Talk:Bacteriological water analysis

Proposed move to Bacteriological water analysis
Before starting work on major improvements to this article, I thought that it should at least have the correct name. I therefore propose moving it to Bacteriological water analysis. All objections and notes of agreement below please. Velela (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Publication for consideration to include (paper test strip development)
--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Useful though that paper may be, it is nonetheless original research which Wikipedia eschews. Sorry.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Original research refers to editors on Wikipedia doing original research, not original research outside of Wikipedia.  If your interpretation were the case, no scientific paper could be cited under any circumstances except for review articles.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From the opening of WP:OR: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the whole page. Further down at WP:THIRDPARTY it states "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". Your proposal does not meet this requirement. Your comment above that "no scientific paper could be cited under any circumstances except for review articles" is quite correct. The fact that there is ample evidence of many breaches of this guideline is no excuse for breaching it again.  Velella  Velella Talk  08:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We disagree on the status of scientific publications. Rather than meeting the criterion for being tertiary sources, they meet the criterion as secondary sources, which are used in Wikipedia as noted in the "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" section of the WP:OR article.  I've started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:No original research so that others might weigh in on the matter. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have replied at the discussion.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement "no scientific paper could be cited under any circumstances except for review articles" is absolute nonsense and I have great difficulty believing User:Velella is acting in good faith when he/she puts this statement forward. Also, the statement "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" only applies to articles as a whole, and does not apply to individual statements or citations within articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course scientific papers should be cited and I think it's completely crazy to argue that it is forbidden by policy. There are separate issues of relevance (is the citation really the most appropriate way of referencing the content?), due weight (is the reference used to support material that's only tangential to the main subject?) and conflicts of interest (is the reference being added by someone with an agenda?) that should be addressed. But fundamentally, peer-reviewed journals are excellent sources of references for Wikipedia articles. Pichpich (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not helpful for non-scientists
I came here looking for information on commonly available home water tests, eg https://www.amazon.com/Health-Metric-Bacteria-Coliform-Definitive/dp/B07BRNVJ7G/. Not helpful. Please update this article to include the real world we live in today. Whiterosesinbloom (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)