Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

WikiCup note

Hello. This is a brief note to inform any users wishing to sign up for the 2010 WikiCup that they have until 23:59 UTC on December 31 to do so. This can be done here. Thank you in advance. iMatthew ^talk at 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability issue at List of new religious movements

• List of new religious movements (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is an issue with a user reverting to a very poorly sourced version of this page, and removed sourced info [1], [2]. Additional input from previously uninvolved editors would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the main issue is violation of WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Between-group differences in IQ

This new article, Between-group differences in IQ, seems to be a way to include The Bell Curve work of Murray. Anybody familiar with this material want to take a look? (reasoning) 04:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

References for plot summaries?

An editor has been removing the plot summaries from Par Ohmsford, claiming that they need references per WP:V and WP:CS.[3] He/she has now added {{cn}}'s to another article for the same reason, albeit not arbitrarily removing the information.[4] I'm coming here to ask if that is correct. From what I've seen, it is a longstanding convention that the summaries do not have to be cited. Am I wrong? Thanks, —  • 19:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries should be cited to secondary sources, where possible, and many projects favor quoting the primary source where possible (for example, using {{cite video game}} to quote dialog; using both primary and secondary sources can be seen in Halo Wars#Synopsis.) That said, the common consideration is that generally the source itself is good enough (there is probably also a tacit understanding that if we required them, we'd have a hell of a lot of unciteable summaries and thus a lot less plot sections.) ⁽⁾ 20:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed the unsourced material from the article on a literary character (Par Ohmsford). First, let me say that I think it a good idea to have this meta-discussion about Wikipedia policy on sourcing for literary plot summaries, and I'm glad User:the_ed17 initiated the discussion. Second, just to clarify, I removed the unsourced material only after it had been fact-tagged for several months and no editor with concern for the article or fictional character had added any sources. After reversion and initiation of a TalkPage discussion by the_ed17, I left the material in the article and only marked the unsourced material with {{citation needed}}, pending further discussion. Now, onto my take on the need for sourcing:

My understanding is that any plot summarization directly from the work being summarized, and done by a Wikipedia editor, would be original research. Failing to find any specific WP policy that says plot summaries are a special case, i.e., that original research is okay in the case of plot summaries, I would expect that the standard Wikipedia core policies of No Original Research and verifiability would apply.

Thus, any plot summary without verifiable, reliable secondary source citations can be challenged and removed, and per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, it would be up to the editor who adds or restores material to support that material with sources: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."N2e (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have always assumed a straight-forward plot summary has the subject work as an assumed source and that the summarizing must follow the same rules as accessing information from any other source. A straightforward summary of a plot is "original research" in the same way that extracting information from any source might be so considered - it involves some judgement in selection of information and choice of words - but I do not feel it falls into the category banished by WP:OR. If another reasonable reader would get the same information from the source work, I don't see explicit citation is necessary.

That said, if the source work is difficult/ambiguous - like Finnegans Wake - citations would be appropriate. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The general issue of plot summaries has been dealt with ad naseum elsewhere. Many previous discussions on this:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Spoilers
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section
• Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
• Wikipedia:Plot summaries#How to cite
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 29#Descriptive plot summeries and primary sources
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive30#Fiction in Wikipedia
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 32#How does "no original research" fit with plot summaries?
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 38#Original research in plot summaries
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 44#Constructing a fictional character's biography from only primary source - OR/SYN or not?

WP:PASI notes this clearly as well. Straight plot summaries do NOT require citations. They are sourced to the primary source. Interpretation of plot is the only thing that requires a secondary source. If they are going to require sourcing, just delete all of Wikipedia because clearly editors can not read something and summaries it as we do with all sources. This is the overwhelming consensus across Wikipedia, including in WP:FA reviews. That said, in this case this is NOT straight plot summary. They are character articles, and yes sourcing, either to the primary source (specific, with page numbers to the place the work where the claim is made) or to a secondary source (if interpretation) is required. For example, Tokyo Mew Mew (FA) does NOT need a citation on its plot summary - the manga series itself is the source. On List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (FL), however, citations are required for each statement made about a character. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. Summarizing any source, including literary works, is source-based research, not original research. Source-based research is not only allowed, but required. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that, as Collectonian asserts, "The general issue of plot summaries has been dealt with ad naseum elsewhere." While all those links are certainly interesting history of previous discussions, it would seem that those ediotrs who don't want to have this issue be brought up by well-intentioned editors like myself who stumble into some esoteric area (e.g., literary plot summaries) that may have "special rulz", it would be worthwhile for them to see that the exceptions to WP:OR and WP:V be documented within those broad-consensus core policies of Wikipedia. It cannot really be expected that all editors are familiar with the gigabytes of previous arcane discussions. The conclusions ought to be summarized and consensus obtained for policy modifications. N2e (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The conclusions are usually summarized in the form of the policies themselves. The exception here (plot summaries) is in fact mentioned within WP:OR (section WP:PSTS). But you can't be blamed for not spotting it -- policy is a hydra, with a hundred heads, and every time we try to cut off one of them, two more grow back.--Father Goose (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Short answer... Yes, plot summaries do need to be verifiable to reliable sources... however, in the context of a plot summary, the book, film, play, etc in question is a reliable source (the primary source). This is so obvious that we usually don't require actual citation... the citation is assumed.

Longer answer... However there is a huge caveat to the above... and it revolves around the issue of what is contanied within the "plot summary"? If the summary consists of nothing but a very basic "liniar discription of the action" that takes place in the book, play, movie, etc then you can assume a citation to the work. However, if you include any sort of analysis or conclusionary statements in your "plot summary", then you need to cite secondary sources for that analysis or those conclusions (as per WP:NOR). In other words, you don't get a blanket pass just because something is in a section entitled "plot summary". Whether you have to cite or not depends on what exactly you are saying in the section. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't particularly like it, but the work of fiction itself is considered a valid source. Blueboar, Collectonian and Jc3s5h are correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

About the article Par Ohmsford in particular: this is not really a "plot summary"; it looks like a synopsis of what happens to a character in numerous books. Our inclusion policy is such that we ofter permit articles like this one, about characters that are obscure enough that there is no secondary, critical commentary about them. So the only sources that exist are the original books, and so those are the sources that have to be used, even though they are primary sources. A separate problem that makes the citations seem worse is that this article is written from a somewhat in-universe perspective. Switching it to a more detached perspective would make it easier to see what to reference. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to "characters that are obscure enough that there is no secondary, critical commentary about them"... if no secondary sources discuss them, then I seriously have to question whether such characters are notable enough for an article on their own. They should be discussed in the context of the article about the work of fiction in which they appear. If the Par Ohmsford article came up at AFD, I would definitely !vote to "merge" it into Heritage of Shannara. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I suspect there are also no reasonable secondary sources directly about Heritage of Shannara. If we are lucky, there may be a book review somewhere. Our actual inclusion criteria are quite broad; I don't think this is an exceptional case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the views of User:CBM and User:Blueboar. The Par Ohmsford article is much more than a mere plot summary, and should therfore be cited with sources. However, I don't want to take this particular Noticeboard discussion too far afield from the main question: is it okay that plot summaries have no sources, in apparent contravention of [{WP:OR]] and WP:V? So I will let that discussion continue here and let the Par-Ohmsford-specific discussion continue there, on the Talk:Par Ohmsford page, should anyone be interested in doing so.N2e (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved some of the discussion on the Par Ohmsford character synopsis topic over to the Par Ohmsford Talk Page. Feel free to discuss Par over there, which might allow this Noticeboard item to remain focused on the meta-topic of sourcing for real and actual plot summaries. N2e (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Environmental chemistry articles

I've seen two new articles CSR Chemical Safety Report and Predicted no-effect concentration. To be honest, I'm completely unsure what they're about, and whether they even fall within wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Before sending to AFD, anyone with any knowledge of this wish to possibly clue me in, and possibly tidy them up? Cheers, NJA (t/c) 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rated R (Rihanna album)

This user, User:Vitorvicentevalente, has been defending his arguement about the album's genres in the article to the extent that we have each been blocked once 4 "edit war". This has become dumbed down to his claim that he presented the source for genres first, which does not make him right. the user User:MariAna Mimi has told me that the user vitorvic... is a fan and has tried to defend the sources I used; MariAna has also been blocked due to this problem. I dont feel like arguing my claim to this user anymore (see talks at my page, his page, and the article's history of our comments) .... He just keeps reverting and claiming the same thing, that Rihanna has described it as hiphop or using one critical review by IGN about the album having hip hop/ rock. The fact is that music critics' consensus on the album is that it incorporates elements of hiphop & rock & dubstep (see all the reviews or articles cited in the article or the metacritic page), but it is primarily a pop/R&B album (several have called it just that, "pop record" Ive seen used atleast 3x) and I have used atleast 3 or 4 sources for one statement saying that the album is primarily pop/R&B and incorporates elements of rock & hiphop... And while listening to clips of the album myself doesnt have any matter here or my researching doesnt matter either, I have sourced the music section of the article appropriately and come correct, while user:Vitorvicentevalente has not. What should be done with this matter? Dan56 (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• What consensus? Someone in Wikipedia said that the information will not by logic. Also, IGN is a site review of music, so it is reliable. The Guardian also says that the album is hip hop. And contrary to what this boy says, critics say first R&B and then pop. He thinks it is very gangsta, but don't know much about music... Even the singer, who wrote nine songs of the album, says that the sound is different, hip hop and rock. Moreover, it was I who first put the genres, according to sources and later I replace them with better ones, and the user refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, as in almost every critic has acknowledged it as a pop/R&B album [5], [6], "pop record", "pop album", "R&B album", "pop record", "pop opus", "eletronic R&B", "pop experience".; The Guardian does not say hip hop, the user is lying.[7]. I am not sure wat he means by "Someone in Wikipedia said that the information will not by logic", or "he thinks it is very gangsta". And he just showed why I dont feel like arguing with him, "Moreover, it was I who first put the genres". The Boston Globe wrote that "Most [tunes] retain the core of the evolving hip-hop dance pop of her earlier albums but also step toward a more jagged edge by piling on the squalling electric guitars and unsparing images" [8] About Rihanna saying what genre(s) it is, she did tell Glamour Magazine that "It's rock 'n' roll, but it's really hip-hop"; I obtained this quote from the Chicago Sun-Times's Jim DeRogatis review, in which DeRogatis points out

Though there's nothing inherently rock 'n' roll or "super-fearless" about lacing slick, synthesized dance-pop grooves with a little electric guitar, some of it courtesy of Slash, a quarter of a century after "Thriller," there is a more insistent punch and electrifying energy in the 13 grooves on "Rated R [9]

My bad if its too much quotes/links. Im just trying to defend my arguement. Does any editor/administrator have any help to offer? Dan56 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• What a liar... [10] Where does it say pop/ R&B? If you like so much pop music, why not edit in The Fame Monster or The Singles Collection? And yes they talk about hip hop [11]. Primarily, the singer talked about the album to Nokia. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Correcting the information: All Music - Genre:R&B, Metacritic - Genre:R&B, Rollingstone - Primarilly "R&B album". The user thinks that if by chance manipulate information, will prove him point of view. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

THe genre on the allmusic page is placed where it says "genre" on the left. And no, they dont talk about hip hop (nor mention the term "hip hop"/ "rap" or nothing). Now, is there an editor with assistance? Dan56 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Open your eyes and and learn to read. Also, delete the comments of others? This is not done. Manipulation to prove his point of view. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is no "manipulation", user. I quoted the critics in my 2nd paragraph of this noticeboard, which proves more than what U have with your arguement. Oh, and my bad about removing your comment, accident (i was gonna put it back, but you beat me to it, u silly goose) Now, "THe genre on the allmusic page is placed where it says "genre" on the left. And no, they dont talk about hip hop (nor mention the term "hip hop"/ "rap" or nothing). Now, is there an editor with assistance? " Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Manipulator, liar and silly. You removed my comment, and his edition proves that you did. Vergonhoso de facto. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:

Reason: The WP:3O guidelines clearly make that procedure available only to editors who are exercising good faith and civility. In light of the block log of these two disputants and the incivility plainly exhibited here, this dispute does not qualify for a Third Opinion. I would also note that even though there are only two editors involved here on the Content Noticeboard, this is a continuation of a dispute from the article's talk page where other editors have been involved; the dispute also does not, therefore, qualify for a Third Opinion due to the involvement of more than two editors. —M () 07:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions for article: