A third opinion has been requested regarding an edit disagreement on the article Kashmir conflict. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute. Its major benefit is that the process provides an informal method of dispute resolution. Unfortunately, a third opinion cannot be given without some discussion of the dispute. The first step in the third opinion request process is therefore to discuss the dispute on the article talk pages.
Discussion often leads to a resolution without third party involvement. I recommend beginning one here. If discussion does not lead to a resolution of the dispute, you are welcome to submit another third opinion request. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict"
A review of the recent edits indicates that the following three phrases have been proposed:
- RR remains neutral on the subject of religiosity and sobriety.
- RR states that the organization remains neutral on the subject of religiosity and sobriety.
- RR claims to remain neutral on the subject of religiosity and sobriety.
Of the three, the phrase "RR states that the organization remains neutral" is preferable. As noted above, the phrase "RR remains neutral" implys that wikipedia is making the statement and taking a position in the neutrality of RR. Similarly, the phrase "RR claims to remain neutral" implies that wikipedia is making the statement and taking a position on the neutrality of RR. Only the phrase "RR states that the organization remains neutral" makes it clear that this is the position maintained by the RR organization. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rational_Recovery"
I agree, based on the information provided on the Talk page, that the amount of criticism appears to be insufficient to merit detailing in the overview section. Wikipedia articles that cover controversial subjects or subjects that have detractors usually employ an Criticism section. I recommend that the overview contain a simple statement such as "Descriptions of the term covert incest have been criticized as being to general." and that another section be created called Criticism where the specific critical concerns are explicated. Mmyotis (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Covert incest"
It sometimes takes a significant amount of patient perserverence to reach a consensus. At this point it looks as though progress is still being made. My opinion is that you guys should keep working at it. It would help if editors would state specifically which details they believe should or should not be included in the lead, and why. Perhaps user Hillock65 could begin by making a proposal for the second and third paragraphs here on the talk pages where the proposal can be discussed in detail. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 02:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cossacks"
The use of eye-dialect is widely discouraged in today’s writing workshops and anyone versed in the craft of writing will tell you this. So the section is not original research. While not all statements in an article need references, when a fact is questioned, references should be provided. In this case the section already had references. The first reference, which is available on-line, states that eye dialect is patronizing and almost always pejorative. It clearly supports the text and is sufficient.
Although the section could use some copy editing (for example The use of eye dialect could be criticized should be changed to The use of eye dialect is criticized to eliminate the unnecessary use of weasel words), with respect to its containing original research or being insufficiently referenced, I’d say it is fine just the way it is. Mmyotis (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eye_dialect"
Removal of_addition under Meerkat Manor Criticism
editWhy is a forum site not reliable when it is used to reference the opinion of fans? Are not fan opinions valid? --Belleferret (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Forum postings of fans are not a reliable source. Deciding that some folks complaining on the Discovery forums is somehow reflective of overall opinions is original research and personal opinion. There are no reliable sources or professional reviews complaining about the change, which be the only way such information should be included. So basically, no, fan opinions are not valid unless they are being reported by a reliable source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meerkat_Manor"
Third Opinion
I am responding to a request for a third opinion. As I understand the problem, one editor wishes to add the following referenced sentence to the article's Criticism section, and a second feels that the sentence should be deleted on the grounds that it constitutes original research:
The change in the US narrator in season 4 from Sean Astin to Stockard Channing has resulted in considerable criticism from fans.[1]
The question then is, is a forum on which fans post their opinions about a movie a reliable source for the opinion of fans about a movie? The answer is yes, the forum in this case is a primary source for the material in the article and is clearly relible as such. The Wikipedia policy on original research provides this cautionary comment on the use of primary sources:
Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
- only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
- make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
So long as the editors agree that the statement reflects the source and does not constitute an interpretation, it is not original research and should stand.