a white woman". Original research! Can't say that unless you find me a *medical* peer reviewed journal that says so. Yeah, there's her picture and all that and she's very obviously white (although not necessarily blonde) but looking at the picture and drawing the conclusion that she must have been white is original research by the very meaning of the policy. Even more, even though we could presume that if she was white, her birthparents must have been white too, that's original research.
The policy commands pure madness and does nothing to improve the objective and subjective quality of wikipedia articles. Drawing conclusions is one of the most important jobs of a journalist, judging sources, weighting different sources against each other, and making sense of all the gibberish. This is even more important for an encyclopedia. Mind you, it'd be perfectly ok to state something like "Pluto is Mickey Mouse's dog. Pluto is Donald Duck's dog" when we could find WP:RS for both. It doesn't make sense - contradictions like that leave the reader confused, making the article, and Misplaced Pages less useful. The objective assessment "Pluto is a character in the Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse series comics" would first have to found in a reliable source that explicitely and decisively states so - without any room for interpretation. And that doesn't happen a lot I tell you.
An article on Misplaced Pages or any real encyclopedia absolutely MUST be more than just randomly gathered sentence fragments or carbon copied public domain material. But exactly this is the result of WP:NOR.
Now I want to throw a challenge: Give me a hypothetical or real example where WP:NOR would actually improve the quality of Misplaced Pages, that is, where _no_ other policies and guidelines are sufficient to avoid compromising the quality of Misplaced Pages as a whole. ] 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::Not really. If one believes there is a legitimate question as to the usability on Misplaced Pages, it can be discussed on another web forum and placing a note there helps to notify interested parties who may want to contribute to a site intent upon the merging of such nonsense - just not wikipedia. This a encyclopedia content matter and, this being a 💕 whose summaries are based solely upon based facts able to be referenced, we should take it seriously. No killing of these policies. I would suggest that, if you think about it, you'll realise that you're not talking about the point of wikipedia at all but a free for all blog with no restrictions to keep questionable content to a minimum. Engaging in personal research and round about composistions isn't what this site is about at all. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hallucinations! Fever dreams! WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and all those other fun policies are still in effect. You have yet to give me one example where those other policies would not be sufficient to keep "questionable" content out. ] 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::Whatever. Numerous policies are in effect to sustain content and prevent editors from gaming the system in cases where a policy doesn't happen to say they can't do it. The policies aren't going anywhere. We don't take unnecessary risks. -]<sup>]</sup> 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::That would imply you would be in favor of the "You may not add any content, ever" policy. ] 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::My ] imply enough by themselves. With over 12,000 edits, a large amount brand new articles, I think that's a grossly misleading statement. -]<sup>]</sup> 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

==This policy allows WP to be highjacked by sensationalist publishing==

"If it bleeds, it leads" is the philosophy of the media. They're not interested in telling uninteresting stories, so if the truth is dull and uninteresting (which it often is), it often never sees print or airing, and thus becomes uncitable. Too often, it thus becomes unavailble to WP, according to WP:NOR. That's a problem.

WP:NOR, as you all know, essentially demands that something be printed or published somewhere else, before being put in WP. Original research or personal facts can be included, to be sure, but only if they're seen print somewhere ''else'' first. But getting the boring truth printed is not easy. Publication costs money. That money comes from somewhere. This causes bias. WP:NOR inevitably causes WP to follow that systemic bias.

That problem will continue so long as this policy is in place. The reason is that one can always get a reference for "man bites dog" because it's news and somebody will have printed it. But if you want a print reference for "dog bites man" you may well be in trouble, even if you're the man the dog bit. And if you want one for "dog didn't bite man", forget it. Again, even if you're the man the dog was erroneously supposed to have bit. Nobody will be interested. It doesn't sell papers. It doesn't attract advertising dollars.

WP, the FREEEEE encylopedia, consisting only of factoids originally printed because somebody wanted to sell a book, a journal, a story, a newspaper, or some kind of advertising. And untroubled by skepicism of same, because its editors must maintain a NPOV about this stuff, and cannot question it on their own. No matter how wacky it is, if it's in print, it's citable, and if the obvious problems with it are not in print, too bad. ] 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:First I think you're really complaining about ] not ], though of course the two are intimately related. Either way, an encyclopedia is the collection of knowledge published elsewhere. That's why these two cornerstone policies are there. Remember its about verifiability not truth. Yes, that means that there will be some articles that can't be written (yet), but what's the alternative? Well, the alternative is to open the floodgates and allow anything to be written here with absolutely no way to tell if its true or reputable.

:Personally I think the tradeoff is the right one and WP:V and WP:OR are ''essential'' to Misplaced Pages. ]]] 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, why again would removing WP:NOR open the floodgates to allow anything? WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS would still be in place. ] 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Like I said, I believe Sbharris (and you) are really arguing against ] not (simply) ]. The two are complements of each other. Remove one and you remove the other (and therefore ] as well). ]]] 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Well, speaking for myself, my problem is verifiability and reliability are not exact complements of each other, or equally important, even though WP treats them a two equal legs of a policy which otherwise supposedly would not stand up. I have no problem, for example, with much of what is said in ]--- I think it is fairly wise. For example "Avoid the popular press as a source". However, it does not go far enough. Worse still ] seems to go over the same ground and regards the popular press as an acceptably ''verifiable'' source to get around NOR, even though its ''reliability'' score is (admitadly) very bad. But the reasoning for this wallows around between RS and V in a very confusing way, as though somebody can't make up their mind why it's okay to quote newsprint.

:::::The ] site, for example, spends time talking about ''reliablity'' when it's supposed to be talking about ''verifiabiity'': It has this to say:

:::::''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.''

:::::My reaction to this statement is that the phrase "''for that reason''" does not follow logically. For ''what'' reason? That anyone can do it? Odd to hear from WP! It is certainly true that few people and institutions have the ''resources'' to buy and control their own large newspapers or television stations, but it does not ''THEREFORE'' follow that the few who do, are somehow more ''credible'' ipso facto, than people with less money. What, wealth and power buys integrity? How's that again? Say what?

:::::History is full of bad examples of media which are utterly controlled by a certain POV and are unreliable in one or more areas. One thinks of propaganda outlets like ] or ], or examples of ] in the US. But there are less obvious examples, such as the pro-Mormon coverage of the ] and ] in Salt Lake City, and so on.

:::::Peer-reviewed publications ''tend'' to be more reliable due to the review process ''itself'', but the fact that they are (or may be) print publications or radio or TV channels, does not guarantee such a process. They may be Christian channels. Or Fox News, fair and balanced. Or the journal may be an organ of the pharm industry or some other industry. Some journals exist to publish Creationist "research" articles. Who owns these journals? Who advertises in them? Such a process may occur on any scale, in print or on the web. Size and money is not good proxy for it, and WP should abandon the idea that print is a marker for ANYTHING. It's pernicious. All it's a marker for, is that somebody has money enough to kill trees. They may be a few trees, and give a low V. The person killing the trees may have a crazy agenda, and there may be a low RS. The fact that a tree died to produce something, really means nothing.

:::::I'll stop there for other's comment, but I can't resist amplifying the thought that TRUE verifiablity has the same problem with overlap. Remember "reliablity" is how likely the source is to be high quality (for ease of discussion, "true"). Verifiablity V only refers to how easy it is to check to see if the source is a "genuine" source, and not a made-up one. But now we run into two questions: why should we care about the "genuiness", V, of bad or unreliable sources? If they are utterly unreliable, couldn't we just as well make the same statement without source? Isn't using a source of poor reliability (RS) worse than having no source at all, since a source with both poor R and poor V may be at the same time difficult to check, and wrong ''as well''? Current WP policy assumes that standard media (at least printed publications) are ipso facto more ''verifiable'' than web sources, but this is no longer always true, and in the future it's going to be blurrier still. Okay, you can cite your printed source as the Welsley Poetry Quarterly, v. 10, 1972. How easy is that to check vs. some webpage which is mirrored in a dozen worldwide archives, and which couldn't be erased even if everybody made a concerted effort to do it. Do YOU want to find that old back issue of that dinky puff poetry journal, in some basement of some dusty library? Verifiability is a different thing in practise than in theory. And there's no reason to single out electronic sites for special skepticism, on that basis alone. If they're hard to change and easy to check, they're verifiable. Not the same thing as accurate or reliable, but not meant to be. ] 04:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree strongly. The original spirit of the rule (prevent crank physics theories) is implemented by WP:V alone - You can't post real original research on Misplaced Pages since it is not verifiable. We don't need WP:NOR for that. See, there's this other rule, that most people don't even need to be told: ] - use common sense. Now for example something like "circumcision -> surgery, surgery -> infection, thus circumcision -> infection" would appear as common sense to pretty much anyone. WP:V doesn't keep people from stating the obvious because we have ]. WP:NOR however does that, and exactly that. WP:NOR intentionally limits the general, conscious freedom people have about what to post and what not - by taking away their right (and duty) to interpret facts and present them in a sensible manner. WP:V works well on it's own. We don't need WP:NOR to keep crackpot ideas out of wikipedia, but we essentially can't write quality articles that conform to policy with WP:NOR. ] 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what I am talking about. The obvious, even if without a doubt true, must not necessarily be found in WP:RS - especially with recent developements. Should Misplaced Pages state the obvious? I'd say, tongue-in-cheek, that stating the obvious is the only real task of any general encyclopedia. ] 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If this policy 'allows' sensationalist publishing (which I don't believe is the case) then removing the policy would do nothing to disallow it. ] 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== Simple question. ==

I've been reading the debate and would like to focus on one basic question:

Are there any cases where ] is needed to prevent the insertion of text that doesn't belong, and the other rules do not suffice? ] 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:. ] 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:Probably only a few hundred thousand such cases exist on Misplaced Pages. Seriously though, NOR is about making sure the articles are about existing information, not information put forth by the editors. It's about Misplaced Pages being a ''collection of notable information'' and not a blog site. ] 02:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, our goal is to prevent editors from making shakey connections and questionable inferences. Unfortunately, it's being used to silence obvious and solid syllogisms. In the example you link to above, there links made were sketchy, so I can see why there's a problem. Even there, the solution is to either find attribution or tone down the strength of the alleged links, not to remove the entire section. WP:NPOV and WP:V would suffice to prevent this sort of thing, without any need for a specific WP:OR rule.

How can WP:NOR be abused? Let me quote myself from a recent ] that went nowhere:
:I'm beginning to wonder if we need a rule for No Original ''De''synthesis. We have one source saying there's a link, but you won't allow it because they're an activist group. We have a newspaper offering incidents that strongly suggest a link, but you won't allow it because it's not a medical study. We have a medical study that admits that any cutting is linked, but you won't allow it because it expects doctors to know that circumcision involves cutting. We have a site that mentions all three pages, but you won't all that because, once again, the site is considered partisan, even though it includes the opinions of doctors. We could point out the links ourselves, but you won't allow that because it would be original research (even though, in fact, it's not at all original). Round and round we go... to extraordinary lengths to avoid mentioning the obvious.
:I'm sorry, but I find this ridiculous. We have verifiable facts here and yet there is opposition. I can't explain it while simultaneously assuming good faith, so I'm just going to throw my hands in the air. Either you are misunderstanding the rules or the rules do not apply here. ] 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? ] 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:It sounds to me as though these people have legalistically abused or just misinterpreted the rule. If it exists in legitimate print, it is a source, because you can say: "Medical Journal states in (issue) that infant shaking may cause global warming." This is encyclopedic. It is not biased, even though it's nonsense. Similarly, "] believes the moon is made of dogs, and is an active advocate of this position. They also claim responsibility for the Martian holocaust." It's all about the phrasing. Put out ''what people say'', not what you think, no matter how supported it is, and your edit will survive and continue to be useful. In doing so, you're not compromising... you're being clear. And accurate. You don't even have to make the link if you think the readers can do it themselves (e.g. posting legitimate statistics on infant surgery--this lets the reader decide whether you have to cut something in order to circumcize it, no matter how obvious). A partisan site can still be a good source, too--an article isn't POV as long as the source in question is indicated as a source of opinion, and not a source of say, scientific, journalistic or scholarly opinion. ] 05:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::As it turns out, I endorsed inserting a single sentence to the effect that a named group of doctors has suggested a link, followed by SIX citations. The text attributed the idea to this group, did not claim their idea was true, and was heavily cited. It has been opposed, to the point of a failed RFM and multiple blocks. Now can anyone tell me why NOR still exists? ] 22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No. When the BMJ states that the moon is made of earwax, we don't have to say the same thing or treat it as truth, when we believe it to be obvious nonsense. It would be irresponsible to simply spread outrageous claims from any source without cross-checking.

What we always can do, regardless of truth value, is to quote them directly. We can state "in a 2004 published statement, the BMJ explained that the moon was made from earwax" rather than "the moon is made from earwax". There is a very distinctive difference there - We, Misplaced Pages, treat the latter statement (*X is*) as objective truth, and we post it because (we believe in good faith) we can verify it with reliable sources. The premier one (*Y say X*) is merely a quote - we do not treat it as the objective truth, but merely as the (noteworthy - subjective judgement) opinion of a group. It doesn't matter if it's right or not - we can quote them in a manner that does not infer either, and the only thing that decides whether that quote can go into the article is whether we find it notable enough or not. The problem is that articles full of "These say this" "those say that" quickly becomes incomprehensible to a reader that just wants clear information. Thus, overuse of this technique is rightfully discouraged, and conflicts between sources is what WP:NPOV is all about - We have to separate mainstream and fringe views and indicate which is which and give them their due respect.

In the example with the Circumcision-MRSA link, it would have been perfectly appropriate to state something like this:
:''"MRSA is a new strain of highly antibiotics resistant bacteria occurring in hospitals that especially endangers children that undertake pediatric surgery. *cite* DOC, a group that opposes circumcision, raises concerns about how infant circumcision, as a surgical procedure done to infants could faciliate MRSA infection *citedicite*" ''
We state the surgical danger of MRSA endangers children. This is, objectively and verifiably the truth, or at least what we should note as truth. We furthermore quote and relativate DOC, not saying necessarily anything about the truth value of their statement (although in this particular case it would be obvious). Yes, opposition to such an addition to the article does not contribute to wikipedia, it prevents the article from getting better, and is the sad work and harrassment of POV warriors.

The question is, ] there was NO notable source reporting the latter jump to conclusion, should we, or should we not, be able to state this rather obvious (and notable) conclusion because of the sheer obviousness? Mind you, this IS an obvious example. I would not bring it up if anyone could raise serious doubts about the validity of the conclusion. Yes this is a subjective matter - But we make subjective judgements already when we decide over what constitutes a reliable source for example. There is simply '''no way''' to remove subjective judgements from the editing process. The idea is, that we work out our differences - Consensus is found in debate and thus again, subjective judgement. I have already explained that we must judge all the time, and that we have a ethical duty as editors to keep our articles as accurate and good as we can possibly make them. WP:NOR '''deliberately''' keeps us from doing so, while doing nothing to help us other than redundantly reminding us that Misplaced Pages wants verifiable sources and therefore doesn't like unpublished original research.

Alienus and I have now both asked for a concrete, specific example of a situation where a malicious disruptive addition could not be kept out from Misplaced Pages by WP:V and WP:NPOV alone. That is, a specific incident where only WP:NOR - and no other policy - could have been used. Simply stating that there would be thousands of incidents, yet then not detailing a single one of them, does not sound very convincing to me. ] 09:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Let me add my voice (making it now three of us) asking what NOR does that isn't already done by a combination of V, RS, and NPOV. Just posting it on a Wiki ONCE gives it a presense on the web which is good as long as there are servers and archives, and thus a better V than many an old newspaper of small publication in a morgue file. But when this is pointed out, the opponents readily switch from wanting to argue V to wanting to argue RS. Okay, let us argue RS. Why is (say) my private synthetic opinion on a scientific or medical matter not as "reliable" as (say) that of your average science journalist, and his or her desk editor? Suppose I'm a working physician and/or scientist with many publications in science journals, and they aren't? We've all seen errors in popular science publications. Some are pointed out by readers the next month. By contrast, errors in science fact get found and fixed much faster on WP. So RS is less of a problem on WP than many places elsewhere (skip favorable comparison of the content of WP to other encylopedias, but you all know they're fairly comparable). We are told in WP:RS not to trust newspapers for science information. So.... why does this not suggest trusting individual science professionals for their opinion over newspapers and most other media?

:Answer: Back comes the objections from WP:V. How does anybody ''verify'' personal opinion statement on WP? (this is separate from the question of their accuracy). Well, answer: again because old Wipidedia entries have high V, as noted. Then, because WP:RS can no longer be used as an argument, we come down to the REAL reason for NOR: It's the argument of last resort to the above challenge when somebody is finally done flipping back and forth between bludgeoning somebody with WP:V and WP:RS. It's the last refuge of certain people who really feel in their heart of hearts that the writings of professional journalists are more to be trusted than are the writings of professionals of all other kinds.] 03:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

== Appear to advance a position ==
I'm not sure that was an improvement. RJII's phrasing was easier reading, and we should probably not have incoherent arguments that are ] either. ] 04:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:My objection has been adequately addressed.] 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The point behind my edit was that new syntheses of concepts to advance an argument is original research. But, so is new syntheses of concepts NOT used to advance an argument. The sentence seemed to restrict original research to only those new syntheses or novel interpretation which are used to advance an argument. I don't even know if I fixed it. It's an awkward couple of sentences. ] 04:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'll look at it more in a bit, style-wise, but...while your edits that I'd reverted scared me (what? advancing original arguments is now okay???), I no longer have that feeling. You're on the right track, substance-wise.] 05:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to place this in some context, it turns out that ] has a pretty obvious motive for modifying WP:NOR. You see, he's engaged in an ongoing battle to get his favorite writer listed as a "major philosopher" on ]. When his efforts failed, he tried to get the article deleted. That's not working, so now he's trying to modify WP:NOR to shift the balance towards his goals. In short, anything he does here should be evaluated in the context of these goals, and reacted to appropriately. ] 05:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Ever heard of Assume Good Faith? In consulting this article in the midst of that conflict, I simply noticed that the definition was akward and a bit misleading. Regardless, my edits stand on their own regardless of my motivations. I think everyone here is bright enough to recognize that. By the way, Ayn Rand is far from my "favorite writer." I know little about her philosophy and haven't even read anything but a few excerpts. I'm not sure if I even like her writing. You really need to watch yourself. ] 05:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my edit comment, ] is not a suicide pact. ] 05:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Alienus, I take this very seriously, but am sadly too tied up in a number of discussions to review Ayn Rand, List of philosophers, etc. at this moment. Can you summarize your assertion for the readers of this page?] 05:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Briefly, RJII has shown through his edits that he is an advocate of novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. Unfortunately for him, her name keeps getting removed from the list of major philosophers at ], primarily because Rand has no academic credentials or credibility. She's omitted from multiple 1000+ philosophical encyclopedias that manage to find room to mention many minor philosophers and all major ones.
:::Once he realized he couldn't get her listed, he tried to get the page deleted. This has failed. Then, I made the mistake of mentioning ], so now he's here to attack this rule so that it allows Rand on the list.
:::That's the short version. ] 22:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::I've returned the phrase "serving to advance a position" (or whatever the wording is), because all Misplaced Pages articles are new syntheses of published material, if they're not plagiarized. The point of the policy is that a new synthesis of published material should not serve to advance a position held by a Wikipedian, as it states elsewhere in the policy. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I wonder if we can think of some better phrasing. We shouldn't be presenting new arguments of any kind at all, even if they are some kind of back-and-forth incoherency that doesn't advance anything. This is, perhaps, a minor detail that isn't as important as emphasising the point that "appears to advance a position" is making. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see arguments that some argument isn't "original research" because it fails to "advance a position". ] 18:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree with Jkelly. The important thing isn't whether the user is using it to advance their crank theories or whatever, it's whether they offer too much novel interpretation or novel ideas over available reputable sources. Also, it's often impossible to judge a person's intent accurately. ] 20:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::As I recall, the "advance a position" thing was added because someone rightly pointed out that all Misplaced Pages articles are new syntheses of published material. If you can think of better wording, I'd be fine with it, but I'd say that all arguments advance a position; I can't think what kind of argument wouldn't. So by including "that advance a position," I don't agree that we're in danger of allowing new arguments that are original research but don't advance a position. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::The above must be one of the worst sentences I've ever written, but I hope you see what I was trying to say. ;-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But, what about "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts" that DON'T appear to advance a position? That would be original research as well. ] 20:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Because it's obvious that no new interpretations and analyses of any kind are allowed. But we can't say that no new synthesis of published material is allowed, because all Misplaced Pages articles are a new synthesis of published material. Therefore, it's only a particular type of new synthesis that isn't allowed, and that is when it serves to advance a position. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::I disagree with that. Say, for example, someone gets some numerical economic figures from various sources and then does his own calculations to come up with a metric and puts the result in a table. He's not trying to advance a position --he's just conducting a synthesis of information and presenting the result as factual. That would still be original research, as far as I understand the concept. For it not to be original research he would have to find the already calculated metric in a source. ] 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:::We've had problems with mathematical issues a few times, where some people have argued that unpublished calculations are OR and some have argued not. The phrase started life as no new synthesis of published material, and I would agree with that, but then others raised the point that all articles are a new synthesis etc.

:::Can you think of different wording i.e. something other than "serves to advance a position." Could it simply be weakened to "may serve to advance a position"? This is the essence of the calculations objection: that we don't know whether it advances a position or not: all we know is that it hasn't been published. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::Since I've been in the midst of the debate with RJII over at the list of philosophers page, I would like to clarify has been going on there. RJII is currently trying to make the argument there that the NOR rule should be construed so strictly as to not allow the use of synonymy. He claims that one cannot assume, for example, that the words 'major' and 'important' share even a degree of common meaning. That is, he maintains that one could not use sources stating that some Dr. X is an extremely important philosopher as evidence that Dr. X is a major philosopher -- simply because, on his reading, assuming any sort of shared meaning among regular English words and phrases amounts to engaging in original research. In other words, he maintains that the only allowable kind of evidence for being a major philosopher is a source that explicitly states that the person is a major philospher. A source that claimed Dr. X is the greatest philosopher of all time would not be admissible, on his view, because it would be original research. I hope the problems with this reading of the NOR policy are evident. Now, I can't say for sure whether his edits here are meant to back up this extremely strict reading of NOR, but I hope everyone here will consider this background issue when they are evaluating his changes. I would also invite you to check out the discussion on the ] talk page for yourself. I apologize in advance for the volume of comments there. ] 02:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:::My argument over there is that simply we can't assert that a philosopher is a "major" philosopher unless there is a source that says they're a major philosopher. It's not for us to decide who is or isn't a "major" philosopher. To assert someone is a major philosopher without a source saying so is "original research." Then, with that as a premise, I'm saying since we have no objective criteria for what it means to be "major," the rational thing to do is look for sources that use the term "major philosopher" --otherwise you have an unresolvable debate because everyone has their own interpretation of what "major" would constitute. I'm just offering a rational way to acheive consensus. I'm don't want any part of a debate over who is or isn't a major philosopher. The only thing I'm interested in is whether the sources say the philosopher is a "major philosopher." I don't want to engage in an unresolvable debate. It's as simple as that. It's totally unrelated the edits I was making here. But, if you want to think I was trying to manipulate policy for my own ends, feel free. ] 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

== Unclear section ==

I've removed the following section as some of it seems unclear and may even encourage OR:

:The following are '''not''' original research:
:* Listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C)
:* Listing notable claims that contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g ]s or ])
:* Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. ] or ] theories)
:* Citing viewpoints that violate ], the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. ], ])
:* Listing ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal
:* Listing ideas that have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the ] story).

The point of the policy is that all of the above are fine ] they have been published by a reliable source, so it might be confusing to list them as though they're special cases. Also, it's not clear what "citing viewpoints that violate ] ..." refers to. Of course it's fine to publish views that violate Occam's Razor, iff they've been published by a reliable source. (What's special about Occam's Razor?) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:This appears to be oriented towards certain misapplications of the rule. Sometimes people will mistakenly think that because a topic is ''unscientific'', in the sense of lacking a testable hypothesis or contradicting established facts, that it is unsuitable for inclusion. I'm not sure how much this has do with OR though. ] 20:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I think the section should be put back. It is a clear counterpoint to the '''What is excluded?''' section. It doesn't encourage OR as much as it encourages people to understand NOR - what is and isn't OR. People might cite NOR and claim that one of the above violates it, when a simple list like that would cure such an issue. ] 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I can't see why the particular things on this list should be singled out. For example, who has ever claimed that we can't include material that violates Occam's Razor? I'm also concerned about "Listing ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal," because we don't publish ideas that have been accepted for publication. We publish them once they've been published. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: Those points could be modified or removed. But I think that *a* list is neccessary, though *this* list could be improved a bit. ] 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

== This policy is non-negotiable ==
For those who have missed this: The ], ] and ] policies are now officially non-negotiable. This took effect on 7 February 2006 when to ] went through without significant discussion or opposition.

:Um, say what? Jimbo Wales says that WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, and then some other guy on Feb 7 says this applies to V and NOR *exactly as written at that time*, and because nobody chirped up, this statement is presumed to lock WP policy from now-on? Or until we hear from on-high?

:What is your basis for making this statement? Is it verifiable and reliable?] 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

According to ], "a basic problem is that too many people tried to *negotiate* the content of the policy page. Better keep it clear: there's no such procedure as changing wikipedia's NPOV policy by negotiation. As said, there's no separation between the NPOV policy and the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page, or, if there would be, that separation would be different per person, so that's not a workable distinction."

It is probably too early to tell whether or not the change is an improvement and will stand the test of time (assuming it can be reverted subject to consensus which seems self-contradictory). However, it does not seem too far-fetched to suppose it can (and should) be used as implied by Francis: to cut off attempts to negotiate the content of policy pages as redundant and, indeed, disruptive. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 14:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:Does that mean, in order to get this policy removed we must bribe / blackmail / assassinate Jimbo? ] 17:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::No, because it's not clear if Wales had anything to do with it. The proposal being discussed was made by ], who is not Wales so far as I can tell (unless it's the outlaw Jossi Wales, yuk, yuk), and yet is now claimed to be engraved on stone like the Ten Commandments, simply because at the time it "went through" without "significant discussion or opposition." This is a bizzare assertion. Also, the comment by ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] doesn't try to back up, or in any way reference, their odd assertion that the WP rules have thereby changed permanently in this fashion---- making this whole statement doubly ironic, considering our subject. Hey, ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;], have you got a reference for your idea above? We'd like to see your ''primary source'' to check your RS and V. Failing that, I happen to think that what you wrote is your personal POV. Has Mr. Wales signed off on it? ] 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I suggest the following strategy: We start recruiting people that share our goals (of a Misplaced Pages free of insane policies with nightmarish ramifications) and when we have enough, we simply remove the policy and declare it out of effect. Any RV gets RV'd. We do it until either everyone accepts that the policy is nonsense (and we win) or Jimbo or whoever is responsible shows up and faces us for a discussion. ] 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Sounds good to me. Meanwhile we have too many people like ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] making really authoritative-sounding statements, like the one that heads this article, when they have no more authority here than you or I. The best way to flush out true authorities on WP policy is ''be bold'', make reasonable and reasoned changes, until the real authorities (not you ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;]-- you seem to have mistaken yourself for The Boss), I say, until the real authorities like Jimbo come out of the woodwork and tell us that we've gone too far. My policy on this is rather like that Thomas Paine's "Sir, when God tells me something, that's revelation. When you tell me He told you something, that's hearsay." So far, I've gotten a lot of hearsay. ] 18:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Teehee I like this response! Please consider the possibility that I have succeeded hiding my opinion of this specific policy language. Or just click on the links I gave. Woohoo! ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::What links?? The only link you gave is to somebody else's opinion, a person who, so far as I can tell, has no more authority on these matters than you do. Why don't you just issue a ] and call it that?
:::::::I'll spell it out for you. Click on the links I gave. From there click on links that look relevant, like "older edit," "newer edit," "older revision" and "newer revision". Look up the facts, check if what I wrote is relevant. It's much more interesting than bothering the messenger and immensely more interesting if you don't trust the messenger. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 18:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::I must concede I'm lost, here. Why ever should the policies that dictate the insertion, removal and type of content introduced into the encyclopediac scheme not be non-negotiable..? We're entitled to our opinions of Jimbo's activities, and AvB is entitled to his opinion on the quality of given edits. We know the encyclopedia is intent on the output of information that can be supported by solid facts and a referenced basis; there's no need to go on saying that policies should be negotiable and whatnot. I find this constant tweaking on what and how facts can be introduced depressing; I thought we, as a serious encyclopedia were intent upon the hard and veritiable facts on subjects, not original research, un-veritiable content and biased views. No. This website shall never degrade to that. These policies are non-negotiable, and shall proceed to be as long as wikipedia is a encyclopedia with the purpose to give informative content. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I am unable to find any place in which the policies of WP are set forth in unchangable fashion, by ONLY those who have the authority to make them (which I presume is Jimbo and I don't know who else), and signed. If you look at the history pages of ] and ] you'll find that they mutate day by day. There is thus a lot of Talmudic commentary on a Torah which I can't seem to locate. Do you know where it is? I'm tired of reading lay exegesis on scripture which nobody seems to have available. Do you see my point? ] 18:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We're a bad ass and serious encyclopedia and all that shit. But the policy essentially says you can't say 2+2=4 if you don't find a source that says that. However, you can say ] if you find a source that satisfies ] - you can't say its wrong, however, since that would be OR again. That is not serious encyclopedia-making. That isn't even uncyclopedia-making. That is just lunacy and a violation of all that is good and holy and sexy about Misplaced Pages. We, as editors, need be given our RIGHT back, to point out the obvious - if necessary. "True" original research, like the policy originally intended to keep out, is already prevented by ]. ] is just the result of the overreaction of one man who was fed up dealing with physics cranks. Worse even, '''every article on Misplaced Pages''' that is not a 1:1 carbon copy of a Britannica 1911 article, is a synthetic product that may or may not advance a point, and thus '''violates NOR policy'''. What is more important, this policy, or the absolute sum of everything that is Misplaced Pages? I say we take this policy behind the barn with a shotgun and blow the mother away. ] 18:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::The changes of policy doesn't ussually result in the introduction of such disreputable material. Tweaking across policyspace is also an act that any editor can perform, and results in no long term standing of material unless backed or not challenged by concensus. That's not what I'm refering to, however.

::I am solely speaking of these policies and these alone. For it is these policeis that dictate and enforce the additions of material and how the encyclopedia operates. For that reason, these policies make clear such actions pertaining to original research and the like are not permitted. And they shouldn't. This is an encyclopedia and a very serious project open to the public. We're not perfect, but we're trying and as a general interpretation we are running quite smoothly. We don't require the fiddling of these key policies to decrease the value of the encyclopedia. It is for this reason these policies will always be non-negotiable. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::As I've already explained a zillion times, NOR is not an absolute rule. In the course of ordinary presentation we inevitably engage in some degree of interpretation. NOR just says not to apply ''too much'' interpretation, where too much is subjective and determined on a case-by-case basis. ] 19:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::You are deeply mistaken, like most people who enter the discussion. You have no idea: There is no subjective part involved. Its OR, forbidden if, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". I.e. any article or sentence that is not carbon copied from a reputable source. I repeat, since you appear slow: No subjective degree of interpretation regarding what is original research and what not. The only subjective judgement you make is whether a source is reliable enough for the given claim, or not. ] 19:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::::That is certainly the position someone attempting to destroy this rule would take. But you're just setting up a ]. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. ] 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::You call a direct quote from the policy a straw man? What the... ? ] 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Also, if you find me pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about (and its not such a long piece of text, just read it once in a while) a personal attack, then I must say, I find your allegations of personal attacks a personal attack. Please abstain from hurting my soft squishy heart. ] 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::No, I find you calling me "slow", as in stupid, a personal attack. Maybe the policy should be edited to more explicitly reflect the common interpretation that it is not to be interpreted strictly. ] 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I am all in favor of "Please ignore this policy". Maybe we could add a header like ? ] 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I find extremely sufficient. This policy has ramifications that make it harmful to the entire encyclopedia, overruling any ], making it only useful to trolls, pov-pushers, wikilayers and stealth vandals. ] 18:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


] currently says "{{tq|Do not base an entire article on primary sources}}" but this does not conform to existing practice. Here's a couple of examples,
:::::::: Given ], aren't all rules negotiable - they depend on the needs of the community and consensus. Right? ] 20:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


# As discussed at ], species articles are routinely created without much in the way of secondary sources.
::] enforces the action with the addition of simple common sense. Negotiating the policies which keep the encyclopedia a respectable source of content is not in any way good common sense. -]<sup>]</sup> 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
# WP:PRIMARY also says that "{{tq|For Misplaced Pages's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources}}" but numerous articles are created every day about breaking news such as natural disasters, political events, sports results and other topics which are routinely featured at ]. For a fresh example, see ] which has a {{tl|current}} banner tag to make it quite clear that it's breaking news and so quite unreliable.


So, the statement seems to be a counsel of perfection which doesn't correspond to what we actually do and so, per ], needs qualifying or softening.
== Consensus ==


]🐉(]) 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Consensus at this time is that this policy should be removed. If you are of a different opinion, then you are simply not up to date with the discussion. But because you are lazy, and I am such a nice person, I will give you a short summary right here:
:At the time that the first sentence (<q>Do not base an entire article on primary source</q>) was :
:* the discussion on the talk page was about writing articles about books that were based entirely on the book itself (e.g., ]), and
:* the definition of 'primary source' was much more restrictive than our current understanding.
:The then-current definition of 'primary source' was:
:* ''']''' are sources very close to an event. A primary source offers an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. <mark>An account of a traffic accident written by a witness</mark> is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
:Looking at the bit I highlighted, that rule, interpreted under that definition, treats breaking news as a secondary source so long as it's written by someone interviewing the witness, rather than by the witness themself.
:I conclude from this that there was no intention to prevent the creation of articles about current events with the best sources we happen to have access to. Whether and how to fix it is probably worth a discussion, but I suggest that "fixing it by stopping people from creating articles about current events" is not going to be functional. ] (]) 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::That explanation of the ] way that this has mutated is enlightening, thanks. It's good that it's our policy to ]. ]🐉(]) 21:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the current belief is sort of:
:::* If you only have one primary source, and your single source has a particularly severe case of primary source-ness and no independence, then don't write that article. ] by Ogden Nash is a lovely picture book, but you really need something more than just the book itself to write an article about that book.
:::* If you have a couple of sources, and they're pretty useful overall, maybe their primary source-ness is not exactly the most important quality to consider. For example, it's kind of unfortunate that when a big disaster happens, we only have breaking news to work with, but frankly, it doesn't take a ] to figure out that there will be proper secondary sources appearing later (and if we've guessed wrong, we can always delete or merge away the article later). Depending on exactly how you define ''secondary'', we might even see some of that the next day. For example, one of the hallmarks of secondary sources is comparison, so if you see "This was a ]" or "This is the third biggest earthquake in this area during recorded history" (or, for the ] proposal "this Sheltinack’s jupleberry shrub species is a more mauvey shade of pinky russet than the other species"), then the source is comparing it against past history, which could be argued to be secondary content, even if we might normally call the overall source a primary one.
:::The edit that added that "Do not" language also added this: {{xt|Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of ] and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.}} That's still in the policy, and I think it's important to remember that. ] (]) 23:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Using common sense and good editorial judgement seems to be the general idea of ] too. So we don't need all this other stuff then, right? ]🐉(]) 06:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The issue is that editors don't always agree on what constitutes 'common sense and good editorial judgement'. Relying on IAR alone would be a massive time sink of arguing over what exactly is an improvement to the encyclopedia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:That passage's point is that the ''final'' shape of the article should not heavily rely on primary sources - an article in the early stage of development may likely be based on primary, but we expect that it should be able to be expanded with secondary sourcing as to otherwise meet the NOR aspect as well as notability factors. So we allow for species articles based on publication in scientific journals of their existance but anticipate more sourcing will come later. Similarly, breaking news stories will very likely use primary sourcing to describe the event, but to show enduring coverage as to meet NEVENT, more secondary sources need to be added over time. It is impossible to have a "finished" encyclopedic article based only on primary sources, but until the article has had time to mature with additional, it seems reasonable to allow primary sources to be the baseline. It should be stressed that ]'s requirement about third-party sources must be considered here: an article based ''only'' on first-party primary sources, regardless of its state, has no business being on WP.<span id="Masem:1724503138115:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNo_original_research" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 12:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)</span>
:I think the problem is the use of "do not" rather than being formulated around "should not". Like most of these things there are exceptions, but that doesn't mean the central point isn't valid. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:I believe that there should be scope for an article of the type “Evolution of the rules of <some sport>” which is essentially a catalogue of rule changes over the years. The main references would of course be the various rule books themselves. supplementary comments from reliable Secondary sources might be used to put the major changes into context, but minor changes to the rules which anybody could verify by comparing the two texts would merely be catalogued. ] (]) 13:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::This is fine… PSTS does allow us to cite primary sources for specific things. However, we do need secondary sources to establish that these rule changes are significant enough for WP to have a stand alone article about them. ''That'' is more a function of WP:NOTABILITY than of WP:NOR, but it is still important to do. ] (]) 13:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)


It's good vague "goal" type advice. I wish we could just say that. Anytime someone tries to derive something more prescriptive out of it there are problems. Whether well-intentioned or using it as a weapon in a wiki-battle. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
*] does nothing to keep out "Original Research" that ], ], ] and ] and all those other fun policies wouldn't either.
: So why don't we just change "Do not base an entire article on primary sources" to "An entire article should not be based on primary sources"? Do we have a local consensus to make that change? -- ] (]) (PING me) 14:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
*] has serious drawbacks: Essentially it demands from the editor to turn ALL mental activity off, except for judging sources for their reliability. Any synthesis of thought, that is, ANY phrase that is not 100% copied and cited from a reliable source, that is, ALL articles on wikipedia that aren't 100% copied from a reliable source in the public domain, is explicitely forbidden. This is no joke. Read the policy.
::That's a completely fair change without changing why we have that there. ] (]) 16:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::: Would you like to make that change? I have to run now. -- ] (]) (PING me) 17:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::::While I don't disagree with the proposed change, given that this sentence has been quoted repeatedly by one stalwart member of the Loyal Opposition at ] (an open RFC), I would prefer postponing any changes until the RFC has closed. Although there haven't been any new comments for two days, I expect to leave it open until the bot closes it (another ~14 days). I don't want the closers to deal with a ] on trivial grounds. (Substantive challenges would be welcome, of course, if the closing summary really is bad, but complaints like "It only stayed open for the length of time prescribed by WP:RFC rather than the length of time in the bot's code" or "They're gaming the system over at that other page" would not be welcome.) ] (]) 07:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::: That makes sense. There is no rush. -- ] (]) (PING me) 21:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:The policy has basically worked. I haven't seen it weaponized to delete breaking news stories. As far as I know, it's encouraging people to add secondary sources to those types of articles. If someone can find an example where it's been misused, we can try to add some clarification. But there is always the risk of overreach. Trying to describe every exception will usually lead to bad guidance. ] (]) 16:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::There ''is'' a large problem of editors rushing to create articles on breaking news where there is zero clear indication that the event either is going to have enduring coverage, or that could not be covered as part of a larger news topic and serve a more comprehensive purpose. In other words, we really need to realign how editors are creating articles with respect to NOTNEWS and NEVENT, but that's not an issue with NOR, nor with this language specifically. ] (]) 16:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I think that's my point. I haven't seen people misusing ] to delete things that shouldn't be deleted. There's a greater problem with ], and think that referencing / directing people to ] would be more useful here. ] (]) 16:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::::True, but I do think the reduction in harshness of the language (from "do not" to "should not") is generally a far better alignment with most other content policy languages. The only time we use absolutes like "do not" are for policies like BLP and COPYRIGHT which have legal ramifications. ] (]) 17:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The primary use of phrases like "Do not" and "must not" is the main MOS page, because bad grammar is bad grammar, and not really a question of judgment or POV. ] (]) 07:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{xt|Do not}} → {{xt|should not}} is not a softening of the language, though. The former is imperative, the latter (unless as {{xt|You should not}}) is not. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I meant that adding the implied 'you', "you do not base articles..." is stronger than "you should not base articles..." (when along the lines of the ]), and we generally only use such absolutes like "you do not" or "must not" in those policies with some legal ramifications. ] (]) 13:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@], I know that's a popular guess – it feels right for legal requirements to sound harsh – but if you actually go look at the legal policies, it isn't actually true. For example:
:::::::* ] contains "Do not" only once, in ==Advice for young editors==, and it does not use the word "must" at all.
:::::::* ] contains the imperative "Do not" once, in the nutshell. It does not contain "must not" at all. The only use of "must" is {{xt|permission conveyed through e-mail must be confirmed}} – rather weak tea, IMO.
:::::::* ] contains the imperative "Do not" only once (in the ] section). It does not contain "must not" at all.
:::::::* ] does not contain the words "Do not" or "must" at all.
:::::::* ] contains the words "Do not" only once (first sentence). It does not use the word "must" at all.
:::::::That's a mere '''four uses in the first five legal policies''' in ]. There are only 10 legal policies in that category.
:::::::For comparison, ] says "Do not" 78 times and "must" 22. While I haven't checked every policy, it is likely that the 100 uses on this single page of the MoS uses this language more times than all of the legal policies combined. ] (]) 21:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)


I've seen it misused many times but not on breaking news stories. Most have been on "boring" encyclopedic information which secondary sources don't write about. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
If you want to know more, scroll up and read up.
:Should Misplaced Pages restrict itself to things that others have cared enough to have written about? ] (]) 08:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::In general, yes, but not in an absolute sense. In an article about some celebrity can we use a tweet from the subject for a date of birth if no secondary source has written about it? Yeah, who cares. It's the type of information expected of an encyclopedia, the subject obviously doesn't mind it being published, and it's just not that serious a matter. Should we have an article about a contentious historical event based solely on primary sources? Obviously not for many reasons. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::Given what I've seen happen in areas of fiction with eager fans, or even back with that whole situation around MMA topics years ago, yes, allowing WP to cover topics that can only be based on primary sources and that no reliable source otherwise covers leads to WP being more like TV Tropes or fan wikis than a serious reference work. ] (]) 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it is more important to have ] than to have True™ Secondary sources. There will always be some questions about whether certain sources are True™ Independent sources or True™ Secondary sources, but IMO we should never create an article when the only ] sources are indisputably non-independent. ] (]) 21:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
*Time for another installment of “History with Blueboar”… originally this policy stated that WP (itself) should not be a primary source for information (whether facts, analysis or conclusions). This statement tied directly into the concept of NOR. If we add facts, analysis or conclusions that have never been published elsewhere, then WP is the primary source for those facts, analysis or conclusions.
:Then someone added that WP should be a tertiary source, and as such should be based (mostly) on secondary sources. This addition wasn’t ''wrong''… but it did not directly tie into NOR.
:Then someone else decided that we needed to define these terms (primary, secondary, tertiary). And, as is typical, there was a lot of disagreement and discussion over how best to define them. The end result is what we now see in PSTS.
:Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we lost the original statement (about WP ''itself'' not being a primary source) - which was the very reason we were defining all these terms in the first place! We lost the statement that tied PSTS directly to the concept of NOR.
:That omission shifted PSTS’s focus from ''what '''we''' say'' in our articles (NOR) to ''which '''sources''' we use'' in our articles.
:Anyway, that’s the historical background… make of it what you will. ] (]) 13:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::Well, it does tie into OR. The primary source for a fact is a witness to the fact. (This can include reporters whose job is regularly to go to places to witness and report. It can include scientists who conduct an experiment to write a report. Etc.) Analyses or conclusions or interpretations based on facts not witnessed (not from personal knowledge) are not a primary source for those facts, they are secondary for those facts. (Thus, you can have mixed sources, primary and secondary.) Wikipedians are not to be such original reporters, nor the original publisher of analyses or conclusions or interpretations, or the original mixer of the two. -- ] (]) 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:::If the analysis or conclusion is done by a Wikipedian, then it makes Misplaced Pages the primary (original) source for that analysis or conclusion. The point of NOR is that we report on the analysis or conclusions of others, and don’t include ''our own'' analysis or conclusions. ] (]) 19:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what point you're making that is different from mine. Wikipedians don't write on their experiences, or what they themselves think. ] (]) 19:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, we're not supposed to do that. But one does see it happen.
:::::I do think that moving PSTS to a separate policy page would help with this. Over-reliance on a primary source, if the only thing you're writing is a simple description, is not OR as defined by the first sentence of this policy. For example, if you were the editor starting the article on '']'', then you could go look at the primary source (i.e., the painting) in the museum and write "it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue", and use this for your citation:
:::::* O'Keeffe, Georgia. (1931) ''Cow's Skull: Red, White, and Blue''. ], New York, NY, United States.
:::::You're not making anything up, so it's not original research. As soon as you want to say something about the painting being famous, or incorporating southwestern and Native American themes, you need to get a different source, but a simple, basic description of a primary source is a legitimate use, non-OR use of a primary source. Consequently, I think that having admonitions to not use the painting as your sole source for that article should (a) be somewhere in our ruleset, but (b) not be in this particular policy page. ] (]) 21:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::No. It is OR, (the description is only ''verifiable'' with the picture as the source but verifiable is different from OR) -- a picture that no one but you cares to write about has no significance in sources, except that you are asserting it has significance because you ''originally'' think it does and thus ''originally'' publish on it. ] (]) 22:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, that's not true. "A picture that no one but you cares to write about" might have no significance, but "nobody cares" does not mean that it is "{{xt|material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.}}" The definition of OR, as given in this policy, doesn't say anything at all about whether anyone cares. ] (]) 04:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::BTW, this painting is given as one of the examples in ]. ] (]) 04:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes. It is true. The idea you are originally creating is its significance. Only you think that it has significance as far as can be told. And yes it can be used as a primary source, but that it is primary means nothing can be asserted about its significance from it alone. -- ] (]) 09:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::No, writing an ordinary Misplaced Pages article about a subject does not mean "creating significance" for the subject. ] (]) 04:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Of course it does. Indeed probably the most important thing you are saying about the subject is this has significance, so much significance, you need to read about it as the subject in an encyclopedia. ] (]) 14:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::We require sources to show that a topic is significant as to allow a standalone article on it. We cannot synthesis that significance if the sources aren't there for that. ] (]) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I've already said that. You can't create that article. It is original, but Wikipedian's, not doing it correctly, sometimes well go on and try to create something they should not. -- ] (]) 14:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::We require a secondary source to say "This is a significant piece of artwork".
:::::::::::::We do not require a secondary source to say "It is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue".
:::::::::::::Note that:
:::::::::::::* The primary source is supporting the quoted sentence.
:::::::::::::* The quoted sentence says nothing about significance.
:::::::::::::* The quoted sentence implies nothing about significance.
:::::::::::::* The quoted sentence is not alleged to be the only sentence in the Misplaced Pages article.
:::::::::::::* The primary source is not alleged to be the only source to "exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online" about this subject.
:::::::::::::* The primary source is not alleged to be the only source used to create the Misplaced Pages article, or even the only source cited.
:::::::::::::* The primary source is not alleged to be the basis for notability.
:::::::::::::] (]) 18:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It makes no sense for you to keep going off into irrelevancies, verifiability is not what this is about, but you keep confusing it with OR. The situation that has been set down is that there is no secondary source, and the only thing is the picture, the picture can't tell anyone anything about its significance including the significance of its appearance, but you writing about it in the pedia is asserting that factoid has significance (it apparently has significance originally to you, but no one else). Now sure, Wikipedians may be want to add all kinds of factoids from primary sources, they like or think important, and thus originally (only in Misplaced Pages) change the presentations of any subject, or create the worthiness of subjects to the world, but they definitely should not. ] (]) 19:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::If you are arguing that we “imply” the conclusion that the painting is in some way significant merely by creating an article about it, my reaction would be: Meh… that is stretching the NOR policy a bit. I think what you are discussing is more a violation of WP:Notability than a violation of WP:NOR. ] (]) 20:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::No. 'We don't want what you want to share with the world, just because you (and only you) think it is important .' Nor is original research another way to say verifiability. And it is not just new "original" (literally) subjects, its well established subjects, ''re''formed (by you) with original (because its important to you) facts. ] (]) 20:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I don't think that's correct. We do want what people want to share with the world, because they think it is important – so long as they have reliable sources to back it up. WP:OR is about verifiability. OR is defined in this policy as the non-existence of sources (anywhere in the world, in any language) that could support the contents. It is ''not'' defined as "stuff you (and only you) think is important". ] (]) 23:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Of course, it is correct. "Only you" means that that there is no reliable source for significance. You practically acknowledged its correctness when you wrote, "reliable sources to back it up", which can only mean appropriate reliable sources for significance, and the writer can't be a reliable source for significance. ] (]) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Notability (i.e., the process of qualifying for a ]) does not require importance/significance. "Insignificant" subjects can and do get articles.
:::::::::::::::::::We require that sources cover the subject. We do not require that sources indicate that the subject has any "significance". If someone writes a book about ''The Least Significant Book Ever Published'', then that book would be a valid subject for an article.
:::::::::::::::::::Perhaps we're talking about different things. I'm saying that a primary source is a valid way of verifying some statements in articles.
:::::::::::::::::::Perhaps you are saying that having a whole article requires some evidence of "attention from the world at large", even if that attention does not declare the subject to be significant (or, indeed, declares it to be of no importance whatsoever). ] (]) 19:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I don't think you are reading what I write. I'm not just talking about whole articles. And perhaps it will help you, if you realize I am using important solely in the sense of 'a matter of import'- meaning. And no, we don't put things in the pedia that have no significance, we relate the significance others through reliable sources give them. ] (]) 19:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::I don't know. Do you think that ] is 'a matter of import'? I don't, but the article has 66 sources at the moment, and I've no hope of being able to get that out of Misplaced Pages.
:::::::::::::::::::::I give that article as an example of a subject that I personally believe has no significance and is not 'a matter of import' (to anyone except the individuals directly involved). Additionally, I doubt that we could find any sources directly claiming that I'm wrong. If "we don't put things in the pedia that have no significance", then this article shouldn't exist. ] (]) 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Is it are you not comprehending reliance on sources or neutrality? What you think about import is nothing we are to relate, either way. We are not to be the original publisher of whatever import you think to give something. ] (]) 20:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, Alan, I didn't go off into irrelevancies. You read what I wrote, which was about a valid source for a single, specific sentence, and you jumped straight to the unsupportable conclusion that there was no secondary source in the whole world about the article's subject and no other sentence in the whole article.
:::::::::::::::The situation that has been set down is – and I quote – "if you were the editor starting the article on '']'', then you could go look at the primary source (i.e., the painting) in the museum and write "it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue"", and you could cite the painting for that one sentence.
:::::::::::::::The situation that was actually set down says nothing at all about the rest of the sources or the rest of the article. It only talks about a single sentence and a single source for that single sentence. ] (]) 23:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Yes. You do go into irrelevancies. Because the situation I addressed added that there is no secondary source. It was extending fact pattern not jumping to anything, and also addressing the matter in the context of this discussion basing articles on secondary sources. ] (]) 10:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::The situation I described did not say that no secondary source existed ("somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online", to quote this policy). It said that no secondary source was required for the specific sentence I provided. ] (]) 19:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::So, you are saying much that is irrelevant to my points. Which is the situation of no secondary source, in a discussion about basing articles on secondary sources. -- ] (]) 19:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:If we're trimming paragraphs that secondary sources haven't written about, then the policy is working. It's impossible to write a reliable unbiased encyclopedia without reliable independent sources. ] (]) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::@], ]. ] (]) 21:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:::That's true, but the venn diagram is a strong overlap in most articles. This thread is about the thin side of the venn diagram, where journalists are effectively eyewitnesses, which is a valid thing to bring up. Several editors have said that the main point of the policy shouldn't be bulldozed for the more rare / less common cases. ] (]) 13:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)


I think we need to recognize the fact that our particular PST definitions are wiki-definitions, contained in a few general paragraphs. They are a key part of a policy that emphasizes that analysis of the item and any derivations from information should be done by others rather than by Misplaced Pages editors. Under those definitions, some sources will be clearly primary, some will be clearly secondary, but a whole lot of them will not clearly be one or the other. If one takes on the premise that some tidy perfection and completeness exists such that every source can be unambiguously classified, then it doesn't work out. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
You can disagree with those two simple points all you want if you want yourself to look foolish. Its not a matter of opinion. The policies themselves are extremely clear, explicit, and not a matter of interpretation on that matter.
:Well, indeed, there are sources that are both and one thing that is needed there, is to use parts of them appropriately -- among others things the general rule stresses is, be very familiar with the sources. Teaching both, 1) what part of being familiar with a source is, and 2) how to use it appropriately.
:On some slightly different matters, I also note we have no definition, and probably disagreement on what 'news' exactly is 'breaking news', and how to draw that edge in the sand, and I have even seen good argument to me that the species we write on are (all) sourced to secondary. In short, that there are edge cases and uncertainties is always going to happen. ] (]) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::It often feels like the definition of ''primary'' is "source supporting an article I don't want to have", and ''secondary'' is "source supporting an article I do want to have". The idea that ] is not one we've done a good job of communicating to editors.
::This is an imperfect example, but I've seen editors evaluate NCORP sources like this:
::* It's a piece of long-form journalism in a respected newspaper.
::* The third paragraph says something about last year's profitability.
::* Conclusion: The whole article should be treated like a press release, because there's no way a journalist could get that information from any source except the company itself. Actions like interviewing someone at the company, poking around the corporate website, reading their press releases, etc. makes the journalist and the whole newspaper non-independent of the company.
::* Alternate conclusion: That sentence about profitability means the whole source needs to be discarded as ].
::Some people are arguing this way because they're copying what they've seen other editors do the same (and get respect for it), but I think it's often just a case of ] dressed up in an acceptable bit of ]. ] (]) 04:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::It seems that we have lost the ability to look at current (including breaking) news events from what should be a 10-year viewpoint, and instead 1) want to rush to create an article on any breaking event regardless if other existing articles are better suited for that event and 2) justify that event being notable by including an excessive amount of detail included the dreaded reaction sections to make it appear that the number of sources make the event notable. Eg ] is an excellent example of this problem, how we have a huge article on what is a tiny step of a long process, which likely if we were writing for the first time but 10 years after it happened, would have been maybe one to two sentences in an existing article with all we know (at this point in time). The idea that we allow such stories to be created and then consider deletion or cleanup later is antithetical, as anyone that has tried deleted a news article that has shown no lasting significance after a few years knows this is very difficult to inform editors that a burst of coverage is not equivalent to being notable. ] (]) 12:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Turning each news story into an article is a problem. I think that kind of thing is best dealt with at ] or ], and isn't really about whether a source is primary or secondary. ] (]) 13:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes. We should not be doing those news of the day articles at all, but we are not going to stop it, apparently with anything, no matter what is written here or anywhere else. ] (]) 14:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I think that the defacto reality is that if it is of sky-is-blue extreme importance (like the top 1 -2 news events per week for the entire EN:Misplaced Pages) we break the rule and immediately make an article, even if it's from just primary sources.That exception is numerically very rare but highly visible because it takes up half of the top of the Misplaced Pages main page. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::What's important to why news articles apply to this discussion is that even truly appropriate news events may likely go with <s>non</s> primary sources (that is, strictly covered by factual news reporting) for data, weeks, or months. Something like a major natural disaster will fall into that. We don't want changes her at NOR to interfere with such developments but at the same time make sure changes here don't open the floodgates to even more news articles that fail to have significance. (edited) ] (]) 14:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{Ping|Masem}} I agree. I think that pointing out what I did, that this highly visible rare exception is merely that helps that cause. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@], I'm not sure what you mean by {{xt|non primary sources (that is, strictly covered by factual news reporting)}}. Are you saying that something that is "strictly covered by factual news reporting" is ''not'' a primary source? ] (]) 18:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, I meant just primary sources, not non primary ones<span id="Masem:1724958669637:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNo_original_research" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)</span>
:::::Sure. As much as I think those articles are really bad for many reasons, I console myself with them being a relatively small number, although I don't care to find out what the number actually is (so don't try to disabuse me of that notion, please:)). ] (]) 20:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq| I think we need to recognize the fact that our particular PST definitions are wiki-definitions}}? No. Go to ] and ] for the definitions. If you don’t like the definitions, fix them, with reliable sources. The paraphrasing in this policy should be read as subject to referring to the articles. The bold direct linking to the mainspace articles is highly appropriate. ] (]) 10:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::The definitions in the Misplaced Pages articles depend on the subject area (e.g., legal scholars say that tertiary sources don't exist). We sort of pick and choose which definitions we want to use, so perhaps it's not unfair to say that they are our own definitions, based heavily on the real-world scholarly definitions from history and science. ] (]) 19:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I have no idea which legal scholars you are referring to but tertiary sources exist in legal scholarship. -- ] (]) 19:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It is much better to acknowledge and agree that an encyclopedia is in the field of historiography, and then to use the historiography definitions.
:::It is a worse idea for Misplaced Pages to invent new definitions, based on history and science or otherwise. New definitions can’t be researched more deeply. Precedent for recurring problems can’t be resolved from examples if we use made up definitions.
:::Blurring or mixing history into science sounds dooms to generate more problems than it solves.
:::The historiography definitions are perfectly good. The science definitions of primary and secondary sources are wholly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. The journalism definitions, despite someone asserting that good journalism is good scholarship, have too many points of incongruity for mixing historiography and journalism to be anything but a bad idea. ] (]) 06:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Misplaced Pages's definition of "notability" is its own. In dictionaries, the primary definition is "worthy of note", but our ] corresponds more closely with "noted". I've had to explain this a number of times, sympathetically, to new article creators who've insisted that the subjects of their articles were{{emdash}}using real-world terminology{{emdash}}notable. Often I disagreed that the subjects were even ''worthy'' of note, but I couldn't fault them for their confusion. ] (]) 11:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah. It’s a long known problem, this Misplaced Pages neologism “notability”. I have been preferring to use “Misplaced Pages-notability”, to distinguish it from the real world term. It’s unfortunate. “Misplaced Pages-notability” means “the topic has been covered by reliable others”, which is close to “noted”. Misplaced Pages neologisms create newcomer barriers, and should be avoided even if only for that reason alone. ] (]) 13:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::It should have been changed long ago, but I think the last time it came up formally, a kind of ''fait accompli'' won the day. ] (]) 13:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yup… if I had a Time Machine, I would go back and strongly recommend that we call the guideline ] (as that terminology is closer to what we mean) … but… it is too late to change it now. ] (]) 19:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I would prefer something more explanatory, like ] or ]. ] (]) 20:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::]? : 'This article ''Stands''.' This article does not ''Stand."'' "''Stand alone'' is a test . . ." Such might also make discussion less binary, bringing merge or redirect more to fore as compromise consensus. If only we had that time machine, but consensus can change, right? :) Just not so easy to get a new one. ] (]) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
{{small|(I have no idea how indented this comment should be.)}} I have to say I would strongly prefer the existing language's directness. In ] we have a problem of editors paraphrasing Livy's first pentad and calling that reliably sourced. It isn't. Having ], I also recognise that sometimes there are no secondary sources to be citing. If anything needs changing, it should probably be contextual rather than across the board, ie weakened only when secondary source coverage on a topic is weak or non-existent. {{small|Notability shouldn't be an issue here; a plethora of independent primary sources can still establish notability.}} ] (]) 04:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:I think that most people who hang around AFD and related guidance pages don't agree that independent primary sources can justify a ], though they seem willing to extend a reasonable (often multi-year) grace period to major news events. ] (]) 04:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::Is NOR really a factor at AFD? Sure, individual sentences (and on occasion entire paragraphs) might get cut due to NOR violations… but deleting an entire article? I don’t think that happens all that often. It’s seen as more of an “Article clean-up” issue, and not a “Deletion” issue. ] (]) 20:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I've never seen t be directly a factor at AFD. But this area of NOR overlaps with GNG, and wp:notability is the main factor at AFD. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::It looks like it's mentioned in something on the order of 5% of AFDs. Here are a few current/recent examples:
::::* ]
::::* ]
::::* ]
::::* ]
::::* ]
::::* ]
::::* ]
::::* ]
::::* ]
::::*
::::] (]) 00:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::In spite of ], I don't think "articles that would merit inclusion if written competently should never be deleted for their present state" is actually defensible as a position. It's understandable that ] cases are rare because an editor adopting it as their pet project to delete as many OR (etc.) article as possible will do result in harm—but it's mystifying to me that it's rarely acknowledged that some articles are a net negative and should not be allowed to remain on the site for potentially years in the hopes that they will be rewritten. (The retort of "so fix it" falls a bit flat if one actually accepts the calculation that deletion would be a net improvement, hence is a fix for it.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Indeed, it's as if some people want to believe a Misplaced Pages article is not actually published and that webhosting is some kind of improvement. ] (]) 09:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::@], I wonder if you could describe the kinds of articles that are a net negative, and don't qualify for deletion. Obviously something that qualifies for (e.g.) {{tl|db-hoax}} or {{tl|db-no content}} would be negative for readers, but I'm sure that isn't what you're talking about. ] (]) 00:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::What springs to mind immediately are articles that are about a viable subtopic/intersection—let's make one up, ]. Reams have been written about this intersection to the extent that it can be distinguished from related subtopic articles, even. But if someone started this with no sourcing, it would be a net negative unless someone completely rewrote it and included sources that could actually be made use of by the readership. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 00:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Given an uncited article, why delete it, instead of spamming in a couple of refs? You spend a few minutes in your ] search finding books like these:
::::::<small>
::::::* {{Cite book |last=Nimni |first=Ephraim |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Marxism_and_Nationalism/1TgV-Bay35YC |title=Marxism and Nationalism: Theoretical Origins of a Political Crisis |date=1991 |publisher=Pluto Press |isbn=978-0-7453-0730-5 |language=en}}
::::::* {{Cite book |last=Anderson |first=Kevin B. |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Marx_at_the_Margins/TxCZCwAAQBAJ |title=Marx at the Margins: On Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Non-Western Societies |date=2016-02-12 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-34570-3 |language=en}}
::::::* {{Cite book |last=Szporluk |first=Roman |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Communism_and_Nationalism/8BfoCwAAQBAJ |title=Communism and Nationalism: Karl Marx Versus Friedrich List |date=1991 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-505103-2 |language=en}}
::::::* {{Cite book |last=Snyder |first=Timothy |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nationalism_Marxism_and_Modern_Central_E/9cM9DwAAQBAJ |title=Nationalism, Marxism, and Modern Central Europe: A Biography of Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz, 1872-1905 |date=2018 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-084607-7 |language=en}}</small>
::::::and you drop them in the article. If it says something reasonable, or if you can quickly ] it back to something reasonable, then why would we want to choose ] instead of ]? ] (]) 19:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Where NOR is a reason for deletion, it is the extreme case of it that is covered by ]. ] (]) 10:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
A source can be used if it is published, reliable and citable without OR. The P/S/T classification system is a malicious invention designed to make that harder to understand. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)


:Primary and secondary source distinction is a mature, and very useful analytical tool of ]. Refer to the articles. WP space should not be redefining real world terms.
If the policy is displayed as in effect right now, that means someone who couldn't be arsed to look up the talk pages is acting ''against'' the consensus and reverted against someone who took the policy out of effect. Remove the policy now, for the good of Misplaced Pages. ] 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:Historiography is the right field to choose to put Misplaced Pages into. It is history, it is not science or journalism. ] (]) 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
::@], we really didn't invent PSTS to complicate matters. It's just that having it on this particular page is a sort of a historical accident. WP:NOR basically started with that Usenet crank trying use Misplaced Pages to host his debunking of Einstein (remember him?). So we said, in a rather fancy way, that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a primary source, and if you want to publish your new ideas about physics, you need to do that some place else.
::Then not everyone knew what "primary source" meant, so we had to explain what a primary source is, and then people ask that since Misplaced Pages isn't a primary source, what is it?, and bit by very reasonable bit, half a sentence turned into a whole section that is really more about notability and NPOV than about whether editors are SYNTHing a bunch of cherry-picked sources to prove that modern physics is wrong. But it's here now, and it might take divine intervention to get it moved elsewhere (or, as I suggested a while back, put into its own policy). ] (]) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Re|WhatamIdoing}} I'm under no illusions about the difficulty of backing off from the mess in this article, which has been a bugbear of mine forever. My comment, though written in a flippant manner, arises from real concern over how the P/S/T divide obscures rather than clarifies the simple principles of source usage. Of course I know that that wasn't the intention. I'll post a longer critique soon. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::WP:PSTS is the intellectual basis for NOR in the affirmative, even if the early authors didn’t realise. ] (]) 03:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Indeed, it is. Just to use the given subject and cherry-picking. This is not the place for you to publish what ''you'' think about relativity, its for you to faithfully relate what others have said through qualified reliable sources.
::::You can't originally publish, or originally publish on, the Einstein letter (primary source) you found in your research in Misplaced Pages's relativity article (that is original research).
::::You can't create a new article alone about that letter (that is an original purported secondary source the Wikidian made).
::::You can't publish what you think about that letter (that is you creating a purported secondary, or secondary and tertiary source originally made by the Wikidian).
::::Cherry-picking is what the Wikipedian does (but should not) -- unless qualified reliable secondary and/or to a lesser extent qualified reliable tertiary sources have already picked it up and examined it, it is Wikipedian cherry picking. And you can't (originally) misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, in your writing, here, so it is good for you to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and what they can and cannot support.-- ] (]) 09:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::But you also mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:V purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:V to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and you mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:N purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:N to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and you mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:BLP purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:BLP to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and you mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:RS purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:RS to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and you mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:NPOV purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:NPOV to have some idea of what such qualified sources are. This concept, like the concept of ], is bigger than a single policy. That's why I think it should have its own page. ] (]) 01:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Readers of V are to know all three central content policies. Readers of NPOV are to know all three central content policies. Readers of BLP policy must know all three central content policies. So, it is not better to multiply, if anything, it is better to integrate. In these policies we are generally trying to answer three fundamental questions in a situation where "we" is anonymous, individually unaccountable for what ''we'' do, but must work together to present ''our'' work: how do we know what we know, how do we prove what we know, and how do we present what we know. But the answers to those questions by their nature are not going to be separate, they are going to be interrelated aspects. ] (]) 13:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::“it is better to integrate”. Yes. Two important policies, V and NOR, are better combined. Merge them into ], which contains PSTS. PSTS, although maybe not Tertiary, is fundamental to NOR, and fits seemlessly into V. I regret opposing WP:A. It was the right idea, badly implemented.
:::::::WP:NPOV is a bit different. It should remain a separate policy, in some ways the most important policy. It is the fundamental of #1 in ]. ] (]) 12:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree with the diagnosis, but I'm not sure about the cure. There are a lot of concepts that have taken on their own technical meaning on Misplaced Pages. Notability is one of them, and so is PSTS. I'm not sure where the right place is for them, but there's nothing stopping someone from ]ly writing an essay if they think it's the right course. I wish I could think of a better solution but it escapes me right now. ] (]) 16:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::As with wp:notability, step 1 would require acknowledging the unacknowledged way that Misplaced Pages actually works (when it works). Which is editors making editorial decisions influenced by policies, guidelines and other considerations. (vs.binary flow-chart blocks) For the types of situations described above this would be:
::::::#Explaining what wp:nor seeks to avoid. And understanding that there are matters of degree of this. (we call the safer non-controversial types "writing in summary style", and the ones at the other end of the spectrum are bright line policy violations)
::::::#Explaining PST and how secondary means that somebody else has done the synthesis rather than the wiki editor.
::::::#Then per ] editors make the decision on what to put in, influenced by the above
::::::Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think that PSTS is about "what wp:nor seeks to avoid". NOR seeks to avoid having editors make stuff up, whether by making it up completely ("Fairies came to my house last night") or by SYNTHing it up ("These 37 cherry-picked sources, when assembled by me to produce claims that none of them ], prove I'm right and Einstein is wrong"). You don't need to know anything about PSTS to discover that these are wrong.
:::::::I did a quick search for comments in the Misplaced Pages: namespace that mention the word ''secondary'' this year. Two-thirds of them were in AFDs. ] (]) 00:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I think that my 6 word summary of the goals of a core policy is inevitably going to have issues. The slightly longer version would say that the sourcing type distinctions are a component of wp:nor. And of course, wp:nor seeks to avoid certain things. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 01:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*It can both be the case that there is widespread misunderstanding of primary versus secondary sources, which is a media literacy concept and not a Misplaced Pages concept, and that the practice is that many articles rely more on primary sources than the policies and guidelines advise. However, that's not necessarily a problem that needs to be proactively solved since every article and everything in the project is a constantly evolving and changing work in progress. I would say more primary sources is just the natural state for a newsy item, and over time, secondary sources should replace them. So it's reasonable for the policy advice to say "don't base an article entirely on primary sources," but if those are the best sources available, like with other guidelines, exceptions and discretion exist. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*The policy is fine. There are a multitude of issues with relying on primary sources on a site that anyone can edit. The fact that it gets ignored is not a reason to disregard the policy. Articles that rely on primary sources are some of the worst in terms of quality excluding stubs and the like. ] (]) 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, exactly. If anything this policy should be strengthened and better-enforced. ] (]) 01:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


== Routine measurements ==
:Absolutely not. There is '''no''' consensus to overturn WP:NOR. Your continued ] ("lazy", "make yourself look foolish" etc. above) and your blatant violations of ] are not advisable and your argument above is flawed. Consensus is not the same thing as you repeatedly stating the same case. I for one do not buy your arguments and strongly support WP:NOR. ] 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::You ''believe'' in WP:NOR? Well that is not a valid objection. Argue or cooperate. ] 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


EDIT: Proposal withdrawn, see my reply to @] below
:::Those are not the choices. You are making the positive claim that there is consensus to overturn this policy so the burden is on you to demonstrate there is consensus. So far I've seen you repeating a claim. I haven't seen you demonstrate consensus. ] 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::You are mistaken about what ] is. Its not "What most people believe", its the product of debate. If you want to challenge the consensus, you will have to do it with argument. If it stands the test of debate, the consensus will be changed. ] 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::There is no consensus to remove this policy. Perhaps there ought to be, but there isn't yet. Unfortunately you're undermining your own side of the debate by asserting this (though a little less so than the guy up there who said it was graven in stone because an edit went through a few months ago). ] 18:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Personal "opinions" don't count. Only arguments do. And so far, there is no actual argument for keeping the policy that stands the test of debate. Hence, consensus is achieved. ] 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::As noted below, achieving a true consensus to overturn one of the oldest Misplaced Pages policies would require a wide notification of editors, rather than the few people who have randomly happened upon this discussion page; and more time for discussion. ] 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:I see but trollish comments and general explanations of nonsense. There is no concensus and the poicies shall of course remain to serve the good of wikipedia. They are not leaving. Why not be ] and give it a try..? I am certain the concensus of the community will be a very clear objection indeed. -]<sup>]</sup> 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::] is reached by debate, not by voting. Just because most people can't be arsed to track the debate doesn't mean they have consensus.
::Aside: "Trolling" is a most un] insult. ] 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree that consensus is about debate. But you still have to demonstrate that you have concinved people as a result of your debate. You simply stating your case repeatedly then artibtraily declaring yourself the victor is not achieving consensus. Its you taking unilateral action and it isn't going to work. ] 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::There's two flaws with that suggestion: First: People usually don't agree that the other side is the victor, they simply shut up after being ]. Secondly, scroll up. I am not alone, and there has yet to be made a single argument in favor of ] that stands the test of debate. ] 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


<s>I propose that ] be amended to include '''routine measurements'''.</s> I'm not talking about ''de facto'' unverifiable cases like "I have exclusive access to object A and have measured its size to be x {{times}} y {{times}} z, so I should be allowed to include this fact here because anyone could verify this (IF they ever get access to the same)". What I mean are things like measuring the distance between two geographical points on a map that can be verified with minimal effort by literally anyone. For example, it's common for {{tl|Routemap}}s to include distances between stops/stations, even though this information is rarely provided explicitly by transportation authorities (or any other reliable sources) {{emdash}} but they do provide detailed maps of their routes and editors are using those to measure the distances. ] (]) 06:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Dabljuh, to state the obvious, none of us are in a position to "remove the policy now" even if consensus existed (which it does not). You could, I suppose, go to ] but I doubt that would be considered binding. ] is the spot where something substantial might be set in motion, but I suspect you won't get much of a response. ] 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


:Making measurements from a map has been discussed before, and it is interpretation of a document. In my mind, a measurement, routine or otherwise, would involve measurement of the original object, such as measuring the distances between a series of bus stops with a ]. ] (]) 11:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Dab does have a point here. The way to show consensus would be to demonstrate that the people on one side have ''any argument at all''. Inability to do this is tantamount to a concession. ] 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::Which would you say is closer to the concept of OR, that "interpreting a document" anyone can repeat if they have a minute, or walking around with a specialized tool very few other people could duplicate the results with? I would say in this case a map would be a secondary source generated by experts in their field (which would be "read", not "interpreted") and Mother Nature would be the primary source. Or would you seriously expect there to be stuff like peer-reviewed papers or NYT articles on distances between random map points that would be closer to the concept of a secondary source than the map itself is? I don't disagree that what you describe is a purer form of taking measurements, but we're talking about this in the context of OR. ] (]) 12:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Readers are meant to be able to verify anything they read in an article. Measurements that can only be verified using anything more rarified than a ruler is likely totally going against our ] policy. This is distinct from citing a source stating the measurement, so there would logically seem to be greater restrictions as to what can be considered verifiable.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::When I said {{tq|"read", not "interpreted"}} I meant that if maps were made by describing locations, distances between them, etc. with words instead of pictures, one presumably wouldn't say quoting such statements was "interpreting" them or there was a great burden to verify them (because they speak for themselves as a secondary source). Just because the data is represented in a different way doesn't mean that accessing and re-representing it has to be conceptually very different. A "direct quote" in this case would be a map image, perhaps with a line drawn between points A and B, and that can be put in your own words (or in this case numbers) in exactly the same way a prose statement can be re-represented by an editor. And a ruler is exactly all you need in this particular case, the fact that nowadays it's more likely to be a software-based ruler is conceptually irrelevant. ] (]) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree with you and think about this a lot. I think the basic process I've found viable to systematize this is outlining every claim apparently made by piece of media, "converted" into bullet points (likely in shorthand if we're actually doing it, of course). I think it's obvious we should be able to say a map with a key and sufficient precision can make specific claims analogous to those a paragraph could make.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don’t think using a map and key to calculate distances is “Original research”… however, such calculations should be phrased as being ''approximate''. ] (]) 13:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Every measurement is approximate, so I think it depends. Generally, it would seem best to hew to less clunky wording unless there's a specific reason for precision to matter. It is generally considered unreasonable for a reader to assume an author means to say that New York is exactly {{cvt|700.0|miles|sigfig=7}} from Chicago. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] Exactly. Besides, if a reputable newspaper or a scientific paper would state "the distance between station A and station B is 2.34 km", in most cases it's highly unlikely that they'd be basing this off independent terrain measurements, they'd take this information from a map just like any Misplaced Pages editor or reader can. So such statements would provide zero added value in terms of verification. ] (]) 13:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::] calls for everything written on Misplaced Pages to be, not a copy of but, therefore, in a sense, editors' interpretations of information found in documents. Measuring distance on a map (albeit it has to be a map of a small enough area for the scale to be sufficiently precise for any measurement in any direction within its edges) might be considered to be at that level of interpretation, rather than at the level that ] is concerned with. ] (]) 13:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Right now, the policy says {{tq2|"Source information does not need to be in prose form: any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources."}} A map is a source, just like a book is. There are reliable and unreliable maps, just as there are reliable and unreliable books. The question here is what "straightforward reading" of a map means, but the principle is really no different from understanding a book. It depends on what type of map it is. Straightforward reading of a geological map might be that some region is primarily basalt, while straightforward reading of a railway map might be that there is a track between A and B. If a map is professionally designed to be spatially precise, such as a large scale map by a national survey agency, taking straight-line distances and directions (to reasonable precision) from the map is straightforward reading. However, taking the lengths of roads and rivers is not straightforward reading (unless they are printed on the map) because not even the best maps show all the little wriggles and measuring a wriggly line is error-prone. The essential point is that if a map is reliable for a datum, then you can cite the datum to the map. Of course, none of this applies to an unreliable map, which is an unreliable source end of story. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)


:Well jiggedy gee, Misplaced Pages sure is a useful place, because TIL that I'm a genius who can spend an hour making impassionate pleas about something already covered perfectly well in the section right above the one I was on about... I think probably what happened was that since I don't think of maps when I see the word "media", I misinterpreted the section title to mean that it'd be about A/V, etc. and didn't give it proper attention. (Maybe the title could be reworded as something like "''Acceptable media and data formats''" to accommodate geniuses like myself?)
This is one of Misplaced Pages's three core policies, and is not subject to being overturned by consensus. There are many sites on the web through which one can publish one's own research. One may also exercise one's ] and create a new project that allows it. ] 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:Apologies to everyone whose time I wasted with this stunt! Consider my '''proposal withdrawn''', unless someone can think of other cases with measurements that might be good to mention in the policy. I didn't really have anything else in mind aside from distances from maps. ] (]) 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::Wups, statements like these are just the problem. What makes you think this is one of Wiki's three core policies, which isn't subject to being overturned by concensus?? Have you read ]? I'm curious as to where people get ideas like yours. You see, I've been arguing for the better epistemological treatment in WP's policies for a few days now, and you're my new posterchild for why they're needed! Congrats. ] 03:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::Sensible, well-intentioned suggestions are always welcome.
::Also, please consider visiting ] so that your personal information (e.g., which ] you're using) isn't visible to everyone on the internet. ] (]) 02:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:BTW, @], since you're an admin, can you do something about the edit summaries on {{oldid2|1245260915}} and {{oldid2|1245260648}} here? This has nothing to do with me, I just noticed these when looking at history and thought this probably shouldn't be there, (I pinged a RevDel admin, but they haven't responded.) ] (]) 08:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#No original research}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


== "cite reliable, published sources that are ''directly'' related to the topic of the article" ==
Hmm, very strange. One of Misplaced Pages's problems is letting people know about important discussions. I've been visiting this site most days for a long time and this is the first time I've seen any discussion of this issue.
A disagreement has arisen at ], with a user insisting that mentioning that the artist's previous album received critical acclaim and was primarily produced by the same producer as this song is a NOR violation. They insist that a source that mentions those details ''must'' also mention the newer song or else those details cannot be included in the Background section. I have never seen this part of the guideline be interpreted that way. Can people familiar with the guideline help us with a neutral opinion? Thanks.--'']]'' 05:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
: I think this should be at ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::Did not know that existed. I will take it there. Thanks.--'']]'' 13:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)


== A little "thought bubble" in my userspace - perhaps this might be useful? ==
Since we seem to be talking about this, here are some cases where NOR helps us:


Hi all,
# Professor A publishes a sensational new theory in a little-respected journal, and then writes a huge Misplaced Pages article citing his publication as reference. Of course someone adds a comment that mainstream science rejects this theory (in fact it is laughably incorrect and no-one is paying it any attention). The article seems to be verifiable, and the criticism makes it neutral. Our only criterion for throwing this out appears to be notability, and that's sometimes very subjective. NOR is much clearer and saves us a lot of trouble.
# Student B writes an article in which they make a set of propositions (all suitable supported with citations) and then draws from this set of propositions an entirely novel conclusion. This is very hard to police, but NOR makes it a lot easier.
# Most importantly, NOR makes the '''intention''' of Misplaced Pages clear. A surprising number of people come here thinking that this is the place to publish their wonderful new work that the publishing houses have rejected. They may think their work is verifiable and neutral, so they add it. Then we have to go all though the process of find out if what they have written is verifiable and all the rest. NOR makes it clear from the outset - even if your work is unquestionably true and world-shatteringly important we don't want it until it has reached some minimum level of acceptance.


I've just created ] little ].
] 16:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Useful? Redundant? Something else? Your opinions requested.
:#If Professor A publishes his silly theory, then it's ] and ''not'' ]. Perhaps ] is an issue, which means the text remains but gets appropriate bracketing. In short WP:NOR is useless here, since it's unoriginal research of low quality.
:#If Student B writes this, it is not ] from a ] and runs into the problem of ]. WP:NOR is once again useless here, except as a convenient way to avoid stating the true reason for the unacceptability of the text.
:#We cannot determine people's intentions, only their actions. Someone can violate ] unintentionally or seek to intentionally violate ] and fail. All that matters is whether their text is acceptable for inclusion.
:In short, NPOV is worthless. ] 17:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 🦘 10:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Dammit, Alienus beat me to it - but only because I got wrongly blocked again -_-


:Naming what's depicted in an image (including paintings) is complex. Generally, if it's obvious (e.g., anyone familiar with the area, or looking at a map of the area, would come to the same conclusion), then editors are satisfied. Otherwise, I'd suggest looking around the next time you're in the museum for a sign that describes it (or maybe a page on their website), and using {{tl|cite sign}}. ] (]) 03:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
So.
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#WPSECONDARY}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 22:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#WP;OR}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 19:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


== Parallel citations to primary sources ==
#If its ], ] doesn't keep him from writing the article. But ] demands that we treat it fairly (i.e. make it clear that nobody right in his mind believes in that shit). So we would want to write "No major scientific journal has showed any interest or paid any attention to this theory". But oh no - ] actually KEEPS us from adding that bit of information. Since THAT very notion would be original research.
#] - Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish his personal theories. If its very obvious / trivial stuff, nobody will object however. I must admit I don't really know if I understand that example correct, though.
#] makes it very clear what Misplaced Pages, well, is not.


''Should citations of secondary sources – especially ancient ones – include parallel citations of primary sources?'' What I call a parallel citation of a primary source is something such as:
Pleased to help out ;) ] 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
* {{tq|Mouritsen ''Politics in the Roman Republic'' (2017) p 121 n 40<u>, citing Cicero, ''Pro Sestio'', 97</u>}} or
* {{tq|Cornell ''Beginnings of Rome'' (1995) p 331<u>, citing Livy, 6.11.7</u>}}


The parallel portions are the portions underlined above. In both these cases, the secondary source is actually citing those primary sources in analogous way (as with most works in classical studies, the citations are ]).
:I'd like to add a new example of abuse. On ], some editor added a short line saying that "acucullophallia" is the state of being circumcised. Any quick Google can verify both the existence of the term and its meaning, but certain editors objected to these sources and demanded better ones. So our man Dab finds it mentioned in a book. Problem solved, right? Wrong!
:Now the same editors are claiming that, since the book does not directly offer a definition of the term, we can't use it. Of course, anyone with a knowledge of Greek and Latin roots (or a book containing such knowledge) can trivially verify that the term means "circumcised", but that's being called OR. Likewise, using the book as proof that the word exists then using a web site to provide its meaning is being called OR.
:This situation is, quite frankly, ridiculous. But it does show how easily WP:NOR is abused by obstructionists, and why the rule as it stands cannot remain. It needs to either be removed completely, changed into a mere suggestion, or weakened to the point of sanity by adding exceptions.
:Please explain to me how the above abuse of WP:NOR could be avoided otherwise. ] 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::Toning down the policy is not sensible. If we allow "trivial" synthesis of thought, then the police effectively does not prevent anything that ], ], ] and ] wouldn't either. The policy would then be 100% redundant. And redundant policies in particular are ], and must be avoided. ] 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I guess there are also three positions here: (1) people prefer including them, (2) people don't prefer inclusion or exclusion, and (3) people prefer removing them. I've normally written with (1), except when constructing the parallel citations is tedious, but other people's contributions show (2) is probably modal. That said, one or two people have yelled at me for pressing for parallel citations' inclusion, and I guess they might hold (3).
:::I agree that that is an abuse of NOR, and I will happily wade in to refute anyone using it that way. Another interesting abuse occurred at ], where a user quite literally claimed that "Misplaced Pages editors should not be permitted to apply the ordinary rules of logic, but only report exact quotes of what others said." Such things are obviously wrong, anfd I would support a change that made it clear that this was so. But abandoning this principle would be a cure that was worse than the disease. ] 18:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Sadly, that user is technically right, that is almost exactly the wording of ]. And that is just exactly whe the policy needs to be removed - Its not the abusive editor that is in the wrong, it is, actually, the policy. ] 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Much obliged for your help, ]. However I think it's wrong. In 1 the theory is only verifiable because professor A has created his own off-Misplaced Pages reference to it. The theory exists, and the reference verifies it. However the theory doesn't deserve an article, and Misplaced Pages would be a better place without it. It passes verifiability but fails NOR. Your interpretation that NOR keeps us from adding the comment about nobody believes the theory is just wrong. That is not what NOR means.


And then at the higher level, if consensus exists for 1, 2, or 3 should we write anything on it? ] (]) 00:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Example 2: "Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish his personal theories". Well that's just a restatement of NOR. Sure we could make everything a subset of WP:NOT ("Misplaced Pages is not a place for non-neutral points of view":"Misplaced Pages is not a place for unverifiable things") but what's the point? Let's make it explicit. The same comment applies to Example 3.


:@], GA isn't supposed to be concerned with citation formatting – see ] and the brightly highlighted text in ] – so why is this question even coming up? ] (]) 06:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, even if it were true that NOR was already prohibited by other rules, then what would be the disadvantage of keeping the rule? It makes an important piece of policy very clear, rather than letting people deduce it from other readings, and saves them time they might waste misunderstanding Misplaced Pages. ] 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, I was wondering this too. What's this about? ]] 06:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay, omit the GA review portion then. First, it doesn't matter. I mentioned it only to avoid accusations that I am inventing hypotheticals for drama. Second, quoting the GA criteria doesn't address an underlying point – which is substantive as to what is being cited and not a question of formatting – whether inclusion of parallel citations is unacceptable reliance on primary sources, ie original research. ] (]) 07:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::But it does matter. Are you saying you just thought up this question out of nowhere? If so, no one's gonna want to spend their time on it. Or did it come up in some article you're working on? If so, show us and maybe we can get somewhere. Your question -- {{tq|whether inclusion of parallel citations is unacceptable reliance on primary sources, ie original research}} -- is vague and confusing unless it's grounded in some actual example. ]] 07:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{xt|If so, no one's gonna want to spend their time on it}} – Dubious–discuss? I love a good hypothetical. 8-)
:::::Ifly6, I think the answer to your question is in ]. You can't be "relying on" Livy if you actually read it in Cornell. ] (]) 18:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think the parallel citation could be useful. A reader who doesn't have the source cited could look up the same classical passage in some other modern work and see if it supports what the Misplaced Pages article says. ] (]) 20:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree that the parallel citation (eg {{tq|, citing Livy, 6.11.7}}) is defended by ] inasmuch as the claim is there. But should such parallel citations be included in the first place? ] (]) 23:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Such citations do no harm, and might be occasionally helpful… but I don’t think we need a rule about them. Whether to parallel cite is a decision that can be left up to individual editors… it should be neither encouraged nor discouraged by policy. ] (]) 00:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What circumstances do you think are suitable for their removal? ] (]) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Offhand, I'd consider removing it if the cited work were unpublished (e.g., citing personal communication), unimportant to the content (citing some routine reference work), or unknown (e.g., citing a book no one knows about – in fact, I'd expect it to be pretty close to famous, or ''extremely'' relevant, like "Alice's book, citing Bob's autobiography" for a statement about Bob). I'd probably also remove it if the ref is used for multiple different things, and only one of them was citing the named source.
:::::::::I would not normally use this style in scientific subjects, either. I prefer just "Systematic review of efficacy for Wonderpam", not "Systematic review of efficacy for Wonderpam, citing Original Pilot Study". ] (]) 05:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Those are all reasonable reasons on first glance. Musing, I would think that most sources routinely cited in classics (Livy, Dio, Plutarch, Polybius, etc) would fall between those: they are published, they are important to the content because they are usually the only primary source (or one of few), and they are definitely not unknown. ] (]) 06:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, I said that {{tq|I mentioned it only to ''avoid'' accusations that I am inventing hypotheticals for drama}}. The origin of this question was in ] (myself reviewing), where I encouraged parallel citations – {{small|to get ahead of a possible reply that this is not in the GA criteria, (1) I passed the article, (2) encouragements are not requirements, (3) imo if there is ''anywhere'' a parallel citation is reasonable, it is in a statement that some author says Livy says XYZ, and (4) GA reviewer instructions state {{tq|You may also make suggestions for further improvements, if appropriate.}}}} – and was then told {{!tq|Again, that is not what Misplaced Pages is here to do. If someone's interest is piqued, the secondary sources are there for them to consult. They in turn contain citations referencing the primary sources. That is how Misplaced Pages works.}} ] (]) 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well, obviously you can't force the nom to take your suggestion, but ] plainly authorizes the voluntary use of the style you recommended. ] (]) 05:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


== Award controversy vis a vis with the recipient and SYNTH ==
:There are many articles about theories that are, to be blunt, stupid. Consider ], which is about an idea soundly rejected across the board by the scientific community. Nonetheless, it is notable and verifiable, hence not the least bit OR. The mysterious Professor A, by virtue of being a professor, is notable. If he publishes in a peer-reviewed journal it is a highly ], and quite ]. You would be entirely wrong to try to remove this article, no matter how stupid his theory was.
:So far, you have in no way explained how it might possibly violate ], and I politely demand that you do so immediately insteead of waving your hand at it. Please ''be specific'' or I will be forced to disregard your argument as irrelevant.
:As for the second case, if WP:NOT covers it, then why do we need additional rules, particularly when they are so subject to abuse? You have likewise not answered this in the least.
:The disadvantage is that the rule is, at best, useless, at worse, a handy tool for abuse. It's an inflamed appendix. ] 18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Does it constitute ] to indirectly discredit a subject's award by mentioning the controversy on the subject's page given the citation does not mention the subject at all.
::::Please note that my points were not addressed. Therefore, I can only assume that DJ Clayworth has conceded my points and nobody else differs from his concession. If I'm wrong, correct me by addressing my point. ] 20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


To summise. ] mentioned on ]'s page that the ] was under controversy because the organizer of the award is allegedly posing as an ambassador to artificially inflate his own and by extension the award's prestige. This implies that Verzosa potentially received a sham award. But the problem is the given citation does not mention Verzosa by name. The article only directly paints Barry Gusi in a negative light and none of the recipients.
:::::Yes, you are wrong. I have not conceded your points. We simply haven't got to your points yet. ] 13:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


@] has accused me of censorship over this and I need some third party feedback on this. Thanks! ] (]) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the theory exists and is verifiable, then it has a place on Misplaced Pages - from my understanding. The problem is not notability - Anyone might find ] non-notable. But, sidenote, self-sourcing is forbidden somewhere, meaning, an editor may not use his own sources are references. Right? I might be wrong about that one. If someone finds the policy that says so -> ]


:This page is really for discussions of the high level-policy wording, not for problems with specific articles. I'd suggest continuing to seek consensus on the article talk page itself, and if you get no interest there asking at ]. ] (]) 13:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::If you don't think that NOR means you cannot synthesise original thought, like "No major scientific journal has paid any attention to this theory", then I must ask you to read ] again. The policy is extremely clear and explicit: "that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about."
::Okay, I've settled the disagreement with the editor. I'll consider my options to how to move things forward. ] (]) 13:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I forgot ]. That might be the best place. ] (]) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Editor-created images based on text descriptions ==
::I find ] to be sufficient for making clear "Original Research doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages". Misplaced Pages is a place for all kinds of weird POV's, NPOV means they should be in the article and treated fairly. "Misplaced Pages is not a place for non-neutral pov" is therefore not only not helpful, but actually wrong.


An editor is creating multiple images themselves, uploading them to Commons, and then posting the images to Misplaced Pages articles. Let me explain the situation and why I am posting about it here, instead of the OR Noticeboard. This editor is fairly new and seem to be doing this interpretive editing in good faith with the images being clearly-marked either as a "digital reconstruction" or as a "digital remake". They are basing their images on written published sources...but. But these images are created ''interpretations'', they are not published elsewhere, they are being published directly onto Wikimedia platforms, in Misplaced Pages's voice, so yes, this would all seem to be original research. But there is nothing that specifically addresses this issue in the No original research guideline, so it seems to me that some specific wording about this image issue should be added to the Original images section, something along the lines of:
::The disadvantage for keeping the rule is that essentially ALL wikipedia articles violate it. The rule can be used by obstructionists, pov pushers, wikilaywers, all kinds of people that are not interested in making Misplaced Pages better, for censoring it. ] 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:Created images of historical items that are previously unpublished interpretations unavailable elsewhere are original research and even though these images are or might be based on text descriptions in published sources any such images should be removed.
Also, in light of developing technology and AI, this is a type of issue that can come up anywhere within the Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia platforms and we need to get out ahead of it. Similar images could possibly pollute our historical information streams with created images. I mean, have you seen the "AI suggestions" that are now prominently displayed on the first line of Google Searches? What I've been seeing is that they are often thin paraphrases of Misplaced Pages articles, so just wait until the "AI Suggestion" bot gets a hold of created interpretations of historical items based only on written descriptions - the images will be repeated and repeated... Anyway, would appreciate any thoughts on adding a line about "created images, even though only based on written descriptions..." etc., etc. Thanks, ] (]) 06:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:We've already seen examples of AI images uploaded based on text descriptions. I'd support an addition to the guidance along these lines. ] (]) 14:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"No major scientific journal has paid any attention to this theory" is something of a red herring. Change to "The publication is not a major a major scientific journal" and you're fine: qualifying the specific source (which WP:V Dubious sources explicitly suggests) rather than making an ORish assumption about major journals in general. ] 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::{{u|Nikkimaria}} I wasn't aware of the AI images, but I suppose is ''possible'' in this particular instance that these images are <u>actually</u> AI-generated... Upon re-reading my suggestion above I think it should be/could be re-crafted into:
::::Created images of historical items that are previously unpublished and are unavailable elsewhere are original research. Even if these images are or might be based on text descriptions in published sources these images are interpretations not actual historical images of these items and any such images should be removed from Misplaced Pages pages.
::Is this new sentence better? - ] (]) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:::I'd suggest splitting up the issue into two new sentences, one in each paragraph of OI. First: "Original images that are previously unpublished interpretations of text descriptions are considered original research and should not be included." Second would be something specifically relating to AI-generated images, which probably warrants a separate discussion. ] (]) 17:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::"The publication is not a major a major scientific journal" <- OR just as well. Unless a Reliable source happens to says so. ] 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Ah ok, that makes sense. - ] (]) 18:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:We might need a community-wide RfC regarding AI-generated images (and even editor-created drawings/sketches/cartoons/paintings, particularly of BLP subjects, in general). I don't believe we have any sort of policy or guidance that addresses these issues. ] (]) 18:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Possibly? But (shrug) I do not agree. These images, whether they are editor-created or they are AI-generated...these '''images''' are ''clearly'' original research, which is against a stated Misplaced Pages policy and which, seems to me is inextricably connected to the policy of Verifiability. Others may disagree - and that is fine - but I do not think a RfC is needful or warranted. - ] (]) 18:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There was a big discussion about user generated images of people awhile ago, I'm not going to dig around for it now. I don't believe it come to any conclusive consensus, most of the images were removed but I don't believe all of them. If I remember correctly the contention was between having artists impression to improve articles with, and concerns over quality and OR. Take that with some salt, as I wasn't overly impressed with some of the images and so may have a biased memory of it. If no-one else brings it up I'll try and find a link to it once I have a bit more time. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks - ] (]) 19:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:::::Here are some discussions I'm aware of, not sure if any of them are the one you're thinking of: ], ], ]. Plus there's ]. ] (]) 19:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::"According to his self-published website"--as you like. The point is that you can avoid the problem with correct phrasing. I think you're making a category mistake: if it can't be verified it's OR, if it can be it's not, thus NOR is unneeded. But that doesn't hold. Take the example this page uses. "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual". I can perfectly verify what the Chicago manual states, but what makes it OR is its "synthetic" character. But "according to his self-published website" is not synthesizing. It's an observation that the context actually demands. ] 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Thanks {{u|Nikkimaria}}, those discussions are very useful - I'm reading through all of them now. Will take me quite a while... - ] (]) 22:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think you're confusing the example here. Professor A didn't publish his theory on his self-published webpage, but managed to slip it through a minor scientific journal. Making it verifiable and satisfying ], as well as ]. ]
:::{{blue|These images, whether they are editor-created or they are AI-generated...these images are clearly original research}} Oh, I definitely agree with you. I had to revert an amateurish drawing of a BLP subject recently and the editor was quite upset about it. It'd be nice to have something written in policy that directly addresses these issues (AI-generated images/editor-created drawings/sketches/cartoons/paintings, etc). I believe the only place to add something into policy is the Village Pump via RfC. ] (]) 20:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I was thinking of where student B might be posting his business. In any case, if it was published in "a little respected" journal there ought to be a way to state that (the broader point from the first being you can comment on the journal at issue rather than journals as such).
::::Perhaps you are right, that a broad RfC at the Village Pump is needed. I do think it is important to have some sort of policy/guideline in place sooner rather than later...
A last way to state it:
::::Also. Personally, I am of the opinion that the guideline against OR should stand, whether or not the OR is text or the OR is an image. If the text is not found in a published reliable source then it simply cannot be used. The same would seem to be true and should be true for an image - after all, they are '''both''' <u>content</u>. - ] (]) 22:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
#Are all unverified claims necessarily OR as well? Yes (or at least we must assume so). In this sense V is sufficient.
:::::I don't see "previously unpublished" as being the right criterion -- surely the publication needs to be in a reliable source. But I'm not sure even that's enough, because in my experience publications that are careful about the ''text'' they publish are sometimes a bit loosey-goosey about images. I feel we should allow images such as the lead image in ], and not editor-created stuff, but I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn or how to describe it. ]] 04:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
#Are all verified claims necessarily not OR? No, per the Jones example. In this sense we need NOR. ] 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Ok, I see your point. Perhaps this is better:
:::::::Original images posted onto Misplaced Pages pages that are previously unpublished in ] and that are created interpretations of text descriptions are considered original research and should not be included.
:::::: ] (]) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Should we start a workshopping section below? I'm thinking something along the lines of:
::::::::{{tqq|AI-generated images and user-created artwork (such as original drawings, sketches, paintings, cartoons) posted onto Misplaced Pages articles that are previously unpublished in reliable sources are considered original research and should not be included.}}
:::::::] (]) 16:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Sounds good. I agree a workshopping section should be started, either here or over on the Village pump:technical. - ] (]) 17:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Try this:
::::::::::{{tq|Drawings, sketches, paintings, cartoons, AI-generated images, and so on not previously published in reliable sources are original research and therefore should not be used in articles.}}
:::::::::This removes some stuff in the previous proposal that's actually irrelevant (e.g. doesn't matter whether or not it's "posted to Misplaced Pages" -- it's OR either way). I also removed the bit about "user-created" since if it's not from an RS, it's OR no matter who created it. I considered changing ''should not'' to ''must not'', but I'm not absolutely certain there aren't acceptable edge cases. ]] 16:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, you are absolutely right about the OR *but* I think the proscription against "user-generated" images should be explicitly and plainly stated even if it does seem somewhat repetitious to us experienced editors. - ] (]) 17:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::OK:
::::::::::::{{tq|Drawings, sketches, paintings, cartoons, AI-generated images, and so on (whether created by editors or by others) not previously published in reliable sources are original research and therefore should not be used in articles.}}
:::::::::::]] 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The only further adjustment I might make would be to state "must not" - or to add "must not - instead of "should not". "Should not" implies possible permission, "must not" says no way, don't do it. So maybe something like...
::::::::::::::{{tq|Drawings, sketches, paintings, cartoons, AI-generated images, and other illustrations (whether created by editors or by others) not previously published in reliable sources are original research and therefore must not - and should not - be used in articles.}}
:::::::::::::] (]) 18:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I mean, the lead image for ] is fine, and ran on the front page. ] is fine, and featured. ] is fine, and featured. ] is fine, and featured on enWiki, faWiki, and commons. ] is a good illustration, featured here and on commons, and a former featured picture of the day. The current draft would exclude high quality and encyclopedic images like these. ] (]) 07:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Was the one where you removed the "amateurish" drawing of a BLP? That image was created by a notable professional artist. If so, that's at least twice this year that an editor has complained about a drawings being "amateurish" when they should be saying something a lot closer to "by a professional artist whose artistic style is not my personal favorite". ] (]) 19:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I didn't realize the person was a "professional artist" when I first removed the image from the infobox, so "amateurish" might not be the right word to use now. Hindsight is 20/20. But my point still stands, that these types of user-created drawings/sketches/cartoons/etc. are subjective and based on what one's own interpretation of what the BLP subject looks like. They shouldn't be used in BLP articles, especially as the lead image. ] (]) 19:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've always been a little wary of this type of ], or at least ]. But I haven't been sure how to address it, since it is normalized on certain pages. ] (]) 00:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Shooterwalker}} - "It is normalized on certain pages"... Really? Which ones, what subject areas? - ] (]) 04:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I've seen it in articles on fantasy fiction (Hobbit and so on), obscure Norse gods, and stuff like that, where editors think it's OK to make up their own artwork based on textual descriptions. Example: . Such stuff needs to be hunted down and shot on sight. ]] 04:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yikes. And agree... - ] (]) 14:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] There are cases such as this: ].
::::I haven't tried to address it because there are a few highly active fandoms on Misplaced Pages that basically ]. But exceptions make bad rules anyway.
::::More generally, I have seen most other stuff removed and re-organized in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. If we can write our policies and guidelines around most cases, we can at least stop things from getting worse. ] (]) 17:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have also started a discussion on ] about AI-generated images, I was just informed that this discussion also exists so I figured it would be appropriate to share here since it's relevant. ] (]) 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Another user has started a discussion at the Village Pump after your post: ]. ] (]) 13:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:#Yes.
Re: {{tq|not previously published in reliable sources}}
:#No.
], ], ], ], ], ]]]
:You are correct. We don't WANT to keep the jones example out, really. The whole point is to allow the jones example! To actually let the editor use his judgement about what to write, instead of forcing him to copy verbatim sentences from published sources, making currently all, I repeat, ALL wikipedia articles a violation of ].
The image to the right (at least on my screen, it's to the right) says that it's an "Original image" and the editor's "Own work. Taken at City Studios in Stockholm, September 29, 2011". The image was not "previously published in reliable sources", but I think everyone here agrees that the image is valuable and usable on Misplaced Pages articles. How do we write one or two sentences (or even a paragraph) that discourage the use of:
* 1) AI-generated images
* 2) User-created artwork (drawings, paintings, sketches, cartoons, etc.)
that have not been previously published in RS but without being too restrictive? Because unfortunately, I can see proposals like these failing if the community thinks the proposals are too restrictive. ] (]) 18:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Why do we need an editor to make up their own image? There aren't appropriate images in (what appears to be) a reliable source like https://openstax.org/details/books/anatomy-and-physiology-2e ? And looking closely, the male is shows as having "breasts", which (correct my if I'm wrong) is not appropriate, and the female appears to be wearing nail polish on her toenails. Both of these are arguments for why we shouldn't have our amateur selves making our own illustrations.{{pb}}Having said that, however, I added the red annotations to this:
]
:and used it in my favorite article, ], with an explanatory caption. I would argue, naturally, that this is OK and not OR, but I'm not sure exactly how to distinguish it from what we've been talking about excluding. ]] 18:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::This example is simply the same as adding a caption to a reliably-sourced image. You've added an explanation not altered the image and changed its meaning. - ] (]) 21:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I guess, but I did have to put 2 and 2 together a bit to do it. H marks Dr. Harlow's house, but since the map is 20 years after the events the article discusses (during which time Harlow had moved away), you'll see the house itself is actually labeled "Dr. Hazelton" on the map. Hazelton bought Harlow's practice, and the the location of the "Dr. Hazelton" house is in the same spot as a house labeled "Dr. Harlow" in an earlier, low-quality map I didn't want to use in the article; it also matches texual descriptions in RSs of the location of Harlow's house. So I felt comfortable annotating the map as I did, but strictly speaking one might consider it a step or two toward the OR boundary. ]] 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Writing this correctly and concisely is going to be very difficult, even if we agree that it's the right thing to do. ] (]) 19:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh yeah, ain't that the truth. - ] (]) 21:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::A broad rule covering all AI-generated images and user-created artwork might not pass, but if the proposals were more narrow and focused, e.g. AI-generated images not previously published in RS, or user-created artwork (drawings, cartoons, sketches, paintings, etc.) depicting BLP subjects, etc. I could see them getting support. ] (]) 19:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the key to user generated images is to make it’s provenance clear in the image caption. Disclaimers such as “AI generated image of X” or “Artistic depiction of Y” resolve most questions. ] (]) 20:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Oh I dunno about that {{u|Blueboar}}...AI-generated '''or''' user-generated images that do not exist in reliable sources? Why are these images not OR? In my original post an editor is creating images of historic flags. One example is described in historical texts as a black F on a white field...but no mention of measurements or fonts or the size of the F etc., etc., so what one editor might create will be different from another editor...who's to say which version is more correct than another? We can't. So we shouldn't. - ] (]) 21:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Because the purpose of an image is to ''illustrate'' the article, not to convey accurate information. We have long held that our NOR policy does not really apply to images.
::::::That said, NOR does apply to the ''caption'' (ie text accompanying the image)… like any other text in our article. ] (]) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::...so what you seem to be saying is that anyone can draw up an image at any time and place that into any article because images are mere illustrations? "We have long held that our NOR policy does not really apply to images." Regardless, with editorial consensus, guidelines and policies change around here all the time. - ] (]) 23:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, anyone can create an image and stick it in an article as an illustration.
::::::::That doesn’t mean this image will ''remain'' in the article. If others think the article would be better with a different image (or even no image at all), simple consensus can determine this. ] (]) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Blueboar, we've long turned a blind eye to a certain amount of OR in images (see my own confession above), but a blind eye it is. With the advent of AI, making it ''way'' more tempting to generate ill-founded image trash, I believe the time is coming soon that we need to come to Jesus on this question, and clarify more explicitly what is and isn't acceptable. I think your asserted distinction between "illustration" and "information" is a dodge. Even if an image's caption says "Artist's conception" or "AI-generated image", we are putting WP's imprimatur on that image. Having said that, I'll repeat my statement above the the lead image in ] is fine with me, even though it implies WP's imprimatur for that image, so clearly I don't have a completely crisp idea of the exact criteria apply. ]] 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::]]]
::::Depends on what X and Y are. Captions wouldn't help in cases such as: . According to Lundy-Paine's Instagram page, they look nothing like that "portrait". (Anyway, I'm just using that as an example; the ] problem has already been solved, I believe. But who knows when the issue will arise again.) ] (]) 21:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Nothing says we can’t swap one image for an image we think is ''better''. That just takes a simple consensus to achieve. ] (]) 00:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I confess to being flabbergasted by your position here. You're not seriously suggesting that that cartoon image would be acceptable in that article, under any circumstances, are you (other than if, somehow, the article needed to discuss the cartoon itself)? By your reasoning NPOV-violating text, or NOR-violating text, or V-violating text, would be OK in an article since, ya know, someone can someday swap it out in favor of better text. ]] 01:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Sometimes a cartoon is fine (as an example, the Bayeux tapestry is essentially a cartoon and we use it to illustrate our article on ])… at other times a cartoon wouldn’t be the best choice. I certainly would prefer a more realistic drawing/painting over a cartoon - if one is available… and a photo over that. However, I would happily bow to consensus if other editors thought the cartoon was the best.
:::::::My point is that this decision (cartoon vs painting vs photo) is purely an ascetic one, governed by what is available and consensus discussion at the specific article. Our “No Original Research” policy is not an issue. ] (]) 02:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You're simply asserting that NOR isn't an issue. V says that {{tq|All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable}}, and though images themselves aren't listed explicitly I don't see how they can escape being considered part of {{tq|All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace}}. As I've mentioned, a blind eye has been turned to this heretofore, but I think that time is coming to an end. ]] 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The ] infobox image doesn't fall into the examples that we've been discussing, considering it is a photograph of the Bayeux Tapestry that was presumably taken in a museum; a regular editor like you or me didn't draw/paint/use AI to generate an image of Edward the Confessor then upload it onto Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::This discussion has me wondering though... what's stopping non-notable artists from uploading their non-notable artwork onto Misplaced Pages (with their watermarks and all) in an attempt to promote themselves? " doesn't have an image? Welp, better draw one really quick and upload it onto Misplaced Pages to put on their article!" I don't think this phenomenon (with the watermarks) has happened yet on Misplaced Pages, surprisingly enough. ] (]) 13:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Nothing stops non-notable artists from uploading their art. And if the rest of us feel that this art improves an article, it will remain in the article. Conversely, if the rest of us feel that it does not improve the article, nothing stops us from removing that art, or replacing it with different art.
::::::::::This is how WP works. Things get added, and things get removed… and when there is disagreement over an addition or removal we discuss it and try to reach a consensus. ] (]) 14:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'll repeat yet again that you could use that kind of reasoning to allow all kinds of policy-violating material to be added to an article. That alone can't be the justification. ]] 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::You are missing my point… we don’t need to amend a policy in order to justify removing things we don’t think improve an article, and we don’t need amend policy to give us permission to add things we think '''do''' improve an article. If an image does not improve an article, we remove/replace it. If an image does improve an article, we keep it. If there is disagreement about a specific image, we discuss it. It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:::::::::::::While this is technically true, it's also very helpful to have something to point to other than ] when explaining ''why'' you don't think a particular addition is an improvement, and in some discussions about this I've seen the current OI wording being pointed to as meaning that user-created images of any kind are a-okay (). ] (]) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
No, there is not consensus to remove NOR. Yes, I have been reading the talk pages. Five recent posts by a single contributor desperate to eradicate NOR supplemented by pages of dissent doesn't look like any kind of consensus to me. I congratulate you on your ability to provoke discussion however. ] 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::Men have ]s. They aren't gender or sex specific. ] (]) 07:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:You haven't read the talk page, you've read the talk ''history'' page. The buttons are right next to each other, I know. ] 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:::OK, but how about the toenail polish -- is that part of female anatomy? ]] 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, of course. ] (]) 21:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Of course, if anyone wants to find and upload better, or even just different, images in the ], please feel free. I remember when those photos happened. It was a years-long process that ultimately involved hiring professional models. The modelling agency had a lot of trouble finding anyone who met our criteria (e.g., normal-ish body weight, not heavily tattooed, without heavy tan lines) and was willing to do it. We didn't get everything we wanted (e.g., natural body hair, absence of nail polish), and we were only able to get one woman and one man, but there was nothing else available back then, and this was a substantial improvement. ] (]) 05:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
], based on stated written sources.]]
:There are all sorts of highly educational editor-created diagrams that we really don't want to lose including diagrams of medical, biological and chemical structures, physics explanations, historical maps, and many more. The vast majority couldn't be replaced with any (recent) published image due to copyright restrictions. Provided that such diagrams are based on written reliable sources, are factually accurate, educationally useful, and agreed by consensus they should be encouraged, not prohibited. ] (]) 14:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, just so long as we can agree that diagrams are completely different from cartoons of living people. ]] 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed. User-created cartoons of living people are normally neither factually accurate nor educationally useful. ] (]) 16:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm just a tiny bit doubtful about that as an absolute rule. I suggest, for example, that a cartoon for ] would be more accurate, educational, and relevant than a photo of her, since she is largely notable for her autobiographical self-portraits. Of course, in that case, I'd want an authentic self-portrait from the artist herself.
::::What I'm certain of is that some editors deeply loathe any representation of a person that is not "realistic" in style. ] have to be "accurate" and "realistic" in some sense, else they aren't recognizable. But these editors want something "life like". ] (]) 05:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|editors want something "life like"}} Like an actual photograph of them, preferably, yes. ] (]) 05:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*one aspect I'm seeing above to make sure is treated as acceptable are user made images that are recreations of existing published images in copyrighted sources that can be remade in a copyright free version. Commonly this is for graphs from journal articles where the data is available. ] (]) 16:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
]
*I've just learned that there's ]. ] (]) 15:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC) {{clear}}
*The entire user-generated maps genre would be endangered by a misguided policy of banning images based on text. What this conversation is really circling around is banning entire skillsets from contributing to Misplaced Pages merely because some of us are afraid of AI images and some others of us want to engineer a convenient, half-baked, policy-level "consensus" to point to when they delete quality images from Misplaced Pages. In this discussion, I've seen people say Wikipedians "turned a blind eye" to images with regard to NOR in the past, but that phrasing is a deliberately opaque way to say "many years of consensus determined this was fine and I don't like it." ] (]) 19:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**Additionally, FWIW, I would take the strong position that it is always ''appropriate'' for an illustrator to contribute an illustration of a subject just like it is always ''appropriate'' to add new text. Whether that contribution will remain is subject to whether it improves the article. I think this framing is particularly apt for articles about people (living or dead) because readers want to know what subjects looked like. It is one of the most basic things an encyclopedia article about a person ought to include, so adding an image of a person where none existed is effectively always an improvement to the article. So the real question is whether it is an acceptable depiction in the context of coverage of the subject by a 💕. For instance, if it is easy to source an appropriate photo and include it under either fair use or a license, then the photo ought to be preferred; I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But if no such photo currently exists, I don't think there is a coherent reason to deny illustrations their place in Misplaced Pages. If one Wikipedian really doesn't like a particular illustration by another Wikipedian, then their basic options are to build a consensus for its removal or to source an acceptable photo to replace it. What's wrong with that? There is no call for a categorical ban on contributing this kind of content because this kind of content fits directly within Misplaced Pages's mission; it should continue. ] (]) 19:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**:It isn't always appropriate for an editor to add new text. If the next text reports on personal observations, it doesn't belong here. ] (]) 22:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**::As I said, it is appropriate to add text. As you said, the contents of that text might not improve the article. I think this discussion has jumped directly to the second part without appreciating the first with regards to images. ] (]) 02:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:] bans entire skillsets from contributing text, if you're going to put it that way, insofar as we don't allow people to report their own observations or first-hand findings either. Are you opposed to ] altogether? ] (]) 22:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::No, I am not opposed to OR as a policy. I am opposed to the idea that user-generated illustrations are inherently OR, which is the vibe I have gotten from this discussion. Every time someone generates text based on a source, they are doing some acceptable level of interpretation to extract facts or rephrase it around copyright law, and I don't think illustrations should be considered so severely differently as to justify a categorical ban. For instance, the Gisele Pelicot portrait is based on non-free photos of her. Once the illustration exists, it is trivial to compare it to non-free images to determine if it is an appropriate likeness, which it is. That's no different than judging contributed text's compliance with fact and copyright by referring to the source. It shouldn't be treated differently just because most Wikipedians contribute via text.
*::Additionally, I suspect we mean different things when we say "entire skillsets," although I admit your message is quite short and you might be taking a stronger position. I think you are referring to interpretive skillsets that synthesize new information like, random example, statistical analysis. Excluding those from Misplaced Pages is current practice and not controversial. Meanwhile, I think the ability to create images is more fundamental than that. It's not (inheretly) synthesizing new information. A portrait of a person (alongside the other examples in this thread) contains verifiable information. It is current practice to allow them to fill the gaps where non-free photos can't. That should continue. Honestly, it should expand. ] (]) 02:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


This discussion has morphed from a prejudice against AI as a tool to create images into wider prejudice against user generated image content. I'm particularly worried about the discussion to try to find wording that achieves:
::I don't paticularly believe that up to you to dictate. Please don't purposely misconstrue comments on wikipedia.


{{tq|How do we write one or two sentences (or even a paragraph) that discourage the use of:}}
::Concerning policy, why not be ] and attempt to remove it...? The fruitless discussion is conunter-productive as its already apparent you aren't going to get your way. -]<sup>]</sup> 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


{{tq|1) AI-generated images}}
:::I don't dictate the consensus. Logic does. I just happen to agree with logic, while some other people don't.
{{tq|2) User-created artwork (drawings, paintings, sketches, cartoons, etc}}
:::I have already attempted to revoke the policy. Three times. ] and all that, you know. Now it's up to you other folks. Revoke the shit out of that policy! ] 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


{{tq|that have not been previously published in RS}}
::I spoke of your deragatory comment relating to the claim Deco did not know the difference between a history tab and a talk (although it doesn't matter anyway; one could still follow the conversation). "Its up to us", he says. Boy! You're already well aware of what we're revoking. It's not the policy. The execution of the policy and others in relation will continue in wikipedia. You are free to advocate as long as you please, however.-]<sup>]</sup> 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


This is absolutely not and never has been a requirement that an actual similar image has to have been previously published. Indeed, copying a previously published image could well be a copyvio. Current policy is:
The policy is not carved in stone, evident by the fact that the page is not protected, the most basic way on Misplaced Pages to prevent alteration. Also, note how sbharris points out that the policies fail themselves - they are not verifiable, have no reliable (external, unalterable) sources, and are certainly original research. They are intentionally kept that way, so as for us editors, when we find them to no longer serve the goals of Misplaced Pages, to alter them or remove them, if necessary. And this necessity to remove ] is evident. ] 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:Like most policies, NOR applies only to articles, not discussion pages or project pages. Nice try. ] 03:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::I think we've passed the question of whether it does (I admit it), and have passed on to the question of whether we should change this so it doesn't in the future, but should applies equally (yea or nay) to all Wiki articles on main AND policy pages (there are obvious reasons why it shouldn't apply to discussion or user or project pages, which I won't elaborate, and please don't try to fold them into the argument as a search for absurdem). With regard to NOR, is the viewpoint being expounded that wikipedians are not to engage in original thought when writing mainspace Wikis (on which topics they may be recognized experts), but ''are'' permitted to engage in original thought when making the changes to the policy Wikis which result in changes in WP policy? Hmmm. Can you defend that? Don't just say it's policy. This discussion is whether to change the policy. Your task is to defend the REASONABLENESS of the policy.
::Now, let me save you some electrons. It may occur to you to argue that original thought/research results in changes in WP policy and policy Wikis, only after editorical review by other editors, and a kind of concensus over time. Indeed. But that also applies equally well to every Wiki in the mainspace. THAT argument is merely one for removing NOR as a policy in the mainspace, not for failing to apply it to Wiki in the policy space. A simply way of stating this is that Wikis in n.4 (the policy namespace) run just fine without WP:NOR, under the general editorship of everybody, so ''what makes you think'' it's specially necessary for any ''other'' Wiki to be subject to this extra policy? Clearly we have an extistence proof that Wikis can be created and run without it. Indeed the Wikis which run this whole organization are.
::Now, I can (and have) point out that a limited form of this is also true for V and RS. If you look at the V and RS Wikis they both clearly point out that the need for V and RS arises from the fact that even though there may be a concensus about a given matter, there is still a need to document the ''origin'' of this concensus for the reader. But this also applies to policy Wikis. Either it's an important general principle of knowledge, or else it isn't. It especially becomes important in policy Wikis because policy in WP arises from two basic sources, and it is presently impossible to document or verify which source a particular policy has come from. The exemption of policy namespace from policy is the cause of this. It's not good. ] 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


{{tq|Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, ''so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments'', the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. }}
I suspect that Dabljuh will be responding in about three days. ] 03:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


The key test is whether the image misleads or contains novel information or claims, not whether the image itself has never been published previously. That's totally wrongheaded. Although our policy notes the difficulty in the project acquiring images (a professional encyclopaedia would commission artists and photographers to generate images) this isn't actually a get-out for images. Our article text is written in ] and we rely on experienced editors judging whether our own paragraph of wiki text is a fair summary of the source text. The combination of words, the way the topic is introduced to the reader, the user of wiki links and footnotes, all create free content that is entirely unique to our project. Illustrations are the same. Let's not forget please that Misplaced Pages is a free content project. Text-contributing editors getting snooty about users who generate our images is not a good vibe. I strongly advise ending this discussion. We should remove images if they fail to adequately and faithfully illustrate the topic or introduce ideas or arguments that are unsourcable. What tool was used to create them or whether they were created by a professional or an amateur is irrelevant to NOR. -- ]°] 10:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Seven days. User used an army of IP addresses to bypass a legitimate block. That won't be tolerated. He does it again, it will be longer. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::When I started this discussion the sourcing for the creation of an image *and* how well, how much that image skews to the cited sources...all of that was and is my issue. Sure we craft cited sources into our own wording but we also adhere to reliable sources in doing so. What should Misplaced Pages do for placed images - created by AI or not - when the cited source or sources are vague? In one case multiple flags were created, that ''were'' based on descriptions in historical texts (mostly newspapers if I remember correctly) but for an example, the description in one case was something like "black letter F in the middle of a white flag". So... which font? How big was the letter? How big was the white background? Many different versions of this flag could be created and all of them wouldn't necessarily be wrong but all of them aren't necessarily ''right'' either. It seems to me that Misplaced Pages might need a policy or guideline or <u>something</u> that when editors come across a similar situation it's not just people being some kind of "snooty text-contributing editor" (thanks so much for that) but fellow editors simply trying to keep Misplaced Pages's entire content - images and *all* - encyclopedic. - ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This is a good point. IMO, even if there is no one accepted interpretation of something abstract like "Black letter F in the middle of a white flag," I think it would be encyclopedic to include an illustrated interpretation. However, making decisions about how to render it would involve synthesis. ], because it's not inventing a connection to be published originally on Misplaced Pages. I think the image in that case would be best described as "demonstrative," and that there should be some kind of well-placed disclosure in the article that it is one example of what it ''might'' have looked like rather than an attempt at rendering what it really looked like. The answer to a sensitive situation like that should not be "no images at all." Additionally, because of the ubiquity of cameras, this sort of edge case would be unlikely to occur with a modern concept. Even people who support an, IMHO, ridiculous photo-only standard must allow for the fact that there were no photos before a certain point; we have many articles illustrated with pictures that may or may not actually represent the subject. Heck, the ''lead image'' of ] is of someone we're pretty sure is not actually that guy. ] (]) 20:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think this whole flag thing needs a dose of historical reality. Or ] reality, anyway. There are conventions in the field that make it possible to determine from a textual description what the flag is supposed to look like. For example, with something like "Black letter F in the middle of a white flag", there's a general convention for how large a central device is supposed to be (it fills most of the vertical space, but not all of it). The "font" would have been whatever was typical for that time/place. Yes, you might have to look this up, but no, it's not impossible to get that much right.
::::Also, until the last century or two, each flag was hand-sewn or hand-painted and unique. Having somewhat different versions of what's recognizably the same design was not considered "wrong". If your "Black letter F" was slightly bigger or smaller than the "Black letter F" on the flag for the next ship/company/building, it didn't matter. ] (]) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That being the case, perhaps the best way to show it is demonstrative would be to declare that and present two or three options. That way, no version of the flag would ever be presented as definitive. ] (]) 09:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Well said. ] (]) 17:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed. ] (]) 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:This puts it much better than I could. ] (]) 20:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


]]]
==Reasonable inference==
* Per ], {{tq|the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted}}. So, we should gather examples of current best practice to establish what this is. The main page is a good place to find these as content there gets special scrutiny.
I am beginning to think that it might be worth making explicit in this policy something that I have always assumed was obvious, and that I have always assumed other Wikipedians will find obvious: that is, that the drawing of simple logical inferences from sources is permissible, and does not count as original research. It seems from some of the examples given above (and my own experience on ]) that this needs to be made explicit. ] 13:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
: Today, there's an example of this sort (''right''). This seems uncontroversial and not a significant problem, right?
:I agree. I like your term "reasonable inference" - let's say: "a '''reasonable inference''' is the construction of information from sources in a way that would be clear, straightforward, and correct to any reasonable person." Examples would be basic descriptions and objectifications of primary sources, basis synthesis and relating of facts from multiple sources, and illustrative examples. If an inference is either complex, such as involving sophisticated logic, or debatable, as by drawing a conclusion or using a method of inference that someone else could reasonably disagree with, then that would still be original research. ] 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
: ]🐉(]) 19:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::That image is clearly-based on reliable sources and accepted/common knowledge. - ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, it's not clear because the image doesn't explain how it was produced or cite any sources. It doesn't seem to have been hand-drawn and so I suppose that software of some sort was used. ]🐉(]) 08:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I absolutely agree we need an explicit policy banning user-generated solely-text-based illustrations and am baffled why this would be controversial. Illustrations that are based on ''other reliably-published illustrations'' are clearly distinct from those based on ''only interpreting text/unpublished images''; the latter should be prohibited for the same reason we already prohibit textual material sourced from the editor or from non-expert SPS. I would also argue that if no professional has been interested enough to publish their graphical interpretation of a text description yet, then a graphic isn't BALASP in the first place. ] (]) 23:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::JolleJay, Here! Here! Well said. The key here is, already "reliably-published." The other stuff that is essentially original research from interpretation probably should not be allowed. ---] (]) 06:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:]
:Here's another example from today's main page. It looks simple but the image details explain that {{tq|This image is a focus stacked image consisting of 23 images that were merged using software. As a result, this image underwent digital manipulation which may have included blending, blurring, cloning, and colour and perspective adjustments. As a result of these adjustments, the image content may be slightly different than reality at the points where the images were combined. This manipulation is often required due to lens, perspective, and parallax distortions.}}
:The key point is that it may be "different than reality" but it's a featured picture.
:]🐉(]) 08:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::We have no way of knowing whether the merging was or was not carried out with AI assistance. For some people it seems that an image that is identical, down to the pixel, would either be perfectly acceptable if not done using AI but cause the sky to fall in if AI was involved at all. It's utterly ridiculous. ] (]) 11:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Primary ==
::Apparently the removed "troll" comment above came from somebody who has just been blocked for unrelated reasons. None of which means his reasoning was bad just here. So, let me repost the part of it which made sense to me:


{{Moved discussion from |1=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability#Primary
::''There's one problem: "reasonable inference" is the only thing the policy forbids, that the other (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT etc) do not forbid explicitely (assuming people start with ]). If you allow "reasonable inference", then WP:NOR has no reason to exist. The advantage being that now the policy no longer outlaws all articles on Misplaced Pages. But then why bother? Why keep a completely redundant policy? Not to mention, a policy that appears to have the strict goal of explicitely and exactly preventing "reasonable inference".''
|2=This is the correct venue. '''<span style="color:Purple">dxneo</span>''' (]) 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Not sure where I should place this discussion, but I hope I'm at the right place. It is often said that interviews are "primary" sources, meaning they are not reliable per ]. However, most of the times we get personal information (birth dates, birth place and backstory) and upcoming release dates for movies and music from interviews (late-night shows and so on) and they always turn out to be accurate. I think {{background colour|yellow|if the interview was published by a reliable source then it's most definitely reliable}}, because if another publication quotes that interview, no one would say it's not reliable. Not sure if I make much sense, but any objections? '''<span style="color:Purple">dxneo</span>''' (]) 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:Re "they always turn out to be accurate": . Sources directly from the subject of a biography, such as in interviews, can be reliable for uncontroversial factual claims such as birthdates per ], but should not be used for evaluative claims nor when there is good reason for skepticism regarding the claims. Even for birthdates, people can often falsify these out of vanity or out of pressure from whatever industry they're in to be a different age. —] (]) 23:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::(End of quote. The above was posted by he-who-must-not-be-named, so I infer. But since I agree with it, I'll sign onto its opinion, too. What the heck.) ] 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:@], Primary is not another way to spell 'bad'. You should avoid trying to build an entire article exclusively on primary sources (though this is pretty common for discographies), but you may use reliable primary sources to fill in ordinary or expected details. If you are at all uncertain about the material, consider using ] attribution: "In an interview with ''Music Magazine'', the musician said she was born in California" or "According to Joe Film, the movie will be released in September 2025". ] (]) 05:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Images whose authenticity is disputed ==
:::I disagree. I think adding a clause permitting reasonable inference would not weaken this rule, only clarify it, since this is the conventional interpretation anyway, and also that it covers cases not covered by combinations of other policies. An example of something verifiable, NPOV, but OR might be a sophisticated mathematical proof not based on any published proof. WP:RS is not sufficient because it is not policy. ] 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


I understand why we have an exception for images in this policy - we have a limited selection of free images, so we need to rely on user-uploaded content. So if someone uploads a photo they took of a celebrity, that is fine to include in the article since it's not considered original research.
:I think I might modify this suggestion to read "simple reasonable inference". The inferences editors should be allowed to draw would be those that a reasonable person might make without detailed effort. An editor should not be permitted to write about their theory on the grounds that it is a 'reasonable inference' from the data, even if that inference took them a year of detailed study to arrive at. ] 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


But what happens if someone claims their image is of a certain celebrity but other editors dispute it? It seems like we have limited recourse within policy to handle that. The image doesn't really {{tq|illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments}}, it is just an image of a person that has possibly been mislabelled. Would it make sense to revise the first paragraph of ] to the following? The last sentence is new:
::As it stands, some interpret the policy to forbid ''all'' inferences that they oppose, no matter how safe or reasonable. The problem here is simple: if we forbid all inferences, then all articles are in violation, but if we loosen the constraints, then we need a proper place to draw the line. ] 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


{{tqb|Because of copyright laws in several countries, there may be relatively few images available for use on Misplaced Pages. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate ]s or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, ''so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments'', the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. Additionally, images whose authenticity is disputed may be removed in accordance with ].}}
:::I agree. One one level we have to leave it to individual editors to draw that line, but I think we can give some indication of where the line should probably be drawn. Something like "Misplaced Pages is allowed to contain statements of inference that a reasonable, knowledgeable person might straightforwardly draw from the sources available, without necessarily finding a source which makes the statement directly." ] 19:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


– ] 16:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Circumventing a block by merit of using a sockpuppet of foriegn IP address is forbbiden. I've made an report on ].-]<sup>]</sup> 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


:Good point and good start. But "removed in accordance with wp:consensus" is unclear. Do you need a consensus to remove? Do you need a consensus to keep? <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I also agree with this suggestion, for the reasons DJ Clayworth gives. At the List of Philosophers page, we've encountered this very problem, where a certain user continues to appeal to NOR in attempting to ban even the most straightforward inferences. (See the discussion a few sections up on this talk page.) Although it should be self-evident that simple, reasonable inferences are valid (and necessary), it would still be helpful to make this policy explicit. ] 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::In the case of a living person, we need to take extra care to “get it right”… therefore we would default to needing a “consensus to keep” if there were a disagreement over the image. ] (]) 20:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't we need to write it out on the page, ] is pretty clear. ] (]) 21:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think the addition is necessary: In all cases, for all images, for all material, for any reason, consensus can force removal.
:One of my touchstones for this policy is a dispute years ago with a since-blocked AIDS denialist. Look through ] for one of the discussions. AFAICT he wanted certain images removed from Misplaced Pages because the existence of a photomicrograph of a virus undercut his story that these viruses don't exist, but since that's not a policy-based reason, he generally asked for images to be removed if there was no source to authenticate the contents. We had "images whose authenticity were disputed" – but only by a POV pusher. I would not wish to give him, or POV pushers like him, a rule that says that disputing authenticity is his best path to removing the image. I think we could safely predict that this addition would turn into a ] recommendation to partisan editors to dispute the authenticity of all unflattering photos of their favorite politicians.
:What I'd suggest instead, in these cases, is relying on ], which says "Images should ''look like'' what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." In the situation described above, we have an image of a BLP that editors dispute. Why do they dispute it? I'd guess it's because it doesn't ''look like'' the person. I'd bet that most of us have had the experience of a photo not turning out the way we expect, and even though we know with absolute certainty who is pictured in the photo, we couldn't say that the photo is representative of the person. That might be the only thing that's going on in this photo: Right person, but odd angle, odd expression, odd lighting – and the result is that the image doesn't ''look like'' what it's mean to illustrate, and therefore should be rejected per MOS:IMAGES. One doesn't even have to dispute the authenticity to do this: just say that it doesn't ''look like'' what you/readers expect, and the guideline therefore rejects it. ] (]) 22:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the detailed reply! I hear you on using ] in these cases. That's what I leaned on in around a disputed photo of a tornado. It just seemed like a bit of a workaround, having to first dispute the verifiability of the caption, and then separately the pertinence of the image itself. I think expecting editors to formulate an argument like that using multiple policies/guidelines is asking a lot.
::But maybe I'm overthinking this. To your point, it's already the case that consensus can remove disputed photos. But I do think there would be some value in explicitly stating that ] isn't intended to help retain inauthentic photographs. For what it's worth, this isn't a one-off issue. In this month, I incorrectly relied on ] to support the removal an image with disputed authenticity. – ] 22:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The question with the tornado isn't whether we're "helping retain inauthentic photographs"; we'll make a decision by consensus.
:::I wonder, though, why your response was to remove a probably-but-not-definitely authentic photo, instead of placing it in proper context? For example, one compromise approach – neither unquestioning acceptance nor removal – would be to remove it from the infobox and add a caption that says something like "Very few images of this storm exist; this photo has been claimed on Twitter to be authentic". ] (]) 04:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Hmm you raise a good point, just changing the caption would be enough to avoid misleading readers. I'll update my !vote accordingly. Thanks – ] 17:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::One issue here (as I said in that discussion) is that it's a photo from social media uploaded under fair use with the only sources attesting to its identity being comments on Twitter and Reddit. People on social media have been known to misattribute images of tornadoes before. An I think saying "this is probably the tornado but we're not sure" undercuts the article. ] (]) 21:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes. Subjects that require expertise to identify or accurately characterize should not be treated the same as subjects that are easily verifiable (like a picture of a Walmart, or of a human hand). If a photo isn't even an editor's own work, and the only attestations to its identity are random social media comments, including it in an article where it ''will'' be scraped by Google and placed at the top of image search results is a disservice to more than just our readers. ] (]) 23:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Claims of own work might not be that reliable either. I've been pondering ] for the past couple of days. It has a strange contrast, but it doesn't not look like the subject, if you know what I mean. The uploader added this image, edited the relevant fr.wiki article, then vanished. The metadata says it was modified with photoshop in 2021. One thing I am reasonably sure of though is that it's unlikely that this photo of someone who died in 1966 is the own work of an uploader in 2022. ] (]) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
::::That is the whole point of why I fight this policy. If you go by the policy, then ''making'' any type of straightforward inference is explicitely forbidden. No matter how straightforward. That is the whole point of the policy: to prevent ''any'' sort of inference, even straightforward ones. I agree that simple, reasonable inferences are valid and necessary to writing articles, even to the entirety of what is Misplaced Pages. And this policy forbids it.
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 00:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
::::It does not help that most people simply chose to ignore the policy, it is still there and officially in effect. "Common" interpretation is that the policy does not prevent you from making the most straightforward inferences, but this perception is wrong when one actually reads the policy carefully. This is because people, as a whole, tend to use ] - it is simply this policy which is not sensible, and must be changed therefore. ] ] 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:42, 8 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
This page is only for discussions about the Misplaced Pages page Misplaced Pages:No original research. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Misplaced Pages, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
If you want to know whether particular material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the No original research notice board. Questions about the policy itself may be posted here.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
I disagree with the definition of secondary source.
Misplaced Pages mostly follows the definition in use by historians, which requires more than simply repeating information from some other source or rearranging information from the author's notes. The earliest definition of a secondary source in this policy was in February 2004 "one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources".
This published, reliable source is engaging in original research.
We allow our reliable sources to engage in original research of their own – indeed that's their job, and we rely on them to do so. Our job as Misplaced Pages editors is to put reliable sources' research into article form.
I've proven that general relativity is wrong, but the physics journals won't publish my proof. Can I use Misplaced Pages to publish my ideas about how Einstein was wrong? I can cite lots of sources in the article to support each piece of the puzzle.
No. If you want to put a whole idea in Misplaced Pages, you need to be able to cite a source that contains the whole idea, not just isolated bits of it.
Shortcuts

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

New articles based on primary sources

WP:PRIMARY currently says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources" but this does not conform to existing practice. Here's a couple of examples,

  1. As discussed at WT:NSPECIES, species articles are routinely created without much in the way of secondary sources.
  2. WP:PRIMARY also says that "For Misplaced Pages's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources" but numerous articles are created every day about breaking news such as natural disasters, political events, sports results and other topics which are routinely featured at ITN. For a fresh example, see 2024 Solingen stabbing which has a {{current}} banner tag to make it quite clear that it's breaking news and so quite unreliable.

So, the statement seems to be a counsel of perfection which doesn't correspond to what we actually do and so, per WP:NOTLAW, needs qualifying or softening.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

At the time that the first sentence (Do not base an entire article on primary source) was added to the policy:
  • the discussion on the talk page was about writing articles about books that were based entirely on the book itself (e.g., WP:NOTPLOT), and
  • the definition of 'primary source' was much more restrictive than our current understanding.
The then-current definition of 'primary source' was:
  • Primary sources are sources very close to an event. A primary source offers an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
Looking at the bit I highlighted, that rule, interpreted under that definition, treats breaking news as a secondary source so long as it's written by someone interviewing the witness, rather than by the witness themself.
I conclude from this that there was no intention to prevent the creation of articles about current events with the best sources we happen to have access to. Whether and how to fix it is probably worth a discussion, but I suggest that "fixing it by stopping people from creating articles about current events" is not going to be functional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
That explanation of the creepy way that this has mutated is enlightening, thanks. It's good that it's our policy to ignore all rules. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the current belief is sort of:
  • If you only have one primary source, and your single source has a particularly severe case of primary source-ness and no independence, then don't write that article. The Tale of Custard the Dragon by Ogden Nash is a lovely picture book, but you really need something more than just the book itself to write an article about that book.
  • If you have a couple of sources, and they're pretty useful overall, maybe their primary source-ness is not exactly the most important quality to consider. For example, it's kind of unfortunate that when a big disaster happens, we only have breaking news to work with, but frankly, it doesn't take a WP:CRYSTALBALL to figure out that there will be proper secondary sources appearing later (and if we've guessed wrong, we can always delete or merge away the article later). Depending on exactly how you define secondary, we might even see some of that the next day. For example, one of the hallmarks of secondary sources is comparison, so if you see "This was a 100-year flood" or "This is the third biggest earthquake in this area during recorded history" (or, for the Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) proposal "this Sheltinack’s jupleberry shrub species is a more mauvey shade of pinky russet than the other species"), then the source is comparing it against past history, which could be argued to be secondary content, even if we might normally call the overall source a primary one.
The edit that added that "Do not" language also added this: Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. That's still in the policy, and I think it's important to remember that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Using common sense and good editorial judgement seems to be the general idea of WP:IAR too. So we don't need all this other stuff then, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 06:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that editors don't always agree on what constitutes 'common sense and good editorial judgement'. Relying on IAR alone would be a massive time sink of arguing over what exactly is an improvement to the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
That passage's point is that the final shape of the article should not heavily rely on primary sources - an article in the early stage of development may likely be based on primary, but we expect that it should be able to be expanded with secondary sourcing as to otherwise meet the NOR aspect as well as notability factors. So we allow for species articles based on publication in scientific journals of their existance but anticipate more sourcing will come later. Similarly, breaking news stories will very likely use primary sourcing to describe the event, but to show enduring coverage as to meet NEVENT, more secondary sources need to be added over time. It is impossible to have a "finished" encyclopedic article based only on primary sources, but until the article has had time to mature with additional, it seems reasonable to allow primary sources to be the baseline. It should be stressed that WP:V's requirement about third-party sources must be considered here: an article based only on first-party primary sources, regardless of its state, has no business being on WP. — Masem (t) 12:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the problem is the use of "do not" rather than being formulated around "should not". Like most of these things there are exceptions, but that doesn't mean the central point isn't valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe that there should be scope for an article of the type “Evolution of the rules of <some sport>” which is essentially a catalogue of rule changes over the years. The main references would of course be the various rule books themselves. supplementary comments from reliable Secondary sources might be used to put the major changes into context, but minor changes to the rules which anybody could verify by comparing the two texts would merely be catalogued. 2A00:23C8:1DAE:2401:8933:B63A:8FD1:CF6 (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
This is fine… PSTS does allow us to cite primary sources for specific things. However, we do need secondary sources to establish that these rule changes are significant enough for WP to have a stand alone article about them. That is more a function of WP:NOTABILITY than of WP:NOR, but it is still important to do. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's good vague "goal" type advice. I wish we could just say that. Anytime someone tries to derive something more prescriptive out of it there are problems. Whether well-intentioned or using it as a weapon in a wiki-battle. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

So why don't we just change "Do not base an entire article on primary sources" to "An entire article should not be based on primary sources"? Do we have a local consensus to make that change? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
That's a completely fair change without changing why we have that there. Masem (t) 16:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Would you like to make that change? I have to run now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
While I don't disagree with the proposed change, given that this sentence has been quoted repeatedly by one stalwart member of the Loyal Opposition at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline (an open RFC), I would prefer postponing any changes until the RFC has closed. Although there haven't been any new comments for two days, I expect to leave it open until the bot closes it (another ~14 days). I don't want the closers to deal with a Misplaced Pages:Close challenge on trivial grounds. (Substantive challenges would be welcome, of course, if the closing summary really is bad, but complaints like "It only stayed open for the length of time prescribed by WP:RFC rather than the length of time in the bot's code" or "They're gaming the system over at that other page" would not be welcome.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. There is no rush. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The policy has basically worked. I haven't seen it weaponized to delete breaking news stories. As far as I know, it's encouraging people to add secondary sources to those types of articles. If someone can find an example where it's been misused, we can try to add some clarification. But there is always the risk of overreach. Trying to describe every exception will usually lead to bad guidance. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
There is a large problem of editors rushing to create articles on breaking news where there is zero clear indication that the event either is going to have enduring coverage, or that could not be covered as part of a larger news topic and serve a more comprehensive purpose. In other words, we really need to realign how editors are creating articles with respect to NOTNEWS and NEVENT, but that's not an issue with NOR, nor with this language specifically. Masem (t) 16:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that's my point. I haven't seen people misusing WP:OR to delete things that shouldn't be deleted. There's a greater problem with WP:NEVENT, and think that referencing / directing people to WP:NOTNEWS would be more useful here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
True, but I do think the reduction in harshness of the language (from "do not" to "should not") is generally a far better alignment with most other content policy languages. The only time we use absolutes like "do not" are for policies like BLP and COPYRIGHT which have legal ramifications. Masem (t) 17:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The primary use of phrases like "Do not" and "must not" is the main MOS page, because bad grammar is bad grammar, and not really a question of judgment or POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Do not → should not is not a softening of the language, though. The former is imperative, the latter (unless as You should not) is not. Remsense ‥ 论 07:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I meant that adding the implied 'you', "you do not base articles..." is stronger than "you should not base articles..." (when along the lines of the MoSCoW method), and we generally only use such absolutes like "you do not" or "must not" in those policies with some legal ramifications. Masem (t) 13:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Masem, I know that's a popular guess – it feels right for legal requirements to sound harsh – but if you actually go look at the legal policies, it isn't actually true. For example:
That's a mere four uses in the first five legal policies in Category:Misplaced Pages legal policies. There are only 10 legal policies in that category.
For comparison, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style says "Do not" 78 times and "must" 22. While I haven't checked every policy, it is likely that the 100 uses on this single page of the MoS uses this language more times than all of the legal policies combined. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen it misused many times but not on breaking news stories. Most have been on "boring" encyclopedic information which secondary sources don't write about. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Should Misplaced Pages restrict itself to things that others have cared enough to have written about? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
In general, yes, but not in an absolute sense. In an article about some celebrity can we use a tweet from the subject for a date of birth if no secondary source has written about it? Yeah, who cares. It's the type of information expected of an encyclopedia, the subject obviously doesn't mind it being published, and it's just not that serious a matter. Should we have an article about a contentious historical event based solely on primary sources? Obviously not for many reasons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Given what I've seen happen in areas of fiction with eager fans, or even back with that whole situation around MMA topics years ago, yes, allowing WP to cover topics that can only be based on primary sources and that no reliable source otherwise covers leads to WP being more like TV Tropes or fan wikis than a serious reference work. Masem (t) 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it is more important to have Misplaced Pages:Independent sources than to have True™ Secondary sources. There will always be some questions about whether certain sources are True™ Independent sources or True™ Secondary sources, but IMO we should never create an article when the only Misplaced Pages:Published sources are indisputably non-independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Time for another installment of “History with Blueboar”… originally this policy stated that WP (itself) should not be a primary source for information (whether facts, analysis or conclusions). This statement tied directly into the concept of NOR. If we add facts, analysis or conclusions that have never been published elsewhere, then WP is the primary source for those facts, analysis or conclusions.
Then someone added that WP should be a tertiary source, and as such should be based (mostly) on secondary sources. This addition wasn’t wrong… but it did not directly tie into NOR.
Then someone else decided that we needed to define these terms (primary, secondary, tertiary). And, as is typical, there was a lot of disagreement and discussion over how best to define them. The end result is what we now see in PSTS.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we lost the original statement (about WP itself not being a primary source) - which was the very reason we were defining all these terms in the first place! We lost the statement that tied PSTS directly to the concept of NOR.
That omission shifted PSTS’s focus from what we say in our articles (NOR) to which sources we use in our articles.
Anyway, that’s the historical background… make of it what you will. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, it does tie into OR. The primary source for a fact is a witness to the fact. (This can include reporters whose job is regularly to go to places to witness and report. It can include scientists who conduct an experiment to write a report. Etc.) Analyses or conclusions or interpretations based on facts not witnessed (not from personal knowledge) are not a primary source for those facts, they are secondary for those facts. (Thus, you can have mixed sources, primary and secondary.) Wikipedians are not to be such original reporters, nor the original publisher of analyses or conclusions or interpretations, or the original mixer of the two. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
If the analysis or conclusion is done by a Wikipedian, then it makes Misplaced Pages the primary (original) source for that analysis or conclusion. The point of NOR is that we report on the analysis or conclusions of others, and don’t include our own analysis or conclusions. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what point you're making that is different from mine. Wikipedians don't write on their experiences, or what they themselves think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, we're not supposed to do that. But one does see it happen.
I do think that moving PSTS to a separate policy page would help with this. Over-reliance on a primary source, if the only thing you're writing is a simple description, is not OR as defined by the first sentence of this policy. For example, if you were the editor starting the article on Cow's Skull: Red, White, and Blue, then you could go look at the primary source (i.e., the painting) in the museum and write "it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue", and use this for your citation:
You're not making anything up, so it's not original research. As soon as you want to say something about the painting being famous, or incorporating southwestern and Native American themes, you need to get a different source, but a simple, basic description of a primary source is a legitimate use, non-OR use of a primary source. Consequently, I think that having admonitions to not use the painting as your sole source for that article should (a) be somewhere in our ruleset, but (b) not be in this particular policy page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
No. It is OR, (the description is only verifiable with the picture as the source but verifiable is different from OR) -- a picture that no one but you cares to write about has no significance in sources, except that you are asserting it has significance because you originally think it does and thus originally publish on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
No, that's not true. "A picture that no one but you cares to write about" might have no significance, but "nobody cares" does not mean that it is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." The definition of OR, as given in this policy, doesn't say anything at all about whether anyone cares. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
BTW, this painting is given as one of the examples in Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. It is true. The idea you are originally creating is its significance. Only you think that it has significance as far as can be told. And yes it can be used as a primary source, but that it is primary means nothing can be asserted about its significance from it alone. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
No, writing an ordinary Misplaced Pages article about a subject does not mean "creating significance" for the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course it does. Indeed probably the most important thing you are saying about the subject is this has significance, so much significance, you need to read about it as the subject in an encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
We require sources to show that a topic is significant as to allow a standalone article on it. We cannot synthesis that significance if the sources aren't there for that. Masem (t) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I've already said that. You can't create that article. It is original, but Wikipedian's, not doing it correctly, sometimes well go on and try to create something they should not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
We require a secondary source to say "This is a significant piece of artwork".
We do not require a secondary source to say "It is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue".
Note that:
  • The primary source is supporting the quoted sentence.
  • The quoted sentence says nothing about significance.
  • The quoted sentence implies nothing about significance.
  • The quoted sentence is not alleged to be the only sentence in the Misplaced Pages article.
  • The primary source is not alleged to be the only source to "exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online" about this subject.
  • The primary source is not alleged to be the only source used to create the Misplaced Pages article, or even the only source cited.
  • The primary source is not alleged to be the basis for notability.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
It makes no sense for you to keep going off into irrelevancies, verifiability is not what this is about, but you keep confusing it with OR. The situation that has been set down is that there is no secondary source, and the only thing is the picture, the picture can't tell anyone anything about its significance including the significance of its appearance, but you writing about it in the pedia is asserting that factoid has significance (it apparently has significance originally to you, but no one else). Now sure, Wikipedians may be want to add all kinds of factoids from primary sources, they like or think important, and thus originally (only in Misplaced Pages) change the presentations of any subject, or create the worthiness of subjects to the world, but they definitely should not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
If you are arguing that we “imply” the conclusion that the painting is in some way significant merely by creating an article about it, my reaction would be: Meh… that is stretching the NOR policy a bit. I think what you are discussing is more a violation of WP:Notability than a violation of WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
No. 'We don't want what you want to share with the world, just because you (and only you) think it is important .' Nor is original research another way to say verifiability. And it is not just new "original" (literally) subjects, its well established subjects, reformed (by you) with original (because its important to you) facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's correct. We do want what people want to share with the world, because they think it is important – so long as they have reliable sources to back it up. WP:OR is about verifiability. OR is defined in this policy as the non-existence of sources (anywhere in the world, in any language) that could support the contents. It is not defined as "stuff you (and only you) think is important". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course, it is correct. "Only you" means that that there is no reliable source for significance. You practically acknowledged its correctness when you wrote, "reliable sources to back it up", which can only mean appropriate reliable sources for significance, and the writer can't be a reliable source for significance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Notability (i.e., the process of qualifying for a Misplaced Pages:Separate, stand-alone article) does not require importance/significance. "Insignificant" subjects can and do get articles.
We require that sources cover the subject. We do not require that sources indicate that the subject has any "significance". If someone writes a book about The Least Significant Book Ever Published, then that book would be a valid subject for an article.
Perhaps we're talking about different things. I'm saying that a primary source is a valid way of verifying some statements in articles.
Perhaps you are saying that having a whole article requires some evidence of "attention from the world at large", even if that attention does not declare the subject to be significant (or, indeed, declares it to be of no importance whatsoever). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you are reading what I write. I'm not just talking about whole articles. And perhaps it will help you, if you realize I am using important solely in the sense of 'a matter of import'- meaning. And no, we don't put things in the pedia that have no significance, we relate the significance others through reliable sources give them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know. Do you think that Bennifer is 'a matter of import'? I don't, but the article has 66 sources at the moment, and I've no hope of being able to get that out of Misplaced Pages.
I give that article as an example of a subject that I personally believe has no significance and is not 'a matter of import' (to anyone except the individuals directly involved). Additionally, I doubt that we could find any sources directly claiming that I'm wrong. If "we don't put things in the pedia that have no significance", then this article shouldn't exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Is it are you not comprehending reliance on sources or neutrality? What you think about import is nothing we are to relate, either way. We are not to be the original publisher of whatever import you think to give something. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
No, Alan, I didn't go off into irrelevancies. You read what I wrote, which was about a valid source for a single, specific sentence, and you jumped straight to the unsupportable conclusion that there was no secondary source in the whole world about the article's subject and no other sentence in the whole article.
The situation that has been set down is – and I quote – "if you were the editor starting the article on Cow's Skull: Red, White, and Blue, then you could go look at the primary source (i.e., the painting) in the museum and write "it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue"", and you could cite the painting for that one sentence.
The situation that was actually set down says nothing at all about the rest of the sources or the rest of the article. It only talks about a single sentence and a single source for that single sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. You do go into irrelevancies. Because the situation I addressed added that there is no secondary source. It was extending fact pattern not jumping to anything, and also addressing the matter in the context of this discussion basing articles on secondary sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The situation I described did not say that no secondary source existed ("somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online", to quote this policy). It said that no secondary source was required for the specific sentence I provided. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
So, you are saying much that is irrelevant to my points. Which is the situation of no secondary source, in a discussion about basing articles on secondary sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
If we're trimming paragraphs that secondary sources haven't written about, then the policy is working. It's impossible to write a reliable unbiased encyclopedia without reliable independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker, Misplaced Pages:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
That's true, but the venn diagram is a strong overlap in most articles. This thread is about the thin side of the venn diagram, where journalists are effectively eyewitnesses, which is a valid thing to bring up. Several editors have said that the main point of the policy shouldn't be bulldozed for the more rare / less common cases. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to recognize the fact that our particular PST definitions are wiki-definitions, contained in a few general paragraphs. They are a key part of a policy that emphasizes that analysis of the item and any derivations from information should be done by others rather than by Misplaced Pages editors. Under those definitions, some sources will be clearly primary, some will be clearly secondary, but a whole lot of them will not clearly be one or the other. If one takes on the premise that some tidy perfection and completeness exists such that every source can be unambiguously classified, then it doesn't work out. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, indeed, there are sources that are both and one thing that is needed there, is to use parts of them appropriately -- among others things the general rule stresses is, be very familiar with the sources. Teaching both, 1) what part of being familiar with a source is, and 2) how to use it appropriately.
On some slightly different matters, I also note we have no definition, and probably disagreement on what 'news' exactly is 'breaking news', and how to draw that edge in the sand, and I have even seen good argument to me that the species we write on are (all) sourced to secondary. In short, that there are edge cases and uncertainties is always going to happen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
It often feels like the definition of primary is "source supporting an article I don't want to have", and secondary is "source supporting an article I do want to have". The idea that all sources are primary for something is not one we've done a good job of communicating to editors.
This is an imperfect example, but I've seen editors evaluate NCORP sources like this:
  • It's a piece of long-form journalism in a respected newspaper.
  • The third paragraph says something about last year's profitability.
  • Conclusion: The whole article should be treated like a press release, because there's no way a journalist could get that information from any source except the company itself. Actions like interviewing someone at the company, poking around the corporate website, reading their press releases, etc. makes the journalist and the whole newspaper non-independent of the company.
  • Alternate conclusion: That sentence about profitability means the whole source needs to be discarded as routine coverage of trivial information.
Some people are arguing this way because they're copying what they've seen other editors do the same (and get respect for it), but I think it's often just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT dressed up in an acceptable bit of WP:UPPERCASE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems that we have lost the ability to look at current (including breaking) news events from what should be a 10-year viewpoint, and instead 1) want to rush to create an article on any breaking event regardless if other existing articles are better suited for that event and 2) justify that event being notable by including an excessive amount of detail included the dreaded reaction sections to make it appear that the number of sources make the event notable. Eg Arrest of Pavel Durov is an excellent example of this problem, how we have a huge article on what is a tiny step of a long process, which likely if we were writing for the first time but 10 years after it happened, would have been maybe one to two sentences in an existing article with all we know (at this point in time). The idea that we allow such stories to be created and then consider deletion or cleanup later is antithetical, as anyone that has tried deleted a news article that has shown no lasting significance after a few years knows this is very difficult to inform editors that a burst of coverage is not equivalent to being notable. Masem (t) 12:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Turning each news story into an article is a problem. I think that kind of thing is best dealt with at WP:NOTNEWS or Misplaced Pages:Notability (events), and isn't really about whether a source is primary or secondary. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. We should not be doing those news of the day articles at all, but we are not going to stop it, apparently with anything, no matter what is written here or anywhere else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that the defacto reality is that if it is of sky-is-blue extreme importance (like the top 1 -2 news events per week for the entire EN:Misplaced Pages) we break the rule and immediately make an article, even if it's from just primary sources.That exception is numerically very rare but highly visible because it takes up half of the top of the Misplaced Pages main page. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
What's important to why news articles apply to this discussion is that even truly appropriate news events may likely go with non primary sources (that is, strictly covered by factual news reporting) for data, weeks, or months. Something like a major natural disaster will fall into that. We don't want changes her at NOR to interfere with such developments but at the same time make sure changes here don't open the floodgates to even more news articles that fail to have significance. (edited) Masem (t) 14:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Masem: I agree. I think that pointing out what I did, that this highly visible rare exception is merely that helps that cause. North8000 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Masem, I'm not sure what you mean by non primary sources (that is, strictly covered by factual news reporting). Are you saying that something that is "strictly covered by factual news reporting" is not a primary source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I meant just primary sources, not non primary ones — Masem (t) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure. As much as I think those articles are really bad for many reasons, I console myself with them being a relatively small number, although I don't care to find out what the number actually is (so don't try to disabuse me of that notion, please:)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we need to recognize the fact that our particular PST definitions are wiki-definitions? No. Go to primary source and secondary source for the definitions. If you don’t like the definitions, fix them, with reliable sources. The paraphrasing in this policy should be read as subject to referring to the articles. The bold direct linking to the mainspace articles is highly appropriate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The definitions in the Misplaced Pages articles depend on the subject area (e.g., legal scholars say that tertiary sources don't exist). We sort of pick and choose which definitions we want to use, so perhaps it's not unfair to say that they are our own definitions, based heavily on the real-world scholarly definitions from history and science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea which legal scholars you are referring to but tertiary sources exist in legal scholarship. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
It is much better to acknowledge and agree that an encyclopedia is in the field of historiography, and then to use the historiography definitions.
It is a worse idea for Misplaced Pages to invent new definitions, based on history and science or otherwise. New definitions can’t be researched more deeply. Precedent for recurring problems can’t be resolved from examples if we use made up definitions.
Blurring or mixing history into science sounds dooms to generate more problems than it solves.
The historiography definitions are perfectly good. The science definitions of primary and secondary sources are wholly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. The journalism definitions, despite someone asserting that good journalism is good scholarship, have too many points of incongruity for mixing historiography and journalism to be anything but a bad idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's definition of "notability" is its own. In dictionaries, the primary definition is "worthy of note", but our WP:GNG corresponds more closely with "noted". I've had to explain this a number of times, sympathetically, to new article creators who've insisted that the subjects of their articles were—using real-world terminology—notable. Often I disagreed that the subjects were even worthy of note, but I couldn't fault them for their confusion. Largoplazo (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. It’s a long known problem, this Misplaced Pages neologism “notability”. I have been preferring to use “Misplaced Pages-notability”, to distinguish it from the real world term. It’s unfortunate. “Misplaced Pages-notability” means “the topic has been covered by reliable others”, which is close to “noted”. Misplaced Pages neologisms create newcomer barriers, and should be avoided even if only for that reason alone. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
It should have been changed long ago, but I think the last time it came up formally, a kind of fait accompli won the day. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Yup… if I had a Time Machine, I would go back and strongly recommend that we call the guideline WP:Notedness (as that terminology is closer to what we mean) … but… it is too late to change it now. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I would prefer something more explanatory, like WP:Requirements for a separate article or WP:Eligibility standards for articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:Stand alone? : 'This article Stands.' This article does not Stand." "Stand alone is a test . . ." Such might also make discussion less binary, bringing merge or redirect more to fore as compromise consensus. If only we had that time machine, but consensus can change, right? :) Just not so easy to get a new one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

(I have no idea how indented this comment should be.) I have to say I would strongly prefer the existing language's directness. In WP:CGR we have a problem of editors paraphrasing Livy's first pentad and calling that reliably sourced. It isn't. Having once edited on a breaking news event, I also recognise that sometimes there are no secondary sources to be citing. If anything needs changing, it should probably be contextual rather than across the board, ie weakened only when secondary source coverage on a topic is weak or non-existent. Notability shouldn't be an issue here; a plethora of independent primary sources can still establish notability. Ifly6 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that most people who hang around AFD and related guidance pages don't agree that independent primary sources can justify a Misplaced Pages:Separate, stand-alone article, though they seem willing to extend a reasonable (often multi-year) grace period to major news events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Is NOR really a factor at AFD? Sure, individual sentences (and on occasion entire paragraphs) might get cut due to NOR violations… but deleting an entire article? I don’t think that happens all that often. It’s seen as more of an “Article clean-up” issue, and not a “Deletion” issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I've never seen t be directly a factor at AFD. But this area of NOR overlaps with GNG, and wp:notability is the main factor at AFD. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
It looks like it's mentioned in something on the order of 5% of AFDs. Here are a few current/recent examples:
WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
In spite of WP:PRESERVE, I don't think "articles that would merit inclusion if written competently should never be deleted for their present state" is actually defensible as a position. It's understandable that WP:BLOWITUP cases are rare because an editor adopting it as their pet project to delete as many OR (etc.) article as possible will do result in harm—but it's mystifying to me that it's rarely acknowledged that some articles are a net negative and should not be allowed to remain on the site for potentially years in the hopes that they will be rewritten. (The retort of "so fix it" falls a bit flat if one actually accepts the calculation that deletion would be a net improvement, hence is a fix for it.) Remsense ‥ 论 04:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, it's as if some people want to believe a Misplaced Pages article is not actually published and that webhosting is some kind of improvement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense, I wonder if you could describe the kinds of articles that are a net negative, and don't qualify for deletion. Obviously something that qualifies for (e.g.) {{db-hoax}} or {{db-no content}} would be negative for readers, but I'm sure that isn't what you're talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
What springs to mind immediately are articles that are about a viable subtopic/intersection—let's make one up, Karl Marx and nationalism. Reams have been written about this intersection to the extent that it can be distinguished from related subtopic articles, even. But if someone started this with no sourcing, it would be a net negative unless someone completely rewrote it and included sources that could actually be made use of by the readership. Remsense ‥ 论 00:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Given an uncited article, why delete it, instead of spamming in a couple of refs? You spend a few minutes in your WP:BEFORE search finding books like these:
and you drop them in the article. If it says something reasonable, or if you can quickly WP:STUBIFY it back to something reasonable, then why would we want to choose WP:DELETE instead of WP:SOFIXIT? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Where NOR is a reason for deletion, it is the extreme case of it that is covered by WP:N. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

A source can be used if it is published, reliable and citable without OR. The P/S/T classification system is a malicious invention designed to make that harder to understand. Zero 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Primary and secondary source distinction is a mature, and very useful analytical tool of historiography. Refer to the articles. WP space should not be redefining real world terms.
Historiography is the right field to choose to put Misplaced Pages into. It is history, it is not science or journalism. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zero0000, we really didn't invent PSTS to complicate matters. It's just that having it on this particular page is a sort of a historical accident. WP:NOR basically started with that Usenet crank trying use Misplaced Pages to host his debunking of Einstein (remember him?). So we said, in a rather fancy way, that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a primary source, and if you want to publish your new ideas about physics, you need to do that some place else.
Then not everyone knew what "primary source" meant, so we had to explain what a primary source is, and then people ask that since Misplaced Pages isn't a primary source, what is it?, and bit by very reasonable bit, half a sentence turned into a whole section that is really more about notability and NPOV than about whether editors are SYNTHing a bunch of cherry-picked sources to prove that modern physics is wrong. But it's here now, and it might take divine intervention to get it moved elsewhere (or, as I suggested a while back, put into its own policy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I'm under no illusions about the difficulty of backing off from the mess in this article, which has been a bugbear of mine forever. My comment, though written in a flippant manner, arises from real concern over how the P/S/T divide obscures rather than clarifies the simple principles of source usage. Of course I know that that wasn't the intention. I'll post a longer critique soon. Zero 02:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:PSTS is the intellectual basis for NOR in the affirmative, even if the early authors didn’t realise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, it is. Just to use the given subject and cherry-picking. This is not the place for you to publish what you think about relativity, its for you to faithfully relate what others have said through qualified reliable sources.
You can't originally publish, or originally publish on, the Einstein letter (primary source) you found in your research in Misplaced Pages's relativity article (that is original research).
You can't create a new article alone about that letter (that is an original purported secondary source the Wikidian made).
You can't publish what you think about that letter (that is you creating a purported secondary, or secondary and tertiary source originally made by the Wikidian).
Cherry-picking is what the Wikipedian does (but should not) -- unless qualified reliable secondary and/or to a lesser extent qualified reliable tertiary sources have already picked it up and examined it, it is Wikipedian cherry picking. And you can't (originally) misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, in your writing, here, so it is good for you to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and what they can and cannot support.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
But you also mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:V purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:V to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and you mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:N purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:N to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and you mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:BLP purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:BLP to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and you mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:RS purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:RS to have some idea of what such qualified sources are, and you mustn't misuse primary, secondary, or tertiary sources for WP:NPOV purposes, so it would be good for readers of WP:NPOV to have some idea of what such qualified sources are. This concept, like the concept of Misplaced Pages:Independent sources, is bigger than a single policy. That's why I think it should have its own page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Readers of V are to know all three central content policies. Readers of NPOV are to know all three central content policies. Readers of BLP policy must know all three central content policies. So, it is not better to multiply, if anything, it is better to integrate. In these policies we are generally trying to answer three fundamental questions in a situation where "we" is anonymous, individually unaccountable for what we do, but must work together to present our work: how do we know what we know, how do we prove what we know, and how do we present what we know. But the answers to those questions by their nature are not going to be separate, they are going to be interrelated aspects. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
“it is better to integrate”. Yes. Two important policies, V and NOR, are better combined. Merge them into WP:Attribution, which contains PSTS. PSTS, although maybe not Tertiary, is fundamental to NOR, and fits seemlessly into V. I regret opposing WP:A. It was the right idea, badly implemented.
WP:NPOV is a bit different. It should remain a separate policy, in some ways the most important policy. It is the fundamental of #1 in WP:Trifecta. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the diagnosis, but I'm not sure about the cure. There are a lot of concepts that have taken on their own technical meaning on Misplaced Pages. Notability is one of them, and so is PSTS. I'm not sure where the right place is for them, but there's nothing stopping someone from WP:BOLDly writing an essay if they think it's the right course. I wish I could think of a better solution but it escapes me right now. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
As with wp:notability, step 1 would require acknowledging the unacknowledged way that Misplaced Pages actually works (when it works). Which is editors making editorial decisions influenced by policies, guidelines and other considerations. (vs.binary flow-chart blocks) For the types of situations described above this would be:
  1. Explaining what wp:nor seeks to avoid. And understanding that there are matters of degree of this. (we call the safer non-controversial types "writing in summary style", and the ones at the other end of the spectrum are bright line policy violations)
  2. Explaining PST and how secondary means that somebody else has done the synthesis rather than the wiki editor.
  3. Then per Misplaced Pages:How editing decisions are made editors make the decision on what to put in, influenced by the above
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that PSTS is about "what wp:nor seeks to avoid". NOR seeks to avoid having editors make stuff up, whether by making it up completely ("Fairies came to my house last night") or by SYNTHing it up ("These 37 cherry-picked sources, when assembled by me to produce claims that none of them WP:Directly support, prove I'm right and Einstein is wrong"). You don't need to know anything about PSTS to discover that these are wrong.
I did a quick search for comments in the Misplaced Pages: namespace that mention the word secondary this year. Two-thirds of them were in AFDs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that my 6 word summary of the goals of a core policy is inevitably going to have issues. The slightly longer version would say that the sourcing type distinctions are a component of wp:nor. And of course, wp:nor seeks to avoid certain things. North8000 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • It can both be the case that there is widespread misunderstanding of primary versus secondary sources, which is a media literacy concept and not a Misplaced Pages concept, and that the practice is that many articles rely more on primary sources than the policies and guidelines advise. However, that's not necessarily a problem that needs to be proactively solved since every article and everything in the project is a constantly evolving and changing work in progress. I would say more primary sources is just the natural state for a newsy item, and over time, secondary sources should replace them. So it's reasonable for the policy advice to say "don't base an article entirely on primary sources," but if those are the best sources available, like with other guidelines, exceptions and discretion exist. Andre🚐 21:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • The policy is fine. There are a multitude of issues with relying on primary sources on a site that anyone can edit. The fact that it gets ignored is not a reason to disregard the policy. Articles that rely on primary sources are some of the worst in terms of quality excluding stubs and the like. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, exactly. If anything this policy should be strengthened and better-enforced. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Routine measurements

EDIT: Proposal withdrawn, see my reply to @Zero below

I propose that Routine calculations be amended to include routine measurements. I'm not talking about de facto unverifiable cases like "I have exclusive access to object A and have measured its size to be x  ×  y  ×  z, so I should be allowed to include this fact here because anyone could verify this (IF they ever get access to the same)". What I mean are things like measuring the distance between two geographical points on a map that can be verified with minimal effort by literally anyone. For example, it's common for {{Routemap}}s to include distances between stops/stations, even though this information is rarely provided explicitly by transportation authorities (or any other reliable sources) — but they do provide detailed maps of their routes and editors are using those to measure the distances. 58.136.41.76 (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Making measurements from a map has been discussed before, and it is interpretation of a document. In my mind, a measurement, routine or otherwise, would involve measurement of the original object, such as measuring the distances between a series of bus stops with a Total station. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Which would you say is closer to the concept of OR, that "interpreting a document" anyone can repeat if they have a minute, or walking around with a specialized tool very few other people could duplicate the results with? I would say in this case a map would be a secondary source generated by experts in their field (which would be "read", not "interpreted") and Mother Nature would be the primary source. Or would you seriously expect there to be stuff like peer-reviewed papers or NYT articles on distances between random map points that would be closer to the concept of a secondary source than the map itself is? I don't disagree that what you describe is a purer form of taking measurements, but we're talking about this in the context of OR. 58.9.132.210 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Readers are meant to be able to verify anything they read in an article. Measurements that can only be verified using anything more rarified than a ruler is likely totally going against our verification policy. This is distinct from citing a source stating the measurement, so there would logically seem to be greater restrictions as to what can be considered verifiable.Remsense ‥ 论 12:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
When I said "read", not "interpreted" I meant that if maps were made by describing locations, distances between them, etc. with words instead of pictures, one presumably wouldn't say quoting such statements was "interpreting" them or there was a great burden to verify them (because they speak for themselves as a secondary source). Just because the data is represented in a different way doesn't mean that accessing and re-representing it has to be conceptually very different. A "direct quote" in this case would be a map image, perhaps with a line drawn between points A and B, and that can be put in your own words (or in this case numbers) in exactly the same way a prose statement can be re-represented by an editor. And a ruler is exactly all you need in this particular case, the fact that nowadays it's more likely to be a software-based ruler is conceptually irrelevant. 58.9.132.210 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you and think about this a lot. I think the basic process I've found viable to systematize this is outlining every claim apparently made by piece of media, "converted" into bullet points (likely in shorthand if we're actually doing it, of course). I think it's obvious we should be able to say a map with a key and sufficient precision can make specific claims analogous to those a paragraph could make.Remsense ‥ 论 12:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think using a map and key to calculate distances is “Original research”… however, such calculations should be phrased as being approximate. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Every measurement is approximate, so I think it depends. Generally, it would seem best to hew to less clunky wording unless there's a specific reason for precision to matter. It is generally considered unreasonable for a reader to assume an author means to say that New York is exactly 700.0 miles (1,126.541 km) from Chicago. Remsense ‥ 论 13:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense Exactly. Besides, if a reputable newspaper or a scientific paper would state "the distance between station A and station B is 2.34 km", in most cases it's highly unlikely that they'd be basing this off independent terrain measurements, they'd take this information from a map just like any Misplaced Pages editor or reader can. So such statements would provide zero added value in terms of verification. 58.9.132.210 (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:V calls for everything written on Misplaced Pages to be, not a copy of but, therefore, in a sense, editors' interpretations of information found in documents. Measuring distance on a map (albeit it has to be a map of a small enough area for the scale to be sufficiently precise for any measurement in any direction within its edges) might be considered to be at that level of interpretation, rather than at the level that WP:OR is concerned with. Largoplazo (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Right now, the policy says

"Source information does not need to be in prose form: any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources."

A map is a source, just like a book is. There are reliable and unreliable maps, just as there are reliable and unreliable books. The question here is what "straightforward reading" of a map means, but the principle is really no different from understanding a book. It depends on what type of map it is. Straightforward reading of a geological map might be that some region is primarily basalt, while straightforward reading of a railway map might be that there is a track between A and B. If a map is professionally designed to be spatially precise, such as a large scale map by a national survey agency, taking straight-line distances and directions (to reasonable precision) from the map is straightforward reading. However, taking the lengths of roads and rivers is not straightforward reading (unless they are printed on the map) because not even the best maps show all the little wriggles and measuring a wriggly line is error-prone. The essential point is that if a map is reliable for a datum, then you can cite the datum to the map. Of course, none of this applies to an unreliable map, which is an unreliable source end of story. Zero 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Well jiggedy gee, Misplaced Pages sure is a useful place, because TIL that I'm a genius who can spend an hour making impassionate pleas about something already covered perfectly well in the section right above the one I was on about... I think probably what happened was that since I don't think of maps when I see the word "media", I misinterpreted the section title to mean that it'd be about A/V, etc. and didn't give it proper attention. (Maybe the title could be reworded as something like "Acceptable media and data formats" to accommodate geniuses like myself?)
Apologies to everyone whose time I wasted with this stunt! Consider my proposal withdrawn, unless someone can think of other cases with measurements that might be good to mention in the policy. I didn't really have anything else in mind aside from distances from maps. 58.9.132.210 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Sensible, well-intentioned suggestions are always welcome.
Also, please consider visiting Special:CreateAccount so that your personal information (e.g., which ISP you're using) isn't visible to everyone on the internet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
BTW, @Zero, since you're an admin, can you do something about the edit summaries on and here? This has nothing to do with me, I just noticed these when looking at history and thought this probably shouldn't be there, (I pinged a RevDel admin, but they haven't responded.) 49.228.98.239 (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

"No original research" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect No original research has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § No original research until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"

A disagreement has arisen at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Can't Catch Me Now/archive1, with a user insisting that mentioning that the artist's previous album received critical acclaim and was primarily produced by the same producer as this song is a NOR violation. They insist that a source that mentions those details must also mention the newer song or else those details cannot be included in the Background section. I have never seen this part of the guideline be interpreted that way. Can people familiar with the guideline help us with a neutral opinion? Thanks.--NØ 05:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be at WP:NORN. Zero 12:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Did not know that existed. I will take it there. Thanks.--NØ 13:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

A little "thought bubble" in my userspace - perhaps this might be useful?

Hi all,

I've just created this little essay.

Useful? Redundant? Something else? Your opinions requested.

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Naming what's depicted in an image (including paintings) is complex. Generally, if it's obvious (e.g., anyone familiar with the area, or looking at a map of the area, would come to the same conclusion), then editors are satisfied. Otherwise, I'd suggest looking around the next time you're in the museum for a sign that describes it (or maybe a page on their website), and using {{cite sign}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"WPSECONDARY" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WPSECONDARY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31 § WPSECONDARY until a consensus is reached. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"WP;OR" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP;OR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1 § WP;OR until a consensus is reached. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Parallel citations to primary sources

Should citations of secondary sources – especially ancient ones – include parallel citations of primary sources? What I call a parallel citation of a primary source is something such as:

  • Mouritsen Politics in the Roman Republic (2017) p 121 n 40, citing Cicero, Pro Sestio, 97 or
  • Cornell Beginnings of Rome (1995) p 331, citing Livy, 6.11.7

The parallel portions are the portions underlined above. In both these cases, the secondary source is actually citing those primary sources in analogous way (as with most works in classical studies, the citations are abbreviated).

I guess there are also three positions here: (1) people prefer including them, (2) people don't prefer inclusion or exclusion, and (3) people prefer removing them. I've normally written with (1), except when constructing the parallel citations is tedious, but other people's contributions show (2) is probably modal. That said, one or two people have yelled at me for pressing for parallel citations' inclusion, and I guess they might hold (3).

And then at the higher level, if consensus exists for 1, 2, or 3 should we write anything on it? Ifly6 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ifly6, GA isn't supposed to be concerned with citation formatting – see Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria#cite note-3 and the brightly highlighted text in Misplaced Pages:What the Good article criteria are not – so why is this question even coming up? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering this too. What's this about? EEng 06:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay, omit the GA review portion then. First, it doesn't matter. I mentioned it only to avoid accusations that I am inventing hypotheticals for drama. Second, quoting the GA criteria doesn't address an underlying point – which is substantive as to what is being cited and not a question of formatting – whether inclusion of parallel citations is unacceptable reliance on primary sources, ie original research. Ifly6 (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
But it does matter. Are you saying you just thought up this question out of nowhere? If so, no one's gonna want to spend their time on it. Or did it come up in some article you're working on? If so, show us and maybe we can get somewhere. Your question -- whether inclusion of parallel citations is unacceptable reliance on primary sources, ie original research -- is vague and confusing unless it's grounded in some actual example. EEng 07:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
If so, no one's gonna want to spend their time on it – Dubious–discuss? I love a good hypothetical. 8-)
Ifly6, I think the answer to your question is in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You can't be "relying on" Livy if you actually read it in Cornell. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the parallel citation could be useful. A reader who doesn't have the source cited could look up the same classical passage in some other modern work and see if it supports what the Misplaced Pages article says. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the parallel citation (eg , citing Livy, 6.11.7) is defended by WP:SAYWHERE inasmuch as the claim is there. But should such parallel citations be included in the first place? Ifly6 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Such citations do no harm, and might be occasionally helpful… but I don’t think we need a rule about them. Whether to parallel cite is a decision that can be left up to individual editors… it should be neither encouraged nor discouraged by policy. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
What circumstances do you think are suitable for their removal? Ifly6 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Offhand, I'd consider removing it if the cited work were unpublished (e.g., citing personal communication), unimportant to the content (citing some routine reference work), or unknown (e.g., citing a book no one knows about – in fact, I'd expect it to be pretty close to famous, or extremely relevant, like "Alice's book, citing Bob's autobiography" for a statement about Bob). I'd probably also remove it if the ref is used for multiple different things, and only one of them was citing the named source.
I would not normally use this style in scientific subjects, either. I prefer just "Systematic review of efficacy for Wonderpam", not "Systematic review of efficacy for Wonderpam, citing Original Pilot Study". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Those are all reasonable reasons on first glance. Musing, I would think that most sources routinely cited in classics (Livy, Dio, Plutarch, Polybius, etc) would fall between those: they are published, they are important to the content because they are usually the only primary source (or one of few), and they are definitely not unknown. Ifly6 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
No, I said that I mentioned it only to avoid accusations that I am inventing hypotheticals for drama. The origin of this question was in this GA review (myself reviewing), where I encouraged parallel citations – to get ahead of a possible reply that this is not in the GA criteria, (1) I passed the article, (2) encouragements are not requirements, (3) imo if there is anywhere a parallel citation is reasonable, it is in a statement that some author says Livy says XYZ, and (4) GA reviewer instructions state You may also make suggestions for further improvements, if appropriate. – and was then told Again, that is not what Misplaced Pages is here to do. If someone's interest is piqued, the secondary sources are there for them to consult. They in turn contain citations referencing the primary sources. That is how Misplaced Pages works. Ifly6 (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, obviously you can't force the nom to take your suggestion, but WP:SAYWHERE plainly authorizes the voluntary use of the style you recommended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Award controversy vis a vis with the recipient and SYNTH

Does it constitute WP:SYNTH to indirectly discredit a subject's award by mentioning the controversy on the subject's page given the citation does not mention the subject at all.

To summise. Channel 1915 mentioned on Sam Verzosa's page that the Gusi Peace Prize was under controversy because the organizer of the award is allegedly posing as an ambassador to artificially inflate his own and by extension the award's prestige. This implies that Verzosa potentially received a sham award. But the problem is the given citation Spot.ph does not mention Verzosa by name. The article only directly paints Barry Gusi in a negative light and none of the recipients.

@Channel 1915 has accused me of censorship over this and I need some third party feedback on this. Thanks! Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This page is really for discussions of the high level-policy wording, not for problems with specific articles. I'd suggest continuing to seek consensus on the article talk page itself, and if you get no interest there asking at WP:VPM. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I've settled the disagreement with the editor. I'll consider my options to how to move things forward. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I forgot Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard. That might be the best place. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor-created images based on text descriptions

An editor is creating multiple images themselves, uploading them to Commons, and then posting the images to Misplaced Pages articles. Let me explain the situation and why I am posting about it here, instead of the OR Noticeboard. This editor is fairly new and seem to be doing this interpretive editing in good faith with the images being clearly-marked either as a "digital reconstruction" or as a "digital remake". They are basing their images on written published sources...but. But these images are created interpretations, they are not published elsewhere, they are being published directly onto Wikimedia platforms, in Misplaced Pages's voice, so yes, this would all seem to be original research. But there is nothing that specifically addresses this issue in the No original research guideline, so it seems to me that some specific wording about this image issue should be added to the Original images section, something along the lines of:

Created images of historical items that are previously unpublished interpretations unavailable elsewhere are original research and even though these images are or might be based on text descriptions in published sources any such images should be removed.

Also, in light of developing technology and AI, this is a type of issue that can come up anywhere within the Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia platforms and we need to get out ahead of it. Similar images could possibly pollute our historical information streams with created images. I mean, have you seen the "AI suggestions" that are now prominently displayed on the first line of Google Searches? What I've been seeing is that they are often thin paraphrases of Misplaced Pages articles, so just wait until the "AI Suggestion" bot gets a hold of created interpretations of historical items based only on written descriptions - the images will be repeated and repeated... Anyway, would appreciate any thoughts on adding a line about "created images, even though only based on written descriptions..." etc., etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

We've already seen examples of AI images uploaded based on text descriptions. I'd support an addition to the guidance along these lines. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I wasn't aware of the AI images, but I suppose is possible in this particular instance that these images are actually AI-generated... Upon re-reading my suggestion above I think it should be/could be re-crafted into:
Created images of historical items that are previously unpublished and are unavailable elsewhere are original research. Even if these images are or might be based on text descriptions in published sources these images are interpretations not actual historical images of these items and any such images should be removed from Misplaced Pages pages.
Is this new sentence better? - Shearonink (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd suggest splitting up the issue into two new sentences, one in each paragraph of OI. First: "Original images that are previously unpublished interpretations of text descriptions are considered original research and should not be included." Second would be something specifically relating to AI-generated images, which probably warrants a separate discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah ok, that makes sense. - Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
We might need a community-wide RfC regarding AI-generated images (and even editor-created drawings/sketches/cartoons/paintings, particularly of BLP subjects, in general). I don't believe we have any sort of policy or guidance that addresses these issues. Some1 (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Possibly? But (shrug) I do not agree. These images, whether they are editor-created or they are AI-generated...these images are clearly original research, which is against a stated Misplaced Pages policy and which, seems to me is inextricably connected to the policy of Verifiability. Others may disagree - and that is fine - but I do not think a RfC is needful or warranted. - Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
There was a big discussion about user generated images of people awhile ago, I'm not going to dig around for it now. I don't believe it come to any conclusive consensus, most of the images were removed but I don't believe all of them. If I remember correctly the contention was between having artists impression to improve articles with, and concerns over quality and OR. Take that with some salt, as I wasn't overly impressed with some of the images and so may have a biased memory of it. If no-one else brings it up I'll try and find a link to it once I have a bit more time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks - Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Here are some discussions I'm aware of, not sure if any of them are the one you're thinking of: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#WP:USERG_portraits, Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_190#AI-generated_images, Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Cartoon_portraits. Plus there's WP:AIIMAGE. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria, those discussions are very useful - I'm reading through all of them now. Will take me quite a while... - Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
These images, whether they are editor-created or they are AI-generated...these images are clearly original research Oh, I definitely agree with you. I had to revert an amateurish drawing of a BLP subject recently and the editor was quite upset about it. It'd be nice to have something written in policy that directly addresses these issues (AI-generated images/editor-created drawings/sketches/cartoons/paintings, etc). I believe the only place to add something into policy is the Village Pump via RfC. Some1 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right, that a broad RfC at the Village Pump is needed. I do think it is important to have some sort of policy/guideline in place sooner rather than later...
Also. Personally, I am of the opinion that the guideline against OR should stand, whether or not the OR is text or the OR is an image. If the text is not found in a published reliable source then it simply cannot be used. The same would seem to be true and should be true for an image - after all, they are both content. - Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't see "previously unpublished" as being the right criterion -- surely the publication needs to be in a reliable source. But I'm not sure even that's enough, because in my experience publications that are careful about the text they publish are sometimes a bit loosey-goosey about images. I feel we should allow images such as the lead image in Matthew the APostle, and not editor-created stuff, but I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn or how to describe it. EEng 04:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. Perhaps this is better:
Original images posted onto Misplaced Pages pages that are previously unpublished in reliable sources and that are created interpretations of text descriptions are considered original research and should not be included.
Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Should we start a workshopping section below? I'm thinking something along the lines of:
AI-generated images and user-created artwork (such as original drawings, sketches, paintings, cartoons) posted onto Misplaced Pages articles that are previously unpublished in reliable sources are considered original research and should not be included.
Some1 (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. I agree a workshopping section should be started, either here or over on the Village pump:technical. - Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Try this:
Drawings, sketches, paintings, cartoons, AI-generated images, and so on not previously published in reliable sources are original research and therefore should not be used in articles.
This removes some stuff in the previous proposal that's actually irrelevant (e.g. doesn't matter whether or not it's "posted to Misplaced Pages" -- it's OR either way). I also removed the bit about "user-created" since if it's not from an RS, it's OR no matter who created it. I considered changing should not to must not, but I'm not absolutely certain there aren't acceptable edge cases. EEng 16:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely right about the OR *but* I think the proscription against "user-generated" images should be explicitly and plainly stated even if it does seem somewhat repetitious to us experienced editors. - Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
OK:
Drawings, sketches, paintings, cartoons, AI-generated images, and so on (whether created by editors or by others) not previously published in reliable sources are original research and therefore should not be used in articles.
EEng 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The only further adjustment I might make would be to state "must not" - or to add "must not - instead of "should not". "Should not" implies possible permission, "must not" says no way, don't do it. So maybe something like...
Drawings, sketches, paintings, cartoons, AI-generated images, and other illustrations (whether created by editors or by others) not previously published in reliable sources are original research and therefore must not - and should not - be used in articles.
Shearonink (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean, the lead image for Gisèle Pelicot is fine, and ran on the front page. File:Light dispersion conceptual waves.gif is fine, and featured. File:Chloralkali membrane.svg is fine, and featured. File:Visit of the Mandelbulb (4K UHD; 50FPS).webm is fine, and featured on enWiki, faWiki, and commons. File:Pi-unrolled-720.gif is a good illustration, featured here and on commons, and a former featured picture of the day. The current draft would exclude high quality and encyclopedic images like these. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Was this edit the one where you removed the "amateurish" drawing of a BLP? That image was created by a notable professional artist. If so, that's at least twice this year that an editor has complained about a drawings being "amateurish" when they should be saying something a lot closer to "by a professional artist whose artistic style is not my personal favorite". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't realize the person was a "professional artist" when I first removed the image from the infobox, so "amateurish" might not be the right word to use now. Hindsight is 20/20. But my point still stands, that these types of user-created drawings/sketches/cartoons/etc. are subjective and based on what one's own interpretation of what the BLP subject looks like. They shouldn't be used in BLP articles, especially as the lead image. Some1 (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I've always been a little wary of this type of WP:OR, or at least WP:SYNTH. But I haven't been sure how to address it, since it is normalized on certain pages. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Shooterwalker - "It is normalized on certain pages"... Really? Which ones, what subject areas? - Shearonink (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I've seen it in articles on fantasy fiction (Hobbit and so on), obscure Norse gods, and stuff like that, where editors think it's OK to make up their own artwork based on textual descriptions. Example: . Such stuff needs to be hunted down and shot on sight. EEng 04:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Yikes. And agree... - Shearonink (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@Shearonink There are cases such as this: File:Star_Trek_Timelines.png.
I haven't tried to address it because there are a few highly active fandoms on Misplaced Pages that basically WP:IAR. But exceptions make bad rules anyway.
More generally, I have seen most other stuff removed and re-organized in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. If we can write our policies and guidelines around most cases, we can at least stop things from getting worse. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I have also started a discussion on WT:BLP about AI-generated images, I was just informed that this discussion also exists so I figured it would be appropriate to share here since it's relevant. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Another user has started a discussion at the Village Pump after your post: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_against_use_of_AI_images_in_BLPs_and_medical_articles?. Some1 (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Re: not previously published in reliable sources

Image used on Female, Human, Male, Man, Secondary sex characteristic, Woman

The image to the right (at least on my screen, it's to the right) says that it's an "Original image" and the editor's "Own work. Taken at City Studios in Stockholm, September 29, 2011". The image was not "previously published in reliable sources", but I think everyone here agrees that the image is valuable and usable on Misplaced Pages articles. How do we write one or two sentences (or even a paragraph) that discourage the use of:

  • 1) AI-generated images
  • 2) User-created artwork (drawings, paintings, sketches, cartoons, etc.)

that have not been previously published in RS but without being too restrictive? Because unfortunately, I can see proposals like these failing if the community thinks the proposals are too restrictive. Some1 (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need an editor to make up their own image? There aren't appropriate images in (what appears to be) a reliable source like https://openstax.org/details/books/anatomy-and-physiology-2e ? And looking closely, the male is shows as having "breasts", which (correct my if I'm wrong) is not appropriate, and the female appears to be wearing nail polish on her toenails. Both of these are arguments for why we shouldn't have our amateur selves making our own illustrations.Having said that, however, I added the red annotations to this:
and used it in my favorite article, Phineas Gage, with an explanatory caption. I would argue, naturally, that this is OK and not OR, but I'm not sure exactly how to distinguish it from what we've been talking about excluding. EEng 18:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
This example is simply the same as adding a caption to a reliably-sourced image. You've added an explanation not altered the image and changed its meaning. - Shearonink (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I guess, but I did have to put 2 and 2 together a bit to do it. H marks Dr. Harlow's house, but since the map is 20 years after the events the article discusses (during which time Harlow had moved away), you'll see the house itself is actually labeled "Dr. Hazelton" on the map. Hazelton bought Harlow's practice, and the the location of the "Dr. Hazelton" house is in the same spot as a house labeled "Dr. Harlow" in an earlier, low-quality map I didn't want to use in the article; it also matches texual descriptions in RSs of the location of Harlow's house. So I felt comfortable annotating the map as I did, but strictly speaking one might consider it a step or two toward the OR boundary. EEng 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Writing this correctly and concisely is going to be very difficult, even if we agree that it's the right thing to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh yeah, ain't that the truth. - Shearonink (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
A broad rule covering all AI-generated images and user-created artwork might not pass, but if the proposals were more narrow and focused, e.g. AI-generated images not previously published in RS, or user-created artwork (drawings, cartoons, sketches, paintings, etc.) depicting BLP subjects, etc. I could see them getting support. Some1 (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the key to user generated images is to make it’s provenance clear in the image caption. Disclaimers such as “AI generated image of X” or “Artistic depiction of Y” resolve most questions. Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh I dunno about that Blueboar...AI-generated or user-generated images that do not exist in reliable sources? Why are these images not OR? In my original post an editor is creating images of historic flags. One example is described in historical texts as a black F on a white field...but no mention of measurements or fonts or the size of the F etc., etc., so what one editor might create will be different from another editor...who's to say which version is more correct than another? We can't. So we shouldn't. - Shearonink (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Because the purpose of an image is to illustrate the article, not to convey accurate information. We have long held that our NOR policy does not really apply to images.
That said, NOR does apply to the caption (ie text accompanying the image)… like any other text in our article. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
...so what you seem to be saying is that anyone can draw up an image at any time and place that into any article because images are mere illustrations? "We have long held that our NOR policy does not really apply to images." Regardless, with editorial consensus, guidelines and policies change around here all the time. - Shearonink (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, anyone can create an image and stick it in an article as an illustration.
That doesn’t mean this image will remain in the article. If others think the article would be better with a different image (or even no image at all), simple consensus can determine this. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Blueboar, we've long turned a blind eye to a certain amount of OR in images (see my own confession above), but a blind eye it is. With the advent of AI, making it way more tempting to generate ill-founded image trash, I believe the time is coming soon that we need to come to Jesus on this question, and clarify more explicitly what is and isn't acceptable. I think your asserted distinction between "illustration" and "information" is a dodge. Even if an image's caption says "Artist's conception" or "AI-generated image", we are putting WP's imprimatur on that image. Having said that, I'll repeat my statement above the the lead image in Matthew the Apostle is fine with me, even though it implies WP's imprimatur for that image, so clearly I don't have a completely crisp idea of the exact criteria apply. EEng 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Artistic depiction of Brigette Lundy-Paine
Depends on what X and Y are. Captions wouldn't help in cases such as: . According to Lundy-Paine's Instagram page, they look nothing like that "portrait". (Anyway, I'm just using that as an example; the cartoon portraits on BLPs problem has already been solved, I believe. But who knows when the issue will arise again.) Some1 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Nothing says we can’t swap one image for an image we think is better. That just takes a simple consensus to achieve. Blueboar (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I confess to being flabbergasted by your position here. You're not seriously suggesting that that cartoon image would be acceptable in that article, under any circumstances, are you (other than if, somehow, the article needed to discuss the cartoon itself)? By your reasoning NPOV-violating text, or NOR-violating text, or V-violating text, would be OK in an article since, ya know, someone can someday swap it out in favor of better text. EEng 01:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes a cartoon is fine (as an example, the Bayeux tapestry is essentially a cartoon and we use it to illustrate our article on Edward the Confessor)… at other times a cartoon wouldn’t be the best choice. I certainly would prefer a more realistic drawing/painting over a cartoon - if one is available… and a photo over that. However, I would happily bow to consensus if other editors thought the cartoon was the best.
My point is that this decision (cartoon vs painting vs photo) is purely an ascetic one, governed by what is available and consensus discussion at the specific article. Our “No Original Research” policy is not an issue. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
You're simply asserting that NOR isn't an issue. V says that All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable, and though images themselves aren't listed explicitly I don't see how they can escape being considered part of All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace. As I've mentioned, a blind eye has been turned to this heretofore, but I think that time is coming to an end. EEng 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The Edward the Confessor infobox image doesn't fall into the examples that we've been discussing, considering it is a photograph of the Bayeux Tapestry that was presumably taken in a museum; a regular editor like you or me didn't draw/paint/use AI to generate an image of Edward the Confessor then upload it onto Misplaced Pages. Some1 (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
This discussion has me wondering though... what's stopping non-notable artists from uploading their non-notable artwork onto Misplaced Pages (with their watermarks and all) in an attempt to promote themselves? " doesn't have an image? Welp, better draw one really quick and upload it onto Misplaced Pages to put on their article!" I don't think this phenomenon (with the watermarks) has happened yet on Misplaced Pages, surprisingly enough. Some1 (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Nothing stops non-notable artists from uploading their art. And if the rest of us feel that this art improves an article, it will remain in the article. Conversely, if the rest of us feel that it does not improve the article, nothing stops us from removing that art, or replacing it with different art.
This is how WP works. Things get added, and things get removed… and when there is disagreement over an addition or removal we discuss it and try to reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll repeat yet again that you could use that kind of reasoning to allow all kinds of policy-violating material to be added to an article. That alone can't be the justification. EEng 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
You are missing my point… we don’t need to amend a policy in order to justify removing things we don’t think improve an article, and we don’t need amend policy to give us permission to add things we think do improve an article. If an image does not improve an article, we remove/replace it. If an image does improve an article, we keep it. If there is disagreement about a specific image, we discuss it. It really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
While this is technically true, it's also very helpful to have something to point to other than I just don't like it when explaining why you don't think a particular addition is an improvement, and in some discussions about this I've seen the current OI wording being pointed to as meaning that user-created images of any kind are a-okay (example). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Men have breasts. They aren't gender or sex specific. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, but how about the toenail polish -- is that part of female anatomy? EEng 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course, if anyone wants to find and upload better, or even just different, images in the Standard anatomical position, please feel free. I remember when those photos happened. It was a years-long process that ultimately involved hiring professional models. The modelling agency had a lot of trouble finding anyone who met our criteria (e.g., normal-ish body weight, not heavily tattooed, without heavy tan lines) and was willing to do it. We didn't get everything we wanted (e.g., natural body hair, absence of nail polish), and we were only able to get one woman and one man, but there was nothing else available back then, and this was a substantial improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Useful image of historical subject from Iguanodon, based on stated written sources.
There are all sorts of highly educational editor-created diagrams that we really don't want to lose including diagrams of medical, biological and chemical structures, physics explanations, historical maps, and many more. The vast majority couldn't be replaced with any (recent) published image due to copyright restrictions. Provided that such diagrams are based on written reliable sources, are factually accurate, educationally useful, and agreed by consensus they should be encouraged, not prohibited. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, just so long as we can agree that diagrams are completely different from cartoons of living people. EEng 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. User-created cartoons of living people are normally neither factually accurate nor educationally useful. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm just a tiny bit doubtful about that as an absolute rule. I suggest, for example, that a cartoon for Jaiden Animations would be more accurate, educational, and relevant than a photo of her, since she is largely notable for her autobiographical self-portraits. Of course, in that case, I'd want an authentic self-portrait from the artist herself.
What I'm certain of is that some editors deeply loathe any representation of a person that is not "realistic" in style. Caricatures have to be "accurate" and "realistic" in some sense, else they aren't recognizable. But these editors want something "life like". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
editors want something "life like" Like an actual photograph of them, preferably, yes. Some1 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • one aspect I'm seeing above to make sure is treated as acceptable are user made images that are recreations of existing published images in copyrighted sources that can be remade in a copyright free version. Commonly this is for graphs from journal articles where the data is available. Masem (t) 16:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
File:AI-generated image of Snoop Dogg on a hemp field.png
AI-generated image of Snoop Dogg on a hemp field
  • I've just learned that there's c:Category:AI-generated images of living people (PIP). Some1 (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The entire user-generated maps genre would be endangered by a misguided policy of banning images based on text. What this conversation is really circling around is banning entire skillsets from contributing to Misplaced Pages merely because some of us are afraid of AI images and some others of us want to engineer a convenient, half-baked, policy-level "consensus" to point to when they delete quality images from Misplaced Pages. In this discussion, I've seen people say Wikipedians "turned a blind eye" to images with regard to NOR in the past, but that phrasing is a deliberately opaque way to say "many years of consensus determined this was fine and I don't like it." lethargilistic (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Additionally, FWIW, I would take the strong position that it is always appropriate for an illustrator to contribute an illustration of a subject just like it is always appropriate to add new text. Whether that contribution will remain is subject to whether it improves the article. I think this framing is particularly apt for articles about people (living or dead) because readers want to know what subjects looked like. It is one of the most basic things an encyclopedia article about a person ought to include, so adding an image of a person where none existed is effectively always an improvement to the article. So the real question is whether it is an acceptable depiction in the context of coverage of the subject by a 💕. For instance, if it is easy to source an appropriate photo and include it under either fair use or a license, then the photo ought to be preferred; I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But if no such photo currently exists, I don't think there is a coherent reason to deny illustrations their place in Misplaced Pages. If one Wikipedian really doesn't like a particular illustration by another Wikipedian, then their basic options are to build a consensus for its removal or to source an acceptable photo to replace it. What's wrong with that? There is no call for a categorical ban on contributing this kind of content because this kind of content fits directly within Misplaced Pages's mission; it should continue. lethargilistic (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      It isn't always appropriate for an editor to add new text. If the next text reports on personal observations, it doesn't belong here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      As I said, it is appropriate to add text. As you said, the contents of that text might not improve the article. I think this discussion has jumped directly to the second part without appreciating the first with regards to images. lethargilistic (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:OR bans entire skillsets from contributing text, if you're going to put it that way, insofar as we don't allow people to report their own observations or first-hand findings either. Are you opposed to WP:OR altogether? Largoplazo (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, I am not opposed to OR as a policy. I am opposed to the idea that user-generated illustrations are inherently OR, which is the vibe I have gotten from this discussion. Every time someone generates text based on a source, they are doing some acceptable level of interpretation to extract facts or rephrase it around copyright law, and I don't think illustrations should be considered so severely differently as to justify a categorical ban. For instance, the Gisele Pelicot portrait is based on non-free photos of her. Once the illustration exists, it is trivial to compare it to non-free images to determine if it is an appropriate likeness, which it is. That's no different than judging contributed text's compliance with fact and copyright by referring to the source. It shouldn't be treated differently just because most Wikipedians contribute via text.
    Additionally, I suspect we mean different things when we say "entire skillsets," although I admit your message is quite short and you might be taking a stronger position. I think you are referring to interpretive skillsets that synthesize new information like, random example, statistical analysis. Excluding those from Misplaced Pages is current practice and not controversial. Meanwhile, I think the ability to create images is more fundamental than that. It's not (inheretly) synthesizing new information. A portrait of a person (alongside the other examples in this thread) contains verifiable information. It is current practice to allow them to fill the gaps where non-free photos can't. That should continue. Honestly, it should expand. lethargilistic (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has morphed from a prejudice against AI as a tool to create images into wider prejudice against user generated image content. I'm particularly worried about the discussion to try to find wording that achieves:

How do we write one or two sentences (or even a paragraph) that discourage the use of:

1) AI-generated images 2) User-created artwork (drawings, paintings, sketches, cartoons, etc

that have not been previously published in RS

This is absolutely not and never has been a requirement that an actual similar image has to have been previously published. Indeed, copying a previously published image could well be a copyvio. Current policy is:

Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy.

The key test is whether the image misleads or contains novel information or claims, not whether the image itself has never been published previously. That's totally wrongheaded. Although our policy notes the difficulty in the project acquiring images (a professional encyclopaedia would commission artists and photographers to generate images) this isn't actually a get-out for images. Our article text is written in WP:OUROWNWORDS and we rely on experienced editors judging whether our own paragraph of wiki text is a fair summary of the source text. The combination of words, the way the topic is introduced to the reader, the user of wiki links and footnotes, all create free content that is entirely unique to our project. Illustrations are the same. Let's not forget please that Misplaced Pages is a free content project. Text-contributing editors getting snooty about users who generate our images is not a good vibe. I strongly advise ending this discussion. We should remove images if they fail to adequately and faithfully illustrate the topic or introduce ideas or arguments that are unsourcable. What tool was used to create them or whether they were created by a professional or an amateur is irrelevant to NOR. -- Colin° 10:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

When I started this discussion the sourcing for the creation of an image *and* how well, how much that image skews to the cited sources...all of that was and is my issue. Sure we craft cited sources into our own wording but we also adhere to reliable sources in doing so. What should Misplaced Pages do for placed images - created by AI or not - when the cited source or sources are vague? In one case multiple flags were created, that were based on descriptions in historical texts (mostly newspapers if I remember correctly) but for an example, the description in one case was something like "black letter F in the middle of a white flag". So... which font? How big was the letter? How big was the white background? Many different versions of this flag could be created and all of them wouldn't necessarily be wrong but all of them aren't necessarily right either. It seems to me that Misplaced Pages might need a policy or guideline or something that when editors come across a similar situation it's not just people being some kind of "snooty text-contributing editor" (thanks so much for that) but fellow editors simply trying to keep Misplaced Pages's entire content - images and *all* - encyclopedic. - Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a good point. IMO, even if there is no one accepted interpretation of something abstract like "Black letter F in the middle of a white flag," I think it would be encyclopedic to include an illustrated interpretation. However, making decisions about how to render it would involve synthesis. I don't think that would be SYNTH tho, because it's not inventing a connection to be published originally on Misplaced Pages. I think the image in that case would be best described as "demonstrative," and that there should be some kind of well-placed disclosure in the article that it is one example of what it might have looked like rather than an attempt at rendering what it really looked like. The answer to a sensitive situation like that should not be "no images at all." Additionally, because of the ubiquity of cameras, this sort of edge case would be unlikely to occur with a modern concept. Even people who support an, IMHO, ridiculous photo-only standard must allow for the fact that there were no photos before a certain point; we have many articles illustrated with pictures that may or may not actually represent the subject. Heck, the lead image of William Shakespeare is of someone we're pretty sure is not actually that guy. lethargilistic (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this whole flag thing needs a dose of historical reality. Or heraldic reality, anyway. There are conventions in the field that make it possible to determine from a textual description what the flag is supposed to look like. For example, with something like "Black letter F in the middle of a white flag", there's a general convention for how large a central device is supposed to be (it fills most of the vertical space, but not all of it). The "font" would have been whatever was typical for that time/place. Yes, you might have to look this up, but no, it's not impossible to get that much right.
Also, until the last century or two, each flag was hand-sewn or hand-painted and unique. Having somewhat different versions of what's recognizably the same design was not considered "wrong". If your "Black letter F" was slightly bigger or smaller than the "Black letter F" on the flag for the next ship/company/building, it didn't matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
That being the case, perhaps the best way to show it is demonstrative would be to declare that and present two or three options. That way, no version of the flag would ever be presented as definitive. lethargilistic (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Well said. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. lethargilistic (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
This puts it much better than I could. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Fictional planets of the Solar System
  • Per WP:NOTLAW, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted. So, we should gather examples of current best practice to establish what this is. The main page is a good place to find these as content there gets special scrutiny.
Today, there's an example of this sort (right). This seems uncontroversial and not a significant problem, right?
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That image is clearly-based on reliable sources and accepted/common knowledge. - Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
No, it's not clear because the image doesn't explain how it was produced or cite any sources. It doesn't seem to have been hand-drawn and so I suppose that software of some sort was used. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I absolutely agree we need an explicit policy banning user-generated solely-text-based illustrations and am baffled why this would be controversial. Illustrations that are based on other reliably-published illustrations are clearly distinct from those based on only interpreting text/unpublished images; the latter should be prohibited for the same reason we already prohibit textual material sourced from the editor or from non-expert SPS. I would also argue that if no professional has been interested enough to publish their graphical interpretation of a text description yet, then a graphic isn't BALASP in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
JolleJay, Here! Here! Well said. The key here is, already "reliably-published." The other stuff that is essentially original research from interpretation probably should not be allowed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's another example from today's main page. It looks simple but the image details explain that This image is a focus stacked image consisting of 23 images that were merged using software. As a result, this image underwent digital manipulation which may have included blending, blurring, cloning, and colour and perspective adjustments. As a result of these adjustments, the image content may be slightly different than reality at the points where the images were combined. This manipulation is often required due to lens, perspective, and parallax distortions.
The key point is that it may be "different than reality" but it's a featured picture.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing whether the merging was or was not carried out with AI assistance. For some people it seems that an image that is identical, down to the pixel, would either be perfectly acceptable if not done using AI but cause the sky to fall in if AI was involved at all. It's utterly ridiculous. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Primary

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Notability § Primary – This is the correct venue. dxneo (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where I should place this discussion, but I hope I'm at the right place. It is often said that interviews are "primary" sources, meaning they are not reliable per WP:PRIMARY. However, most of the times we get personal information (birth dates, birth place and backstory) and upcoming release dates for movies and music from interviews (late-night shows and so on) and they always turn out to be accurate. I think if the interview was published by a reliable source then it's most definitely reliable, because if another publication quotes that interview, no one would say it's not reliable. Not sure if I make much sense, but any objections? dxneo (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Re "they always turn out to be accurate": . Sources directly from the subject of a biography, such as in interviews, can be reliable for uncontroversial factual claims such as birthdates per WP:BLPSELFPUB, but should not be used for evaluative claims nor when there is good reason for skepticism regarding the claims. Even for birthdates, people can often falsify these out of vanity or out of pressure from whatever industry they're in to be a different age. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dxneo, Primary is not another way to spell 'bad'. You should avoid trying to build an entire article exclusively on primary sources (though this is pretty common for discographies), but you may use reliable primary sources to fill in ordinary or expected details. If you are at all uncertain about the material, consider using WP:INTEXT attribution: "In an interview with Music Magazine, the musician said she was born in California" or "According to Joe Film, the movie will be released in September 2025". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Images whose authenticity is disputed

I understand why we have an exception for images in this policy - we have a limited selection of free images, so we need to rely on user-uploaded content. So if someone uploads a photo they took of a celebrity, that is fine to include in the article since it's not considered original research.

But what happens if someone claims their image is of a certain celebrity but other editors dispute it? It seems like we have limited recourse within policy to handle that. The image doesn't really illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, it is just an image of a person that has possibly been mislabelled. Would it make sense to revise the first paragraph of WP:OI to the following? The last sentence is new:

Because of copyright laws in several countries, there may be relatively few images available for use on Misplaced Pages. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. Additionally, images whose authenticity is disputed may be removed in accordance with consensus.

– Anne drew 16:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point and good start. But "removed in accordance with wp:consensus" is unclear. Do you need a consensus to remove? Do you need a consensus to keep? North8000 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
In the case of a living person, we need to take extra care to “get it right”… therefore we would default to needing a “consensus to keep” if there were a disagreement over the image. Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't we need to write it out on the page, WP:ONUS is pretty clear. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the addition is necessary: In all cases, for all images, for all material, for any reason, consensus can force removal.
One of my touchstones for this policy is a dispute years ago with a since-blocked AIDS denialist. Look through Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 40#RfC: Do images need to be verifiable? for one of the discussions. AFAICT he wanted certain images removed from Misplaced Pages because the existence of a photomicrograph of a virus undercut his story that these viruses don't exist, but since that's not a policy-based reason, he generally asked for images to be removed if there was no source to authenticate the contents. We had "images whose authenticity were disputed" – but only by a POV pusher. I would not wish to give him, or POV pushers like him, a rule that says that disputing authenticity is his best path to removing the image. I think we could safely predict that this addition would turn into a WP:BEANSY recommendation to partisan editors to dispute the authenticity of all unflattering photos of their favorite politicians.
What I'd suggest instead, in these cases, is relying on WP:PERTINENCE, which says "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." In the situation described above, we have an image of a BLP that editors dispute. Why do they dispute it? I'd guess it's because it doesn't look like the person. I'd bet that most of us have had the experience of a photo not turning out the way we expect, and even though we know with absolute certainty who is pictured in the photo, we couldn't say that the photo is representative of the person. That might be the only thing that's going on in this photo: Right person, but odd angle, odd expression, odd lighting – and the result is that the image doesn't look like what it's mean to illustrate, and therefore should be rejected per MOS:IMAGES. One doesn't even have to dispute the authenticity to do this: just say that it doesn't look like what you/readers expect, and the guideline therefore rejects it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply! I hear you on using WP:PERTINENCE in these cases. That's what I leaned on in a recent discussion around a disputed photo of a tornado. It just seemed like a bit of a workaround, having to first dispute the verifiability of the caption, and then separately the pertinence of the image itself. I think expecting editors to formulate an argument like that using multiple policies/guidelines is asking a lot.
But maybe I'm overthinking this. To your point, it's already the case that consensus can remove disputed photos. But I do think there would be some value in explicitly stating that WP:OI isn't intended to help retain inauthentic photographs. For what it's worth, this isn't a one-off issue. In a similar discussion this month, I incorrectly relied on WP:OR to support the removal an image with disputed authenticity. – Anne drew 22:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The question with the tornado isn't whether we're "helping retain inauthentic photographs"; we'll make a decision by consensus.
I wonder, though, why your response was to remove a probably-but-not-definitely authentic photo, instead of placing it in proper context? For example, one compromise approach – neither unquestioning acceptance nor removal – would be to remove it from the infobox and add a caption that says something like "Very few images of this storm exist; this photo has been claimed on Twitter to be authentic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Hmm you raise a good point, just changing the caption would be enough to avoid misleading readers. I'll update my !vote accordingly. Thanks – Anne drew 17:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
One issue here (as I said in that discussion) is that it's a photo from social media uploaded under fair use with the only sources attesting to its identity being comments on Twitter and Reddit. People on social media have been known to misattribute images of tornadoes before. An I think saying "this is probably the tornado but we're not sure" undercuts the article. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Subjects that require expertise to identify or accurately characterize should not be treated the same as subjects that are easily verifiable (like a picture of a Walmart, or of a human hand). If a photo isn't even an editor's own work, and the only attestations to its identity are random social media comments, including it in an article where it will be scraped by Google and placed at the top of image search results is a disservice to more than just our readers. JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Claims of own work might not be that reliable either. I've been pondering File:Louis-Charles Damais.jpg for the past couple of days. It has a strange contrast, but it doesn't not look like the subject, if you know what I mean. The uploader added this image, edited the relevant fr.wiki article, then vanished. The metadata says it was modified with photoshop in 2021. One thing I am reasonably sure of though is that it's unlikely that this photo of someone who died in 1966 is the own work of an uploader in 2022. CMD (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § BLPs

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § BLPs. Some1 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)