Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:No original research

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

One more shortcut

[edit]

"Synthesis of published material" has one more shortcut: WP:SYN. This is currently not named in the shortcut(s) box of the section. Should it be added? --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SYN doesn't seem as immediately intuitive. CMD (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional context needed, from WP:SHORTCUT, to explain why a given shortcut might possibly not be added: The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (that's what Special:WhatLinksHere is for). Instead, they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects. On the other hand, I'd think that with only one entry in the box, "SYNTH", and with "SYN" being intuitive (in my opinion) and easily remembered, it would make sense to add it. On second thought, a shortcut is best if its name already communicates to the reader of the text in which it's included what its target will be about. "SYNTH" is more obviously going to be about synthesis than "SYN" is, which could also be about synchronization or synergy. "SYNTH" is the better of the two, so there's really no good reason to advertise "SYN" as well. Largoplazo (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an unreliable source?

[edit]

Using a source directly created by the subject of an article about a dead person for that article. I know this is not allowed for living people. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) Tamil speakers: Contribute here 23:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right place to ask this?
Aren't there more relevant pages to discuss it, like the article itself, or the reliable sources page, or the biographies of living people page?
Moreover, I just joined, but from what I can see you can use sources created by the subject only as evidence that they created it and might hold such views. The content itself is not considered authoritative unless it is verified by a trusted third party. Though I could easily be wrong. Mara.Namuci (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research is unavoidable

[edit]

The rule as stated makes no sense. I believe I understand the intent: to prohibit people from writing opinion pieces, making political arguments, or advancing controversial ideas, which would transform wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a debate platform.

However, logically, the process of finding verified sources and weaving an accurate description of a topic is itself original research.

I feel that this contradiction arises from the use of the term in academia to refer to a study that uses new data the authors have compiled. The authenticity of the data and the collection or analysis methods are unverified until they undergo peer review. While unoriginal research is then considered to be work that only cites other material.

But these definitions only apply to scientific trials, not to data in general. The problem is obvious when sources, links, and citations are considered data.

The examples given about Paris and routine calculations are demonstrative of common knowledge, in other words consensus or authorised positions. From this it is clear that the true meaning of "No Original Research" is actually "No Subjective Research".

Standard logical deductions or easily verified statements that any rational adult would agree with are not subjective.

Whereas claims based on inaccessible resources or flawed reasoning and spark controversy are and don't belong in an encyclopedia.

I'm under no illusions, I know this post won't inspire any changes, but I felt it was worth writing for the sake of those who notice the contradiction and were confused by the inconsistent and arbitrary application of this rule, and its cousin original synthesis.

I've seen a lot of discussion and criticism of the rule, but nobody seemed to concisely explain the problem.

For an illustrative example, suppose there was an easily accessible source for a 100,000 page book that takes 3 years to read. The person who reads it all and summarises it is conducting subjective research. Nobody else is likely to verify their summary because nobody has that much time.

In conclusion, finding, reading and summarising sources is research. Mara.Namuci (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused regarding the scope of the policy, though it's made quite explicit in its first sentence. Articles ideally contain exactly what information we glean and balance from our best sources, and nothing else. Unless your point is that avoiding novel claims when synthesizing existing material is literally impossible, and every contribution has phantoms of our own inexpert opinions attached, then not much of the above has much meaning. Remsense 🌈 论 01:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though, I want to emphasize you're off-base as regards WP:BLUE, in my opinion. The point is that idealized rational adults in your or my imagination aren't the audience we're writing for, we're writing what's meant to be a resource of the highest quality possible for everyone on Earth. It's not about what's obvious to you personally—it's about making sure that absolutely every claim of substance can be verified by any readers who would need or want to do so. Remsense 🌈 论 01:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I will clarify my position.
I am not suggesting that it is about what is obvious to me personally, rather its the opposite. "Subjective Research" refers to conclusions or beliefs that cannot be verified that may be based on inaccessible resources.
The people responsible for verifying are the editors not me.
So to describe it in practical terms, if most editors think that something is either wrong or not obvious to them, then it is subjective and needs citation.
If certain editors disagree with the way the citations are arranged, interpreted or summarised, then it is subjective.
So it must be reorganised until it is agreeable with the majority of the editors overall belief systems and world views.
Calling the problem "original research" or "original synthesis" obscures the reality, which is simply that the editors as a collective don't believe the conclusions follow from the available data.
It is comparable to a situation with a scientific journal refusing to publish anything that their scientists cannot independently reproduce.
Replace the scientists with editors, and the lab with a home computer. The only tools they are allowed to use are the internet and their brain.
Furthermore, it isn't about whether the readers can verify the statements. Since many readers could well disagree with the sources on the wiki page. It is only about what the editing team feels is appropriate, neutral and authoritative.
I hope that clarifies it. Mara.Namuci (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia contains (and should contain) a lot of subjective information. Strictly speaking, subjective is about how a view depends on your situation. I know a young man who can lift 600 lbs (270 kg). A school-age child is "light" according to him, and "heavy" according to me. Neither of us is wrong; we just have different perspectives on the effort needed to lift that amount of weight.
I often find that when people talk about "subjectivity", they actually mean opinions. Wikipedia needs information about opinions, too. That is most obviously necessary when writing about cultural works. The article about David needs to have some universally agreed-upon facts, such as "5.17 metres (17 ft 0 in) tall" or "made from Carrara marble". But it also needs statements that are opinions, like "feeling of energy" and "a political symbol", even "the figure's erotic aura". You haven't properly described a piece of art if you leave out the viewers' emotional response to it.
"Subjective Research" is most certainly not anything that is "based on inaccessible resources". You may wish to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost and the WP:PAYWALLED policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I meant to state this but got tangled in my reply. Objective statements (the precise value of the fine structure constant) and subjective statements (Huckleberry Finn is an anti-slavery novel) are often equally verifiable. In fact, the latter subjective example is easily verifiable, while the former will probably never be. Remsense 🌈 论 03:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that articles contain subjective statements.
But as you said, subjective things depend on or change according to who considers them.
Whereas objective claims are matters where nearly everyone agrees about it and have reached a consensus.
In most cases where emotional or subjective claims are found on wikipedia, they are supported by an authorised soruce. It doesn't matter that nobody can independently verify it if the government or a large media group is making the claim.
If the BBC claims that there is a war in some foreign country, we can't actually verify it personally. We have to trust someone.
In short, authorities are able to make subjective claims about events. Contributors must stick to what is available on the internet.
And your example of quoting other's opinions is not itself subjective, if it is merely reporting that someone had an emotional reaction.
"He thought it was wonderful" is different from, "It was wonderful". Mara.Namuci (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are not required to "stick to what is available on the internet". Whatever gave you the idea that books and other "dead tree" sources are unacceptable? We even have a specialized template for {{cite sign}}, for the purpose of citing real-world signs (historical markers, museum placards, etc). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the BBC claims that there is a war in some foreign country, we can't actually verify it personally. We have to trust someone. we won't necessarily report it. You seem to forget that our policies don't work in isolation. M.Bitton (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no trivial path to reliable truth and there never will be. Our core content policies essentially split up the process of getting there the best we can as an encyclopedia anyone can edit.
You're imposing this dichotomy of subjective/objective that doesn't reflect either policy or how those terms are generally used to my knowledge.

"Subjective Research" refers to conclusions or beliefs that cannot be verified that may be based on inaccessible resources.

If it helps, that's what we mean by "original research", when it makes its way into live articles.
The people responsible for verifying are the editors not me.
This is a false dichotomy, and it's just not close to true. Editors are expected to provide clear, complete citations. They don't have to unless challenged, from which point some level of consensus building greater than the individual will help decide, or take over the question entirely (e.g. with an RfC). The point of editors citing their sources is that others in turn can check their work and continue their study of the subject if they so choose.. That is why we require reliable sources to be published publicly.
Calling the problem "original research" or "original synthesis" obscures the reality, which is simply that the editors as a collective don't believe the conclusions follow from the available data.
We define the term clearly. We didn't pull it out of thin air, it is pretty consistent with what professional scholars consider "original research". We are not necessarily experts, and the consensus building process is indeed fundamental to how this project is capable of functioning to begin with. I'm not sure what the alternative is—are you under the impression we could somehow operate as if human language has precise, definite, objective meaning? Plato already knew this was a dead end.
Your latter statements were admittedly not at all clear to me. Your concerns seem to concern WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well to a significant degree, so maybe getting a sense what each policy says and how they work together would help you. Remsense 🌈 论 03:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note However, logically, the process of finding verified sources and weaving an accurate description of a topic is itself original research. It's research, not original research. The sources we cite (or the sources they rely on) did the original research. We aren't reporting news stories live, reporting on our own scientific or sociological research, or polling movie audiences about how much they liked a film. Largoplazo (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
suppose there was an easily accessible source for a 100,000 page book... because nobody has that much time. they will summarise the various claims within the book and provide the page numbers (especially when challenged) for each one (so that others don't have to read all of it in order to verify those claims). M.Bitton (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing that thought experiment. However, I have to point out that individual pages are likely not enoguh to prove that a summary is accurate.
Especially for a story, treatise or report.
I suspect you would need multiple quotes from hundreds or even thousands of places to reliably confirm that the text is consistent with the description.
Which definitely becomes unwieldly. Mara.Namuci (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is where WP:V comes into play. M.Bitton (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an accurate summary of the book's contents, it's not original research (=stuff made up by editors that isn't in a reliable source). If it's not an accurate summary, then it might be original research (only might be, because what someone accidentally pasted the wrong source at the end of that sentence, and the information is merely misattributed rather than not being in any reliable source at all?).
But your questions suggest that you are expecting source checking to be good, fast, and cheap. In reality, we don't care whether it's fast or cheap. If it costs you months of reading or thousands of dollars (or both) to check whether the Wikipedia article says the same thing as the cited source, then that's okay with us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This thread brings up some interesting topics - but will unlikely change the long standing practices. Perhaps my personal approach which I tell my students in classes helps a bit here to disentangle the different types of original research here. I tell my students there are 3 types of new information they can bring into a paper and each of them needs backing.
(1) Selected topic relevant information based on reliable sources. Of course the selection of sources, and which sources get emphasis remains subjective and to some extent an original approach to the paper (but that is part of what students should learn). Important here is that the information is verifiable (WP:V) from reliable sources (WP:RS) but need not necessarily be true. Well established laws of nature (such as Newton's laws) are gross oversimplifications and hence not true (when achieving speeds close to light speed), yet they can and should be verifiably cited from reliable sources if relevant in the context.
(2) Self collected new data (for which the data files can be made available). This is truly original (primary) research and something Wikipedia explicitly excludes from inclusion (for good reasons)
(3) (New) Conclusions based on logical reasoning in combining information from sources and/or own data. This is synthesis and also something Wikipedia excludes (WP:synth for good reasons). We should not combine information to come up with new ideas posed as original conclusions, speculations etc., as that is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. However, the selection, ordering and narrative flow of any written text always implies some kind of synthesis (this is unavoidable).
When reading this thread it seems that the discussion alternates between the verifiability of facts from reliable sources (which is in my view fairly straightforward), the selection of sources (which is unavoidably subjective), and to some extent the implied or explicit synthesis of these sources. The subjectivity and selecting sources and the implied synthesis by that selection and the order of argument in a narrative flow is unavoidable but hopefully the consensus model of Wikipedia takes off the sharp edges (the existence of templates like template:Globalize indicates this sometimes needs additional attention but we do our best). Arnoutf (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful message.
This is the kind of reply I hoped for and your breakdown of the different types of OR is very helpful.
I agree with everything you have said. However, I would argue there is a fourth implicit OR, which is knowledge based logical deduction and synthesis from zero or more sources in the construction of a narrative.
Although you may have been including this as part of your 3rd type.
A simple example being recognition of the chronological flow of time. Sources which discuss events in no particular order are composed to form something readable.
With more convoluted examples being translation of texts written in obscure languages, interpretation of complex or abstract concepts, and knowledge of jargon or contextual implication in legal documents or historical works. There is also the example already given of an immensely long text that a committed reader has transformed into a mental representation before offering a summary of their impression. Mara.Namuci (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it helpful to read the explanation at Wikipedia:These are not original research.
Keep in mind that we are not concerned about the One True™ Meaning of the words original research. We are concerned with what we choose to ban from articles, and what we choose to not ban from articles. For our own convenience, we call the banned stuff "original research", but we could equally well call it "Policy 3" or "egoirh worgi" or "the banned foo". What matters is the thing itself, not the label. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the selection of RS nor their presentation is that subjective. Both are objective to the extent that they attempt to apply standards, not of the editor's internal feelings, but standards that are laid out for them externally. Indeed, it is that sense of objectivity that means that anyone can come along and write "your" article. And they will. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is perhaps not an opinionated choice, but it is subjective in the narrow sense that it matters what language(s) you're searching in, whether your search engine is giving you personalized results, what resources are available to you, etc. You and I could apply exactly the same standards, and still end up choosing somewhat different sources because of differences in location, past search history, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, you can say in some limited way. But that's not at all responsive to what I said, which was "that subjective". And it's not that I am trying to adress what I feel, it's that I am trying to address the external standard. I assume you are too. And it is the external standard on which it will be judged, not how you or I feel subjectively. And the external standards are both broad and narrow. It's as broad as 'this is an encylopeidia', if that's so, than you better not be writing an impressionistic tonal poem, and the external standards get narrower and narrower. (And much of what you mention is not about subjectivity, it is about how capable you or I are in meeting the standard. True, one may not be as good at it as others, but that's beside the point. Still, if you do sufficiently poorly, it will be excluded.) --Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The detail that I think is frequently lost is that subjectivity isn't about "how you or I feel". Subjectivity is about legitimate, logical differences based on how each 'subject' is situated. A statement like "The Treaty of Versailles stated that Germany would pay reparations to France" is universal and therefore non-subjective. A statement like "Many Germans saw reparations as a national humiliation" is an encyclopedic, source-supported description of subjective facts. The reasons that this is subjective is because some people (Germans) saw reparations as a national humiliation, and some other people (e.g., French people) saw it as justice. It's not just "opinions"; it's seeing the same facts from opposite sides of the border. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's backup. I assume you don't mean that the definition of subjective is subjective. That the definition is the same for you and me and it's something we don't construct internally, at least at base, it is what we read in a book not authored by either of us. And what we read there shows that subjective has different facets but those facets are not infinite, nor constructed by us. Regardless, of whether that definition of subjective references internal or personal feelings, opinions, or tastes or whether your "isn't about" was overstatement, perhaps it is telling that you chose "humiliation" as your example (which I assume we would agree is a feeling).
You and I have no idea what the Germans or French thought or felt or why. Nor do you or I know whether it was logical for them. The best we can both do is read about it from the external sources and try to find the best sources for that, and then be faithful to those sources in our writing (not faithful to ourselves). But perhaps a more useful way to discuss what you describe is "point-of-view", and we have external standards for talking about, and the sourcing of, others' points of view (NPOV). Note first, they belong to others not to us and they are the same for both of us, then too, the standards are the same for you and me. We also have external standard about writing up our own points of view: don't. So in those senses, it is not subjective to you nor to me - it is objective for both of us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the example I used in User:WhatamIdoing/Subjectivity in Wikipedia articles (unfinished) would be simpler. Shall we take this to my talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but if your point is a scientifically supported cause and effect can be treated as fact, I would note that neither the support, nor the cause, nor the effect, nor how those are put together is subjective to me or you - they are objectively the same for both of us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have turned into a gray-haired old lady without telling me, I doubt that "How cold is too cold to go swimming?" is "objectively the same for both of us". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That question is exactly the same for both of us, no matter how old you are or what gender/sex. If you are suggesting the answer is not the same, you'll have first convince me my answer matters to any article (and you won't be doing so without sources). And that's before you even get out of me my age, hair color, or sex. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP is completely correct that what we call "original research" is not the same as what that phrase would mean in academia. There are plenty of similar examples in Wikipedia policy. An outstanding example is "verifiable", which in plain English means that its truth can be checked, which is different from our meaning of appearing in a "reliable source". And "reliable" is another example. In all these cases, our meaning is related but not exactly the same as the general meaning outside Wikipedia. We can't do anything about this except to try to write policy pages to explain what these words mean to us. In this case the policy attempts to do that right at the beginning. Zerotalk 02:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure the Wikipedia view is that different from the view in academia. In academia, original research (be it new data, new synthesis or new opinion) is key to everything we write - why else write it. In Wikipedia we should not do original research but create an overview of reliably sourced and/or verifiable findings (the sky is blue need no sources as it can be verified by all by simply looking up). So in my view it is not so much the definition that differs, but whether original research is desirable or not that makes the big difference. Arnoutf (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it.
The similarity between them is that the scientist conducts original research when their work uses unpublished and thus unverified data, and the wikipedian is doing OR when they use unverified sources.
However the first difference is that when a scientist wants new data he can mine it from experimental results.
Whereas the wikipedian's data is reliable sources, which they mine from the internet.
Furthermore, journals consider the submitted body of work as OR if the data is new to them. They make no claims about whether it is new in any other sense which is unknown and irrelevant.
However, when a wikipedian proposes that new sources be added to the body of verified and reliable sources, despite being new to wikipedia, this is not considered OR because wikipedia makes the illogical and circular argument that OR only refers to data that is new to their body of verified sources including that which they just verified.
Such that OR only refers to those sources which are not accepted and thus deemed unverified.
Alternatively, some may claim that it is because the source data was already known to the relevant field of study that it doesn't count as original. But as mentioned, this isn't a reasonable definition as it is was previously unknown that it was well known, and it all hinges on the claim of reliability. Which is why nobody defines it that way. It is original if it is original in the eyes of the adjudicating body.
Moreover through this process, sources are retroactively implied to have always been considered reliable and that no change has ever occurred. Which is pathologically insane.
The equivalent would be if a journal verified a paper and then made the absurd claim that since the data is verified and published that it is not and has never been Original Research.
So we see that the concept is being used inappropriately in order to maintain the fiction of objective reliability and avoid the reality of appeal to consensus and appeal to authority.
To provide an illustrative example. Suppose that in an alternate world, wikipedia is based in china. And an american attempts to update a page about his country according to news sources in his area, they may deem these sources unreliable and flag it as original research. Which makes no sense. Mara.Namuci (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it extremely hard to follow you. What is it exactly that you're trying to achieve? M.Bitton (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed hard to follow. For publishing academic papers it is always important to claim a relevant knowledge gap / novel contribution to literature - i.e. to claim an original contribution. Whether this is self collected data, a newly develop method to analyse data, or even synthesis (by creatively combining existing sources in e.g. a meta-analysis or theory construction paper) is irrelevant in academia (I can claim some experience there with well over 100 scientific papers to my name). What Wikipedia should not do is make novel contributions and that is basically how we define original research. Arnoutf (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think, OP, you have misunderstood WP:OR. It's nothing to do with: the wikipedian is doing OR when they use unverified sources. Nor is it true that wikipedia makes the illogical and circular argument that OR only refers to data that is new to their body of verified sources. We talk about it being "verifiable" (in WP:V) not "verified". There isn't a body of "verified" sources that can be added to. The key issue is whether or not it has been published (whether or not on the internet. I don't know why you say the wikipedian's data is reliable sources, which they mine from the internet. It can be "mined" from anywhere.) If someone wants to make a claim that has not been published - that's OR. If they want to make a claim that has been published then that's potentially not OR, although then the question of the reliability of that published source has to also be addressed. Because you seem confused about the difference between published and unpublished I can't relate anything you have said to Wikipedia in any practical way. DeCausa (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that sources are not data, if they were just that, we could not write anything at all, at least not anything coherent; they are context, analysis and interpretation, the very things we can't do originally (along with collecting data). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest, it's adapted to our situation rather than something very different. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and wp:Ver simply place a requirement on material which excludes material which doesn't meet certain requirements. The OP correctly points out that this still allows for a lot of creation and creative spinning by editors via other methods. But this is not technically WP:OR and thus not something that would be excluded by WP:OR/WP:Ver policies. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase "...even if not already verified"

[edit]

I had trouble making sense of the sentence The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation -- and judging by recent edits, so did at least one other person.

It looks like the wording came from this edit, arising from this talk page discussion in 2022. Someone just replaced "attributed" with "verified" throughout, subtly changing the sense (and also made some other useful changes at the same time).

Where I did a double-take is: the general pattern is "You must do A even if not B", implying that if B is true then it's obvious that you must do A, and without B, it's less obvious. So in the context of citations: if there's already a citation then it's obvious that you have to add a citation? And if there's not already a citation then it's less obvious that one should be added? This seems to be putting the emphasis in the wrong place.

From the old talk page, I think the actual intention is: if there's isn't a citation, then maybe you don't need to add one, or maybe you do, it depends on whether the statement is challenged -- but we're not demanding inline citations for literally every single fact. I think this is amply explained in the following sentences. Therefore it's enough to say "all material must be verifiable...if not already verified", and then flow on to the following explanation; adding "even if not already verified" just muddies the waters.

At least, that's my reading of it. No problem if someone else wants to revert or to try a third version. Jowa fan (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jowa fan, feel free to ping me if you run across things I've written that sound confusing.
Back in the day, there was a major proposal to merge NOR and WP:V. The proposed name for the combined policy was Wikipedia:Attribution. The idea was that it should be possible for every fact, idea, etc., in a Wikipedia article to be attributed to a relibale source. Some of the policies were copyedited to use the proposed name.
These days, when we talk about 'attribution', we're talking about WP:INTEXT attribution. Consequently, when editors read "Everything must be attributable", they don't hear "Don't make stuff up yourself; get it from a reliable source". Instead, they hear "Every sentence should begin with words like 'According to one study...' or 'According to Carol Critic...'." Resolving that confusion was the purpose of the edits.
 
Looking at the sourcing policies more generally, the model works something like this:
  • Absolutely everything, without exception: Nothing in a Wikipedia article can just be made up by editors. No matter what it is, a reliable source must have published it first. You don't have to say what the source is, but if WP:CHALLENGED, somebody has to be able to find one.
  • Only for certain specified kinds of content: Requires an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material in question.
The simplest case is that you just spam in a citation for anything you add to the article. But not everything is required to have a citation. Writing common knowledge ("The capital of France is Paris") without an inline citation is perfectly policy-compliant.
I wonder if you'd find this clearer:
"The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable, in the sense that it must be possible for an editor to find a reliable, published source that directly supports this material. An inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all direct quotations, contentious matter about living people, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but even for material that is not required to have an inline citation, a reliable source that could be cited in support this material must have been published and still exist.[a]"
  1. ^ By "exist", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extra context: I wasn't aware of the full history. Yes, your proposed text is a little bit longer, but much clearer to my mind. Jowa fan (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There having been no objections, I've made the suggested edit. Now we can lie in wait for a reverter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To look at this from the perspective of article writers: You should be able to cite a source for anything and everything you add to an article. You don’t always have to add that source, but you should have one on hand and be ready to do so if someone challenges what you added. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.
To look at this from the perspective of editors looking at something many years later (when that article writer isn't around any longer, so they can't add it if someone challenges it): You shouldn't conflate uncited with original research. Most material that sounds plausible/encyclopedic and is still uncited isn't OR, and just needs someone to try to find a source (or to ask others to attempt it, e.g., by adding a {{citation needed}} tag). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "but you should have one on hand and be ready to do so if someone challenges what you added" [underline added] in the above comment by Blueboar. I know how to do long division of positive integers, resulting in a remainder and a quotient. I learned it in elementary school. The books were owned by the school and I wasn't allowed to keep them when I advanced to the next grade. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even WP:BLUESKY material is supposed to get an inline citation, if an actual WP:CHALLENGE is made. That might require you to find a source rather than having one on hand, though during the article-writing process (e.g., if you are writing the Division (mathematics)), you probably would have one on hand. Many reliable sources do mention such basic things in passing somewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth from WP:CALC of reported age in RS

[edit]

WP:CALC says Basic arithmetic, such as ... calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. Would the inverse also be true, using the reported age and date of publication to determine what year someone was born and using that with {{birth year and age}} (which provides an estimated age rather than a specific age in with the absence of month/day)?

If this has been discussed before, a pointer to any prior consensus on this would be helpful. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the age and the date when the age was correct are both in a reliable source, then computing the year of birth is legit. However, just as in the other direction, there are usually two possibilities. Zerotalk 07:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. =) So to get from theoretical to actual, given this source (published December 29, 2015, archive link because the main source is paywalled) currently being used in Byron Mann which states Although at 48 he's an international name ..., that gives us a birth year of 1967 (or possibly 1966 if he was born on December 30th or 31st of 1966). {{birth year and age|1967}} renders as 1967 (age 57–58), which should at least make clear there's some ambiguity about the age. Should that be acceptable, absent any conflicting sources?
FWIW, the subject of the article was disputing the precise date that had been added (and was unsourced) (see BLPN discussion here), I'm just trying to work out a compromise until an accurate reliable source for the full DOB can be found. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it applicable to this case, but in general it is worth keeping East Asian age reckoning in mind as a further potential source of uncertainty. CMD (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'll confess I wasn't aware of that, definitely something I'll try to keep in mind going forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the source is reliable and no other ones contradict it, yes, inclusion of a birth year range is appropriate and common. We often use Template:Age as of date. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, good pointer, I ended up using {{birth based on age as of date}}. This at least uses the sources currently available in a more responsible manner. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is fine. Usually, objections to it are based on a personal belief that the information is inappropriate in general (I hate having birthdates in articles, and so maybe I can wikilawyer this one out), oversimplifying a specific circumstance (Yes, but you're ignoring this source that says the actress lied about her age), or you've stumbled across an editor with rigid thinking who doesn't fully understand the actual rules (You did not dot every i and cross every t!). If the latter, a simple RFC usually helps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on BLPCRIME

[edit]

There is currently an RfC on WP:BLPCRIME at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons § RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context

[edit]

I posted this:

Not sure if the discussion should be here instead. I'm happy to move it here, if that is better.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim, yes, I think that belongs here.
Also, I think that you have confused NOR (no reliable source, anywhere in the world, has ever published this claim) with WP:DUE and WP:BALASP (which are concerned with articles going off on a tangent, like the general history of places where the subject lived). It is not a violation of this policy to write a decent encyclopedia article that people can understand. That sometimes means providing (e.g.) definitions and basic explanations from reliable sources that do not happen to mention the name of the Wikipedia article.
For example:
  • She was born in Petrograd (now called Saint Petersburg[source about the history of that city's names]) in 1920.[source about her birth]
  • He developed rhinitis (a runny nose[source about the symptom]) and refused to work outside.[source about the subject]
WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the examples. Those do make sense. I'm def. not talking about lack of WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, or WP:BALASP. I'm concerned with editors adding what they believe is context--even if it is from a WP:RS--but whose connection to the subject is more assumed by the the editor rather than any WP:RS they have provided. I see that as WP:SYN to say they are related if the WP:RS in the article does not connect them. (My sense is from the responses so far is that if some WP:RS in the article does connect them (e.g. your two examples), then it is ok to provide some good WP:RS on the secondary subject that does not directly discuss the subject of the article.)
You can see the kind of examples I was concerned about at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Suspension_of_Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!. No one responded to that, so I tried asking the question again in a more general way to see if I could better understand the limits of an editor's ideas of what material they think constitutes "context". I believe the context is defined by the WP:RS not by material that editors believe is relevant. My question above goes a little deeper to see just where the limits might be on providing any WP:RS that does not directly discuss the subject of the article. It does appear from the two responses that there are exceptions, such as the cases of definition of terms that may be unfamiliar to readers. Thank you for responding. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree with you.
The most reliable sources are often scholarly papers which written by subject-matter experts, for an audience of subject-matter experts. Wikipedians are writing for a general audience, so we need to do more explaining of the things that the subject-matter experts wouldn't discuss when writing for each other. I always think that the platonic ideal of a Wikipedia article is one that could be understood by an intelligent and curious, but underinformed, teenager from a different continent.
My favourite example of this is Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It's based on scrupulously reliable sources written by medical professionals, and it uses the language medical professionals use. Which is one of several reasons why it would be utterly unintelligible to most sufferers.
The likely audience for an article like that is someone who has, or whose friend or relative has, recently been diagnosed with the condition. So (as well as a full rewrite using short, simple, old words) it also needs all the technical terms in the lead to be expanded with in-text explanation of what they mean. That context will not be anywhere to be found in the scholarly sources the article uses. It has to be added by people who're thinking about our audience.—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! question:
It is impossible for a person completely unaware of Charlie Kirk to understand the subject of Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Therefore, Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! must have some background explanation of who Kirk is and how he died. Citing that background explanation to a high-quality source about Kirk that doesn't mention Kimmel or the suspension of his show is not OR. It is not making up stuff that has never been published before. It is fulfilling Wikipedia's goals of helping people understand the subject.
That said, it's possible to add way too much background explanation. The problem there isn't "the cited source doesn't mention Jimmy Kimmel by name!" The problem there is WP:UNDUE emphasis on the background material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that explaining who Kirk was is beneficial to that article, because Kimmel was suspended for talking about Kirk. Kirk is clearly related to the suspension. But was Trump's previous lawsuit against ABC related to the suspension? Until I saw it mentioned in the WP:RS about the suspension, I considered it a judgment call as to whether it was or was not related, so I previously removed it and asked for WP:RS that mentioned both.--David Tornheim (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with removing material that doesn't seem related, or even material that you know is related but you, using your best editorial judgment, believe isn't related enough to justify inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: I understand what you are saying. What you are talking about is more of defining terms and using layperson's language to make an article more accessible. That all makes sense. I take no issue with that. Of course, we do have [[https://simple.wikipedia.org simple Wikipedia}, but does anyone actually use it?
What brought me here is slightly different. The examples you and WhatamIdoing focus on explaining and defining terms and concepts that readers may not be familiar that are clearly and/or directly related to the subject of the article--terms or concepts that will most be certainly found in the WP:RS about the subject of the article.
The example I am dealing with that brought on this question has more to do with the history that led up to an event--the Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!. The challenge with the context/history of this or any article on any person or event is that what constitutes "relevant history" is subjective. It could, in theory, include almost anything in the history of mankind and the universe up to that point, because everything in history affects us all to some extent. Deciding what is and is not relevant history/context is a discretionary call, and so I believe the WP:RS should decide what it relevant history rather than editors plopping in anything they deem relevant. This is quite different than defining terms & concepts that are clearly connected to the subject -and- are mentioned in the WP:RS. Does that make sense? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the example you give, of a "background" section implying that a prior lawsuit (partly) caused the suspension, I think it's reasonable to ask for a better source.
But: You removed that example from a paragraph that explicitly connects Trump's actions, including lawsuits against media companies, to the suspension of this show, so IMO you should have considered the possibility that even though the cited source didn't mention Kimmel's suspension, then there was at least a possibility of other sources doing so. The best practice in such a case is to look for sources before blanking it. And indeed, at least at the moment, the then-cited source has a link in a box to another source that explicitly makes the connection between the prior lawsuit and the Kimmel suspension. Finding a better source to WP:PRESERVE relevant content is a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have looked for a source that mentioned the suspension and the ABC lawsuit, but I didn't because I didn't expect to find it as a major factor in the suspension. The sources I had seen said the fear from Carr's comments was b/c of the fear the $16 Billion merger would be denied by the FCC.[1][2] My sense was that the defamation lawsuit was not a major factor as it was part of a long list of frivolous lawsuits, such as the recently dismissed $15Billion NYT case,[3], and countless acts of intimidation of critics through firing, deporting, seeking retribution, threatening and arresting elected officials, unlawful detention, and now disappearance of people from Alligator Alcatraz.[4] That one $15 Million settlement seems trivial to me compared to all the rest of these actions. I figured if that one case was relevant, all the other acts to silence critics are similarly relevant, which would make the context section huge.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, David Tornheim, you are making great good sense. And it does sound in OR. Anytime disparate things are put together (eg., 'X data and Y data'; 'you must understand x, to understand y'; 'this explains that', 'this is connected to that', etc.) it is almost certainly a form of analysis (or synthesis) which cannot originate from Wikipedians -- it must be sourced to RS that directly make the connection.
If the Lenny Bruce obscenity trial is to be mentioned on that Jimmy Kimmel page, it has to be sourced as being related. Moreover, it has to be tied together on the Wikipedia page, as the sources do. No one here can originally tie a Trump lawsuit (and there are alot of them) to that Jimmy Kimmel page, only sources can do that, and we can only reflect, how the sources do that. (Now, if as others claim, sources have done that and they produce them, then it becomes a reliability, due weight, and other policy issue.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's more than just "terms and concepts". It's whatever it takes to make the article make sense to someone who speaks English but is from a different culture in a different continent, when they're reading the article without following any of the wikilinks. The simple English Wikipedia analogy is misconceived; any encyclopaedia article needs to clarify its subject for an uninformed audience, and that does mean assuming zero knowledge.
    David, forgive me for making assumptions, but I do suspect you of being an educated American who's politically aware and follows US news. But imagine being me.
    I've never set foot in the US. For the last several years I've actively avoided reading news about US politics, because I can't affect it and I'm heartily sick of the journalistic tendency to treat the latest unhinged social media post or random mid-speech extemporaenous pronouncement by a certain orange gentleman as the most important thing to bring to my attention. I don't know who Jimmy Kimmel is and I couldn't pick him out of a lineup.
    Now, bear in mind that I'm a Brit with centrist British political sensibilities. From my point of view, the US Democrat party is a party of the extreme right. It doesn't think of free healthcare as a human right, it doesn't oppose firearms ownership, and overall, generally, its views are to the right of Reform UK. (I don't think of the Republican party as right-wing. The right is a coherent and logical world view with which I disagree. From my perspective the Republican party's views are utterly unintelligible.)
    As a total newbie to this, I've just clicked, for the first time in my life, on the Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! and I'll type this in one window as I read the article in another.
Generally: As a non-American who doesn't follow US politics, I'm really struggling to make sense of this article with the amount of context I'm given. I need more context. But I also need less detail. Give me the view from 10,000 feet, not the view from 100 feet.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For "monologue", google says stand up comedy is popular in Britain, so think of a comedian or satirist at a microphone, addressing the audience. And from your summary, it does seem there you are looking for a definition. (Google also gives The Graham Norton Show in Britain as an example of a talk show which begins with the host's monologue, although the style is somewhat different.)
But more substantively and apart from whether the article is any good (which I agree is overlong or overwritten, a defect which plagues too many of our event articles), how can you expect others to anticipate your personal assumptions about politics in the U.S.? (Your assumptions may be wrong, for example, you may not understand the constitutional issue on guns or free speech, which theoretically and in a real sense can remove an issue from ordinary politics (Democrat or Republican), at least in certain ways, but then in Britain there is not one written constitution, nor a court with constitutional judicial review). It seems, the best any of us can do for you (or including you) is look for sources that try to explain this event to a British audience and if warranted work them into the article, but then there is also the audience in India, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously don't expect others to anticipate my many assumptions and prejudices. In this case I chose to disclose them for discussion purposes because they affect how I read the article.
It's good that you mentioned India. I don't have hard figures but I would anticipate that India is the country with the most English speakers. I think it actually makes a lot of sense to assume you're writing for a teenager from Delhi, and to give the amount of detail and context that person would need.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries by English-speaking population leads with US, India, Nigeria, and Pakistan (UK is #7) for total speakers. However, if you go by mother tongue, the order is US, UK, Canada, and Nigeria.
I agree with S Marshall about the need to write articles so that anyone can understand them. They're supposed to be written so that they make sense when read in isolation. Experienced editors should be able to predict some of these things (e.g., we regularly write "the widget researcher Alice Expert" instead of just "Alice Expert"), and we have a community from all over the world that can help us identify other things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WAID and S Marshall. To give an example, I've written a number of biographies of early modern British Members of Parliament, for which the "History of Parliament" furnishes an excellent secondary source. However, it's written for an audience of historians: if we peruse their biography of John Pitt, we're confronted with sentences like "he spoke against the Hanoverians on 12 Jan. 1744". I feel very comfortable making the assumption that most of our readers need context to connect that with ministerial policy on the War of the Austrian Succession, and that doing so improves the encyclopedia, whether or not a source exists that both provides context for the Hanoverian subsidies and explicitly lists the name of John Pitt.
I think this proposal exemplifies a broader problem; another example would be the outcry against backwards editing. Wikipedia has a very broad intellectual scope. We pretend that all of our content can be constructed under a simple set of universal rules, but that's not really true; topics that fall under MEDRS, BLP, CTOPS, etc. in practice work differently. Our open, consensus model of discussion is most vulnerable to Brandolini's law, so these strictures reduce the level of argument to manageable levels by pre-empting discussion and editorial judgment. The simplest way to do so is by imposing the judgments made by a reliable source in lieu of the consensus of editors. On topics where the opinions of well-read people vary widely and on which partisan feeling is strong, even discussion of second- and third-order effects (is this an RS? is this reliably-sourced fact germane?) can become overwhelming, so best practices become increasingly mechanical. Editors who spend most of their time on these topics may feel those rigid practices should be mandatory, because editors who don't follow them waste time and energy by necessitating regular discussions on due weight, balance, etc.
However, many topics in Wikipedia don't labor under these disadvantages. Insisting that best practices in controversial topics have to be applied universally is like coming back to a quiet suburban neighborhood and telling your neighbors that they'll all be murdered if they don't string concertina wire in the yard and post sentries at night. Better to delineate the topics where these practices are most salubrious and apply them there. Choess (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also find that many editors object to spending time and energy [on] discussions on due weight, balance, etc. Why should I have to explain that this is way too much detail for this article, so we need to balance the aspects of what we cover and not hang a huge tangent on a small hook? Instead, I'll say your source is unreliable, or that it doesn't mention the title of the article, and ask you to go WP:FETCH me a source. I'm not doing this because it's true; I'm doing this because I think it will be easy to complain about your source and that you'll just give up, and then I won't have to expend the effort of explaining the real problem. An attempt to economize on discussion, combined with rigid thinking (e.g., rigid rule following in violation of the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy), leads to the problems you describe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand a bit on what Choess says about "many topics in Wikipedia": I think the amount of context that's needed depends on how high you're flying.
I mean that we (rightly) have separate articles about arachnid, spider, araneomorphae, and bagheera kiplingi. They respectively need the view from 30,000 feet, the view from 10,000 feet, the view from 1,000 feet and the view from 100 feet; so arachnid says the creatures have eight legs and are mostly terrestrial carnivores, and spider says they spin silk. Bagheera kiplingi omits that context and instead labours the point that this is a herbivorous species. I'm comfortable with that editorial decision.—S Marshall T/C 23:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have cited a source which ties Pitt directly to the Hanoverian policy, and when it occurred. As sourced, the Hanoverian policy is directly connected to Pitt, and considering the Hanoverian policy was one of the major, perhaps the major political issue of the time and place, discussing the Hanoverian policy of the time and place is no leap, and requires no assumption as to its connection. Now, if you somehow invented a connection to say, the Navigation Acts or the Longitude Acts or Brexit, we could perhaps discuss how far afield you originally appear to be. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think this is a reasonable way to treat things. What I am concerned about is that if I say in the article about John Pitt, "In 1744, the Carteret ministry proposed a further subsidy for the Hanoverian troops being employed against France in the War of the Austrian Succession.[A] Pitt spoke against this proposal in Parliament.[B]" where [A] is a citation to a generic historical work that doesn't mention Pitt and [B] is his History of Parliament entry, an editor will argue that, because source [A] doesn't mention Pitt, [A] is not "directly related" and the first sentence constitutes OR. That seemed to be the position taken by the original poster in this recent discussion. I think that failure of a cited source to mention the subject of an article can be evidence that the information backed by the citation is OR ( = not "directly related"), but I don't think it always constitutes proof of OR. (However, while I haven't looked deeply into David's original example, I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that in controversial topics, it should be harder to make the case that information is "directly related" without an explicit warrant from a source.) Choess (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&oldid=1315571645"