|
Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
Additional notes:
|
||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Search this noticeboard & archives |
Contents
- 1 RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".
- 2 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum
- 3 Are ethnic group infobox notable people galleries original research?
- 4 List of best-selling albums of the 21st century
- 5 Junipero Serra
- 6 Is calculating distance using Google maps considered OR?
RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, July 17, 2015 (UTC)
United Kingdom European Union membership referendum
We are having a discussion at Talk:United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Formal_party_policies and have reached something of an impasse. Additional input would be gratefully received. The question concerns what different political parties' official stance is in the forthcoming referendum campaign and sourcing for this. A number of citations have been given to support party positions, but several of these are rather vague -- they don't explicitly say "the policy of party X is to campaign for Y in the referendum" -- so are we guilty of original research in how we interpret these? Or are we worrying too much about exact wording?
User:John Maynard Friedman argues that only primary sources, citations to the parties' official websites, will do in this situation. I feel that contradicts WP:PRIMARY, that we cannot privilege primary sources over secondary sources (although I accept that some of the secondary sources given in the article may be inadequate). We've also discussed how the information is presented in the article text, again without agreement! Bondegezou (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Bondegezou's assessment of the problem, though I consider the problem to be rather more WP:SYN than OR. A further part of the problem is that some of the secondary sources [news media] are even more guilty of SYN, which arguably makes it acceptable under 'verifiability, not truth'. In reality, I don't believe that any harm is being done (no real misrepresentation) but I do think that, to comply with WP standards for itself, the section ought to start with a health warning – but Bondegezou disagrees. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am happy with some explanatory text before the table in question, but I feel if a citation is inadequate, it doesn't need a health warning, it needs removing! Anyway, further detail of our past discussion is on the Talk page as linked to above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Are ethnic group infobox notable people galleries original research?
There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups about the inclusion of galleries of images of notable people in the infoboxes of articles about national and ethnic groups. I have raised concerns that the lack of inclusion criteria for these galleries means that they are original research. Input from experts on OR would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
List of best-selling albums of the 21st century
I've recently discovered the article List of best-selling albums of the 21st century. One might think that a single source would exist for such a list, but the article seems to consist of a list of albums with sales figures sourced individually. This raises the question of whether the article should be considered original research. Presumably, the article editors have tried to think what albums might be the best selling, and then found sales figures for each one. In doing so, they might have missed some, and surely only a single, definitive source should be used for such a list? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Junipero Serra
Earlier this year, there was a proposal in the California legislature by representative Lara to replace the statue of Junipero Serra in the US capitol with a statue of astronaut Sally Ride. This is all well documented in this source - [1] . An editor is now using a source that documents Lara's open homosexuality and another source that documents Ride's similar sexual orientation to imply that the motivation for the statue replacement initiative is Lara's sexual identity: [2] Is this appropriate? Bad Dryer (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Might well be WP:OR by implication, since it implies that being homosexual has something to do with the motivation. Definitely WP:UNDUE unless a connection can be demonstrated, and perhaps even then, if the connection is slight. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- The point is moot. I provided an article where in the same paragraph Lara is described as "openly gay" and goes on to quote his reasoning for proposing the Sally Ride statue as being a "role model for LGBT" youth. It's all on the talk page/being resolved as we speak. Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
Is calculating distance using Google maps considered OR?
Hello, can someone please tell me if using Google maps as source to determine distance between two places considered WP:NOR? I checked the NOR page and the closet I got to was WP:CALC and WP:TRANSCRIPTION (which are different subjects but the principle is similar). I am unable to find any existing guideline / policy stating that it cannot be done. Please help. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you can't find a reliable source explicitly stating the distance between the 2 cities, then I wouldn't put it in. In other words, if other sources aren't giving importance to or emphasizing the distance, then why should the WP article emphasize that distance? Otherwise, people would be putting in irrelevant distances all over the place. The distance from Paris to my house, Paris to my friend's house, Paris to the Wendy's on the corner of 5th and 8th avenue.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I agree completely. WP:CALC says routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. You'd have to establish that you had sources for which the calculation is a meaningful reflection. For instance a book might give the distance in miles then giving it in kilometers is a routine calculation. Aggregating numbers can also sometimes be counted as a routine calculation, e.g. giving totals if all constituent figures are given. Getting a distance from Google maps is not a routine calculation, it is doing original research using Google. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I really can't agree! The source is clearly Google maps, it is a reliable secondary source. OK, it is dynamic rather than static publication but what is wrong with that? Originally research would be if you drove from A to B and asserted that you has taken the distance from the trip odometer. Using what the source gives you and that anybody else consulting the same source will get, is the essence of wp:rs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree completely. WP:CALC says routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. You'd have to establish that you had sources for which the calculation is a meaningful reflection. For instance a book might give the distance in miles then giving it in kilometers is a routine calculation. Aggregating numbers can also sometimes be counted as a routine calculation, e.g. giving totals if all constituent figures are given. Getting a distance from Google maps is not a routine calculation, it is doing original research using Google. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks Scoobydunk, John Maynard Friedman & Dmcq for your time. Allow me to cite two examples where I used Google maps. 1) Varanasi Tehsil article - at the bottom of the page in "Geographic location" and 2) Bara Gumbad where I used Google maps to calculate the distance between two other historical structures in the area. I must confess that in absence of any clear guidelines / policy, I used the Google maps but have calculated the distances only from notable landmarks. Do you gentlemen suggest that a consensus and thereby guideline (if not a policy) can be invited and detailed on this subject? I am pinging @4meter4: who is also involved in this conversation and it is actually based on this observation, I opened this topic. My request to you all is to help and get some guidelines on this subject (small topic but will certainly help lot of people like me). Thanks a lot, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think one of the requirements of WP:CALC that should be understood is that it should be trivial for another editor, viewing the same source, to reproduce the calculation. The Varanasi Tehsil article does not cite any source for the distances, thus it should be uncontroversial information that anyone could find easily. Many people might be able to use the map of their choice and get numbers close to the ones given in the article, but various people would get slightly different answers, so there is no justification to quote distances to the nearest kilometer. Also, I notice Google Maps does not have an obvious way to report the straight-line distance; it wants to give the route distance by road, bus, aircraft, etc. I think most people think, when they see a distance with no further description, interpret it as a straight line distance. Finally, an "s" is never added to unit symbols, so "kms" is incorrect. Jc3s5h (talk)
-
- Jc3s5h, "s" dropped. Thanks for pointing that out. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Again, my point remains that if other sources aren't giving importance to the distance between two landmarks, then we shouldn't be giving it importance either. Also, to clarify, Google maps would be a primary source, not a reliable secondary source.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Whether the distances are worthy of mention in this case is debatable. But Google Maps is a secondary source because most of what they put on their maps is compiled from other sources. I seriously doubt they have an army of observers walking around reading street signs and entering them into their tablets. And considering how widely used Google is throughout society, with relatively few complaints, I think it is reliable. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- They do have unmanned vehicles that help compile their maps, and they literally "take pictures". They use this along with satellites to compile their maps. It's a primary sources based on data they collect, the same way any survey is a primary sources based on data it collects.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- WP:SECONDARY says 'A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.' Google Maps does not think about distances between points. It does not comment on them. It has no thoughts on them. It is a primary source just providing primary information. Being in Google Maps provides no justification in itself for being in Wikipedia any more than someone wearing a red dress in a photo provides a justification in Wikipedia for saying they wore a red dress, it can only corroborate it if a secondary source thought it worthwhile saying so. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I agree that Google Maps is a Primary source, not secondary. But that doesn't ipso facto rule it out. According to WP:PRIMARY, « Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. » It seems to me (and to most disinterested observers, I suggest) that Google Maps is such a 'independent third party source'. I rather suspect that there are no end of references on the web suggesting a google map for navigation: if the test is to be reduced to requiring an RS to vouch for google maps for 'this specific distance then I suggest that we are in the sphere of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
- The more serious criticism is whether the figure given is for the distance as the crow flies or as the road meanders. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- WP:SECONDARY says 'A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.' Google Maps does not think about distances between points. It does not comment on them. It has no thoughts on them. It is a primary source just providing primary information. Being in Google Maps provides no justification in itself for being in Wikipedia any more than someone wearing a red dress in a photo provides a justification in Wikipedia for saying they wore a red dress, it can only corroborate it if a secondary source thought it worthwhile saying so. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What is needed is for a secondary source to show that the distance is something worth bothering about. It isn't enough that a Wikipedia editor wakes up in the morning thinking a distance would be a good thing to put into an article. That is what this policy WP:No original research is all about. Dmcq (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree with your comment and after giving it some thought, I don't even think Google Maps is a proper primary source, but is a "tool" that a person can use to for their own purposes. This is made clear by your example. If a person wants to find the travel distance between their house and the mall, then they can type in their inputs into Google Maps and it will give them an output. Is that how we define primary sources? Can an editor take their yard stick and measure the width of a console and say "My yard stick tells me the width of this console is 8 inches" and then they can put that information in Wikipedia citing their yard stick as a primary source? I don't think so and that would clearly be an example of original research. I understand there are some differences between using Google Maps to find a distance and using a yard stick but I think, fundamentally, they would both be examples of original research. I'm not definitely claiming one or the other, but I think it's something interesting to think about when considering Google maps as any kind of source.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-