Your changes to Airliners.net[edit]

Your changes to the Airliners.net article are being removed because they violate Wikipedia's ban on original research. In particular, note the part about

“

introduces an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

”

In order for your changes to be kept, a reliable source for these positions needs to be cited. -- Hawaiian717 20:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually share your criticism of the screening process being too focused on technical aspects, and I tend to stay out of the political discussions so I can't really comment there. However, both of these additions have issues with being original research and are potentially violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy as well, thus they don't belong in the article here. -- Hawaiian717 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT original research[edit]

According to the wikipedia guideline on OR:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

I am citing the airliners.net site itself as an original source of material directly related to the topic. I do not need third party opinion when we have access to the original material. Anyone can see for themselves by going there that most photograph acceptance issues are based on technical issues; that the membership is primarily young male; that there are regular discussion on how acceptance standards change with technology and therefore that the standards are generally more technical than traditional artistic.

As for the Non-Aviation forum, the facts I mentioned are also readily seen. Anyone can see the various threads have an extreme range of content from the political to the salacious, and that political threads are regularly locked while salacious ones generally left alone. Planefan 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's original research. You're drawing conclusions based in primary source material, in this case the Airliners.net site. A third party that has come to that conclusion and published it in a reliable source is exactly what is needed. You could possibly get away with the point about the acceptance criteria being a technical one, but once you get into "this generally means photographs have a tendency to all look the same", you're falling into original research territory. I'm bringing this discussion to the article's talk page. -- Hawaiian717 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see what you're saying and I agree[edit]

Let me pull the paragraphs and rewrite them.

Thanks to you and Brandon for your input.