Talk:Chaonei No. 81

Tag unnecessary

I reverted this edit of yours. Per WP:OI, original images are considered acceptable sources for facts in the article as long as they're not illustrations of concepts that themselves would be considered OR. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: You are using the WP:OI wrong as this refers to images and not to the information. The information of the article requires both reliable sources and removal of original research.Continentaleurope (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That is not how OI has usually been interpreted, at least in regards to architecture. Can you point me to some consensus from a prior discussion that would specifically suggest that descriptions of a building's exterior which is illustrated by photographs of the building from various angles requires sourcing in addition to those images? Daniel Case (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I made a tag and that tag leads you to further information to answer your query. Good faith or not it still requires a source. If not that part is not notable for inclusion: original research is not acceptable. If you research further you may find reliable sources.

Quoting OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.. Continentaleurope (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Continentaleurope: You dodged the question I asked you point blank: Has OI been held by a consensus discussion to apply to merely descriptive text supported by the accompanying images? I.e., if no published reliable source says a building is made of red brick, but I take a picture of it that shows that quite clearly that it is, would I still need a published reliable source saying that if I wanted to write in the article that the building is made of red brick? I have always believed, as has everyone else who I've discussed this with, that the wording of OI was meant to allow this (and at the same time disallow, as it says quite explicitly, allowing people's original images (like, say, diagrams) to stand as a source for the validity of a fringe theory that would otherwise be considered OR (as opposed to merely being used to illustrate that theory).

I spent a lot of time late last night (well, more like early morning) Eastern US time looking through past discussions at WT:NOR that might touch on this issue. Indeed there are some, but none that reflect directly on this. The main issue seems to be that if images are claimed as a source for interpretations of the facts in the image, that's OR, but if they are just cited for the incontrovertible facts of what they show, that's fine.

For example, at Persian Gulf naming dispute there is a collection of map images showing that "Persian Gulf" has been used for that waterbody for a long time. Someone uploaded a Renaissance map, though, where "Arabian Gulf" was used, and then used that to suggest that Arabian Gulf has been in equal use for about the same length of time. The editors supporting Persian Gulf as the historically correct name began questioning whether that map truly indicated that the whole Gulf went by that name in the map, rather than just a small part. The discussion seemed to agree that if the map was used merely to support a statement that was self-evident from looking at it, i.e. that the words "Sinus Arabicus" applied to that entire body of water, it was a valid source for that, but not for a claim that "Arabian Gulf" was widely used for it in 1634.

I don't see much difference here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a huge difference because words on maps are still words and may still be put in doubt (challenged). In this case we are discussing of images created by a wikipedian not historic sources. The historic map may be considered as primary source and still can be challenged and discussed for inclusion or exclusion. In this case it is clear that too much information (whole sections/paragraphs) was based on original research not a primary source of information.Continentaleurope (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're grasping this. If a picture of the house shows three windows across one facade, and I write in the text that it has three windows, that's easily verified by looking at the picture. That seems to have been allowed in the past without any additional sourcing, for that very reason. How could that possibly involve any act of interpretation? Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Simply because the precise link you gave in the last comment, WP:V, says: ”In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.” Enough reasons given. You got all the answers requested. Have nothing to add. Better spend time improving the article. Enjoy.Continentaleurope (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider a string of quotes to be answers, even if you do. I think this discussion at WT:NOR is most relevant to the point I'm making: that interpretive statements based on images are OR, but descriptive ones are not. Per this:

It would probably be OK to say that a 2005 satellite photo accessed through Google Earth showed X number of aircraft on the field, as that would be a descriptive statement easily verified without specialist knowledge. But drawing a conclusion that the airfield was active or inactive from that observation would be both questionable, and OR.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

😧Continentaleurope (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)