Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis.
  • Include links to the relevant article(s).
  • Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.
Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:

  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.
  • For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


WP:SYNTH and WP:OI[edit]

Does WP:SYNTH apply to WP:OI images? For example, if a graph is being produced, should all of the data and annotations in the graph be citeable to a single dataset? Or may you combine multiple datasets or articles to produce a graph? ResultingConstant (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Tricky... my first reaction is to say “single dataset”... but I can see some nuances in this. For example, if you have “source C” that uses two datasets (A and B), and source C combines A and B textually (but not visually) ... I think it allowable for a user to create a visual illustration of source C’s textual combination. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, in that case C is the source. WP:OI wouldn't give much value if you could only reproduce already created images. However to go deeper down the rabbit hole, what about sourced A, B, C, D. Source D textually analyzes the combination of A+B+C. Would it be permissible to make an OI of just A+B? ResultingConstant (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If it illustrates your own analysis of A+B no. If it illustrates a source’s analysis of A+B, yes. It’s that simple. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is an actual examples. Over on the wikimedia commons there are a cluster of maps showing which European powers colonized which parts of North America. These maps are contradictory and unrealistic. Maps of the portions of North America colonized by France routinely show France ruling over every square inch of what would eventually become the Louisiana Purchase, sometimes adding Rupertsland, and even Baffin Island. Meanwhile, most of the native people in those territories certainly weren't paying taxes, never met a Frenchman, and had probably never heard of France.
  • Well, people upload maps they created from Tolkien, or Game of Thrones, so I can hardly object to the uploading of fantasy maps of New France. It is when the image is being used in an article that SYNTH applies.
  • So, if the multiple datasets were defensibly comparable, like "live births per thousand pregnancies" for Canada, and for the United States, I don't think a meaningful SYNTH objection could made over combining them in a single graphic. But if one dataset was "hospital births per thousand pregnancies" - ie leaving out home births - then the datasets would no longer be comparable, and shouldn't be mixed. Geo Swan (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this original research? It seems to be extrapolating a current population figure from genetic data[edit]

I took User:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. to ANI for various problems includding OR. He is now saying that the following is not OR/synthesis:

He sources a population figure of +13,556,610 thusly: "[1][2][3]"

and later in the article added: "A Y-DNA compilation organized by the Genetic Company "Applied Biosystems" found that 13.33% of the Filipino Male Population sampled had Y-DNA of Latin American and Spanish origins, thus it can conclude that up to 13.33% of the (Male) Filipinos sampled have direct patrilineal descent from populations then originating from Spain, Mexico or Peru.[1] Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by German ethnologist Fedor Jagor of the population of Luzon island (Which holds half the citizens of the Philippines) 1/3rd of the people possess varying degrees of Spanish and Latin American ancestry.[2]. "

Note that the survey is from an 1870 source - I'm not challenging the source, it's a good one but only for historical data.

Sorry to bring this here, but I'm finding it very difficult to explain to this good faith editor what his problems are. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't emphasize the other study I cited from the Institute of Human Genetics and that study from National Geographic with a sample size of 80,000 Filipinos that concluded a large amount of Latin American and Spanish ancestry was present among Filipinos. I am using a Smartphone right now. So it's hard to put in the links via typing so I'll defer posting that until I get a laptop. But you know what I am talking about. Anyway most of the points I have addressed with you in a previous talk. I'll just post it here again so that the Administrators in this talk page will know...

Actually, the Open-source Y-DNA compilation done by Applied Biosystems was the one that presented the facts that 13.33% of the total male population they sampled from all across the Philippines had Spanish and Latin American Y-DNA and it just fit with the historical census data by Fedor Jagor that 1/3rd of Luzon which is about 16.5% of the Philippines had Latin American admixture. What I posted was a function of "Corelation" and "Sylogism" not "Synthesis", arriving at New data which was not present in the original sources via combinatronics like there are only two piano keys and if played by one key alone there is no melody formed but with at least two keys, you can start a musical piece. In fact for a Synthesis to form strictly speaking, in Dialectical materialism, two different schema with different qualities I.e. a Thesis and an Anti-Thesis should fuse or oppose one another to form a Synthesis. What I did was not a Sythesis in the original meaning of the word if we get into Logic or Semantics. In fact, I also put your POV in mind and I even reduced several sentences from my previous post, in fact I am willing to extend my consideration of you even more, to at least two magnitudes... Since we disagree that 16.5% of Filipinos are of Latin American descent then we either agree, on the spirit of consensus building, that 7% of the Philippine population (Since in that Open Source Y-DNA bank sampled from all across the country 13.33% of Filipino males and half of that is 7%, have sure Iberian/Latino descent from the Paternal line) or that at least 200,000 Filipino people have Latin American or Spanish descent (With indication that its from an 1870 Census) I'm already bending backwards for you in this case btw since I already cited those genetic studies from the National Geographic and the Institute of Human Genetics of California that most of 80,000 Filipinos they sampled had Iberian and/or Native American descent.(UTC)

Editor has been blocked for among other things original research. --Doug Weller talk 12:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "(According to genetic studies and old Spanish surveys) With a sample population of 105 Filipinos, the company of Applied Biosystems, analyses the Y-DNA of the average Filipino. The study found that 13.33% of Y-DNA samples are R1b which originated from Spain, Mexico and Peru".
  2. ^ a b "Jagor, Fëdor, et al. (1870). The Former Philippines thru Foreign Eyes "According to ethnographer Jagor, around One-Third of Luzon island which holds half the population of the Philippines has varying degrees of Spanish and Latin American Admixture."".
  3. ^ "The largest and most recent genetic study thus far, conducted by the National Geographic's "The Genographic Project" (Reference Populations - Geno 2.0 Next Generation), based on a massive genetic testing of 80,000 Filipinos by the National Geographic in 2008–2009 found that the Philippines' autosomal genepool is overwhelmingly Asian, consisting of 53% Southeast Asian and Oceanian genes, and 36% East Asian genes, with only 5% Southern European genes, 3% South Asian (Indian subcontinent) genes, and 2% Native American genes. The prescence of Native American genes amongst most Filipinos sampled indicate that there were a large percentage of Latin-American who settled in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial era". Text "urlhttps://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/" ignored (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Question re archival personal data[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia, did look through the original research rules, and wonder whether I should delete the following (which I wrote--no dispute here) as original research. This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Julian_D_Steele_(Social_Worker,_Public_Citizen)&action=edit&section=1 Thanks for any adviceWest Newbury (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What part of this are you concerned might be taken as OR? You cite a large number of sources, clearly not written by you. You also do not appear to have put any personal opinions in, nor drawn any conclusions or interpolated any data. Looks like a normal article to me... Will (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Steele's paternal grandmother, Gertrude Elizabeth Winkler Steele,[1] was the child of a Free Person of Color[2] and a slaveholder[3] whose ancestors were among the early Scots-English settlers in New Hampshire.[4][5]

References

  1. ^ "Registers of Signatures of Depositors in Branches of the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, 1865-1874". Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. Micropublication M816, 27 rolls. p. 185. Retrieved 17 August 2019. (Gertrude Winkler Steele and her husband Joseph Steele, mother Catharine Winkler, father Elijah Henderson).
  2. ^ Savannah, Georgia, Registers of Free Persons of Color. Savannah, Georgia: City of Savannah, Research Library & Municipal Archives. 1823–1835. p. 5. Retrieved 17 August 2019.CS1 maint: date format (link) (Catharine Winkler and her guardian Elijah Henderson).
  3. ^ "Savannah, Chatham, Georgia". Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: 64. 1840. Retrieved 17 August 2019. (Elijah Henderson)
  4. ^ Henderson, Elijah. "Memorial". Find A Grave. Retrieved 17 August 2019. (photograph of Rochester, New Hampshire, headstone: Elijah Henderson and family including father Richmond Henderson)
  5. ^ Stearns, Ezra F. (1908). Genealogical and family history of the state of New Hampshire: a record of the achievements of her people in the making of a commonwealth and the founding of a nation. New York: The Lewis Publishing Company. pp. 1061–62. Retrieved 17 August 2019. (family origins of Richmond Henderson)

Fraud category on Cupping Therapy[edit]

The discussion is at Cupping therapy#Consumer_fraud. No sources could be found to justify the health fraud tag. Alexbrn argues based on this source that fraud and quackery are synonymous and then cites sources calling cupping therapy quackery. However, the source cited does not actually state that fraud and quackery are synonymous. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Anybody out there? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we clarify when an interview is merely a primary source...[edit]

Another contributor recently excised a passage I contributed, and the source it referenced, because that source was an interview, and interviews were primary sources.

I am going to skip to my recommendation: Everywhere WP:NOR refers to an "interview", as a primary source, I recommend we substitute the term "oral history"

There are notes, in WP:No original research that name three academic institutions that have academic guidelines, that list interviews among the kinds of sources they consider primary sources.

  • OR quotes a guideline from the University of Nevado, at Reno [1].

    That guideline includes interviews in a list entitled "original documents" with "autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, speeches..."

  • OR quotes a guideline from the University of California, Berkeley [2]. It seems clear, to me, that, in context, the UCB document is using the term "interview" as a synonym for "oral history". An example it offers is "japanese Americans interviews"
  • OR quotes a guideline from Duke University [3] It says: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." Again, I suggest that, in context, "oral history" is the meaning of "interview" in this passage.

Academics conduct interviews. Historians conduct interviews when they seek first-hand accounts of historical events, or when they seek to inform themselves on folklore, passed down in an oral tradition. Sociologists conduct interviews when they seek the unvarnished attitude of a specific group, about a trend, or a phenomenon. For instance, an academic might interview school kids, in Ferguson, Missouri, about their attitude towards the Ferguson Police. I suggest, first, that it is this kind of interview the three University guidelines the policy cites were talking about; second, that in this kind of interview the interviewer is trying their best to capture the interviewee's experience, and that they are doing their best to not let their own interpretations influence the interviewee's answers. If they were interviewing them as research, for their Masters or PhD thesis, the unvarnished interviews might be in an appendix, and they would keep their analysis of the interviewee's comments to the body of their thesis.

The kind of interview we are most familiar with is unlike that. When a good journalist interviews a subject field expert they should either be well-acquainted with the interviewee's subject, themselves, or they should do a bunch of homework, so they are prepared to ask probing questions. The good journalist is in charge of the interview, through the questions they ask. They might say things like, "Yes, but, hasn't your colleague Joe Schmoo challenged your interpretation, suggesting XYZ alternate interpretation?" Even if the interview doesn't contain obvious gotcha questions, the good interviewer is guiding the interviewee, picking and choosing what aspects of their subject field expertise will appear in the interview.

If a key distinguishing characteristic between a primary source and a secondary source is that a third party is providing independent analysis of raw data, in the interview of a subject field expert by a good journalist, it is the good journalist who is providing that independent analysis. Of course, in some interviews of a subject field expert by a journalist, the subject field expert is not offering answers from their raw data, they themselves spent years analyzing and interpreting raw data supplied by others. I'll go into this in more detail at the end of this note, but I think this edit to the Andrea Pitzer article is cutting a paragraph, and its source, through an interpretation of WP:PRIMARY based on misreading those guidelines from the Universities of Nevada, California and Duke.

Here are some links to previous discussions.

  1. #Are_interviews_primary_or_secondary_sources? - June 2008
  2. [as Primary Sources] - November 2009
  3. #Interviews_are_not_primary_sources - September 2011
  4. suggest addition to point out that primary sources such as interviews do count towards notability - May 2012
  5. Sources that contain both primary & secondary material (interviews)? - May 2013
  6. Interviews clarification - February 2014
  7. Are interviews considered secondary sources? - November 2017

I didn't go over the previous discussions I linked to, with a fine-toothed comb. However, I think they all reflect the initial confusion arising from mis-interpreting the guidelines from the three Universities, which I think clearly are using the term "interview" to refer to an oral history, an interview where an academic gets a subject who is almost certainly non-notable to give an unfiltered account of something they know, and the academic wants to study. The academic's analysis comes later, after they gathered the raw data, the subject's unfiltered account. Of course that kind of interview is a primary source, because the academic conducting the interview is trying their best to keep their own views from tainting the subject's account.

Some of the previous discussions mention the famous interviews David Frost conducted with Richard Nixon. If Richard Nixon had drafted all the questions, in advance, and Frost was just a friendly talking head, who posed them to him, those interviews would be a Primary Source, because Nixon got to say exactly what he wanted. But Frost, and research assistants, spent months preparing for the interviews, listening to the famous tapes, and doing other research, so Frost could prepare a really probing set of questions. Questions that forced Nixon to reveal far more than what he wanted to reveal. Questions that showed Frost, and his team, had a deep understanding of the topic.

Some of the previous discussions contain frankly hilarious attempts to explain why the Frost-Nixon interviews were a primary source.

Having an academic interview, for your oral history of an event, doesn't confer any notability on you. I suggest having a journalist interview you, because they recognize other people consider you a subject field expert, on the other hand, does confer a measure of notability. If it is your local newspaper, with a circulation of 10,000, it confers less notability than if the interview is published in the New York Times, or broadcast on national TV.

The guideline from Berkeley offers "japaness american interviews" as an example of a primary source. The guideline is almost certainly referring to interviews with the 50,000 or so captives interned during World War 2. George Takei, the actor who played Lieutenant Sulu, spent part of his childhood in one of those camps. If an academic had interviewed a young George Takei, before he was famous, seeking his unvarnished opinion and recollections of life in the camp, that interview would be a primary source. However, if a journalist were to ask famous actor George Takei about growing up in the camps, surely that would not be a primary source?

Okay, returning to this edit to the Andrea Pitzer article. Slate is not the New York Times, but, neither is a less notable local paper with a circulation of 10,000. And the interviewer was not a nobody, not a blogger in his pajamas. He was one of Slate's senior editors. So, I question whether it merited a referencectomy. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Geo Swan, I don't understand the problem here. Secondary source for what? For itself? Frost-Nixon has been written about plenty--those publications allow us to mention that they happened, to cite from them, etc. What we have here (and I don't understand why you spend so many characters on this) is simply a plug, a resume entry: "person X was interviewed for program Y", with a link to the installment of program Y with the interview. Is there any good reason to include that statement, other than to namedrop, because the interviewer is more or less famous? If Pitzer had said, in that interview, "These camps are nothing less than a crime against humanity" or whatever, you could have quoted her from it (did you insert that sentence?). Instead, it's nothing more than a link. Now, if David Frost had said (in an interview, in an article) that she was interviewed, you could claim Frost is a secondary source and thus the statement worth including. But you don't have that; in fact, we really have nothing here, and we're not even talking about anything (certainly there is no "unfiltered account of something they know", since the statement said nothing, not a word, about what she said. Now, if you want to claim that the interview might could verify the poorly formatted and unverified previous passage, the one starting "According to Pitzer", we might have something to talk about. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • In the reply you left to the heads-up I left you on your talk-page I think your use of the phrase "admittedly contextual definition between primary or secondary sources" could mean you are acknowledging my main point -- WP:NOR does not justify excising every reference to an interview, because NOR says "interviews" are always primary sources.

      We are all volunteers here. You probably hate it just as much as I do, when someone seizes on something I wrote on a talk page, or in an edit summary, and seems to knowingly misinterpret what I meant, by focusing on what I actually said. I'd never do that to you. I honestly thought your edit summary was justifying an excision because you were claiming all interviews were primary sources.

      If your excision was only based on your editorial judgment over whether the passage added anything to the article - not a point of policy - fine, we can discuss that back on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Interviews are always primary sources because there is no fact-checking. Experts are not oracles and they may misstate what they mean or explain things poorly. In the Frost-Nixon interview, we know that Frost got Nixon to admit things because reliable secondary sources tell us he did. But then there are softball interview and assassination interviews that are misleading. There are more of them than Frost interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talkcontribs)
  • Hmmm. "[subject field] experts are not oracles..." May I remind you, we seek "verifiability, not truth". We use newspaper columnists as reliable sources, even though they too are subject to normal human fallibility.
  • With regard to "softball interviews and assassination interviews" that you regard as "misleading"... You sound like you are forgetting our role. I have worked on controversial topics, and I have made thousands of edits where I disagreed with what every reliable source said. When we disagree with what the RS say we have two policy compliant choices. Either we do our best to neutrally cover what the RS say, even though we disagree with it; or we walk away, and let someone else cover that topic, that event. WP:VER and WP:NPOV both say it is not our role to decide what is "true". Please don't forget this.
  • WRT to your assertion that an interview is a primary source because there is no fact-checking... The good interviewer provides fact-checking, because the good interviewer either already has a strong background, or has recently done a lot of homework. You will see interviewers catch errors. Interviewers wear an earpiece. You will see reporters and interviewers correct themselves, 10 or 15 seconds after they made a mistake. That same team of fact-checkers may be helping the interviewer know when the interviewee made a mistake.
  • WRT the Frost-Nixon interviews, and the comments on it from other reliable sources... No one is questioning the value of those later commentator's opinions. However, if Nixon says "I exploited Kissinger's popularity, but I never trusted him" your third party commentator may point out how many times Nixon publicly said how much trust he had in Kissinger, if Frost didn't point that out himself. Nixon may still have been telling the truth, and he fooled those commentators.
  • You have not addressed my point that the underlying documents the policy cites, from those three Universities, are referring to the kind of interviews academics do with experimental subjects, or witnesses to historical events, where the academic is doing their level best to be neutral, and not let their own conclusions or interpretations taint the interview. Geo Swan (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with claiming interviews are always primary sources, because this ignores how we define primary/secondary/tertiary sources on WP. Interviews are dependent sources, and this can influence notable as well as when statements need to be attributed. And there are cases where interviews are "first-party" sources because the person being interviewed has actually arranged it, rather than the third-party having independently set up the interview (as the case in business and politics)
But whether an interview is primary or secondary depends what the interview focuses on. An interview with an eyewitness but non-participant of an event is purely primary because they are not transformation that information. Alternative, an interview with a director about their process for making a film (for example) is likely secondary since we're getting transformation of how the movie was filmed. What this basically means related to PAG is that a topic that is only backed up by interviews and no other coverage of any type will likely fail GNG for lacking independent (even though it may be secondary) sourcing. --Masem (t) 04:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no blanket answer to the question of whether an interview is a primary source because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Consider the following scenarios:
  1. A paid puff piece interview in a click-bait website. Legendary entrepreneur Kumar Edison talks to BuzzWire about how being true to yourself can be the best business decision you'll ever make! This consists of a short bio intro that is obviously just a reprinting of a press release, the full unedited transcript of the interview with no additional context, and the interview itself is clearly just low-ball questions to give the subject space to brag about themselves and their business.
  2. A full page spread in the Washington Guardian, a national newspaper of note, normally a publisher of reliable investigative journalism. Award winning actor George Mooney on philanthropic giving and legacy. This piece is also mostly low-ball fluff questions, albeit of a more serious note. However, the piece itself starts off with several paragraphs of text giving a biographic overview of George Mooney's career, a brief scandal when he played a doctor on that one television show, and cites independent coverage of his philanthropic efforts in bringing fresh water to the people of the Democratic Republic of Somewhere.
  3. A full interview in NorthAmerican Public Radio with Canadian MP Albert Li. The prospects of war in the Middle East This also provides an independent contextual overview of the person's biography, voting record, and the current tensions in oil rich Somewhereistan. The interview itself is a combative exchange, with the journalist challenging asserts made by the MP, and interjecting with context and independent reporting when the MP oversimplifies or misrepresents something.
These are not the same quality of sources for our purposes. The first is garbage and probably shouldn't be used for anything. The second is independent and secondary with regard to the biography, but not for the statements of the subject. Although the statements of the subject, if reprinted elsewhere from this interview, might be DUE. The third is a much higher quality source, offering a range of independent secondary context, is probably more likely to get reprinted, and is much more useful for our purposes overall. GMGtalk 13:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It depends. Here's a Vox interview with the director of a recent documentary about Molly Ivins. I'd say the director's comments about the process of making that film are primary, but the director is a secondary source for statements about Ivins herself. That's a separate question from the reliability of comments given by the subjects of interviews. Interviewers don't necessarily fact check their subjects, and some interviews are only lightly edited for clarity. Nixon's comments about the powers of the presidency might be considered "secondary" analysis of the Constitution, but he's still not a reliable source for the claim that presidents are above the law. Nblund talk 13:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that film directors are good sources for describing people's potiical ideology, in this case the director says Ivins is a populist. I would see that as an opinion not a fact. If the director included that statement in an article submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers would ask whether that was a personal conclusion, in which case they would require a clear statement of what populism was and an explanation of why she meets the criteria. The article would have to state the degree of acceptance of that conclusion. It could be that upon having the article returned for revision, the director could find that she was using the term populist in an idiosyncratic way, and choose to change it. Note too that it is unlikely that the director would have dictated the article and have it typed up and submitted without reviewing it to identify errors and poorly worded segments. After publication, later writers may challenge statements of facts and opinions in the article.
Columns by the way are not reliable secondary courses, but "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
Saying experts are not oracles is demanding a higher standard than verifiability. It's merely acknowledging that some degree of fact-checking is necessary before a source can be considered reliable. Otherwise why have fact checking at all if we believe every word uttered by an expert to be infallible?
It's not credible to believe that interviewers are so knowledgeable about the topics of interviews that they can adequately fact check especially in real time. For example in many interviews i have watched, the late Diana, Princess of Wales was referred to as "Princess Diana," which of course is wrong. But most interviewers are not experts on British titles and even if they were, they are not going to make pedantic corrections of their guests.
TFD (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I would agree, but whether or not the source is reliable is a separate question from whether or not it is secondary. The two aren't necessarily connected to each other. Nblund talk 19:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I will rephrase myself. An interview is both a reliable primary source for what the interviewer and interviewee say and an unreliable secondary source for facts presented by the interviewee. It can also be an unreliable tertiary source depending on what the interviewee says. So a film director commenting on ideology is both a reliable source for their opinions and an unreliable source for political science. I wouldn't expect a political science textbook (which is a tertiary source) to rely on interviews with film directors. Rather than worrying about whether marginal sources are usable, it is best practice to identify and use the best sources available. TFD (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
"an unreliable secondary source for facts presented by the interviewee". Absolutely not. An interview with the director of a film some years after release, discussing his vision, how things happened behind the scenes, interesting stories, etc. with the interview being done in an otherwise reliable, independent source , is a 100% reliable secondary source for the film which would be used to flesh out a Production section. This is not true for all interviews, but it is to the point that categorizing all' interviews as "primary sources" and nothing else is completely wrong with how WP uses primary/secondary/tertiary and other measures of source qualifications. --Masem (t) 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I just watched on youtube an interview of Elizabeth Warren on Breakfast television. She referred to the 1920s as the Guilded Age, when in fact it was the late 1800s, and no one corrected her. And she's an expert. Also, Joe Biden has been in the news lately for providing different incorrect versions of his meeting with a soldier (or navy captain) when he was vice president (or senator).[4] Human memory is fallible. That's why fact-checking exists. Wikipedia relies on fact-checking in published sources. TFD (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to treat interviews and other forms of extemporaneous speech (like cable news transcripts) as less reliable than something printed. I would be reluctant to dismiss them out of hand: if a journalist gets a pull quote from a marine biologist talking about shark attacks, I'd think that could be reasonable as long as it wasn't an exceptional claim. Nblund talk 20:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Basically, interviews where the subject's responses to questions are just reproduced verbatim are generally unreliable and primary. They don't help toward notability and should be used as with any other unchecked information directly from the subject. However, an interview might also include fact checked analysis or the like, and that analysis could count as independent and reliable material. But answers in the interview itself are unchecked, unreliable, and are not independent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible OR in Qibla on determining its mathematical orientation[edit]

User:KLS has added Qibla#Mathematical determination to the article. It appears to be original research. There is one self-published source for part of it. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

A self-published source? No. The source which I used was a website written S. Kamali Abdali, more than twenty years ago. I am not S. Kamali Abdali, and I had never even heard of him, but I just found that site by using Google. That site contains the essential part of what I added to this Wikipedia article. Yes, I have explained a little more than what was explicitely stated on Abdali's site: namely what follows from the well-known fact that the trigonometric tangent function is periodic with period 180 (not 360) degrees. For that fact, I could add any elementary book on trigonometry as a source reference if needed. -KLS (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
KLS Self-published in this context doesn't mean that you published it - it means that it was published by the author. If it's a website that Abdali wrote and published himself then it's a self-published source, like a blog, and we shouldn't be using it. GirthSummit (blether) 08:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible OR in Winx Club[edit]

In Winx Club, there might be some cases of original research. I am mostly active in Russian Wikipedia, and it would definitely not be allowed there, but I'm not that well aware of the EnWiki policies, so please take a look.

  • Straffi's studio Rainbow finished a pilot episode in 2001 (citing this). In that video on 15:24, there's a popup text saying "Magic Bloom (2001)". There are no direct statements made regarding the year it was finished in, so it's only an assumption made by the author of that statement.
  • Production of the restyled series began by 2002, and Rainbow estimated the episodes would be delivered to distributors by late 2003 (citing this). In that source (it's in Flash) you need to click Enter > Catalogue > Winx. There, it says: "DELIVERY: Autumn 2003". And that's all. And from this statement the person made the conclusion that "Production of the restyled series began by 2002, and Rainbow estimated the episodes would be delivered to distributors by late 2003".

There might also be other similar cases, but for now I've spotted just these. The anonymous editor persists in removing my "citation needed" and "verification failed" templates. Please advice. Coolak (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way, provided that those are primary sources coming from the creators, it might very well be not worth including in the article at all. But that's not my main concern here. Coolak (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed a pre existing sentence to say "by 2002" (not in 2002) because the webpage published in 2002 said the season was currently "In Production". Which I think is straight forward 2600:1000:B005:EA84:680E:7F65:E323:FB16 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't write Wikipedia like that. Coolak (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for the effects of puberty blockers[edit]

Over at Talk:Puberty_blocker an is arguing that American Academy of Pediatrics is not a good enough source for this statement. To my mind, it seems like it would be WP:OR to alter this characterization based on our own views of what the research "actually" says, but I don't do a lot of MEDRS editing. Could someone else take a look? Nblund talk 20:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on original research in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article[edit]

There is a request for comment on original research in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC involving possible OR/SYNTH[edit]

There is a request for comment about the article Kate Dover. The third question relates to WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. If you are interested, please participate. Thanks! — MarkH21 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

List of paramilitary organizations[edit]

Many if not most of the entries are original research. There is no lead and no definition. There's been a discussion on the talk page but it died out and I forgot about it. Any suggestions as to how to fix this? Doug Weller talk 13:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Is a secondary-source ref that _begins_with_ copying a company merger PR announcement OK if it also quotes/paraphrases the CEOs of the merged businesses and gives analysis?[edit]

WP:FORUMSHOP. Guy (help!) 12:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The refs are to TechTarget.com, to ChannelBuzz.ca, and to BlockAndFiles.com articles. Cris Mellor, the author of the BlocksAndFiles.com article, is also an editor for The Register, which is a Situation Publication sister website.

I would think the answer to this question would be an obvious "yes". Even primary-source refs are OK for an article about a business given the caution that "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." In this case the ref'd articles start with a PR announcement of the merger of Retrospect Inc. and StorCentric. However all three articles includes direct quotes and paraphrases of the two CEOs' remarks about those same basic company facts, as well as the CEOs' reasoning behind the merger. The BlocksAndFiles.com article includes analysis by Chris Mellor of where the merged companies would fit into the industry, which one would expect in a secondary-source ref.

However Guy doesn't think so. He deleted the entire fourth paragraph of the former History section of the Retrospect (software) article because for the entire article “There is clear consensus on ANI and elsewhere that the level of detail here is excessive, the content promotional, and the sources lack intellectual independence”.

I'll discuss Guy's claim of "consensus" for the entire article in another section on this page. However IMHO it's clear that any "consensus" should not be used as an excuse for the deletion of a paragraph about the merger using the above three references. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gold toilet or just gold-plated?[edit]

Your input is welcome at Talk:America (toilet). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)