Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Tertiary sources

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Vision thing just wanted to add this from RS:

Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:RS doesn't talk about tertiary sources at all anymore, I think it's important to have some more detailed explanation, specially when it comes to other encyclopedias. As it now stands, this issue is completely neglected. -- Vision Thing -- 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, was just going to ask this, because the article as it stands now doesn't even say tertiary sources are allowed. And if it did, it has to be made clear that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source (this used to be here, didn't it - why was it removed?) - Merzbow 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't see any harm in re-adding it. -- Vision Thing -- 20:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I trust Britannica any more than I trust wikipedia. They're both encyclopedias, right? --Kim Bruning 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia, Britannica has editorial oversight. -- Vision Thing -- 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is probably the most reliable scholarly source in existence. - Merzbow 03:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is important to add for the reasons stated above. If no objections, I'm going to add it tonight and see if it sticks. - Merzbow 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

These policies aint worth a crap without critique

Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

The problem with the Wikipedia policy is that there is no critique included with it. The policy is badly flawed, but stating the reasons here is a complete waste of time as these words will soon be archived and forgotten, included with all the rest of the drivel written here.

Any policy to have any validity must include its critique or it is just mindless nonsense. Once the critique of the policy is sharpened the policy itself will finally begin to approach validity.

Original research is a red herring. Some of the problems with Wikipedia are:

1.) Quality work being degraded with later edits.

2.) Controversial subjects Being treated very poorly because of the OR policy.

3.) Quality work being erased due to the OR policy.

...etc...

But this article is complete nonsense without discussion. And this means discussion in the article itself so its critique can be refined. The discussion on the discussion page is basically worthless in this article because important ideas just get lost. For example there was a very important thread regarding verifed falehoods. This thread was relegated to the archives, but it really belongs in the main article.01001 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

By definition, a policy can not also include critiques of itself. Policies are not just vague opinions, they codify what is supposed to happen. Including a bunch of opinions that it isn't supposed to happen only serves to make people treat it as "Oh, well, I can ignore this because there's no consensus on it." -Amarkov moo! 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting your definition of policy? Your statement is just plain wrong.01001 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. A policy can not include a statement that contradicts it. The page which it is listed on can, although I don't think that should happen either, but unless I'm mistaken, you want the critiques to be part of the policy, not just on the same page. -Amarkov moo! 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask again, where are you getting your definition of policy?01001 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see

"Quality work being degraded with later edits." - That's the risk with an open model, regardless of WP:OR policy

"Controversial subjects Being treated very poorly because of the OR policy." - If there is no work out there that an editor can cite, then the topic can't be that controversial. Controversial topics are among the easiest to avoid WP:OR with as there is plenty of argument from both sides.

"Quality work being erased due to the OR policy." - If it's the quality work of an editor, not a third party, then that is precisely what WP:OR is supposed to do.

perfectblue 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikis that accept OR - perhaps you're in the wrong place? WilyD 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well no one responded to my main point as to why there is no analysis or critique on the policy articles. Wikipedia has serious fundamental flaws in policy but these can only be corrected with some serious analysis. I can know that there are serious flaws in policy because so many of the articles are seriously flawed. It is not worth discussing the flaws in policy here because any discussion here will go nowhere as I have seen important discussion go to archive along with most of the rest of the discussion on this page, which is predominately trivial nonsense.01001 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking for Category:Wikipedia essays? For what it's worth, the main cause of poorly written articles is well understood, and it has nothing to do with policy. It's straightforwardly that Wikipedia isn't finished, or even near it's "equilibrium finished" state. For what it's worth, your main problem seems to be with the no original research policy, which is not set in stone, but not going to change in purpose. If you want to include any kind of your own thought in articles, you're at the wrong wiki.WilyD

01001 I think your basic premise is flawed. If there is something you feel is badly stated in the policy, it can be changed. Policies are not set in stone, you just need consensus to make a change. It's possible. Wjhonson 03:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What about articles that are regressing? For example, the article that compares Linux to Windows has been completely eviscerated. But I could name many other articles. I truly dont understand why there is no substantive discussion of the problems with Wikipedia policy01001 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

01001 if you could specify the exact nature of the conflict, maybe we could take a look at the particulars. There are quite a few Wikipedians, including admins who do not clearly understand what original research is and isn't. Wjhonson 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, or perhaps not suprisingly, noone has yet responded to the main point, why is there no analyis are critique in this article are any of the policy articles?01001 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the analysis and critique are contained within the historical talk pages, which you can see above in the archives of this page. We have had long arguments in the past about some very arcane points of the policy. You're welcome to start a new argument here about some particular detail with which you disagree. So far your argument is a bit vague. Why don't you propose some language that you'd like to see on the page? The more specific you make it, the more likely you'll get some kind of resolution here. Wjhonson 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

These talk pages are basically worthless for discussion that will advance interests of Wikipedia. The important points get lost. The critique and analysis needs to be in the article itself where it can be refined01001 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)The historical talk pages are twice as useless.01001 02:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel this is an incorrect statement. Many discussions on these pages get translated onto the article space. In fact that is the main reason for these pages. So, if you have specific changes you'd like to see, if you could be excruciatingly exact that would help. In other words, quote the section you want to change, then state how you'd rather it read, so we can discuss the specific requested change. Again it would help if you were more specific about what exact quoted language you'd like to change and to what. Wjhonson 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To be exact there should be a section entitled ==Criticism and analysis== in this article. In this section there should be a critical analysis of this policy.01001 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles have that because they're intended to be neutral, and not presenting the criticism would make them one-sided. Policies don't need to be neutral, and in fact, they make little sense if they are. If people have an issue with part of the policy, there is no reason it can't be brought up on the talk page, and then if there's a consensus that there is a problem, it can be fixed. Why keep a list of failed attempts at changing the policy and the arguments behind them? -Amarkov moo! 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to talk at a meta-level 01001 isn't helpful. If you had a section with that title, please specify some exact language you'd like to see *in* it. It's pointless to simply ask for a title without any language. Wjhonson 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To have a policy document and a commentary on how that document was put together is a reasonable idea and one which often exists for international agreements. Perhaps I can help 01001 with an example from the Geneva conventions. If one looks at the Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Which is the article that prohibits the use of children in combat. The wording is "The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. ...". Now at first reading this would seem to be clear. But is is not until one reads the ICRC commentary on Protocol I and reads that during the negotiations over the clause "take a part in hostilities" the word "direct" was added to it, this opens up the possibility that child volunteers could be involved indirectly in hostilities, gathering and transmitting military information, helping in the transportation of arms and munitions, provision of supplies etc. and that the ICRC had suggested that the Parties to the conflict should "take all necessary measures", which became in the final text, "take all feasible measures" ... I'll leave you to look up what the difference is on those two phrases (See Child_soldiers#International humanitarian law, wikisource:Geneva Convention/Protocol I, ICRC Commentary on Protocol I: Article 77). The commentary helps the reader to understand the thinking of the negotiators who put the treaty together and how they intended the phrases to be interpreted. FAQs (e.g. the proposed WP:ATT/FAQ) is another way of doing something similar, and one which the internet community is more familiar with. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Where can we put original research?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can we put original research into a sister project and link to it like we do Wikiquote? - Peregrine Fisher 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's still original research. The idea of the policy is to make sure everything in Wikipedia has reliable sources, and is not self-published or original research. Notinasnaid 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What about wikiversity? - Peregrine Fisher 07:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

--Kylohk 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My view on the question of original research is that if a person can not be trusted to form sound conclusions then he/she should not be working on an article. The result of this policy is articles that read, at best, like high school group term papers; and which read, at worst, like bad high school book reports. It amounts to mediocrity by design. Kwork 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a "STFU, this isn't the article itself" tag?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

There are several things wrong with the Original Research policy, but the thing that really drives me nuts is how it's affected talk pages. If you dare to say anything other than simple declarative sentences, someone will *always* jump in with a WP:OR. It's gone past annoyance, I think, and has become a real communication hindrance. Instead of actually replying your posts, people just accuse you of original research and ignore you. Hell, I just had someone hit me with a terse "WP:OR" accusation/reply after I replied to a mediation page regarding a contested redirection! Even if we needed citations for page redirection decisions (and in the name of everything that's holy, I sincerely hope we don't), does every single sentence I post to a talk page need to be sourced? Can we please just talk, discuss and debate the issue rationally and worry about the citation only when people start talking about making specific changes?

I would like to see a note somewhere in the No Original Research policy that says people aren't required to be borg drones on the talk pages ("That doesn't quite make sense to me." ... "Sorry! That's original research! You lose!"), and that WP:OR tags should only be brought out when someone is referring to a specific change in the article itself. It's becoming downright anti-intellectual, because you can't question ANY argument anymore using your own logic. I'm not saying that I should be able to insert my own logic into the article, I'm saying that my own logic does have a place in discussing the article.

Regardless of the sources involved/needed, the article should not say stupid, or factually incorrect, or logically inconsistent things and I shouldn't be forced to slog through Google for an hour to be able to point out that such things are, in fact, stupid/incorrect/inconsistent. If you have that kind of time and patience, good for you, but I don't think my input should be impeached simply because I didn't regurgitate someone else's rhetoric (and again, this is just the TALK PAGE, not the article itself.)

I shouldn't need a source to refute someone else's unsourced argument on a talk page. I shouldn't need a source to suggest that we remove an *unsourced* claim (in the article) that appears, via my own "synthesis", to be incorrect. I shouldn't need a source to suggest that we reword something. I shouldn't need a source to debate an article redirection.

I already know what wikipedia *is* and what it *isn't*, thank you very much, and I'm tired of getting beat over the head by rule lawyers who are NOT contributing anything useful to the discussion. --Lode Runner 06:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. --NE2 07:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. Obviously, the other place this applies is to discusions at WP:Village Pump or any places where new wikipedia policy is in the process of being made. Somebody needs to be creative to make new wikipedia policy! Who's that going to be, if not the editors? And all of that is OR, folks, like it or not. NOR was originally meant for Wiki articles and encyclopedia content, not all encylopedia spaces. Indeed, it cannot possibly apply there, if they are to function as they were intended (no, I don't have a cite for this, except the process of deductive logic plus standard definitions).

BTW, while I'm at it, I may as well save space and point out that everything I just said about making new policy in the appropriate TALK pages of policy articles, cannot possibly be subject to WP:NPOV, either. A new proposed policy has to be SOMEBODY'S opinion, does it not? By definition. Jimbo doesn't make all new policy, and if nobody else is to do so, that pretty much ends wikipedia's growth. How then will we decide how many links are too many, and other weighty issues, in the manual of style? This is not an academic matter, as I actually just had somebody accuse one of my proposals in the manual of style as being to much "opinion". Yeah, well, so what of it? It's ALL opinion there! Some of it older than others, is all.

And finally, of course every time a matter is opened for debate in Wikipedia, from ArbCom to RfD, it's people's opinions (points of view) that are being solicited. NPOV does not, cannot, apply there. The guts and making of Wikipedia are full of OR and POV. It's the mainspace articles where we try to minimize it. Some people have not "gotten" this, and it needs to be made more clear in the LEAD of both of these policy pages. And WP:ATT as well. All these are, or should be, and in some cases MUST be, mainspace policies ONLY. That's my OPINION, and I'm stickin to it! S B H arris 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that people would actually use the WP:OR policy on discussion. After all, when you discuss things, you are just conversing like in real life. No one's free of bias, and have their own perceptions about things, so just because what they said isn't published, you really can't use the policy to make them stop.

Agree with Sbharris. Yes that's right I agree. It's shocking. The policies were never intended to be applied to Talk, they are policies about articles. Wjhonson 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim that the "policies were never intended to be applied to Talk" or please retract it. Thanks. SanchiTachi 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to the Policy

Latest comment: 16 years ago87 comments13 people in discussion

My previous post (above) was more of a rant, but since people seem to have responded favorably to it, I would like to propose that we add a new section to the WP:NOR policy.

<begin>

Original research should not be included in new articles or additions to existing Wikpedia articles. However:

This does not apply to talk pages or to any other page that is not a Wikipedia article (including, but not limited to, the village pump, mediation pages, and user pages.) When editors suggest an addition to an article, they should endeavor to find sources for their claims but sources are not required to discuss an issue. On the contrary, synthesis is often a vital part of the decision making process even though it isn't allowed in the article itself. In other words, original research may be used as an argument for the inclusion of reputably sourced material, but the fruits of that research must not be included in the article itself.

This does not apply to the proposed removal or alteration of unsourced material from the article.

This does not apply to proposed formatting, rewording (so long as the reworded version does not contradict any applicable sources), page redirection, or any other sort of action that does not add new content to the article or remove/alter content that is properly sourced.

If doubt exists over whether something is original research, consider the overall necessity to the article. If there is a consensus that the article suffers significantly without it, put it in (see WP:IAR.)

These exceptions exist to facilitate intelligent debate, not shoehorn your own personal opinion into an article. Original research does not imply bias--editors are still expected to present a neutral point of view. </end>

Given the growing number of sniveling rule-lawyers who use WPs (and especially this WP:) to shout down opposition, I really think that this all needs to be spelled out. Not every post on a talk page is advocating an addition to the article, and I don't see how WP:NOR can be sanely applied to changes other than addition. The concept of "original research" applies to verifiable facts, not to word choice and page redirects. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't give anyone the right to start pulling stuff out of their ass--changes still need to be justified, but original research (especially synthesis) can and should be a part of that justification.

If I can get this section added, I'll push for similar additions to other WPs. Many of the WPs are applicable only to proposed article changes, but that isn't stopping some people from using them to shout down and drown out anyone who dares try to analyze an issue with their own rational mind, even if they aren't proposing a specific change just yet. --Lode Runner 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Second your thought, obviously. The making of new policy obviously has to be a matter of community concensus opinion, and obviously if it's NEW, it has to be original in some sense. Thus, NPOV and NOR can't apply to TALK pages, or even the main text of wiki-policy pages. If they did, nothing new would ever happen (so obviously they've been widely violated already in the making what Wikipedia policy is, outside of Jimbo's initial dictates and guidelines). I'm a little shocked that this isn't spelled out already someplace, but maybe it's your fate to be the one who does it.
I also have to second your idea that NOR and NPOV are impossible to follow with absolute strictness, even in the mainspace, because if you did no sythesis at all, but merely pasted blocks of print from other sources one after the other, the quality of writing would suck. And you'd still violate NPOV in deciding what material to use and how much emphasis to give it. So in the end, in the spirit of WP:IAR I think what is meant by no original synthesis or research or overriding POV, is that you shouldn't have enough of these to draw attention to themselves. The reader should never say: "Woah, THAT'S loaded language!" or "Woah, THAT'S an agenda!" So long as you avoid that, you're usually okay. That's (after all) how most of the best articles in Wikipedia have been written. Thay all do some synthesis, and some POV-pushing (i.e., some kind of reasonable POV synthesis, rather than sythnesis of the many nutty ones). S B H arris 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is very much needed. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but the language of WP:NOR (such as saying "Wikipedia is not the place" instead of "Wikipedia articles are not the place") has given the rules lawyers ammunition to destroy all dissenting thought. I can't think of any reasonable reason why we should interpret WP:NOR in this manner--it's extremely counterproductive and thus violates WP:IAR. An addition to a talk page is not the same as an addition to an article. A justification for including a sourced statement in the article is not the same as the statement itself. If anyone has any rational objections to any of this, I'm all ears. In the meantime, I don't see any point in waiting--I've added the (somewhat altered) section. Feel free to reword for clarity, but if you see fit to remove all or part of it, I'd appreciate a decent explanation. --Lode Runner 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Such an addition would contradict WP:TALK: "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research." Jakew 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the WP:TALK policy should change. It violates WP:IAR by enforcing an anti-intellectual policy. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, except the policies on verification/deletion tell use that content that it not verified can (or even should in some cases) be moved to the talk page to await sourcing etc. There are also pleanty of situations where it is acceptable to discuss or use unsourced content. For example, placing a section from a journal on the talk page and then asking users for help in finding the exact issue number, or even the original source. - perfectblue 11:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your addition. You need to get consensus for major policy changes before making them. Jakew 10:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As Jake said above, you directly contradicted material already agreed among the rules and tried to make a policy change without a consensus. Please don't play WikiRulesGod and think and pass judgment on which rules are good and which rules are not. Its for a consensus, not one man, to decide. SanchiTachi 14:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave everyone three days to respond and got nothing. It's a very simple matter to revert, and indeed it has already been done. As far as my contradiction goes, I contend that WP:TALK is the one that's contradicting the spirit of WP:IAR. IAR tells us that if something is really getting in the way, we should ignore it. It should be painfully obvious that not being able to even use synthesis on the talk pages renders all discussion moot except for quoting the sources. This isn't helpful, nor is this what encyclopedias should be. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. In order to discuss things properly we need to be able to include original research on talk pages. Our guidelines say that such original research should be moved to talk pages until it can be sourced and we use original research for many different reasons when creating articles. To apply the strict interpretation of WP:OR to talk pages is absurd. What about on user talk pages? We are supposed to be able to discuss pretty much anything there, but if we follow these policies/guidelines to the letter then we can't do that. Maybe common sense can be called into play and each situation should be looked at on its own but we will always have users who simply start deleting things on talk pages as original reasearch regardless of whether or not it is a valid argument that could help improve an article if it is followed up on.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree: I agree with the sentiment of the original poster, talk must except from WP:OR regs so as to allow the free flow of ideas outside of the page itself. Besides, how can we decide what is and isn't WP:OR if we can't even discuss the material. We've got to leave open channels through which to explore new avenues.

perfectblue 15:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: First, I see no need to spell out that OR is allowed on Talk here. It's already verboten to remove user comments from Talk in all but the most extreme cases (i.e. off-topic ranting, personal attacks). I know WP:TALK says otherwise, but nobody enforces that, and I would support loosening those restrictions, but on that page; it's absurd to expect people talking on Talk to talk like they're writing an article.

Second, the proposed addition includes other stuff I oppose as well. For one, I am against spelling out that WP:IAR allows addition of OR to articles in some cases. IAR already allows anything, by definition — spelling out stuff like this will just give ammunition to the legions of disruptive editors who will prop up that paragraph as justification for their own OR ("well, it improves the article, so it must be OK"). - Merzbow 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If "no one enforces that" then it should be removed, period, because in my experience plenty of people attempt to enforce it. The IAR exception I specifically stated was only to be applied if it was UNDECIDED whether or not something was OR. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The IAR only allows the breaking of rules like 3R and other such things that are broken in order to stop vandalism or the like. You are miscontruing the policy greatly by not even spelling out what it says. "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." Claiming things as true without any verifiable sources is not improving or maintaining. There is no argument that can be made that OR ever improves Wikipedia. OR is harmful. In talk, it is harmful. Talk is not a chatroom. Talk is to get a consensus on how to organize, write something, or discuss a source. It is not for opinions, or anything like that. SanchiTachi 16:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis is most certainly not harmful to the talk pages. Using basic logical deduction is not the same as "novel theories" and it does not reduce a talk page to a chat room. OR is not even the same thing as opinions--not at ALL. OR is only reasoning or information that does not currently have a source. It shouldn't be included in the article, but it is the death of reason to say that synthesis cannot be used on the talk pages. You could not show me a single decently-sized talk page (say, of a featured article) that does not feature prominent use of synthesis.--Lode Runner 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC "With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." and Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)." Please respect that and cease and desist. Just because people do it does not make it right. SanchiTachi 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are being manipulative and dishonest. My proposed addition did NOT contradict any one of the three "sacred" policies. It contradicted only WP:TALK, which is NOT one of the three. --Lode Runner 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You tried to edit the page! That is a violation of the rule! What more can anyone see that you went against what Wikipedia is and voided the Census guideline. You had no right to do what you do, and it doesn't matter if you get 50 people agreeing with you, it will not override what the rule was.SanchiTachi 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent]Fine, let's say I violated a guideline which does not appear anywhere on the WP:NOR or its talk page. It took Jake 2 seconds to fix it. This does not make me a bad person or invalidate my arguments. The fact remains that this was only a clarification. I did not contradict anything in WP:NOR (with the arguable exception of the IAR comment, but that applied only to cases where it was *unclear* as to whether something should be treated as original research.) --Lode Runner 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Localzuk. There are many talk pages which require original research to properly discuss the article. A talk page is obviously going to contain opinions because its about peoples' opinions on how to improve an article. --LtWinters 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "opinions" and "original research." According to the definition of "synthesis" presented here, extremely basic logical deductions are deemed original research. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In the context of article talk pages, it occurs to me that there are two kinds of OR.

The first kind includes the interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies, discussion of ideal phrasing, etc. In general, the "original" aspect is about the article, not about the subject matter.

The second includes or are based upon novel theories or interpretations about the subject matter. This is the 'problem' kind.

It seems to me that declaring OR welcome on talk pages only invites crank theories, USENET-type discussions, and other material that is not helpful for writing encyclopaedia articles. Jakew 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. Novel theories themselves shouldn't be included in the article, but in (for example) our recent FGC-related debates, I used original research (and arguably novel theories insomuch as they aren't drawn from any particular source) to justify rephrasing a line that was not specifically supported by the sources given. Intelligent reasoning MUST be preserved--it is only the inclusion of suspect information that must be fought. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But those so-called crack pot theories are sometimes a good springboard to finding actual content for the article.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal. Wjhonson 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that many of the above posters do not understand rule IAR or "What Wikipedia is Not." IAR is in the spirit of doing what is best for Wikipedia. i.e. if a rule interfers with doing what is Wikipedia, then the rule is in the way and should be ignored, such as the 3R Rule when reverting vandalism. What the IAR is not is allowing people to negate the verifiability rule.

WP:NOT#OR"Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" "Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them."

WP:TALK"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research."

As you can see, that rule follows directly in the spirit of What Wikipedia is Not. Thus, if you negate that rule, you are negating what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not here for you to change it or use original research. There are plenty of other places for that. That rule will never change now matter how many people come in here to protest about it. If talk pages are filled with OR and thats allowed, thats the fault of not enforcing the rule and an admin should be made aware of it and/or bring it to the attention of mediation. Just like people already stabbing each other is not a valid excuse to get rid of anti-stabbing laws, people abusing talk pages is not an excuse to get rid of No Original Research rules. You should know about it before getting into Wikipedia. If you do not like it, why did you bother coming here? SanchiTachi 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I direct you to WP:BITE. Implying that I should leave it not productive. There are TONS of people here and agree with me, and the fact remains that Wikipedia policy can be changed. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"There are TONS of people here and agree with me, and the fact remains that Wikipedia policy can be changed." So if there was a "consensus" that Wikipedia pays people to post messages, that would come true? Or that there was a "consensus" for Wikipedia to charge, that would come true? Obviously, not. Your premise is wrong, as with your ideas about Wikipedia. What Wikipedia Is has already spelt out that what you are attempting to do is not Wikipedia. If you want to create your own pedia that allows for Original Research, please do. There are rules against it here for a reason. Please respect the rules. There are thousands of people who are able to without coming here and abusing the talk page. This is not your chatroom. This is not here for you to say whatever opinion. Wikipedia is not your soap box. A talk page is here only to discuss organization and major changes that can be verified. The fact that you edited the page without even going to one of the appropriate ask pages to get opinion from respected posters and admin shows that you didn't follow proper procedure or ettiquette. SanchiTachi 00:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not using this as a chatroom, but there is a gray area in-between chat room and self-congratulatory circle jerk. The rules against OR were made for a good reason, yes, and my proposed clarification of the rules has also been made for good reason. There is every indication that WP policies were designed to admit such future clarifications. The fact that you edited the page without even going to one of the appropriate ask pages to get opinion from respected posters and admin shows that you didn't follow proper procedure or ettiquette. Oh look, you're a liar now too! Check above. I gave you three days to respond, then made the edit knowing that it would probably easily be reversed, and no, I will not escalate this into an edit war. I am willing to discuss this civilly as long as you acknowledge my right to discuss it here. If you continue to insist that I am not allowed to discuss policy clarifications here, I will ask that you be banned from this talk page. --Lode Runner 00:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." WP:RFC Furthermore, you do not give people anything. You ask for a consensus. If you want a consensus, you go to RFC for a matter like this. But once you arrive there, you will see that NOR is not negotiable. Thus, you are violating what Wikipedia is Not. You are not here for policy clarification. You edited the policy to suit you. If you wanted clarification, you would have asked an Admin or requested it on the approriate policy page. Instead, you claimed what you could not and have started this against what the standards of Wikipedia are. Also, you have ruined any "good faith" by accusing any of saying NOR and holding to traditional policy as "rules lawyers" with added vulgarity. SanchiTachi 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If they aren't negotiable, how come we can still edit the pages? Did the owners (or chairmen or whatever) of Wikipedia themselves personally write every single detail in all three policies? My clarification IS just a clarification. Notice that WP:TALK is not one of those "non-negotiable" policies, and *that* is the only policy that directly contradicts my proposed addition. It was never said anywhere on the WP:NOR page that it was meant to be applied absolutely to the talk pages as well--indeed, there are numerous article-centric hints that suggest otherwise. --Lode Runner 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing the page does not mean making changes to the rules. People edit only to clarify. As was pointed out, you made a major policy change without going to the village pump or RFC. SanchiTachi 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

REPLY to SanchiTachi: I dunno. Is your last question:

Just like people already stabbing each other is not a valid excuse to get rid of anti-stabbing laws, people abusing talk pages is not an excuse to get rid of No Original Research rules. You should know about it before getting into Wikipedia. If you do not like it, why did you bother coming here? SanchiTachi 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

a personal request for education, or is it an ironic use of rhetorical question in the service of a POV? In either case it's somewhat original. Which is hilariously ironic because you're arguing for NOR. If you find it impossible not to violate the cannons of NOR and NPOV even in your own single one-paragraph defense of them, you've got a real problem. Consider it. And that's my original opinion regarding your comment. S B H arris 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A talk page is not a chatroom. A talk page is to put forth suggestions for what the article needs or to ask people's opinion based on new information before including it. That is all. Furthermore, Sbharris, I did not violate NOR, nor did I violate any other rules. I cited the rules and I put forth exactly what they said. SanchiTachi

Answer: Did not. I refer you to the above quote. Try again. You'll never win a debate by saying you didn't say it, where your exact words remain on the page.S B H arris 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me who made that quote up there about talk pages not being allowed to have original research. I don't get the purpose of a talk page if its not to discuss the friggen page. I don't think it matters any way because can't people easily make up a source saying that's where they got there information from? And when you block them they just make a new username? Seems pretty pointless to me not to allow people to express there opinions on a discussion page.--LtWinters 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it." Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice

"Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal.)"Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice

Thus, this conversation is violating the above rule on what talk pages are for. Please respect Wikipedia. Also, Sbharris, you have misrepresented me when you claimed that I did not include any outside sources in what I have said, or anything like that. I have constantly cited the other Wiki pages when I have discussed this issue. I would like an apology or for you to strike out your inaccurate statement about me. SanchiTachi 00:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A talk page is to put forth suggestions for what the article needs or to ask people's opinion based on new information before including it.

Well then, you contradict yourself right there. "people's opinions" are by definition original research. It's also ludicrous that you are using wikipedia policy in an attempt to forbid us from talking about Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is obviously meant to be malleable (otherwise at the very least it would be locked), and there are no sources we can draw upon here execpt our own reasoning, so what would you have us use this page for?--Lode Runner 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. People's opinions are allowed in straw polls, but can be discredited/not used when approving/disapproving certain measures by admin when they do not have legitimate research/evidence/proof/etc to back them up. That has always been the case. Furthermore, asking for additional information or asking for a reorgnization of the article does not deal with content but with style. It is not research of any kind. SanchiTachi 00:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to stress this line again: A justification for including a sourced statement in the article is not the same as the statement itself. Read that repeatedly until it sinks in. The justification should be sound, but it should not be held to the same standards as the article addition itself. If someone argues that we include a statement as sourced from the Weekly World News, and we say "No, they're not reputable", are we violating wikipedia policy? Do we actually have to sit and track down sources that say WWN isn't reliable? Haven't checked myself, but it might be hard to find such a source because it's so freaking OBVIOUS that the WWN is utter fantasy. The justification for NOT including the proposed addition, then, is based on our "original research" of knowing that it's pretty unlikely that a source which says a 1,000' tall chicken attacked Paris yesterday can be trusted. --Lode Runner 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have no respect for the guidelines? Please, if you want this issue to be resolved, take it to mediation. ~~You seem more concerned with arguing whatever point on a soapbox.~~ I suggest an WP:RFC, as that is the only way to gain a consensus to change such an important rule. SanchiTachi 00:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the WP:NOR page. If there are other pages more oriented towards debate, there should be a link at the top of this page. My addition, though apparently contradicting a line from WP:TALK, but this line also (apparently, according to perfectblue) contradicts other statements that tell us original research should be moved to the talk page to await sourcing. If this is true (I will attempt to hunt down the quote on my own later), then what I am proposing here is merely the resolution of a contradiction in the sanest, most productive manner. --Lode Runner 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, at the time of my first posting (after waiting for three days for *anyone* to voice opposition) there was no dispute at all. Now there is, and we can escalate this in whatever fashion you'd like. --Lode Runner 01:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions"There are a few exceptions that have superseded consensus decisions on a page.

Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, are usually held to have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines).
Wikipedia:Office Actions on a specific article (such as stubbing or protecting it) are normally considered to be outside the policies of the english wikipedia.
Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research).
Foundation Issues lay out the basic principles for all wikimedia projects. These represent a consensus on a very wide scale indeed, among all wikimedia projects. This means they evolve very slowly."

WP:RFC"With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." SanchiTachi 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that. The offending statement directly contradicts what we've already established on the policy pages. That the policies are *not* applicable to Talk pages. On that note, I've started a new discussion on the Talk page *guideline* that will hopefully remove the claim that the policies do apply to Talk. Guidelines cannot contradict policy and the fact that this statement is there on the Talk guideline page, doesn't prevent someone from reading the policies and seeing the contradiction. Wjhonson 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions says "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)." They are now trying to cite IAR as a reason to get rid of a major rule, even though the WP:RFC page says "With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." Those are the two rules. Those five pillars are not suggestions. Those three parts are not to be changed. Those are implace by the creators of Wikipedia and the maintainers. There is no contradiction in the policy, only one person putting in what they had no right to include. It is policy that Talk pages have no OR. SanchiTachi 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Kindly please stop spreading this lie (unless there is a line I missed in one of the three policies.) We are contradicting only WP:TALK; nothing more. There is no indication on WP:NOR that it was meant to be applied to talk pages. --Lode Runner 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you will note that all of the five pillar policies have been edited constantly since creation, by ordinary users. They are not static policies but fluid, constantly changing depending on the current needs of the site. To state that they are set in stone is nonsense.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they have, but only to clarify, not to include clauses that directly contradict all previous policy, as this suggestion does. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. This is simply a clarification to clear up the inconsistencies between various guidelines. It isn't something new.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm right; it's an attempt to change policy, because someone couldn't get some OR into an article, and was criticized for using the Talk: page for further OR. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You edited this policy to contradict something else. That goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, the Soapbox rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and the rest. You have also tried to invalidate the NOR rule as used in other pages. the NOR rule extends to all of Wikipedia. The talk page only includes what applies to everything. WP:POINT By editing the NOR rule in order to spite the Talk guidelines, you are going against the spirit of don't disrupt to make a point. SanchiTachi 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'm sorry for whatever protocols I violated with the edit. Call me a bad boy if you must--I care only about the proposal, not about your opinion of myself. Unlike you, I am not a rules lawyer so I do not have every single policy memorized--I was not aware of any contradiction. But none of this is applicable to the proposal. You are dodging the issues, refusing to admit your misrepresentations of the truth, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of debate let alone actually participate. Stop. My proposal doesn't contradict any of the three primes, and your interpretation of NOR doesn't trump our interpretation. --Lode Runner 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we are trying to clear up inconsistencies between policies and guidelines to bring them in line with actual practice. To actually enforce this policy on talk pages would seriously damage the site.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense; WP:NOR needs no revision, and its application does not damage Wikipedia. People shouldn't be trying to put new unsourced stuff into articles, it's bad enough that most of them are filled with unsourced stuff already. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the reason *why* it was proposed, the proposal makes sense and is clarification of current practice. Applying this policy to talk pages would damage the site. I can go out and find you hundreds of examples of where original research has lead to improvements to articles and policies.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true, and it's about much more than just Talk: pages. The Talk: page is for discussing potential changes to articles, not for original research. And I can find you hundreds of examples where original research is found in articles, but policy violations don't define policy, they merely point to poor enforcement of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point! ElinorD (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg is exactly correct. I suggest people see the Warhammer Wiki Page Discussion to see where Pak and Localzuk wanted to not have to apply the OR rule to the Talk page in order to invalidate actual research used to define how the game defines a term and instead substitute their own definition for said term. Localzuk only wants to redefine the rule so he can win an argument, which means that he is not here for Wikipedia, but only to "win." SanchiTachi 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is inevitably what happens; people want to get around the policies so they can insert their own original research into articles. If they aren't initially able to force it into the article, then they try to re-write the WP:NOR policy so their policy violations become "legal". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I am against that sort of thing as much as you are. I'll say it again: The justification for the inclusion of an idea is not the same thing as the idea itself. The idea itself requires sourcing. The justification doesn't necessarily require a source (though they certainly shouldn't be discouraged.) If you want a counter-example, you can take a look at the Genital modification and mutilation talk pages to see how I used my own original research (mostly synthesis) to argue for a rewording of a line that was only *partially* supported by the given sources. Good justifications nearly always require a degree of synthesis. --Lode Runner 02:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Which section? I looked and only saw you arguing for egregious violations of WP:NOR based on the argument "nearly everyone I've talked to feels this way". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I mistakenly posted by explanation of the change (involving the line "When performed on female minors, the latter two procedures can be highly controversial.") to the female genital cutting page. The crux of my argument was that, although the sources sometimes used umbrella terms that might apply to "hoodectomies" as well, they could also apply to commonplace western medical procedures and most of the stated objections to "female genital mutilation" strongly implied that the loss of sexual function and unhygenic conditions were the reasons why it was so controversial, and if either of these objections are valid against hoodectomies, then they are also valid against male circumcision. Since no one specifically singled out hoodectomies (nor even mentioned them specifically as I practice to be damned, as I recall) and plenty of valid, non-controversial medical procedures could fall under the same hazey umbrella term, I rephrased the line to avoid implying that hoodectomies were controversial.

Perhaps a convoluted example, but I think it holds. I used my own synthetic reasoning (coupled with uncited, yet easily-verified facts for those who wanted to verify them) to show that a fragment was unsourced and justified its removal. And my justification could have been quashed by a single reputable source that said otherwise. --Lode Runner 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your example is a clear example of what needs a proper source. Without said source, no one can confirm if you are right or not. By stating what you did, you improperly put forth yourself as an appropriate source of information, which is not what Wikipedia is about. SanchiTachi 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But the previous writeup was much more misleading than the current one. There were serious logical problems in interpreting those sources as supporting the widespread (on par with clitoridectomies) condemnation of hoodectomies. I agree, a source would've been preferable--a source is ALWAYS preferable! (Maybe I should have added that to my proposal.)

Look at it THIS way--I could have simply changed it without explanation, and put my foot down that the sources did not explicitly mention hoodectomies. That wouldn't have involved any OR at all--but it also would have been fascist and inflamitory. To avoid this sort of unreasonable, hostile type of edit--my justification for the change needed to be mentioned. And for that, I needed either synthethis or a source. A source wasn't handy, but my brain was. --Lode Runner 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Lode Runner, you have already removed any credibility you had by assuming a consensus and then introducing the topic as you did.~~ You cannot change the rule no matter how many people you get on the talk page to agree with you. There is a means and a way, which I already brought up. ~~You have failed to follow those.~~ There is no legitimate reason to get rid of NOR, and POINT shows that breaking the rule or pointing out breakings of the rule do not justify getting rid of the rule or change. What you do not matter to this page or the topic. Claiming of your own actions or history as an example of a needed exception is an admittance of a POINT violation. Why can't you conform to the policy instead of thinking that the policy is broken? IF you want to discuss the rule, talk to an admin. This is not the place for agreeing or disagreeing with the rule. Talk pages are only here to discuss the article style and what should be added (i.e. requests for things that are missing based on verifiable sources). The latter does not apply here, unless its a call for clarifying minor wording or other "m edits." SanchiTachi 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your opinion does not equal consensus. Just becase SanchiTachi says it, it doesn't not magically become so. You are the *only* one here violating WP:SOAP. My clarification does not get rid of NOR; it merely clarifies it (already I would argue it's implied that we're talking about articles only.) Put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALA!" if you must--but your interpretation of NOR (and its malleability inasmuchas clarification and addition) is not the only valid one. You are using ad hominem attacks in an attempt to shut me up, and I am CERTAIN that this violates some sort of WPs, but again unlike you, I'm not a rules laywer. --Lode Runner 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Defending the rule by citing other rules is not SOAP. It never has been and never will be. ~~You, however, are being vulgar and uncivil.~~ SanchiTachi 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the rules is not the only one that counts. Several people here other than myself have already supported the notion that NOR does not apply to talk pages, it never did (other than WP:TALK, which is not sacred and can be changed), and my clarifications do not contradict it. At this stage we are asking permission not to make the addition, but to discuss it. You are telling us we don't have the right to discuss it, that under no circumstances could it ever be considered for a moment because of your own subjective interpretation. Vulgarity I will leave for others to judge. --Lode Runner 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The policies apply to article pages. They have never applied to Talk pages. Which is why the policies specifically state "article... article...article".Wjhonson 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, SanchiTachi, here is your argument: "You editted the article itself [though I waited three days]! This automatically renders your proposal null and void, even if you weren't aware of any contradiction at the time, even if you weren't aware that the talk page was not the place to bring it up, even if you say you'll never do it again! Too, late, you fucked up, game over, your proposal is dismissed [because he is apparently the arbiter of wikipedia "credibility"] feel free to leave Wikipedia now." Now, if that just about sums it up, I'll point out that it violates WP:BITE and WP:DICK (normally I wouldn't do this, but it seems as though WP links are the only form of discourse you view as valid) and I'll let everyone else come to their own conclusions.

Feel free to spam my userpage with this nonsense--go right ahead, really, I don't mind. However, it is completely offtopic personal attack and does not belong here. --Lode Runner 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

~~I have not violated any such rules, and you owe me an apology for such blatantly false accusations. Your proposal failed because you did not follow the proper guidelines.~~ The talk page is not the page to ask about major changes for the rules. RFC or the Village Pump are the places. Consensus either here or there will not guarentee a change in the rules. The pages I cite show that already. You think that you can come in and take over. I have only stated what is truthful without putting anything subjective up behind it. I have not put in a Point of View. However, you are. You are also spamming right now. This is not a chatroom. I already put up the appropriate rules and pages dealing with this. I have also put up suggestions about mediation and the like, which have gone ignored by you. You are borderline trolling right now. SanchiTachi 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I owe you nothing. I am not "taking over" anything. I am using the talk page to talk, and I'm sure I'll start an RFC or whatever shortly. You are the one spamming, because you are the one saying that yours is the only valid interpretation. I have not said that. I have not lied by saying that it is against wikipedia policy to discuss proposed clarifications that do not contradict any of the three sacreds. I will not be responding to any more of your personal attacks, but if they continue I will report them as off-topic abuse. --Lode Runner 02:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

~~You have accused me of things which is obvious that I have not done.~~ Point of View is any argument in which you are defending your own view point and are biased. Your User page shows what your view point is and your bias, ~~which proves that you are violating Point of View here.~~ The talk page is not a chatroom, and its not used to "talk" in the way you think it is. Report my "attacks" as much as you want, because I have not made any personal attacks. However, you have clearly violated Point with your original editing, you have violated the Consensus rules, the What Wikipedia is Rules, the Ettiquette Rules, the NOR Rules by editing them, and many more. I have not said anything about my interpretation. I have put forth the rules which are quite clear on the matter. Your actions are wrong and your introduction to this entry plus your previous entry show that you are not here for Goodfaith. SanchiTachi 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you a formal member of the wikipedia/media foundation? The rest I will not respond to, but I'm genuinely curious as to why you think you are the sole arbiter of what does and does not break wikipedia rules. I count three others that do not believe this proposal has broken any rules. Why should *anyone* believe your interpretation of the rules over theirs? --Lode Runner 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies." WP:RFC SanchiTachi 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi your attacks are out-of-line. You offend everyone by attempting to beat someone else into accepting your interpretation, instead of convincing them in a rational manner. The rules are not here to pummel and coerce but to instruct. Your approach is not conducive. Wjhonson 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You have accused me of something without proof. Please apologize ~~now~~, especially for your "everyone" comment which cannot ever be proven. I have not bullied anyone. I have only cited proper rules. ~~You, however, are demonstrating bullying, especially when you use such curt accusatory language without any proof behind it.~~ SanchiTachi 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the need add so much verbiage to this policy. Policy pages need to be kept simple and to the point. And the way the discussion is being conducted is not encouraging either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Second. Reason - "Given the growing number of sniveling rule-lawyers who use WPs (and especially this WP:) to shout down opposition, I really think that this all needs to be spelled out" by Lode Runner (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&oldid=128602969#Proposed_Addition_to_the_Policy)SanchiTachi 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the dispute is framed incorrectly. The discussion should not be framed around "do we allow OR in talk pages?", as that presuposes that talk pages are what they are not. Talk pages are there 'to discuss the article and not the subject, and to engage other editors in improving the article so that it is better sourced, better worded, and more compliant with the aims of the project. A talk page is not a discussion forum, a place to share our brilliant ideas and opinions on the subject of the article, or to do any other activities unrelated to furthering the aims of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So is it possible to post an RFC without subject (since there is no "Wikipedia policy" subject, only science, politics, religion, etc.) ? Or is there a better place to put this? I don't mind a venue change, in fact I would prefer it so that we can get away from this off-topic stuff, but I could use a little help figuring it out. --Lode Runner 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read your User:Lode_Runner#The War Against Rules-Lawyers. If yout are set to engage in such "war" please note that you will find considerable and unrelentless opposition, not to fight that "war" against you, but rather to not allow you to start one, neither here, not in another page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking figuratively.... oh well, doesn't matter. Enough people here agree with me. And you don't even have to agree with a tenth of my opinion on the matter to see how stupid (perhaps impossible) it is to forbid synthesis on the talk pages.

I think it is not-so-hard to differentiate between justification for an addition and the addition itself. And I think it is not so hard to understand how original research is useful to one and dangerous to the other. But enough of this, shall you help me figure out the proper venue or will the debate be continued here? --Lode Runner 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New debate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Original_research_in_talk_pages. Personal attacks (this includes alleged rules violations that are already over, fixed, appologized for and done with) will not be tolerated. --Lode Runner 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lode Runner, there's too much in this section to read, so I apologize if this is repetitive, but OR isn't allowed on talk pages because talk pages are there to discuss the article, not the issue. Of course, people can discuss their opinion of the sources and so on, but they're not supposed to use talk pages to give forth about their own ideas. Also, the edit you wanted to make to the policy wasn't only about talk pages, and would have basically turned the policy upside down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Talk pages can get very clogged up when people start arguing about the subject itself. And (like this particular section!) it then becomes difficult for anyone to comment meaningfully, other than those who are sufficiently passionately interested in the article or subject to keep reading every single post. And those who are very passionate about something are not always the most neutral contributors! ElinorD (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is behind all this discussions? Are editors engagging in OR in talk pages? If so, where? If so, why? Talk pages are provided to discuss the article, its sources, and its wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this addition is absolutely faulty. How can you have a talk page without OR??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOR is a red herring

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion

The important issue is not whether original research lands in the article. The important issue is whether the reader can determine that which is original research and that which isnt. The problem being that once original research is excluded, logic prevents the article from being written. This is because the very first sentence of any article whatsoever must advance a position, and so forth for each sentence thereafter, and for each word of each sentence and so on. This logic must be addressed in this article or the article lacks any logical validity.

I was writing to the article on stature which has oscillated between a strong negative bias against short stature and a milder negative bias against short stature. I had written a section to the article that arguably is OR, but it certainly balanced the article. After, having this section tagged and deleted for being OR it occured to me that NOR is a very dangerous policy.

This is because people read Wikipedia and Wikipedia should not have a negative bias towards short stature. And certainly, in this article the truth is more important than NOR. The argument for the advantages of short stature should be stated in this article, or all bias should be removed. The present policy is dangerous as it serves to reinforce stereotypes.

Further, for some time now there has been reference to height and intelligence suggesting that taller people are smarter. This is backed up by some kind of verified source.

It might be alright to have this illogical OR policy if noone read Wikipedia, but millions do read it. Wikipedia should not maintain this illogical policy that leads to false and unbalanced articles.01001 00:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But there is no policy which mandates "balance". If there are no published resources that say being tall is good, and many that say being short is good, our articles should reflect that. WP:NPOV includes an "undue weight" clause, which makes it clear that both sides do not have to be given equal weight if they don't truly have equal weight. -Amarkov moo! 00:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Let assume for the sake of argument that society has a perception one way or the other. Wikipedia can honestly discuss the issue, Wikipedia can avoid the issue or Wikipedia can simply reflect published sources with no regard to truth. This last choice is the worst, and this is the choice Wikipedia has made. By making this choice Wikipedia essentially becomes a primary source for bullcrap. This is because mindlessly parroting anything can be nothing better than nonsense01001 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the choice wikipedia has made, and it is better than publishing previously unpublished bullcrap. the sourcing requirement limits the bullcrap to the sourceable kind MPS 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not better than avoiding controversial subjects altogether as the present policy does not present the argument fairly. Further it is not better than presenting a balanced argument. Sourced Bullcrap is Bullcrap and by any other name smells as sweet.01001 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And who says that there should not be rules? Wikipedia needs rules but certainly more logical ones than the blatantly illogical ones now in use.01001 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mind that there are more medical journal publications proving that blacks and jews are biologically inferior to white aryan males. Is this really the stance that Wikipedia wants to take? We are still drolling through and disproving "factual" information that has existed for a 1000 years, and there have certainly been more than one Wikipedizens to contribute to this effort. --Agvulpine 07:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

These publications are verified content from reliable sources. I dont see where Wikipedia policy deals with this problem.01001 08:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, note that if OR is allowed then there's nothing to prevent massive article bloat and inclusion opinions on many topics such as philosophy will become highly subjective. How would we go about deciding which OR to include? We have similar problems in some of the sciences which many cranks wanting to essentially publish their stuff here. JoshuaZ 01:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said that Wikipedia should not have rules?01001 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I assert that a little OR is sometimes good, and is in the spirit of WP:Ignore all rules. Example: the page on Chess used to assert that 285 million people play chess on the Internet, and the claim was sourced[1]. I wrote on the Talk page:

Some more numbers: Internet Chess Club has 30000 members, about 2500 online at any one time. FICS has a membership of 150000. Playchess.com (part of Chessbase) claims to be the largest, with 5000 members online at any one time, so maybe they've slightly over the 150000 at FICS, if they are it's not by much. The other sites appear to be smaller. I think the total number of online players would struggle to reach 1 million. Yes I know this is WP:Original Research, but the 285 million number is so obviously wrong that sometimes you have to WP:Ignore all rules.

Thankfully common sense prevailed, and my OR overrode the reference. The moral: a little OR is sometimes better than a poor reference. Peter Ballard 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue wasn't with the WP:NOR policy, but with the failure to properly apply WP:V. Andrzej Turowsk's personal website is obviously not a reliable source for such an absurd claim; or, indeed, practically any claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. But if rubbish like this appeared in the mainstream press - as occasionally happens - I would have applied the same reasoning. Peter Ballard 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hence the need for multiple reliable sources, especially for contreversial, or important stuff :) . —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If a source is bad you find a better source. You don't replace it with original research. --bainer (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proving sources to be bad usually requires original research. --tjstrf talk 08:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? The example was of a personal website being used as a source for the number of online chess players; the source is "bad" in terms of not being reliable for the purpose it was being used for. --bainer (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why you can't change it (crossposted)

Latest comment: 16 years ago26 comments8 people in discussion

Everytime you edit you are told "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". WP:NOR is one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia. It is a hardline policy. WP:IAR is not policy, it is a guideline, a very controversial one at that, and never intended to bypass consensus. Lode Runner, your crusade against the "rules lawyers" is borderline disruptive, especially given your non-consensus edits to WP:NOR to reflect that. This is not in the best interest of the project, and it's not what Jimbo would want, bottom line. If you want to add OR and synthesis, establish your credentials at Citizendium, or take it to an internet forum. Encyclopedias are for SOURCED information, not original research: not in brittanica, not here. Wikipedia is not primary source, and without verification of credentials, it's not a place for publication of new material. Since we don't know who the editors are, it's no different than a bunch of guys meeting at a pub, or a conspiracy theorist in a 'zine or webforum. Once again, WP:NOR prevents all of that. That is why it is one of the fundamental, inviolate pillars of the project. Can you see that the entire concept of wikipedia having ANY credibility hinges upon it? Your crusade against the "rules lawyers" is misguided: you're really crusading against the concept of wikipedia itself, and it's disruptive and dangerous. The blanket accusations such as "the accusers", "rules lawyers", allegations of WP:BITE, etc are disruptive and the resultant unilateral changes to, again, a fundamental policy, border on WP:POINT. You need to chill out and look at this objectively: On the SOLE basis of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR (neither of which are policy), you want to change at least FOUR policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:TALK, WP:RS and a fifth if you include WP:ATT. Does that make ANY sense to you whatsoever? Because to the rest of us, it is ridiculous.

I can sum it up in one sentence: You can't use a single controversial guideline that is not accepted by many people on this project, to overrule no less than FIVE fundamental policies that constitute the very essence of what makes Wikipedia what it is.

I can sum up the remedy in one sentence: Start your own wiki, or go to Citizendium, or publish a blog; all of which places where original research is welcomed -- not here.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, IAR is a policy, and a very fundamental one at that, but the problem is most people don't understand it. You many ignore a rule, but only if the rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The prohibition on original research (like the other content policies) of itself does not prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, indeed quite the opposite. --bainer (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I'll be damned, when did it change to a policy? Last I visited the page, it was a guideline. When you look at the five pillars, what's the very first thing you see: "No original research". See the policy trifecta page: all other policies, including IAR are a corollary of that. The concept of wikipedia is neither inherently disabled or enabled by WP:IAR, it's only facilitated. But the concept of wikipedia is completely disabled by allowing OR, as it ceases to become an encyclopedia at that point, and instead becomes something lesser.

And, taking the direct wording of the IAR page, it says if the rules PREVENT you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. OR does not IMPROVE the encyclopedia, and not allowing OR does not PREVENT you from improving it. All that OR does, is lowers the quality of the encyclopedia into that of a webforum, blog, or chatroom, and that's clearly unacceptable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Doh, that's exactly what you just said Bainer. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are circumstances under which OR improves the encyclopedia. That's why we have IAR in the first place--no rule works well all the time. IAR allows the NOR rule to be ignored in such cases. Ken Arromdee 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't, and NOR always overrules IAR, because OR never improves the encyclopedia. Give an example if you think it does.Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that claim is "original research", so what's the point? This whole discussion presumes that we are experts on encyclopedia writing who do not need citations. If we are to take this "no OR in talk" seriously, every single statement in this exchange would need a citation. Since even the "no OR in talk" proponents aren't bothering to do so, the message is that the demand need not be taken seriously. Indeed, it seems blinkin' obvious that discussion is going to have rely heavily on ordinary reasoning and evaluation. Mangoe 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An Admin's opinion on a rule does not count as original research, as they have met the Wiki standard for expert in their field and did this through a peer review process. Thus, Jayjg is basing his information on what the admin above have said. Jay is not using original research. SanchiTachi 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you produce a citation for that? It seems to me that this could be continued indefinitely.Really, the problem here is that the talk pages are research. Perhaps within some framework we ought to expect proper citation and the like, but rigorous application of this is simply going to result in paralysis. People will as a rule ingore this demand, except when it's convenient to tie the discussion in a knot. Then they will pop up and say "WP:NOR!", and the fight over that will consume the talk page. And yeah, this is OR, but we have to have somewhere to talk about writing an encyclopedia. Mangoe 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

~~A citation? Thats not needed. Why? Because~~ if you looked at the process to becoming an admin, you would know that its peer reviewed. Furthermore, if you looked at the main page of this, experts that are verified are allowed in. ~~You don't need to "cite" that, as its already cited for you. Please stop being purposely rude and trying to make such blatantly false claims.~~ SanchiTachi 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Since you will probably claim that you have to literally cite it, even though its obvious where to find it.~~ Here: WP:RfA proof that Admins are peer reviewed. Only opinions on potential admin with references to their actual actions are allowed (See the actual requests), which shows that the process does not use OR. The process was created by the creator of Wikipedia, which makes him an expert source on Wiki Rules ~~and thus, not OR in the way you claim.~~ SanchiTachi 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An Admin's opinion on a rule does not count as original research, as they have met the Wiki standard for expert in their field and did this through a peer review process. But can you show us that admins were 'voted' in with the understanding that they have an excellent knowledge of wikirules? I have seen many a comment on RfA's which go along the lines 'is a nice guy, can't see him misusing the tools, has made many good edits' etc... There doesn't seem to be anything on the RfA page which states that admins are put in place because they have an expert knowledge of wikirules. Can you not see what we are saying? Throughout the site people express their opinions on various facts, figures, and other opinions. They do this in article talk space, in wikipedia talk space and in user talk space. To stop this under WP:OR would lead to a work to rule situation where nothing would get done.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Okay, so according to Localzuk, Admin have no right to make any claims or to judge on certain matters, which would then negate the WP:Admin page. So says Localzuk, so says God, right?~~ Admin are experts by definition. That is how Wikipedia functions.SanchiTachi 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the page you linked to doesn't mention admins being experts in any way. It says they are 'familiar with and respect wikipedia policy' and 'have gained the trust of the community' but nothing defining them as experts.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a strange understanding of "familiar" and "trust" if you do not see them as having expertise in rules or the ability to enforce rules via block and other methods. SanchiTachi 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent] Indeed, what guarantees an admin is any kind of "expert"? And what would it matter in this discussion, if they were? Do you think individual expertise per se carries weight on wikipedia? Wrong. Or that an admin's opinions carry more weight than anybody else's, here? Wrong. Please note that WP:ATT generally allows experts to use their own expertise only by quoting from their own works if they have been published in OTHER journals. Admins giving pop-off ex cathedra opinions here for the first time, certainly would violate WP:ATT if it applied universally. Here's an explicit violation from the NOR section of WP:ATT: "Original research" is anything that

introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

Which is what we have here, since admins are not reliable sources who have published this stuff outside Wikipedia. You think they are? S B H arris 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they published anything outside of Wikipedia, because, by definition, they are given the title of Experts on Rules and are given the ability to block people and other privledged information. ~~If you cannot understand the review process or the like, please, find another place, because Wikipedia is not the place for you.~~ SanchiTachi 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you want to cite that? At the very least, the arbcom process indicates that this is not so, and even then there is continuing argument over how much authority arbcom has in this wise. Mangoe 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I struck this comment as I provided information for Mangoe on his user talk page. I felt that taking it to such a place would be more appropriate than leaving comments here. SanchiTachi 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I am not an administrator, I do not know what the admin tools look like. Nonetheless, it is a widely held view that administrators are only to execute certain risky functions, and are not to determine or provide final interpretation of policy. Attempts by admins to do so are widely held to be an abuse of power. Calling me a dick is widely viewed as a personal attack, disclaimers on your user page to the contrary. And as you are not an admin, even by your own standards it would be necessary for you to cite evidence as to my intent. All of this comes down to your need to be able to denounce my position without having to live up to the standard you are demanding. And the point is that it is not really possible to operate as you are demanding. Mangoe 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I struck this comment as I provided information for Mangoe on his user talk page. I felt that taking it to such a place would be more appropriate than leaving comments here. SanchiTachi 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are we talking about admins? What does that have anything to do with OR or not? Admin functions have nothing to do with editing, which is what OR/NOR is involving. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We all know this. We are waiting for SanchiTachi to get it. S B H arris 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, did you just purposely lie about what I said? I clearly defending Admins having the right to say or act without them violating OR. That is obvious and people like you keep trying to claim that Admins are violating OR. SanchiTachi 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of lying, it's simply a matter of your being wrong. What you "said" is posted above, and it's incorrect. Administrators have no special powers to do or say anything that escapes OR, but somehow would not if an ordinary editor said or did them. You seem to believe they do, by shear authority. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. A number of us (including at least one administrator, Mangoe) have tried to tell you are wrong. You're not listening. Too bad. Originality (or lack of it) is not a matter of authority, but merely (in the context of Wikipedia) a matter of prior publication of a particular point of view outside of Wikipedia, in a reliable source medium. S B H arris 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put forth evidence supporting my case, but you have put no such evidence supporting yours. It is obvious to anyone besides you what is right, what is wrong, and that you misconstrued everything I said, or you don't understand that Admin have the ability to block and rule on what Wiki rules are without dealing with citing "research" in the same kind of manner as other pages. Their only information is the rules and their interpretation of the rules. Thats how judgments work. If you don't understand that, please scroll through the block users page and complain about admin only posting original research in deciding if the rules have been broken or not. You will quickly be shot down. But I do thank you for trying to speak for others, butting in where you obviously didn't belong, and trying to make fun of admin. SanchiTachi 02:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Original images and 'artist's impressions'

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A discussion is going on here about whether it would be justifiable for a non-specialist Wikipedian to create an 'artist's impression' of an object that is so far invisible (the object in question is the distant planet Gliese 581 c), or whether the only acceptable 'impression' would be something produced by a noted scientist, or at least produced under the aegis of a scientific organization, such as NASA. Some users believe that the policy on images means that the non-specialist Wikipedian is welcome to go ahead. Others (including moi) think this would open the floodgates to rubbishy images with no scientific backup. Does anyone here hae any views on this? Cop 633 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean a picture/image? If so, see above: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#WP:OR_and_images_of_non-existant_things. There is a reference made to Wikipedia:OR#Original_images. "This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." "If they are noted as manipulated, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." So, if it fits what the article says, then it seems to be allowed. See if that helps. SanchiTachi 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another word change

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The secondary source paragraph has a sentence that reads "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources." The presence of the word "verifiable," as an adjective modfying "sources," is confusing and I believe in error. This is going to get semantic, but: WP:V applies to the content of WP articles, not to the sources for that content. The WP article has to be reliably sourced, of course, but that is enough; we don't have to in turn be able to verify the source (to do so for a newspaper article, for example, I think we would need access to the reporter's notes, or the article editing process). I propose removing that one word. Comments? UnitedStatesian 05:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I think there would be a wiki to publish original research and ideas. I imagine the wiki was once upon a time... ;) an original idea. If it would be refussed, I (and you ) couldn´t be reading and/or writting these lines--62.87.96.65 13:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There are wikis where you can publish original research. This just isn't one of them. Wjhonson 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews permits original reporting, but has very strict rules about it, so that this reporting can still be reliable (you need to publish all notes etc on the talk page alongside the story.) --Kim Bruning 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikiinfo. Its main page reads: Original research which addresses significant problems is especially appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Permissible synthesis

Latest comment: 16 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion

There are cases where synthesis is permissible; for example, List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality has a summary table where each fact is sourced and generally is a NPOV summary of well-substantiated and sourced information found elsewhere in the article. Other examples of acceptable synthesis of information are sourced bulletized lists of positions a candidate has issued that taken together might convey a certain ideology (left or right) of that candidate even if the article doesn't come out and say what that candidate leans. A third form of synthesis that is permissible is if there are a series of related content that do not merit a separate article but that can be treated together, such as Slogans of anti-gay ideology. [2]

If I understand this proposed text correctly it says that editors may compile lists that don't appear as such in any source. I would suggest that this isn't even synthesis, and that it is allowable so long as it is properly labelled and chosen. In other words it isn't an exemption, it's an already allowed use under OR. This edit would just clarify that fact. I have seen instances in the past where editors have compiled facts to cause readers draw unusual conclusions, and that is inherently OR. But it doesn't much matter whether those facts are arranged in a list or in prose. With this proposal, if I read it orrectly, it would be permissiable to compile a "Major policy positions" section, but it would not require us to permit a POV compilation like "Evidence of guilt" if there weren't already a source for it. So again, I don't see any actual change from current policy in that aspect either, just another clarification. Is there any way in which this would alter existing practice? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a big problem in the synthesis arguments that they currently are often written so as to forbid articles. The point in the next section is apt: Original research requires drawing novel conclusions from data. Synthesis just requires combining multiple sources into a narrative. Right now every last featured article contains synthesis and this is unavoidable. What should be done about this seems to be a matter of some disagreement. In the above example, it is definitely true that you should be able to compile all the neutral, verifiable policy platforms of a party or candidate into one section, as long as you don't draw any conclusions. WilyD 13:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the redefinition of synthesis. Synthesis is analysis of two sources. A says that Green is good. B says that "This item" is green. Synthesis is saying "This item" is good and leaving out the two sources. Source A never discussed the item in question and never intended it to be discussed. Thus, you are abusing sources, which makes it Original Research. Do you understand now? SanchiTachi 16:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposed text above should not be put in the policy, because it is not describing an example of synthesis. I do not understand WilyD's "problem" because nowhere does the policy state that "Synthesis just requires combining multiple sources into a narrative" - this is not what "synthesis" means, synthetic statements by definition make novel claims. And that is definitely something wikipedia editors should not do. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't come from the policy - it's just straight from any dictionary. WilyD 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So at what point do we cross the synthesis line?

1. Including "This item is green^B" and "Green items are good^A" in the same article.

2. Putting both in the same sentence, as "This item is green^B and green items are good^A".

3. Saying "This item is green^B and therefore good^A".

4. Saying "This item is good^{A, B}".

And here's a really tricky one, how about:

"A is true^{1, 2, 3}. If A, then not B⁴. B⁵."

What can I do with this? I know 4 is an authoritative source, and I have multiple independent sources for A; can I point out the contradiction inherent in the statements? This actually came up in the Va. Tech shootings, because police reported (incorrectly, as it later came out) that Cho legally purchased the guns he used (B), but it was evident early on that he'd been adjudicated mentally deficient (A), and the law states such persons cannot purchase a firearm (If A then not B). As it was, I had to wait several days before someone in the media got a clue and pointed this out... scot 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The VA Tech shooting is an example where syntehsis is very bad. It turned out that Cho was in a treatment, but there was a loophole that allowed him to buy a gun. Early syntehsis would have said he couldn't get ahold of a weapon and that it would be illegal for him to act in the way he did. However, as it turned out, that was not the case, and would have been a large assumption based on evidence that did not exist. This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow synthesis. If something exists, a verifiable and notable source will eventually describe it. If they don't, contact one instead of trying to make the claim first here. This is not a primary source and shouldn't be treated like one. SanchiTachi 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Cho did NOT legally purchase the guns; by answering "No" to the question asking if he had ever been committed to a mental institution, then he committed felony perjury, as was eventually confirmed by the media[3]. The "loophole" was that the state did not provide sufficient records to the NICS system to allow the perjury to be detected--just because the purchase was allowed does NOT mean it was legal. scot 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. The "purchase" of the gun, i.e. the transaction was legal under law. The filling out of the paper was incorrect, but the database which checks such informationd did not prohibit him from putting it in. The database is what is used, not the paper. He commited an illegal act by not putting down his check in, but such things would need to be verified by the database. Hence, the conflicting information and hence why you cannot synthesize such things. SanchiTachi 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cho was not legally able to purchase a firearm, therefore the sale was illegal. The seller was not at fault, because they performed the background check and it was approved, but that doesn't mean it was legal. It's the same situation as a forged check--the bank may voluntarily cash the check, which they believe is good, but that doesn't mean the forger hasn't stolen the money. And this argument is EXACTLY why there should be clarification on the issue; I HAVE sold firearms, I HAVE accepted hundreds of 4473s, and I HAVE seen the Brady Bill process, and the NICS system, in operation. When I see something I know is factually wrong--such the common misconception that the Brady Bill had a 5 day waiting period (which is NOT true)--and I can find authoritative sources that contradict alleged facts (like the text of the law), at what point am I "synthesizing" information when I try to reconcile the contradition? scot 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if you were to reread what I said, then you would realize that we are not conflicting. The wording is what is key, and that is why synthesis is something very bad (especially with legalities, because wording is important in determining what is legal and what is not). SanchiTachi 16:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is what redefinition of synthesis? I'm using a standard dictionary definition of synthesis. It is literally impossible to write an article without analysing any sources - you need to analyse the source to see if it's on the topic at hand. You need to analyse it in order to rephrase ideas so they're not copyright violations. You need to analyse and compare multiple sources to see if they discuss the same topic. Every sentence that isn't a quote or a copyvio has some synthesis of a thesaurus or dictionary in there (or original research, I guess). You can't combine sources into a single flow without synthesis. Looking at a more topical example, if I have a source that says Peter Goldreich was a Ph.D. student at Cornell from 1964 - 1966 and a second source that says Peter Goldreich was a Ph.D. student of Thomas Gold's from 1964-1966 I might want to write Peter Goldreich was a Ph.D. student of Thomas Gold's from 1964 - 1966, while he was at Cornell. This is most definitely synthesis, but I'm not drawing a novel conclusion. I'm just trying to make the encyclopaedia readable. Grabbing a dictionary.com, synthesis is

syn·the·sis: the combining of the constituent elements of separate material or abstract entities into a single or unified entity

You combine facts from seperate materials in order to create a single unified article. That's synthesis, per a basic dictionary definition - yet every single featured article does it. This is the problem. WilyD 17:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that a "standard" dictionary definition is not appropriate to a term used to describe a type of action on Wikipedia like synthesis in the same way it would not teach you how to do such in chemistry. It is Wikipedia Jargon, and it is defined in the manner that I have shown you. You do not cross the synthesis line when it make it clear what your sources are and putting them back to back. Your sources are supposed to speak for the entry, not individuals. This is not a place to demonstrate how great you can write things on your own, but a place to put up sources to form an Encyclopedic entry. Even your own example could be very wrong, as the above person could have attended two schools at the same time, or he could have been studying under the other teacher during the summer, etc etc. If your source doesn't have all the information you want, find a new source or deal with it. SanchiTachi 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've said this before and I'll say it again: if you have to redefine words in the english language to make your policy understandable, your policy needs to be changed. There is no acceptable reason for using one word "redefined" when you could simply explain the concept fully in an unconfusing manner. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do not understand/appreciate Wikipedia's use of Jargon to define specifically vandalism, original research, synthesis, etc etc, then please complain to Village Pump Policy. This is not the place to express such concerns. SanchiTachi 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't do anything but sidestep the issues, stop editing Wikipedia. This is the place to "express such concerns", as this is the only place the obscure redefinition of synthesis is used. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence whatsoever that synthesis in this context is jargon. It's not in the jargon file ;) and it's not in any policy or guideline. This talk page is an appropriate place to discuss poor phrasings or explanations on the policy page, and to discuss potential rewordings that don't alter intent. Please stop harrassing users who are using this talk page for it's intended purpose - if you're unconcerned that the policy is poorly elucidated, disregard the discussion - but policy does need to be accessible and clear - it needs to be readable to both seasoned admins and first time editors. WilyD 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of Synthesis and how it is used is on the NOR page. If you do not like it, take it up with Village Pump Policy and stop complaining about it here. I have stated this multiple times so far. Your constant posting on this topic shows that you do not care about the actual use of synthesis (because this is not the appropriate place to bring up such a challenge) but instead want to make a scene about it on the talk page. I have stated exactly what is Wikipolicy, how it is used, and how to deal with it if you feel that it is inadequate. The failure is solely on your part, not on wikipedia. Good day. SanchiTachi 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I haven't complained about it at all, nor am I interested in challenging it. I don't think policy in this area needs to be adjusted (certainly not from the de facto standard). You're probably right that I'm not really talking about the actual use of synthesis here - I don't actually have a problem with that. All that I'm talking about is 'how policy is worded and this is exactly the right place to discuss it. If you're uninterested in making policies clear or usable, then you needn't involve yourself in this discussion. But some editors are concerned about the wording, not the substance, and so we discuss it here. WilyD 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~If that is true,~~ why do you keep putting up such responses after responses instead of putting how you would reword it in its own catagory and ask for responses to see if it is accepted by consensus or not? SanchiTachi 01:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the case is that although I've got some read on the problem, I don't know the exact solution. Which is why I've been trying to collaborate with other editors to identify the problem more precisely, and then set upon figuring out the solution. The short of it is that I have an idea of the general problem, but not that exact problem, and less of a read on the solution. I haven't suggested a new wording because I don't have a specific idea for a new wording. I'm trying to discuss the matter with other editors to get their insight. The articles I write these days fly past the spirit of WP:OR and WP:V - I really don't want to change them (certainly not for my benefit), just make them clearer (for myself and others)> WilyD 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't work because synthesis is not specially defined anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines or policies as anything other than the usual word. Nor is there anything resembling a de facto standard out in the field amongst editors. Jimbo's quote uses the qualifier novel for a reason. Novel synthesis is a problem. Anovel synthesis is not a problem. No article should engage in the former. Every article should engage in the later (and apart from copyvios and singlely sourced articles, every article does engage in the later). It is very apparent that the situation on synthesis needs to be clarified because it is unclear. WilyD 17:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think that, I believe you should spend more time looking through Wikipedia, because it is defined in many places. It is not NOR Talk's job to provide you for information which is clearly found if you go through the actual project page and look at the companion links. SanchiTachi 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately enough, I'm not asking NOR's talk to do that. I'm merely noting that the comment about how the policies on synthesis are problematic in their phrasing (but not presumed intent) is correct, and that it is an issue that should be dealt with. WilyD 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If its an issue to be dealt with, please take it to Village Pump Policy. The Talk Page here is intended to deal with aspects of the project page, not with greater policy. Your intent has taken you to the wrong forum to express your concerns. SanchiTachi 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have greatly misunderstood the situation - I didn't bring my concerns here - I was merely explaining the state of this policy to another editor who had a question about an apparently strange feature. WilyD 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that synthesis is poorly defined. Perhaps we should create a Wikipedia:Synthesis page. It is not the responsiblity of wikipedians to comb various wikipedia dicussion pages to come to terms with their own definitions of WP:SYN. It is for the wikipedian community to define it in one place, once and for all. We can define "bad synthesis" in a paragraph on WP:OR, but if there are other permissible forms of synthesis, this should be explicitly stated and defined... on WP:OR or someplace else. So where do you want to define about WP:SYN, here? or at Wikipedia:Synthesis? or some third place? MPS 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent: I agree with MPS. If synthesis is to have a wikipedian definition than that definition should be expressed explicitely. There are far too many people who use synthesis as an argument against certain sentences. Wjhonson 05:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Wjhonson, in fact it's not just WP:SYN that gets abused but the entire concept of WP:OR. I've seen several editors cite the wikilink having obviously either not read or understood it. Anynobody 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is roughly what I believe as well. MPS is working on an essay, but a guideline that makes it clear what is, or is not acceptable synthesis (or that defines synthesis as a jargon term) might be better. WilyD 11:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is adding perspective WP:OR?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

WP:NPOV states that facts should be allowed to speak for themselves, which to me means that any qualification or explanation of them by an editor not citing a source is original research because the qualification/explanation didn't appear in the source. This is an illustration of why I think it is original research to add perspective not in the source.

(X = criminals)

Situation	Says	Wikipedia says	Final	WP:OR?
1. A WP:V, WP:RS source	X	X	X	No

(Y = people referred to as)(Z = people referred to as criminals)

Situation	Says	Wikipedia says	Final	WP:OR?
2. A WP:V, WP:RS source	X	X + Y =	Z	Yes

I'd suggest finding a source to assert Y, but that might be WP:SYN.

Situation	Says	2nd valid source says	Wikipedia says	Final	WP:OR?
3. A WP:V, WP:RS source	X	Y	X + Y	Z	Probably

Anynobody 06:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) could you explain what you don't understand so I could try to clarify. "Uh?" doesn't really explain much. Anynobody 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Novel Narrative"?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where did Jimmy Wales say a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"? I want to put {{fact}} after that... Bkkbrad 09:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it comes from this - all the quote in the article does is change plural to singular:

"An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one. ... I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" (WikiEN-l, December 6, 2004).

Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:It's ok to use your brain

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey fellow editors: please help me edit this new essay: Wikipedia:It's ok to use your brain. I think it applies to more than this policy. MPS 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad essay... however, I think it would be helpful to discuss situations where it is NOT OK to use your brain. IE where using your brain leads to Original Research and Synthesis. Blueboar 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Use My Brain

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OK, here's an example of "using my brain" and that example is the reason I'm even reading this page. In the article Curveball (informant) I inserted a section that stated that Curveball's statements demonstrated internal inconsistency and that the internal inconsistency indicated he was a poseur. Curveball claimed to be a chemical engineer yet nothing that appeared to be derived from the intelligence provided by Curveball, as seen in the CIA/DIA white paper, showed any sign of having been written by anyone with engineering training.

So my thought process was: IF Curveball provided information that was not like the information you would reasonably expect an engineer (in particular a chemical engineer) to present when describing a piece of equipment for which he claimed he had been trained to operate THEN Curveball was lying about being a chemical engineer, and was thus visibly a liar.

That section stood for many months and then it was removed anonymously. I restored it and was then told that whether or not it was accurate was beside the point, it was "original research." I then deleted it myself, following a strict interpretation of NOR.

But this is very disturbing. Other than in tightly-controlled countries (e.g., USSR) I don't know of any encyclopedias that forbade thought or the products of thought.

More properly I could have enumerated the items attributed to Curveball in the CIA/DIA white paper that lacked any glimmer of engineering intelligence and then could have documented what is is that chemical engineers concern themselves with. Even then it appears that a strict reading of "no original research" forbids my conclusion. If nobody has published the conclusion then, it seems, Wikipedia forbids its appearance, no matter how simple the logic.

This is weird in a way because the white paper (and the discussion of that piece of intelligence reporting and all Iraq-war intelligence reporting) appear to follow, even though they are not a part of Wikipedia, the NOR rule. In fact the reason I put in the "internal inconsistency" section in the first place was as a protest against that idiotic approach. It's absurd for the CIA to limit it's conclusions to Wikipedia-style reporting of what CIA sources supply. Their job is expressly to synthesize from the raw intelligence, is it not? Yet all the discussions I've seen center on whether or not the intelligence agencies had been told Curveball was unreliable (or on whether or not that very clear message had gotten through.) What he said wasn't what an engineer would say. Is it conceivable that the CIA neither employs nor consults chemical engineers on chemical engineering issues? Wouldn't any chemical engineer instantly conclude "this guy sure must have gone to a bad engineering school: he doesn't know what engineering is about"? (It is lunacy if they do not employ or consult suitable professionals.)

In the discussion page for Curveball (informant) a describe a report by a mythical self-proclaimed automotive engineer in which the person demonstrates he doesn't recognize an engine block and spark plugs. Whether or not it's allowed to reach the conclusion "he's a liar" in Wikipedia wouldn't the CIA have to reach that conclusion, if he were making such a report to them?

A simpler example is in the greenhouse gas discussion. I state there that a 1 degree Celsius change in the average temperature of the earth is less than a 0.4% change. But to do so I had to perform the division 1/(273 + 15) That computation seems, by the NOR policy, to be forbidden. Yet I would like to contend that the deniers are foolish in claiming that it is not possible for the observed change in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to cause a change in average temperature of less than 0.4%. It's important and significant to show the relative magnitude of the change and every piece of that calculation can be tied to data. Can I make the calculation in Wikipedia or can I not? Are there not many items of general education that are (or should be) always available for use in any analysis, discussion, or presentation? Minasbeede 04:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, the second case (0.4%) is permissable (It's not novel). The former case is much less likely to be permissable, but I'd need to go through it all. Roughly speaking, you can't draw conclusions from the data, but you can manipulate the data in ways that don't draw conclusions. So changing 1 kg to 2.2 lbs is permissable, because it doesn't draw conclusions - you're really just rephrasing a source, in practice. But assembling a bunch of information and then drawing your own conclusions from it is forbidden. If you're concluding that he shows no engineering training because of X, Y and Z that's original research. You really need someone else to publish Hey, look this guy makes basic engineering mistakes and shows no training! - which you then might include near says he is an engineer. WilyD 14:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I did remove the section myself.

But how about the George Washington autograph that's written in ball point ink (a sort of classic example of self-contradictory information)? It appears that in Wikipedia one must stand mute, even though one knows George Washington was long dead before ball point pens were invented, unless one can find a published statement that a written item that purports to be from some time before ball point pens were invented is a forgery or fake if it is in fact written in ball point ink. Is it actually necessary to be able to cite a prior identification of the self-contradictory nature of a statement to mention that self-contradiction in an article? That something is self-disproviItalic textng isn't enough in itself, it has to have been published, too?

Of course my frustration isn't really with Wikipedia, it is with that whole world in which nobody has published that Curveball's lay language and approach mark him as a non-engineer. As he claims to be an engineer and he reveals himself not to be one he is clearly a liar. Whether or not word got to the analysts at the CIA they had the proof he was a liar in the raw intelligence from Curveball they received. After the fact we know that to be true (I can say that in Wikipedia.) I think Wikipedia is hobbled by too tight application of the "no original research" standard but my actual frustration is the apparent prevalence of that same standard in he real world. Logic is forbidden, all that the press and media can do is report what people say. That's wrong. It's also not the nature of the Encyclopedia Britannica over the years. But is worth noting that Wikipedia is hobbled by over-intense enforcement of NOR, with "hobbled" implying harm to it.

I do recognize that this is related, in a way, to the standard for a patent. A patent is valid if what it discloses is not obvious to someone skilled in the art prior to seeing the patent. I lose here. Obviously the dearth of published statements that Curveball's non-engineering language show him to not be an engineer demonstrates that those "skilled in the art" have not, on their own, comprehended this fact. That's why I removed the section.

Does a particular form of syllogism have to be referenced if it is used in a Wikipedia article or does the syllogism have status above the rules and principles of Wikipedia as part of the set of valid human reasoning skills?

Minasbeede 04:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To cut to the chase - what you want to do is reasonable and admirable - but you've come to the wrong place. Complain to reporters, submit to scholarly journals, whatever - Wikipedia just isn't the right place for what you want to do. WilyD 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. It is still true that forbidding logical conclusions is absurd. To me the danger inherent in original research is that (for the simplest syllogism) the major or minor premise could be concocted. That's where sourcing is necessary: for the premises.

Modern sophists create untrue premises (or engage in flawed logic, such as equating A implies B with B implies A.) It's easy to find sources for such sophistry, but it's invalid.

Minasbeede 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:SanchiTachi is also trying to introduce his original research and synthesis into the Shane Ruttle Martinez article (see Talk:Shane Ruttle Martinez). If there's an ongoing problem with this user and OR violations then some action should be taken against him. Black as pitch 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Exception for maths

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

Could there be an exception to the OR policy for purely mathematical proofs, that can *not* be refuted in any way? (Assuming of course the proof is sufficiently readable). Herve661 06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout for why I moved this to the bottom. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, mathematical proofs have turned out to be wrong - but generally "basic math" is not considered original research - i.e. if something is 10 lightyears away, it's not OR to say it's 3 parsecs away. Or if a source says guy X has two red balls and two blue balls WilyD 12:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your general point is correct: that basic math is acceptable in articles and not considered OR. However, editors do need to tread carefully in this area as to not mistakenly lose or introduce precision to a figure. For example, 3 parsecs is not equal to 10 lightyears, though it's close (about 9.78). Another example would be converting an estimated amount ($5 billion) into UK pounds and using the result (2,518,736,314.85) as if it were an exact figure. Perhaps not exactly under the heading of OR, but still something to watch out for. ChazBeckett 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I kept the same precision. 10 lightyears are 3 parsecs. 10.0 lightyears are not 3.0 parsecs. There's nothing wrong with losing precision, though you shouldn't be gaining precision. If I have a source that says Johnny Nobody sold 5012 copies of his book there's nothing wrong with the article saying Johnny Nobody sold more than 5000 copies of his book. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with throwing away precision. You should never change 10 lightyears to 3.067 parsecs - but you can comfortably change 10.00 lightyears to 3 parsecs - losing precision is still accurate, gaining is not. WilyD 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Losing precision is fine as long as it's made obvious in the text. Saying that 10 lys is about or over 3 parsecs is fine. Stating that 10 lys is 3 parsecs would be inaccurate and possibly confusing. ChazBeckett 15:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A source that says 10 lightyears could easily mean less than 3 parsecs. For instance, it might mean 9.665290 lightyears (hell, it might mean 7.3 lightyears, given the precision). Saying about is fine, but about is implied in the context. If I say I have a mass of 100 kg I'm not saying I have a mass of 100.000000000000000000000 kg I'm saying I have a mass between 50.000.. and 149.999... kg (actually, I'm an astronomer, so I probably am not being that accurate, but I digress). Distances are not counting numbers - 10 lightyears implies a single digit of precision - any reordering should be equivilently as precise. WilyD 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue with this is, how far does it go? Simple deductions like population density from population and size are already allowed, so no change is needed there. But some proofs are complicated enough that there may be a flaw that even experts haven't seen. So the standard really has to be things that any reader could deduce themselves, which is already there. -Amarkov moo! 00:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing is worked out on a case by case basis in practice, at least for math articles. It is also alluded to at here in the scientific citation guideline. CMummert · talk 01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to explain better what I mean. I am doing mathematics. There are many (eg geometrical) properties that can be demonstrated in an elegant way that I can think up. Many people may have already thought about it but didn't care to publish, and I won't get the Nobel prize for this. I would not have any chance to get it published either because it is kind of trivia things. Now, these proofs need not be complex at all and may be verified by almost any people (like they would verify the wordings in an article about litterature, spelling etc.) who is writing the article. Can that be put on a wikipedia article? Herve661 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus is that if a topic is already supported by numerous sources, such as textbooks, etc., then it is acceptable to include an example or short proof if it helps the overall article. But it isn't acceptable for the entire content of the article to consist of results that have never been published elsewhere on a topic that is not covered by print sources. To say anything more specific, I would need to know more about what geometric facts you're proving. CMummert · talk 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that one should allow "trivial original research", where "trivial" means that a scientific article based on this "original research" would not be accepted for publication, precisely because of this triviality. If we don't allow this, then there is a gap into which some interesting facts can fall precluding them from being incuded in wikipedia.

Example: Consider the asymptotic expansion of the Barnes G function, see Eq. 12 of this mathworld article. Now, it turnes out that this equation contains a sign error, there should be a plus sign, not a minus sign in front of the summation involving the Bernoulli numbers. The mistake is also present in the article by Adamchik cited by Mathworld. But Adamchik made a trivial sign mistake which any high school student can check. An original article by Barnes himself does give the correct expansion, but he uses a different convention for the Bernoulli numbers.

Anyway, when I was working on a project, I noticed this error and I wrote the correct formula in the wiki article on the Barnes G-function function. Later that section edited by someone else (fist incorrectly because he got confused by the old fashioned conventiones used by Barnes) but the current version still contains the correct formula.

Now, I'm not sure if the formula as presented in the wiki article does exist in the literature. But assuming for argument's sake that it doesn't exist, I don't think we should change the correct plus sign to an incorrect minus sign just because Adamchik made a sign error. Count Iblis 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am asking that we make an *exception* to the no-OR policy for Mathematical proofs. Mathematical proofs can not be refuted. As long as the proof is on topic, there is no reason to remove it, because anyone (with basic maths knowledge) can see that it is correct. I of course am not talking about proofs that are 200 pages long, for which a check is not easy for practical reasons. I am talking of proofs that are 2-3 lines long. These would be as you say placed in the middle of an article to better explain a particular property. The property itself may be new. But as long as it's interesting and on-topic and can be easily verified, I'm asking that we allow it. The kind of geometrical facts that I could prove is e.g. "if a set (P) of a finite number of points on a plane verify the property 'any two distinct points of the set are aligned with a third point of the set'" then all points are aligned. I can show it with a simple elegant short proof. Herve661 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting result, and it does explain the sort of thing you are proving. I don't think it is likely to fit into an article, though. You might find a site that does recreational mathematics and put it there. Is there a recreational mathematics wiki anywhere?

The problem with making a blanket exception to the OR policy for mathematical proofs is that the OR policy was originally intended to prevent crank physics authors from "disproving" general relativity (and other such nonsense). They would claim that their work is a unrefutable mathematical proof, and in practice it is unrefutable because it's incomprehensible. So the OR policy is intended to allow us to remove such things without needing to first convince the crank that their proof isn't right, which would be impossible anyway. CMummert · talk 13:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To prevent misuse or error a huge category of discourse is forbidden.

I'd certainly be comfortable with any but the most trivial or transparent mathematical proofs being excluded. Note too that the request was for 2-3 line proofs to be allowed, not for a blanket acceptance of all mathematical proofs. At that level the proofs are a means of making an exposition clearer or more communicative. That would seem to be a goal of Wikipedia, whether or not it is explicitly expressed anywhere. If "clearer or more communicative" refutes the position advanced by some that doesn't make it wrong, does it? If the refutation is on solid ground, is impeccable, it would seem it does exactly what ought to be done, if truth is the goal.

The patent office, I think, has a list of categories of invention it will not ever consider, perpetual motion machines being an example. I see no problem with Wikipedia refusing to accept anything that claims to disprove accepted science nor even with refusing to accept anything that claims to disprove controversial science. That belongs elsewhere. Properly it should appear, if it has any merit, in a refereed scientific journal. If not let it appear on kook web sites where it fits.

It is almost certain that even then judgment will be required and disagreement might arise. Well, thats life. If you relegate Wikipedia to some imaginary world where everything fits nicely then you very clearly have made Wikipedia a vehicle for fantasy - the exact opposite, it would seem, of what was originally intended.

Minasbeede 20:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, a mathematical proof that any reader could be expected to determine the validity of is usually allowed, if it is necessary. Anything where the validity can't be easily determined shouldn't be allowed, but you don't seem to want those types of things anyway. Of course, all this applies to unsourced things; sourced proofs are a different matter. -Amarkov moo! 20:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I like to handle this is to say that your proof is based on a proof from some source and cite that source. The proof can't be copied verbatim, but it can be carefully re-presented in our own words. Then, even if your proof is wrong due to the differences in presentation, the reader can consult the source for a (presumably) correct proof. The concept is that the encyclopedia makes no claim of accuracy and is only relating something else that does. Dcoetzee 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Direct quote

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If I say something. Then a news story reports it, how should I behave on the talk page of the article? Mathiastck 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Publication or Source

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

So let me get this straight...

In order to mention personal or special knowledge, one has to cite a source, even if the only source in the world is themselves. But in order for someone to cite their own source, it must be published in a "reliable publication", be it a book, journal, magazine, periodical, newspaper or even a popular website. Yet, none of these have been proven to be 100% reliable credible publications, just that the author had enough money or media interest at the time to have their voice heard.

To what extent is it really necessary to cite a source, then, I ask, especially if the information is a first-hand account. Would you scrub an article because it contained information provided by the sole surviving witness of a plane crash? What if George Bush himself came to write about his foreign policies? Is this any different from someone writing about their junior high school's band camp experience?

I can appreciate that Wikipedia strives to present the most factual and neutral information possible, but it seems rather insulting to suggest that Wikipedia Authors are just not qualified to make original factual statements by themselves. That's reserved for someone with a PhD, or a weekly column in the Tribune. --Agvulpine 06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is - to complete extent. You should never use your firsthand knowledge of things. What is being suggested is not that Wikipedia editors are unqualified to make first hand reports, but that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. There are lots of Wikis that accept original research - that just isn't our purpose. Original research is most problematic when it's not "common knowledge" - whatever that means. Something like Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue gives you some idea of when people might think original research is okay. But see also Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. WilyD 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem I see is that many things are at the "duh" level. It appears Wikipedia forbids applying simple logic to any set of facts.

As far as firsthand knowledge goes, I know from personal experience that the reaction used on the trailers in Iraq (claimed in a CIA/DIA white paper to be for the culture of biological WMD) to make hydrogen generates a lot of heat. As a scientist I know that the heat generated is not unique to my experience and has to be documented. When I read that the trailers have a cooling unit I know from personal experience that the cooling unit is an appropriate component on a hydrogen generation system so I likewise know that spinning the presence of that cooling unit to be evidence of use of the trailers for biological WMD culture is bogus. It flies in the face of fact. that the reaction used to generate hydrogen generates heat should be common knowledge among scientists with expertise in the field. This matters. If the CIA/DIA white paper was written in ignorance of the reaction used to generate hydrogen then that in itself is a strong condemnation of that white paper and of its authors. If the authors knew of the heat from the reaction their failure to disclose that fact proves their bias toward deceit. Nowhere in that is my personal knowledge critical: the reaction has been known for at least a century and anyone who performs the reaction will know of the heat. The real essence of my "personal knowledge" of the heat generated is that anyone doing the reaction should be aware of the heat. I"m merely a stand-in for "anyone" in this regard.

Minasbeede 14:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing about common knowledge is that positive common knowledge should be easily citable. While it may seem dumb to cite that say, Mars is a planet, I have a half a dozen books on my shelf that'll let me do that. Sometimes you can play a little loose, but it's definitely the case that if anyone requests a citation, you should remove the fact or cite it. Negative common knowledge can be harder to directly cite, but you can probably do it indirectly - a source that says Mars is not a fish would be hard to find, admittedly.

The problem with simple logic and reasoning is that it's not universal. While you may conclude one thing, another editor might conclude another and a third may conclude a third thing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia - we're not here to generate new knowledge or draw new conclusions, merely to regurgitate what's already known in an organised and succinct way. For other things, there are other forums. WilyD 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to requiring a citation for the statement that the reaction to generate hydrogen generates heat I say "right on." It's possible, do it and be done with it.

When it comes to simple logic and reasoning I think you're wrong: they are universal. There is misuse of logic and there is illogic but neither of these are properly described as different editors concluding different things (from the same evidence), assuming the different editors are honest. (It's also probably correct to state that all or nearly all methods of misusing logic have been characterized.) "Misuse of logic" includes reliance on false premises. Once the false premise is allowed then logic can lead to improper conclusions. I'd think the Wikipedia guns should be trained on false premises, not on logic.

Requiring sourcing doesn't solve the real problem: you have to rely on "reliable" sources, and reliability is the heart of the problem. Some cite al Qaeda as though it is a reliable source (when it suits the agenda of the one making the citation - if not in Wikipedia, other places.) Al Qaeda has its own agenda. Is it a reliable source, 100% accurate in what it says? I am extremely dubious.

There is a plethora of "think tanks" with agendas. Relying on them for accurate statements about the matters that are the subject matter of their agendas seems at least as unreliable as allowing actual "original research." You can rely on what think tanks say as indicating what they say. I doubt you can rely on what they say as reliably indicating what they think and am even more doubtful that you can rely on what they say to meet reasonable standards of truth.

Dealing with disputed material becomes a battle over the reliability of sources. While it seems to be cut-and-dried to insist on the Wikipedia rules isn't the real effect one of turning discussions that should be about truth into arguments about the applicability of the rules and about whether cited sources are or are not reliable? It seems to me that what you have left when you exclude everything that Wikipedia would have be excluded isn't an encyclopedia, it's a compendium of lukewarm statements about "safe" ideas. I'm not saying that Wikipedia cannot be precisely that (it can, if that's the desire or those in control), I'm more asking if that is the real goal. There's also the implied question of whether I am seeing things properly.

Minasbeede 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of policy

Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

In several discussions I encountered two conflicting views on WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. People repeatedly and on several articles cite:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

However, there are cases in which rigidly insisting on applying this policy would ignore common sense and another part of that policy:

"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"

Herein lies this request for clarification. As I understand it editors should not advance only 'one of many conlusions. Yet what do we do when we are confronted with only one possible conclusion making bias, religious background, political persuasion, or whatever, totally irrelevant? Take these examples:

Example A

All four legged animals are quadrupeds
All dogs have four legs

Can we say "all dogs are quadrupeds?" No, for us to say that we need a WP:RS saying that.

Example B

Pete stole two apples.
The next day Pete stole three apples.

Can we say Pete stole "five apples?" No, we need RS saying that. But even then, some argue, we need a source linking 2+3 to this particular example. Even if we find a textbook saying 2+3=5, we cannot simply use that to say Pete stole five apples.

Example C

Pete went to the Louvre in Paris
The Louvre and Paris are in France

You guessed it, we cannot say "Pete went to France," et cetera.

Example D

Pet drove 100 mph
1 mile=1.6 km (I know, this is just for sake of this discussion)

Again we are not allowed to say "Pete drove 160 km/h."

Clearly this is an overly strict interpretation of policy leading to unreaasonable and silly objections (ignoring the fact this in no way violates "that builds a particular case favored by the editor") that defy all logic. My question is do we disallow synthesis even when there is only one possible conclusion? Remember, to be consistent we are then prohibited from changing mph into km/h and off adding 2+3.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Per this clause: The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." It's my position that this is supposed to allow these, and in practice D and A are commonplace, even in featured articles. Properly speaking, the point I'm trying to argue is that "D" for instance isn't synthesis at all - it's merely "rephrasing". Jimbo speaks of "novelty" as the problematic quality and it is - non-novel synthesis isn't problematic at all. The issue seems to be that synthesis here is used as a jargon term for Wikipedia, and not in the ordinary sense, but nowhere is it defined as jargon (as opposed to say consensus, which is wiki-jargon, but is explicitly defined). WilyD

Actually changing mph into km/h is synthesis. We need to take the definition of a mile relate it to kilometers and then calculate the new number. This by definition is synthesis because we apply a set of rules to arrive at a "new" statement. The same is true for adding, subtracting, multiplying, et cetera. In all these cases one statement is changed into another using known rules, i.e. calculus.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this mainly relates to controversial topics and the mph is not the problem. Let me ask your opinion on a current debate:

Ex post facto law is defined as "a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law."
The Military Commissions Act retroactively rewrote the War Crimes Act.

My thinking is, since the MCA rewrote the WCA retroactively (the very definition of ex post facto law) it therefore is an ex post facto law. In this case another editor objects. To me it is difficult to see how any law that can be defined as retroactively rewritng cannot be an ex post facto law.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in any specific case, there may be subtleties that editors need to work out - for what it's worth, I'm currently in a mediation over whether it's okay to discuss synonyms of racism in an article about racism, if the source only uses synonyms and not the word itself. Your best bet is to work it out with the other editors involved - like everything else in life, this is a tricky grey area. WilyD 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem is I don't see any grey in the examples I gave. To any reasonable editor the proposed conclusions are the only possible ones. Unless somebody shows another conclusion I find it difficult to understand the objection.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a question you need to discuss with the objecting editor. WilyD 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see I am still waiting for him to answer. Further, I had this discussion with him on several other articles and his position is always that we cannot use definitions. Hence my question here because I feel that is overly rigid, especially in light of my above examples.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded, see the talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you ignore the David Hicks case and rewriting the WCA. Both are examples of ex post facto law!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This specific case is resolved.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple more examples:

The same wikipedian who has claimed authority to excise material based on their idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:SYN justified the {{afd}} of No-hearing hearings, in part, due to two references in the caption of a picture on that article. They claimed that the article should be deleted because it cited references that didn't explicitly mention the study entitled "No-hearing hearings". It seemed to me that it looked like they were claiming that putting an image of the room where the "no-hearing hearings" were convened on the article about the "no-hearing hearings" constituted a violation of WP:SYN. Taken to its logical extreme, this interpretation of policy would proscribe all citations to references that provided context. Basically, IMO, this interpretation of policy would gut the wikipedia.

This same wikipedian claimed authority under WP:SYN to excise a whoe series of references that looked perfectly valid to me, like the one I expressed concern about here]. In this case this wikipedian, who gives the alarming appearance of having a political axe to grind, didn't even seem to bother to read the material they were excising, to see if their claim of violations of WP:SYN even made sense under their idiosyncratic reasoning.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never justified the AFD because “in part, due to two references in the caption of a picture on that article. They claimed that the article should be deleted because it cited references that didn't explicitly mention the study entitled”. That was a response to Nesco’s claim on notability in which he claimed that notable “(the NYT, WaPo, FT, Village Voice, MSNBC, et cetera have an article on it!!)”, which, after a review of the material, was shown to be not be true. My primary reason for the AFD was that the report is non notable, as a look at Google shows very few hits to it and Google scholar shows no one citing it in their work. Please do not misrepresent me like this in the future. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I dispute I "put words your mouth".

I am still waiting for you to answer whether you are claiming that adding a picture of the trailer where the Tribunals were held to the article about the "No-hearing hearings", about the Tribunals constitutes a violation of WP:SYN. Please address this important question. -- Geo Swan 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ... ok then ... where, exactly now (please be as specific as possible so as to not confuse anyone) ... did I say that “claiming that adding a picture of the trailer where the Tribunals were held to the article about the "No-hearing hearings", about the Tribunals constitutes a violation of WP:SYN”? Please ... do tell. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: Several fo the supporting links in the article have nothing to do with the subject of the article, only things covered in the article, making it WP:SYNT and WP:NOR.

When challenged you offered NYT, footnote 7: The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article. FT, footnote 8: Once again, The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article

Confession. I remeber poingint out these references were merely to the cpation of the image, and suggested that references and that caption had been cut and paste into the article with the image. And I remember composing a paragraph where I asked you whether you would argue that placing the picture of the room where the Tribunals took placewas an example of what you would call a violation of WP:SYN. But that second paragraph is not there. I must have culled that paragraph during a final proof-reading My bad.

So, I thought you were avoiding answering a repeated direct question, that was important for you to address is we were going to have an actual dialog. You have only avoided answering this question once, and ignored the implied question once. I am going to repeat my request that you explain yourself. I want an answer to this question. I continue to think your interpretation of WP:SYN would gut the wikipedia.

I continue to think you owe it to the wikipedia project and your collaborators to make a much greater effort to discuss your concerns ahead of time, rather than jump to radical excision, or nominations for deletion.

I continue to think that your avowed plan on User:TDC to use the wikipedia as a tool for persuasion sounds like a gross violation of WP:NOT#SOAP. Even if you didn't really mean it the way it reads, it is still a mistake. We wouldn't want your avowed plan to imply to new contributors that POV pushing was okay.

Yours for cooperation Geo Swan 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Still looking

Although one situation is resolved I still am interested in changing policy in such a way that it either allows unambiguous synthesis (such as I described above) or be strictly enforced which means disallowing even things like adding 2+3. I understand and subscribe to the idea of building consensus. However, confronted with the same discussion time and time again I do feel we need to settle this by mentioning it in policy. Otherwise we keep rehashing this debate over and over again. Again I would like to ask how we can get policy to change in such a way that common sense is not entirely dismissed.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason we need an unambiguous statement on how to read WP:NOR WP:SYNTH can be found here. Apparently when you invoke this policy it negates the normal process of resolving disputes: discussion and finding compromise. Since that is currently a widespread practice around here we need a definite consensus on how to apply this policy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a simple case where I disagree with a complaint of OR. Robert Rankin is an author who writes in a particular style, and he has a series of 8 books that contain the same characters and a series of running jokes - the The Brentford Trilogy. If I interpret the comments on the Talk page correctly, it is suggested that it is incorrect to even suggest there are running characters from book to book, as to establish this one would have to synthesise this from more than one book. (To suggest Harry Potter is a recurring character of the Harry Potter books similarly would require the research of checking the books, or that Fleming wrote a series of James Bond books, but was it the same character each time?). That seems to be WikiLawyering to me. The next case is running jokes, which I can see becomes a waeker case, but if you read the books, one would discover that they are blatant, the author's style uses footnotes to point them out, uses characters to state that they are and so on: they are so obvious and blatant for it to be an entirely uncontroversial statement of fact: it requires no true analysis to come to this conclusion. Finally, the author himself identifies the books as being related. Do we really have to disengage our brain so much and plagiarise other works? Is the acid test really absolute OR or is it no disputable OR? Is it a sin to state the (verifiably) obvious (especially with the words in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor)? Spenny 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Heck, unless you find a source for it you can't even properly say all the James Bond books were originally written in English. That's absurd, but if it hasn't been published anywhere you can't say it in Wikipedia. Nor could you legitimately copy Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (nor anything else) into Microsoft Word and then publish the word count for it. That would be original research, even though anyone who wishes can count the words and verify that what you have said is true.

Minasbeede 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"the most reliable sources"

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We're told:

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. [...] In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses.

"University presses" seems tight; I'll take Erlbaum, Blackwell, FSG, McGraw-Hill, Wiley, Springer, etc as well.
The (London) Daily Mail is an example of a mainstream newspaper, and I wouldn't believe anything it says (though I suppose it gets things right occasionally). The Financial Times is an entirely different matter (though I suppose it occasionally gets things wrong).
"Known publishing houses"? That seems loose (Is the National Enquirer from an unknown publishing house?); I'll take "reputable".

Morenoodles 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My Problem with WP:OR

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've never seen "no original research" used in anything but a heated discussion over an edit war, where one user disagrees with another and uses it to undermine the validity of what the other person is trying to say. Often times it's justified, but sometimes it isn't. I understand the need to have a policy on original research, but there doesn't seem to be a very clear distinction between "original research" and POV. A user might add in an interpretation of something that someone else doesn't agree with, but isn't original research. I see two problems: 1) WP:OR is used (seemingly) more for POV bashing than its actual purpose, and 2) Often times published works based on original research or very undersourced claims are added in as sources, and aren't called attention to as unreliable sources. As of now, WP:OR applies to original research of wikipedians. I think unreliable sources would be weeded out more easily if added to WP:OR, because instead of beating around the bush in the talk page, arguing over content from a questionable source, a user could just refer to WP:OR and make their position on the source immediately clear. As we all know, arguing between editors is the biggest difficulty in trying to improve wikipedia, so a procedure for cutting down on arguing is probably warranted. 74.75.234.252 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

HDI calculation

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can people more familiar with this policy look at this? The HDI for the EU was basically calculated by another editor as the weighted average of the HDIs of the member states. A simple weighted average doesn't work because of the logarithm term. Also, it is unclear which population figures were used and may not be the same ones that the UN uses. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 12:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research

I take this to mean that asserting unfounded relationships is the problem. I do not take this to mean that an article on a topic that applies to diverse events is therefore verboten. The mere creation an article on a topic does not imply an assertion of relationship to its content other than the application of the topic to the contents.

Does having an article on a topic that can be applied to diverse subjects imply synthesis? I would think that to violate WP:SYN, the synthesis i.e. assertion of relationships would have to be explicit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of policy

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

In several discussions I encountered two conflicting views on WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. People repeatedly and on several articles cite:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

However, there are cases in which rigidly insisting on applying this policy would ignore common sense and another part of that policy:

"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"

Herein lies this request for clarification. As I understand it editors should not advance only 'one of many conlusions. Yet what do we do when we are confronted with only one possible conclusion making bias, religious background, political persuasion, or whatever, totally irrelevant? Take these examples:

Example A

All four legged animals are quadrupeds
All dogs have four legs

Can we say "all dogs are quadrupeds?" No, for us to say that we need a WP:RS saying that.

Example B

Pete stole two apples.
The next day Pete stole three apples.

Can we say Pete stole "five apples?" No, we need RS saying that. But even then, some argue, we need a source linking 2+3 to this particular example. Even if we find a textbook saying 2+3=5, we cannot simply use that to say Pete stole five apples.

Example C

Pete went to the Louvre in Paris
The Louvre and Paris are in France

You guessed it, we cannot say "Pete went to France," et cetera.

Example D

Pet drove 100 mph
1 mile=1.6 km (I know, this is just for sake of this discussion)

Again we are not allowed to say "Pete drove 160 km/h."

Clearly this is an overly strict interpretation of policy leading to unreaasonable and silly objections (ignoring the fact this in no way violates "that builds a particular case favored by the editor") that defy all logic. My question is do we disallow synthesis even when there is only one possible conclusion? Remember, to be consistent we are then prohibited from changing mph into km/h and off adding 2+3.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Per this clause: The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." It's my position that this is supposed to allow these, and in practice D and A are commonplace, even in featured articles. Properly speaking, the point I'm trying to argue is that "D" for instance isn't synthesis at all - it's merely "rephrasing". Jimbo speaks of "novelty" as the problematic quality and it is - non-novel synthesis isn't problematic at all. The issue seems to be that synthesis here is used as a jargon term for Wikipedia, and not in the ordinary sense, but nowhere is it defined as jargon (as opposed to say consensus, which is wiki-jargon, but is explicitly defined). WilyD

I think that is not the problem, the problem is that the formulation "No original research" easily can be misinterpreted unknowingly or deliberately, and may cause too much discussions by being too vague. Everybody that write a text is doing some reinterpretations of a source text, and some conclusions are reasonable for everyone to make. The policy must be clear on that. Simple logics and maths such as in the examples should be "obvious" and therefore acceptable. The main question is where to put the limit between what's obvious and what's not. My opinion is that if the majority of readers and editors can draw such a conclusion, then it's "obvious" (unless of course if it represents an illusion, which "obviously" shall be regarded as false) – this I claim is the best solution because Wikipedia is intended to be intelligible and usable, but it might (I speculate!) be a good idea to reformulate the NOR policy heavily, maybe split it. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The initial box: "This page in a nutshell" says:

Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.

Such a position might sound sound, but will in real life open up an infinite number of opportunities for abuse according to some perspective of political correctness. It should be replaced with some measurable criteria of how much we are allowed to synthesize. Else anyone can accuse us of furthering a position, and we can just deny it. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually changing mph into km/h is synthesis. We need to take the definition of a mile relate it to kilometers and then calculate the new number. This by definition is synthesis because we apply a set of rules to arrive at a "new" statement. The same is true for adding, subtracting, multiplying, et cetera. In all these cases one statement is changed into another using known rules, i.e. calculus.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this mainly relates to controversial topics and the mph is not the problem. Let me ask your opinion on a current debate:

Ex post facto law is defined as "a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law."
The Military Commissions Act retroactively rewrote the War Crimes Act.

My thinking is, since the MCA rewrote the WCA retroactively (the very definition of ex post facto law) it therefore is an ex post facto law. In this case another editor objects. To me it is difficult to see how any law that can be defined as retroactively rewritng cannot be an ex post facto law.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in any specific case, there may be subtleties that editors need to work out - for what it's worth, I'm currently in a mediation over whether it's okay to discuss synonyms of racism in an article about racism, if the source only uses synonyms and not the word itself. Your best bet is to work it out with the other editors involved - like everything else in life, this is a tricky grey area. WilyD 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem is I don't see any grey in the examples I gave. To any reasonable editor the proposed conclusions are the only possible ones. Unless somebody shows another conclusion I find it difficult to understand the objection.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a question you need to discuss with the objecting editor. WilyD 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see I am still waiting for him to answer. Further, I had this discussion with him on several other articles and his position is always that we cannot use definitions. Hence my question here because I feel that is overly rigid, especially in light of my above examples.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded, see the talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you ignore the David Hicks case and rewriting the WCA. Both are examples of ex post facto law!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This specific case is resolved.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

more examples

The same wikipedian who has claimed authority to excise material based on their idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:SYN justified the {{afd}} of No-hearing hearings, in part, due to two references in the caption of a picture on that article. They claimed that the article should be deleted because it cited references that didn't explicitly mention the study entitled "No-hearing hearings". It seemed to me that it looked like they were claiming that putting an image of the room where the "no-hearing hearings" were convened on the article about the "no-hearing hearings" constituted a violation of WP:SYN. Taken to its logical extreme, this interpretation of policy would proscribe all citations to references that provided context. Basically, IMO, this interpretation of policy would gut the wikipedia.

This same wikipedian claimed authority under WP:SYN to excise a whoe series of references that looked perfectly valid to me, like the one I expressed concern about here]. In this case this wikipedian, who gives the alarming appearance of having a political axe to grind, didn't even seem to bother to read the material they were excising, to see if their claim of violations of WP:SYN even made sense under their idiosyncratic reasoning.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never justified the AFD because “in part, due to two references in the caption of a picture on that article. They claimed that the article should be deleted because it cited references that didn't explicitly mention the study entitled”. That was a response to Nesco’s claim on notability in which he claimed that notable “(the NYT, WaPo, FT, Village Voice, MSNBC, et cetera have an article on it!!)”, which, after a review of the material, was shown to be not be true. My primary reason for the AFD was that the report is non notable, as a look at Google shows very few hits to it and Google scholar shows no one citing it in their work. Please do not misrepresent me like this in the future. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I dispute I "put words your mouth".

I am still waiting for you to answer whether you are claiming that adding a picture of the trailer where the Tribunals were held to the article about the "No-hearing hearings", about the Tribunals constitutes a violation of WP:SYN. Please address this important question. -- Geo Swan 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ... ok then ... where, exactly now (please be as specific as possible so as to not confuse anyone) ... did I say that “claiming that adding a picture of the trailer where the Tribunals were held to the article about the "No-hearing hearings", about the Tribunals constitutes a violation of WP:SYN”? Please ... do tell. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: Several fo the supporting links in the article have nothing to do with the subject of the article, only things covered in the article, making it WP:SYNT and WP:NOR.

When challenged you offered NYT, footnote 7: The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article. FT, footnote 8: Once again, The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article

Confession. I remeber poingint out these references were merely to the cpation of the image, and suggested that references and that caption had been cut and paste into the article with the image. And I remember composing a paragraph where I asked you whether you would argue that placing the picture of the room where the Tribunals took placewas an example of what you would call a violation of WP:SYN. But that second paragraph is not there. I must have culled that paragraph during a final proof-reading My bad.

So, I thought you were avoiding answering a repeated direct question, that was important for you to address is we were going to have an actual dialog. You have only avoided answering this question once, and ignored the implied question once. I am going to repeat my request that you explain yourself. I want an answer to this question. I continue to think your interpretation of WP:SYN would gut the wikipedia.

I continue to think you owe it to the wikipedia project and your collaborators to make a much greater effort to discuss your concerns ahead of time, rather than jump to radical excision, or nominations for deletion.

I continue to think that your avowed plan on User:TDC to use the wikipedia as a tool for persuasion sounds like a gross violation of WP:NOT#SOAP. Even if you didn't really mean it the way it reads, it is still a mistake. We wouldn't want your avowed plan to imply to new contributors that POV pushing was okay.

Yours for cooperation Geo Swan 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

more recent examples

User:Jayjg, an administrator for the past three years, and the wikipedia's 46th most prolific editor, performed this edit, with the edit summary, "(→Writings - remove original research, per talk)" — even though they had not engaged in any discussion on the talk page.

As best I can understand from an earlier explanation on Talk:David Frum, the other party considers collating the names of nine captives Frum had written about, using only their ID numbers, is considered WP:OR.

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Still looking

Although one situation is resolved I still am interested in changing policy in such a way that it either allows unambiguous synthesis (such as I described above) or be strictly enforced which means disallowing even things like adding 2+3. I understand and subscribe to the idea of building consensus. However, confronted with the same discussion time and time again I do feel we need to settle this by mentioning it in policy. Otherwise we keep rehashing this debate over and over again. Again I would like to ask how we can get policy to change in such a way that common sense is not entirely dismissed.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason we need an unambiguous statement on how to read WP:NOR WP:SYNTH can be found here. Apparently when you invoke this policy it negates the normal process of resolving disputes: discussion and finding compromise. Since that is currently a widespread practice around here we need a definite consensus on how to apply this policy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a simple case where I disagree with a complaint of OR. Robert Rankin is an author who writes in a particular style, and he has a series of 8 books that contain the same characters and a series of running jokes - the The Brentford Trilogy. If I interpret the comments on the Talk page correctly, it is suggested that it is incorrect to even suggest there are running characters from book to book, as to establish this one would have to synthesise this from more than one book. (To suggest Harry Potter is a recurring character of the Harry Potter books similarly would require the research of checking the books, or that Fleming wrote a series of James Bond books, but was it the same character each time?). That seems to be WikiLawyering to me. The next case is running jokes, which I can see becomes a waeker case, but if you read the books, one would discover that they are blatant, the author's style uses footnotes to point them out, uses characters to state that they are and so on: they are so obvious and blatant for it to be an entirely uncontroversial statement of fact: it requires no true analysis to come to this conclusion. Finally, the author himself identifies the books as being related. Do we really have to disengage our brain so much and plagiarise other works? Is the acid test really absolute OR or is it no disputable OR? Is it a sin to state the (verifiably) obvious (especially with the words in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor)? Spenny 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Heck, unless you find a source for it you can't even properly say all the James Bond books were originally written in English. That's absurd, but if it hasn't been published anywhere you can't say it in Wikipedia. Nor could you legitimately copy Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (nor anything else) into Microsoft Word and then publish the word count for it. That would be original research, even though anyone who wishes can count the words and verify that what you have said is true.

Minasbeede 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I considered this further, and it seems to me that there has been an unintended creep of the principle. It seems that the basic policy started out as how to resolve disputes on scientific issues, which was then extended into history, in each case, the problem being cited that the editors would have no means to determine the validity of what was being said, (especially as the information and experience might be beyond the layman). However, it seems that this principle is now being extended into areas where that is not the case. It seems to me that there is a test that could be used, a principle that is often used in law the reasonable person: if any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion based on readily available information, then it should not qualify as original research. A statement that most people enjoy eating strawberries is so uncontroversial and universal that it would be embarrassing to suggest that it needs a citation - no reasonable person would dispute such a comment (which is not to say there are not people who would dispute it, but wiki should not have to entirely immunise itself against the unreasonable - it has the wiki process itself for that). In other words, I look at my book or books, note a matter of fact, then there should be no need to cite a source. Someone writing a book synopsis is not going to find one elsewhere, they are going to make their own up, totally originally, and the power of Wiki will correct any glaring errors: this is how it is intended to be. This is not research, but it seems to becoming cast as it by some. Spenny 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability (V) - clarification needed

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Section Verifiability (V) needs clarification, who assesses the reliability of a source. I've experienced one such discussion, where one part claimed that X was an "disreputable" source, but I deemed that X was reputable, but that it contained less reliable information for cataloguing purposes. "Reputable publisher" is not a good criterion, the central point is whether a source can be used for citations, and what import such a citation has for the discourse of an article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OR Claim: 3 legs'o' WP derivable from usability

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Original research here: User:Rursus/NPOV T. (Giggering evilly) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OR interpretation dispute

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Before I go to an RfC, I thought I would try here first. I am having (another) disagreement with User:Gamaliel on the Jeff Gannon article. In the section on White House visitor logs, an assertion is made that the logs make it appear that Gannon spent the night at the White House. A published reliable source has since been provided that does not mention Gannon by name, but was published around the same time that Gannon started first visiting the White House. The source shows that at that time, there were known problems with the Secret Service's logging system, which resulted in visitors being logged out of the WH 12 hours after they entered if they failed to swipe their pass on the way out. The source is published here and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31154 here], and is referred to by a third party here. Gamaliel contends that using this source is original research, since it does not mention Gannon, and was published several days before he started visiting the WH (making it out of date info), and any linking of this to Gannon is a synthesis. It is my contention that this is "source-based" research, and that since the section it is being used in is on the topic of White House records, that this source is relevant to the discussion. It is not creating a link or synthesis to Gannon, it is commenting further on and providing context to the topic of the White House visitor logging system. If what Gamaliel is asserting is correct, then the larger implication is that any reliable source that is used in an article, and does not specifically mention that subject in the source, is to be considered OR and removed. Is that really what WP:OR means? - Crockspot 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably helpful to have a diff of the disputed text. Should also point out that all assertions are taken directly from the source, with no editorializing. I guess the basic question is, does a reliable source need to mention the subject overtly before it can be used in a Wiki article, regardless of any other relevant factors, or be considered OR? - Crockspot 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See the Clarification paragraph above. Considering this is a recurring theme my suggestion is to have a general debate as to how to interpret and apply this policy, which might even reword the current text.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How to fix the problem?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is quite obvious that the Wikipedia policy is broken. The issue is how to fix it. After lurking here and contributing for some time, I do not think it likely that this discussion page can solve the problem.01001 05:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. I just think there is a conflict between the ideal end result of Wiki'ing and the process of evolving articles. As people aspire to Wikipedia being a sound source, that falls more into conflict with those who just want enjoy telling the world about something that they think they know. The two can co-habit, but they can't with a Wiki-Laywering approach to OR. In the end, there are supposed to be no rules, we are supposed to be bold. I think it is similar to the idea that trivia is unencyclopaedic - I'm not a fan and most can be integrated into the article, but sometimes getting the nonsense out the way at the bottom can help the rest of the article. Clearly the public at large seem to enjoy it but the powers that be (who should not exist if I understand it) have determined that this unsatisfactory. Spenny 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What is being done to improve the policy of Wikipedia?

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

?01001 00:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

01001, you've been firing off criticisms of our no original research, verifiability, citing sources and attribution policy pages for months now. You started criticising policy only 8 days after you created your account. Since midway through 6 January, you have made 33 edits criticising policy, and only 16 edits to the encyclopedia! With only 90 edits to the encyclopedia in total, I feel that you don't yet have sufficient context and experience to contribute constructively to policy discussions. Why don't you go build your encyclopedia edits for a while, and come back when you have, say, 500 article edits? Hesperian 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And who are you may I ask?01001 04:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked this question because I would like to know if Wikipedia policy is fixed. Is there no hope for improvement? Or is there some road, some protocol, for improving policy?01001 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone can make a compelling case I'm sure things could be amended but the policies appear to be pretty static right now. I would recommend reading WP:NOT and going from there. If you have any good ideas to improve things I'm sure they would be addressed. Also, try going to the Village Pump. MrMurph101 04:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if we looked at the archives for this article, a compelling case for change has already been made. The fact that a verified source regarding height and intelligence (and basically going unrefuted) is still in the stature article proves at least to me that the wikipedia policy is broken. This is just one example of broken Wikipedia policy that I know has existed for some time. I could easily find many more problems in articles, although it would be harder to find their age.

There is another problem regarding research. Who in their right mind is going to do careful research for Wikipedia when someone else can come along and delete it?01001 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your edit history and you have previously addressed your issues so I basically see your contentions. I guess that means any archived discussion does not always hide in obscurity. You ask why there is no critique or analysis of the policy. Does every written law passed by Congress have an analysis or critique attached to it? It would be odd to do that. It would be wise to find an article that you believe is a perfect example of this flaw, work on it to make the situation better. If editors agree on what you are doing, whether without incident or with some discussion, then maybe you can do it with other articles. Just don't disrupt things to make a point. MrMurph101 01:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget my posts. A compelling case has been made without them. I have made one suggestion that I think is needed to let this process move forward. The critique of the policy needs to be included with the policy. This way as the critique is improved the policy will be improved.

And yes every written law passed by congress does have a critique attached to it.01001 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of that, but I'm not saying your wrong since those are voted on and someone voted against it might write something about why the bill should not have passed. Maybe I should have used "statute" since I have read those and never encountered any analytical content (about the law) written in those laws. The notion still seems odd. MrMurph101 02:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you suggest an annotated version of wikipedia policies? MrMurph101 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

a question about original research:

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

let's say for the sake of argument that I was a freelance reporter for various news outlets. I witnessed some news and turned in a story to the New York Times. They publish the story. is this the only way that it can then be offered to Wikipedia? Meaning, if for instance no outlets did pick up my story, then you guys would not accept my story on your site? How is a story published in the New York times NOT original research? I mean, presumably a person researched a story, and then th Times published it, right? Why does that next little step of something being published make it a "fact" in Wikipedia's eyes? Again I'm talking about hard news, not opinions or theories. For instance I see a major news event happen with my own eyes in person. Why is this not acceptable to Wikipedia? Just wanting some clarification on this, because it seems to me that every single line of text on this site is original research--or was at one point--so it seems odd that original research is listed as unapproved content. if by origignal research wikipedia is talking about opinions, then I totally get it. But if they are talking about facts, then I don't get it. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talk • contribs)

This policy seems to be the most complex of wikipedia's main policies, possibly least understood and most violated. It is written more techinically and not much in laymen's terms. The issue you address could be more of a case of notability. It may be more worthy to include something from an established newspaper than a freelance reporter. My interpretation of original research is, "don't do your own research, cite what others have researched," maybe that is a good way to describe it. If that's the case here, you could say that The New York Times cited you as the original source and therefore wikipedia citing their article is not OR. MrMurph101 03:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember also that all of Wikipedia's core polices fit together. "No original research" complements "Verifiability". There's no way of verifying original research. In the example given above if the editor wrote, "The mob was violent", based only on their own assessment then there's no way for other editors to verify that fact. If it was published in a newspaper then they can verify that what's written in the article is what was reported. A related issue is the presence of fact checking. If the Times published it they presumably did fact checking beforehand, and would publish a correction if there were an error. If it's just one person writing what they (think) they saw, then there's no fact checking or chance for correction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MrMurph, what I see as a clearer version of NOR can be found at WP:ATT, which was created as a summary of V and NOR. Some of us hoped to have it replace the two pages, but the community in its wisdom decided against. Nevertheless, you can use it to orient yourself if it helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicago manual of style

Latest comment: 16 years ago41 comments8 people in discussion

The following issue has been raised before, but I'm mentioning it again as I have never seen a satisfactory answer.

The "Smith/Jones" example says:

"this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

I don't think the Chicago Manual of Style contains any passage which says that ~~it "requires citation of the source actually consulted"~~"plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them", or anything that could be construed as that, and that the example is misleading. Can anyone provide a specific page reference to the Chicago manual of Style? If not, I think it is misleading to attribute this to the manual. Does anyone disagree and think the existing wording should stay, with specific reasons? Personally, I don't think it's OK to give a misleading reference to a source, even in an example (and especially not in an example on a policy page like this which is specifically about remaining true to sources). Enchanter 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Modified after rechecking source Enchanter 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's great if you like irony. S B H arris 02:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and also ironically I had screwed up and misremembered which statement attibuted to the CMS was causing the problems (another reason why checking up on sources is important, people do make mistakes!). I've now fixed my error in my comment above. Enchanter 22:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

After rechecking the source I'm pretty convinced that the example misattributes the definition of plagiarism to the CMS (if anyone wants to double check, you can sign up easily for a free trial at chicagomanualofstyle.org).

I proposed that the example is removed unless and until this problem is fixed. The example has a number of other problems too (it is unclear for the casual reader, and in my view does not hang together logically if you follow it through carefully). The example could be modified or replaced by another example, and suggestions would be welcome. But leaving it in its current unclear and misleading state, which it has been in for months, is in my view just not acceptable. For the moment having no example at all would be better than having one which is just embarassingly bad. Enchanter 12:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now removed the example, for the reasons given above. Enchanter 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been arguing against the example for a long time at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution. It's really a reference to Alan Dershowitz (see attribution talk page) and looks like one editor's attempt to win an argument on the Dershowitz page by writing his interpretation into policy. Ken Arromdee 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the example has been reverted by SlimVirgin, and I have now reverted it back.

Slimvirgin - please read the above, which I referred to in my edit comment. I asked very specifically for a cite to the definition of plagiarism that the policy page claims is contained in the Chicago Manual. This is a citation that you should be able to give, because you were the editor who originally wrote the example. You have not provide a direct page or section reference to the manual, even though you were the original editor who added the material, and even though the manual is easily available online, and easy to search.

If you cannot provide a citation, please give your reasons why you believe that it is not important that the source is used correctly in this instance (although see comments on "irony" above). I remind you that the example is supposed to be illustrating synthesis of "published material", not "hypothetical material" or "wildly misrepresented material". In my view, misrepresenting the CMS on a Wikipedia policy page is embarassing, and we should be ashamed of it and correct it.

I am frankly disappointed by your editing behaviour here - you have made very similar reverts before, and you did not respond when I asked for your reasons on the talk page and your user talk page. This is especially so because you are normally an editor who, in my experience, sticks closely to sources and is willing to debate issues. Further to Ken's comment above, I think you need to ask yourself honestly whether you have got too attached to this example because it was used to win an editing argument that you personally were involved with. Bringing editing arguments from controversial pages onto policy pages is, in my view, bad practice. In this instance, it led to this page being protected for weeks while a number of disruptive editors with no close interest in improving Wikipedia policy argued the issue. The outcome was an example that is incoherent, misleadingly sourced, and that hasn't been subject to enough reasoned scrutiny and debate. Enchanter 21:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't change policy without consensus, Enchanter. As for your question, I don't understand it. Could you repeat it more succinctly, please? Apologies if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the example which you wrote implies that the Chicago Manual of Style defines plagiarism as "using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.".

Please supply the page or section reference to the Chicago manual of style that gives this definition.

If you have any further difficulty understanding the above, I will be happy to provide further detail. Enchanter 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a real example from an article, Enchanter. We don't need a citation, because (a) this is not in the main namespace, and (b) it misses the point that we're using a real example, and that the point of the illustration is that this way of writing is bad, cited or not, accurate or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that misrepresenting sources is fine on Wikipedia policy pages? We are trying to convince people to stick closely to sources here - do you really think that the example is so wonderful that it is necessary to misquote a source in order to make your point? Again, I think you need to ask yourself if you have become too attached to the example .Enchanter 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to find another real example that is typical of the less-obvious kind of OR that we regularly see here, by all means propose it on this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, why does it need to be a real example? Half the trouble with this was that it was based on a real example, from a page vaguely related to Israel/Palestine amongst other things, which led to a bunch of disruptive and argumentative editors coming to this page. It then needed protection for a long time and a lot of work from other admins to calm down. But as I have argued before, the quote was never coherent in the first place, I've never been able to understand it, and I had no response when I asked people to explain it (including you, on your user talk page). After investigating more fully it's clear to me that the reason it doesn't make sense it that it was never based on a real, coherently argued case or based on real sources.

I'm quite happy to propose examples (for example, I have done so at the past at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/FAQ#Example(s)_of_unpublished_synthesis, and accept any comments, criticism or alternative suggestions.

What I don't accept is your argument that it's perfectly acceptable to have an example that misrepresents the source - quite apart from the other problems with it. I've also seen nothing here to take away the suspicion that you are attached to this example that you yourself wrote. I think this is an embarassment to Wikipedia, and should be removed unless and until the problems are fixed.

Do you have any specific reasons why you feel the example should stay in its current state? Stating that you think it is particularly clear or useful isn't very convincing to me - you wrote it, so it's unsurprising that you don't have trouble understanding it. Enchanter 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be real, because it's too easy to make one up, and the ones people have tried to make up in the past have always missed the point, because the people doing it haven't really understood what OR is. I didn't write the example: it is lifted from a real example of OR. As I said, if you can find another real example of this subtle form of OR, by all means suggest it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you put in the example, using text that you removed in an editing dispute. In fact, you have written pretty much the entire synthesis section and policy. This does not, in my view, qualify you as a particularly good judge of whether the policy is well explained and illustrated. I think it's unclear and misleading; I have asked you to explain it several times in the past; you have not responded.

The point of an example on a policy page is that it helps people to understand the policy. The current example does not achieve that. As well as being difficult to understand, it misattributes a definition to a source. I think this works against Wikipedia's efforts to be seen as scholarly and respectful of sources.

I have suggested alternative examples, which I think are better, and you are free to propose your own. But I don't think you have come up with a convincing argument for why the current example should stay in its current form. Enchanter 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Enchanter, please stay focused on the message, not the messenger, and let's not look for ulterior motives. The point is that there are a lot of cases where well meaning editors fall into WP:SYNT traps, by not realizing that providing sources is not a cure-all for OR. This real-life example is important, because it shows a real situation that real editors misunderstood. Whether the CMOS defines plagiarism one way or another is immaterial here - the point is that unless a source specifically mentions the subject in question, we cannot as editors create an argument as is being done here, sourced or not. You seem to be so hung up on the specific CMOS definition of plagiarism that you are missing the more general point that it doesn't matter how it defines it - it may not be used, period. Crum375 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Enchanter, if I'm a poor judge, don't ask for my opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum, to get to the the specific question - do you think it's OK to misrepresent sources on the Wikipedia policy page just to get a point across? The current example does this. It states it is a "real" example of synthesis based on "published sources". In my view it's crystal clear - it's meant to be illustrating the point that if "A" and "B" have been made by reliable sources, you shouldn't join them to make point "C". It is clearly implying that the definition of plagiarism is given by a reliable source, namely the CMS.

I don't like criticising SlimVirgin, because she is an excellent editor who has made a first class contribution to Wikipedia. But we must recognise that there are instances where particular editors get attached to particular things they wrote. In this instance, I think it was creating a real problem - an example staying unchanged and problems with it going unanswered. Changes to this section have been repeatedly reverted by one person, which is not healthy. Where there is a healthy consensus, there is no need for one editor to continually revert something back to a favoured version. Enchanter 23:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter, this is not an entry in article space, and we are not defining plagiarism for the general reader. The point of this example is to illustrate how typical well meaning users fall into a trap of thinking that by providing sources they may then advance arguments based on them. Specifically we are showing a real case where people felt that because CMOS defined plagiarism in a certain way, they could then advance an argument based on it, despite the fact that the CMOS does not mention the specific case. Again, the specific definition of plagiarism by CMOS does not matter at all here – the point is that it may not be used, regardless of how it's defined. This is a good example because it is real – the conjured up examples seem to miss the target. As SlimVirgin noted, if you can come up with another real-life example that illustrates this point, please propose it here and we can compare and discuss their relative merits. Crum375 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to someone finding a better real example. What confuses me is why you prefer to spend all this time arguing about the current example, rather than just looking for a better one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum, SlimVirgin, this is not a "real" example of synthesis. The real example this was based on was an incoherent mismash of badly sourced and unsourced ideas that had no serious support from anyone. Since then the structure of the argument has been changed, sources have been further confused, and the explanation given to the example bears only a passing resemblance to the original case, as well as not following logically. If you wanted to find examples of badly written, badly sourced junk, you could find it easily. But that doesn't make it a good example of the type of synthesis we are talking about here - i.e. putting together two good, well sourced ideas to come up with a novel conclusion. Enchanter 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter, I assume you agree that real-life examples are better than synthetic ones. If you can find a better example that meets your own criteria, please do so and we can evaluate it. Crum375 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that real life examples are better than synthetic ones. I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever to the reader who is trying to understand the policy. I do not understand why you are focussing on finding a "real" example, rather than finding an example that explains the policy clearly. This is particularly so as the current example is only loosely related to any real case. I have already proposed several synthetic examples, and other editors have done so too. Enchanter 00:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I believe that real life examples are better in this case, is that they show a situation where real live editors fell into a trap. By definition, nobody was ever misled by a synthetic example, so it will not have the same impact on the reader. Crum375 00:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a good example of a real case which illustrates the point well, I would of course support it. The situation which I believe is unacceptable is having the current example frozen in it's current misleading state indefinately while we try to come to some sort of consensus on a replacement. I would need a lot of convincing to demonstrate that there is a consensus to keep a misleading quote in a policy page. False claims are undermine the claim of Wikipedia to integrity - people judging the project from outside won't care at all what "namespace" the error is in. Again, I propose that the example is removed, and would appreciate any comments, thoughts, support or objections from other editors. Enchanter 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll risk sticking my head above the parapet, I simply don't get the point that is trying to be made on the main page, and the conversational style of the language used is out of step with the normal language. I do think I understand the concept, which makes the example doubly problematic. In terms of this argument here, I find Enchanter's logic clear and obvious as to the problem with the example (lots of different ways of trying to point out the example is not very good). The point of using a synthetic example is that it is impersonal and can be engineered to make the point clearly: people have been doing this for a good few thousand years (I'll avoid citing the bible and Aesop's fables), so I would not be so quick to devalue it as a poorer technique for getting a point across. Spenny 00:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Smith/Jones example again, as I do not think there has been a satisfactory argument why it should remain. To reiterate, the example falsely claims that the Chicago Manual Style contains a certain definition of plagiarism, whereas in reality it contains no such definition. In my view, misquoting or misattributing sources is to be vigorously discouraged on Wikipedia, and there is no excuse for doing it on a policy page.

The argument has been made by SlimVirgin that the example is a "real" example lifted from a Wikipedia policy page, and that the misquoting is irrelevant. I think this would be a weak argument even if the example was real. But in fact, the original example it is based on does not misquote the Chicago manual (although it is confusingly written and easy to misinterpret). The misquoting of the manual was introduced by SlimVirgin when she rewrote the example several months after she had added it. The argument that we need to misquote the CMS because it is a "real" example does not stand up to scrutiny. Enchanter 19:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter, if you believe there is an error in the example, why don't you fix it, or specify it here? As I noted above, I don't think the specific definition of plagiarism in CMOS is important for the example, unless the CMOS specifically mentions the Smith and Jones incident, but I support fixing an error if there is one. Crum375 20:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum: The error is that the example implies that the Chicago Manual of Style defines plagiarism as "defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them". The Chicago Manual of Style does not define plagiarism as this. As would be expected for a style manual, it does not "define" plagiarism at all. This error was introduced by the author of the example (SlimVirgin); from what I see, she misinterpreted the convoluted and unclear original example.

I fully support fixing the error - which I have done by removing it. I have not attempted to fix it by trying to summarise what the original case was about, because I do not understand the case (which was extremely convoluted). In my view, it is not a suitable basis for a clear example.

In the meantime, I think that continuing to have this example on the policy page reflects badly on Wikipedia. Enchanter 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the August 18, 2006 version. Is it better there, in your opinion? Again, the point is that any mention of a source that doesn't mention the case would be OR, so the specifics are less critical, but if you feel this version is better, I don't see why we can't use it. Crum375 21:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly better in that it does not misquote the CMS.

However, I think it is still an example that is hard to understand, and doesn't really reflect the original case.

For example, you have interpreted it as meaning that it is inappropriate to cite the definition of plagiarism, because it was an irrelevant source. However, this was not the point that was originally at stake. The original case said, broadly "...plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them _{Source: Harvard manual of style}. Smith says that copying quotations amounts to copying ideas_{Source: Smith accusing Jones of copying ideas, and specifically citing the definition of plagiarism in the Harvard manual}."

The definition of plagiarism was then removed by an editor who felt it was OR - but in my view this is far from a clear-cut case (There were lots of other things wrong with the article at the same time, further confusing the issue).

I write the above to illustrate that the case it is based on is rather subtle and convoluted, and that the conclusions that you, me, and other readers reading the example are rather different from the relevant considerations in the original case. In my view, sticking closely to the case would only confuse the issue even more, and I would prefer to replace the example with something much more clear and succinct.

In summary, replacing the current wording with the version you suggest would help to fix the egregious misquoting of sources. But if we want an example that clearly explains novel synthesis, it falls short of the mark.Enchanter 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in the edit-warring. I've been tinkering with coming up with an alternative example, and I have to say, the more I do, I think the less relevant synthesis is as a concept. It seems to me that it is a complicated word to give a special case of OR, the case being OR based on cited (or well known) material. This seems to me to be all about defending a concept that doesn't really need to exist, as it is simply a clarification that any (controversial) statement needs to be tested in its own right, not just by testing the underlying facts. I did come up with a list of criteria for an example beauty-contest, such as: don't have examples with concepts that the wider public might not be comfortable with; not all users are graduates, use simple language; and don't use examples discussing related issues at the same time (are we supposed to be understanding plagiarism or synthesis?), but the stumbling block I had was coming up with an example that differentiated in any worthwhile way between general OR and special case Synthesis. When I thought I had, I couldn't see what was to be gained from it. I think we are really dealing with Wiki-Jargon, but I'd be happy if someone can give me another clear example of why I should worry about synth over OR Spenny 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comment about Wiki-jargon. The no original research policy had got on fine for many years before the section on "synthesis" was introduced. Take two situations:

1) If someone takes a single idea A, and comes to a novel conclusion B based on A which goes beyond what that source says, then it's clearly original research. But it's not "synthesis", according to the policy page, which explains that synthesis comes from combining more than one idea.

2) On the other hand, if someone takes two reliable ideas A and B, and comes to a novel conclusion C based on the sources that is not supported by them, then it's "synthesis", and original research.

To me, there is no big difference between 1) and 2). I don't see why it was necessary to introduce the new concept of "synthesis" to cover original research based on more than one source. I don't see why we need separate rules for 1) and 2); for example, for 2) it appears you are meant to judge whether the edit is "advancing a position", whatever that might mean, whereas for 1) the "advancing a position" rule doesn't appear to apply. I've never seen this explained. Enchanter 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a history. I get the impression that at one time synthesis was possibly thought to be OK so was differentiated. It relates to the issue of obvious logical deduction, where if A and B are true, C can be allowed if it is an obvious deduction from those two facts, X is to the west of Y, Z is to the west of X therefore Z is to the west of Y. Although we do not have a citation for Z & Y, it is acceptable for a synthetic citation of the two other facts (although if you were in an argument about it, you would not be allowed to make that same deduction!). However, in the end that is still covered by the basic OR concept. I guess a good example would be on using birth and death dates to prove an assertion that two historical figures could not have met, for example. If two lifetimes do not overlap, then it must be reasonable to state that they did not meet. However, you would not be able to synthesise the comment that one did not influence the other as you do not know of whether the ideas of the former were passed onto the latter via writings or third parties. My goodness, an example popped out. (Still don't think it is needed!) Spenny 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's always been the case that we have always excluded original ideas, or "novel analysis or synthesis of published data", or words to that effect (this was, in my experience, widely accepted long before the no original research policy was even written). This policy was interpreted sensibly on a case by case basis, so that, for example, noting that two people who lived at different times couldn't have met would be fine, whereas drawing the novel conclusion that one did not influence the other would not be, just as you describe. I agree that this sort of example doesn't need spelling out in the policy.

The section on synthesis, which described synthesis as a specific, distinct, concept was added to the policy last year. It was claimed at the time that this was expanding on an long standing existing concept or consensus, although I've never seen any evidence of this (beyond the fact that the word "synthesis" existed in the policy page, and a short sentence expanding on synthesis had been added a few months before.) Enchanter 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I again propose that the example is deleted, because the issues detailed above (i.e. that it misrepresents sources, misrepresents the case that it is based on, that it is not properly explained, and that it is not logically sound). This is because these issues have still not been addressed. Does anyone have any comments or objections? If anyone thinks the example should stay, please address the points above and explain the logic of the example in detail, so that others can assess whether the explanation is valid. Enchanter 21:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Now done Enchanter 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And it was reverted again without explanation. Enchanter 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

To resummarise the above points as I see them:

The example claims that the Chicago Manual of Style defines plagiarism as "using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them". In fact, the Chicago Manual of Style contains no such definition, or anything that resembles it. Noone has contested this.
The example is based on a real case on Wikipedia. However, it misrepresents the original case, at which different issues were at stake. The original case it was based on is very convoluted and difficult to understand - however, there was no misquoting of the Chicago manual, which was added later. (If anyone thinks I am mistaken here, please explain).
Quite apart from the way that the example misrepresents the source and the original case, it is unclear and does not follow logically. It frequently confuses new users, and I have asked for other users to explain it several times, with no satisfactory reply.
The case it is based on is from a highly controversial dispute (vaguely related to Israel/Palestine). In essence, it is saying "here is an example of where an editor violated the policy". In this kind of situation, I think it is essential be careful not to misrepresent the editor who made the edits, not to misrepresent the sources used, and not to misrepresent the original dispute. Failure to do so risks damaging Wikipedia's efforts to be seen as impartial and objective. Honesty and objectivity are essential to Wikipedia, and bending the facts is not justified on the basis that this is "just an example".

I think the problems above are too fundamental to be fixed with modifications to the example, and in my view this complicated and controversial case is a bad case study to use. I would support exploring ways of improving the policy to explain it more clearly - perhaps including alternative examples. In the meantime, I again propose that the example is removed, as it was reverted without any of these issues being addressed. Again, if anyone thinks the example should stay, please give specific reasons. If I am right about the above, I think there is a compelling case for it to be removed - and if I am wrong, someone ought to be able to explain why. Enchanter 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know anything, but to me Enchanter's point seems fairly straightforward, and just because the example is on a page that most people would not see does not mean that it should not use a correct quote or attribute it to the correct source. To put it another way SlimVirgin/Crum375, if you break a law, but you don't do it in a public place or no one sees you do it, does that still make it acceptable? Perhaps, and I'm not sure if this is how it's done at wikipedia, SlimVirgin/Crum375 should not have authority over this piece/decision since if they wrote it, and as someone pointed out, are attached to it, it would seem to be a clear conflict of interest. 24.19.42.84 09:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the example with the Chigago manual of style is completely unfounded. Please delete it. --62.134.230.98 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Systematic removal in spite of extraordinary obviousness

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Every encyclopedia article MUST contain some degree of original research and synthesis, otherwise it is not an encyclopedic article. The sources of these obvious arguments cannot be published because it is too specific and obvious to publish. However, these arguments are removed, despite its amazing obviousness. It just take one user who believe that it is original research to remove the argument. Even it is extremely obvious, that user that reverted think it is not obvious, since at least someone will disagree out of the billions of users in wikipedia.

Ironically, some more obvious WP:OR arguments are removed but less obvious WP:OR arguments are not being removed. These less obvious WP:OR arguments that are not removed are usually led by an emotional attachment such as a glittering generality. These statements are generally accepted by everyone, so the original research in the argument is also assumed true.

Also, intuitive WP:OR statements, whether true or not, are less likely to be removed than the more "paradoxical" WP:OR statements (even when the more paradoxical WP:OR statements are MUCH more obvious than the intuitive statements).

Even if a statement is a perfectly rational and magnificently obvious WP:OR statement, some less-intelligent user, out of billions wikipedia users, will view the statement as paradoxical and see it as original research and will remove it. It is unfair to the less obvious original research statement based on glittering generalities, etc..

Those that have low analytical skills will see some perfectly rational statements as original research.

These statements may be extremely obvious to experts in the field but the person with low analytical skills will consider it as original research.

Unfreeride 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the other way round. The less acute a person's analytic skills, the less likely they are to recognize the more subtle forms of original research, because they don't pick up on the key distinctions between summarizing source material and adding a spin to it, including a spin with citations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis isn't "adding spin." The results of the synthesis may favor one point of view over another but if the elements being synthesized are both well-sourced and true (the latter not being required by Wikipedia so I have to add it as an assumption) then the synthesis is valid - at least outside Wikipedia. If the truth favors one point of view over another that's perfectly OK, it would seem. The real question is (I'd hope and think) that of which one of the competing points of view best corresponds to the truth. If an advocate of a particular point of view is doing the advocacy in spite of the point of view being at odds with the truth why is Wikipedia so eager to put that advocate on an even footing with the advocate whose point of view aligns with the truth? It is perfectly possible for an advocate to favor something wrong, to be deceptive. If the conflict between the positions of opposed advocates is a basic conflict then you might expect that one of the advocates is closer to the truth than the other. It's a mystery as to why it would be desired to eliminate truth from an encyclopedia and instead favor the skilled creation and then citation of sources as being the highest level determiner. There is no spin to "all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is a mortal."

Minasbeede 14:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The rules are not supposed to cover every possible or hypothetical situation in detail. The question is, if an item of information is challenged, will that conflict result in a more accurate article? Each "edit conflict" takes place in the context of an article, and a talk-page, and editors' watchlists. That is where the balance has to be discovered. And who is going to argue against "Socrates being mortal" or "dogs have four legs" or "rain falls" - those are Common sense, if eighteen out of twenty people see no problem with such statements.Newbyguesses - Talk 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish. The rule is an absolute prohibition on synthesis. In practice the rule will mostly be invoked when a valid synthesis weakens a particular point of view and will be invoked by someone who is an advocate of that weakened point of view. Won't it? the use of the rule is not to strengthen Wikipedia by making it "more accurate," it is to strengthen the advocacy of a particular point of view by removing material, accurate or not, that conflicts with that point of view. It would seem to be far better to loosen the rule so that it only applies when fewer than 18 out of 20 can see the validity of the synthesis. That would take care of edits by physics kooks. The example cited as justification for the anti-synthesis rule is not that synthesis per se is bad but that in some cases it's too difficult to determine the validity of the synthesis. The rule is well-applied in those cases, not so well-applied when the synthesis can be seen to be valid. But the rule is absolute: no synthesis unless a source is given for it. Then, even if it's a rotten synthesis, it can be included. Far better would be a prohibition on synthesis that is so unclear as to make it impossible for most editors to figure out if it's valid or not. That would make sense, given the nature of Wikipedia (no credentials needed to edit.) - Minasbeede 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot describe and summarize conflicting POV's, without violating WP:SYN

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The following quotes are taken from the WP:POV article, pointing out how they explicitly invite violation of WP:SYN and thus WP:NOR. Thus, somebody needs to point out that WP:NOR cannot be upheld at every level in an article, or else this encyclopedia would consist of nothing but direct quotations and nothing else (as has been pointed out, repeatedly by others, alas so no avail). And that, futhermore, WP:NPOV is meant to be a global, not a local policy, because obviously POV's need to be summarized FIRST in order to get to a global NPOV perspective in any article. WP:SYN admits this. Again, quoting from WP:SYN, with my comments afterward:

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.

COMMENT: Sorry, but it's obviously not possible to do this without violating WP:SYN.

Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better.

COMMENT: Excuse me? "Mutual evaluations of each viewpoint" is actually inviting editors to violate WP:SYN and thereby WP:NOR.

One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

COMMENT: Excuse me? How are you possibly going to somehow create a "fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." without doing any synthesis toward a particular point of view, for each side of the debate? Again, clear violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYN is being solicited here.

SUMMARY COMMENT: The big problem here is that Wikipedia doesn't really know what it wants, or isn't really specific about saying it. It calls for local systhesis of various sources to come up with "fair analytical description" of various sides of a debate, assuming that NOPV will be upheld after all that is done. And so it will, globally. But one cannot do the local synthesis required to summarize any particlar POV in a debate, without doing sythetic work, as the above instructions themselves admit.

So, O Wikipedia: either admit that your instructions here are in violation of other WP polities, or else admit that the NPOV and NOR policies need to be re-written, because they are really meant only to be applied GLOBALLY in search of a global NPOV, while needing to be violated on the local level (subarticle level), in order to generate syntheses of the various POV "debate sides," which go into the making of an overall NPOV article. S B H arris 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sbh, an edit violates SYN only if it advances the POV of the editor without citing a reliable source for that POV. If you add A and B to come up with C, it's a violation of SYN if it advances an argument or position not advanced by a reliable source in relation to the topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not very clear in the policy if the POV being "advanced" needs to be that of the editor or not! Rather, it is assumed that this is the case, when mostly it is not. If I'm writing an article quite often I'm summarizing positions I don't agree with, or am agnostic about. Does this summary constitute "advancing a POV"?

No, it doesn't, so long as you can source the claims. That's the point of SYN: make sure that what you're synthesising isn't inadvertently advancing a position not expressed by a source in relation to the topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand SYN pretty well. What I understand does not seem to fit with the nature or purpose of an encyclopedia: thought and logic are excluded by SYN (other than by quoting the thought or logic of others.) That assumes stasis (but I really shouldn't say this unless I find, somewhere, a discussion of the editorial policy of some other encyclopedia where the same analysis is made. In addition to assuming stasis it appears the Wikipedia policy assumes that all thoughts and conclusions worth including in an encyclopedia can be found elsewhere. It is unclear how sources that are not intended to be encyclopedic in character will always have material for citation in an encyclopedic article - but I shouldn't say that, either. Only if I parrot someone else can I say it.) It doesn't take long reading the Encyclopedia Britannica (in particular the same article in different editions) to see that stasis does not exist for a large number of areas of interest.

If this is unclear my underlying message is that SYN, as it exists and enforced, seems to be a detriment to encyclopedic quality. Logic is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned (uh-oh, I have no source for that.) If I read in source A that "all men are mortal" and in source B that "Socrates is a mortal" I am not, in Wikipedia, permitted to conclude that if the messages from A and from B are both correct then "Socrates is a mortal."

Minasbeede 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can see, a POV is advanced every time you state it, followed by enumeration of reputable scholars who agree with it. That is "advancement by enumeration." It's impossible to avoid, but it violates SYN, and yet it is also expected, which means we're in a quandary. Here's a favorite quote of mine: from NOR: It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. <Laugh> Is the editor supposed to do that HIMSELF?? (HERSELF??). And just how are they supposed to do THAT, given the guidelines?? Tell me what I'm missing.

As for your other point, let me suggest to you that it's extraordinarly difficult to find appropriate "reputable source" (and just what that is, and why it should be what it is, is a separate argument), for various and all POVs. If you disagree, cite me 3 random Wikipedia "featured articles" and I will bet you I can find at least one NOR violation (i.e., POV synthesis without a "reputable" primary or secondary cite) in every one of them. Jimbo, for his part, seems to repeatedly confuse verifiable sources with reputable sources (he thinks newspapers are reputable, yuk, yuk). But a sub-issue is the fact that "obvious" and widely held POV's are often not to be found in secondary sources, which (I will observe) don't make their scholarly living by publishing opinion which is already widely held. Jimbo: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" ANSWER: sometimes, yes, but those very texts tend then to be tertiary sources (like encyclopedias), not secondary ones, and are the very sources derided by Wikipedia. If a viewpoint is indeed majority, secondary sources tend to assume it, not state it. S B H arris 23:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. But how is Wikipedia to fix its policy?01001 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion would seem to be that wikipedia accepts that its articles will inevitably be inferior to traditional ones, by virtue of these constraints. wikipedia seems to have accepted one form of quality reduction in amelioration of another, that due to the random quality of contributions. Sandpiper 23:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stating the obvious is not original research and there needs to be a grace period for hard-to-find references.

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

More and more of my contributions are being challenged or reverted for original research when they definitely DO NOT fall under the statements in the "What is excluded?" section of these guidelines. I wholeheartedly agree that original research, as defined in these guidelines, is to be avoided. However, sometimes, it is often difficult to find a source for patently obvious information that can easily be verified by anyone who wants to take a few moments to do it.

For example, while researching material for the article on place (United States Census Bureau), I noticed that the USGS always places the latitude and longitude of an unincorporated town or village at or near a major intersection. I also noticed that the Census Bureau places the latitude and longitude of the same places near the geometric center of the census designated place by the same name. However, after devoting considerable time to searching, I could not find a source on the Internet to cite. I put the information into the article and it was immediately challenged as original research and threatened with speedy reversion.

First of all, these edits did not meet any of the seven guidelines that define original research. They did not: introduce a theory or method of solution; introduce original ideas; define new terms; provide new definitions of preexisting terms; refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; build a particular case favored by me; or use or introduce and neologisms. I was simply stating the obvious. Secondly, I agree that sources needed to be found. However, as I assume most editors do, I happen to have a day job and I needed to leave that chore for later--or perhaps for one of the thousands of other editors who better knew how to find such information.

In the end, I sent e-mails to both organizations and got confirmation of my observations with web links to cite as references. The end result was good. However, unreferenced material, such as simply making an observation that anyone glance at a map and verify, should not be threatened with speedy deletion. Also, if you think material needs to be verified, don't forget that the editor probably has other obligations that take priority over Wikipedia. He or she may need a little time to do the research.

More recently, I put the story of two major fatal crashes of helicopters that were en route to or from Disneyland in the article on Incidents at Disney parks. I cited a posting on a discussion board that in-turn cited a book on aviation disasters. Within a couple of hours I has a message threating to revert my edit if I didn't state a proper reference. Okay, my bad, I directly cited the book. This morning I got a message from the same person saying--not good enough, no page number. Okay, next time I'm downtown and have some time on my hands, I'll duck into the library and find the bloody page number. In the meantime, I do have a life other than Wikipedia.

The bottom line is that we are all amateurs and should be helping each other, not just challenging each other's edits. I have added references to other editor's material but all I've ever gotten for my own material is reversions and threats of reversion.

The solution is that hard-to-verify material, when something obvious is stated or there is a preponderance of evidence that the story is true, should not be quickly deleted. Time should be given to find proper references. For example, the helicopter story. I remember when it happened. There are several sources on the Internet discussing the incident. There are bits of reliable information on the Internet that can be pieced together to confirm that it happened. However, I spent over an hour trying to find a single site that can be used as a proper reference and could not find a suitable site. After posting the story with the best references I could find another editor took only a moment to threaten to delete it (rather than take some time to help find a good reference). There needs to be a way to temporarily reference such material while proper references are sought. Also, more editors need to help out in finding references, not just delete unsourced material. In other words, we need more editors and fewer cops on Wikipedia. Rsduhamel 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your heading about stating the obvious does not apply to the examples you gave. It is never obvious that a particular helicopter crash occurred. (The idea that helicopter occasionally crash is obvious, but the purported fact that a certain helicopter crashed in a certain place is not.) Also, the idea that the NGS has a particular policy for assigning latitude and logitude to places that are spread over a considerable area is not obvious either; when you deduced a pattern, you were doing original research. Just because you were right does not mean it wasn't original research.

We expect that when a person adds a non-obvious statement to Wikipedia, the person will have recently checked the statement in the reliable source, and thus has ready access to all the bibliographic details. If the person does not provide those details, that suggest the statement is original research, a lie, a dim recollection of something looked up a long time ago, or that the person does not understand Wikipedia policies. It's good to jump on the problem right away, while there is still some hope that the person who made the edit still has the bibliographic details at hand. And if the information does get deleted, it can always be added back when a source is found. --Gerry Ashton 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is curious that Rsduhamel (talk · contribs) gives Place (United States Census Bureau) as an example. He claims he was "threatened with speedy reversion" for his edits on that page. I was involved in that incident, and I have no recollection of "threatening" Rsduhamel or his edits in any way, and I don't think the articles edit history [4] or the discussion that took place on Talk:Place (United States Census Bureau)#Citation needed tag in location criteria show any such threats. I did request citation for what seemed to me rather naively phrased observational-based deductions about the coordinates. After a period of discussion, some source were identified and what appeared to be mutually acceptable phrasing was incorporated into the article. In short, that in fact seems a very positive example of an article being improved by requesting citations for what might seem "obvious" to the original contributor. older ≠ wiser 18:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Citing sources page states, "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." This means that putting a "fact" or "cn" tag on a statement is a threat to delete it. I never accused any particular person of any particular threat.

I never said that a particular helicopter crash is "obvious". I was talking about such things as noting that the dots on a map that identify a named place usually fall on or near intersections. The helicopter crashes can be easily verified with a little sleuthing but nothing that can be cited. Does this mean they should not be included in the article while better sources are sought? I will get the page number. It may not happen this week or the next but when I find time to go to the library it will happen, if someone doesn't beat me to it. In the meantime there should be a way to include material that is supported by a preponderance of evidence while proper citations are sought. Rsduhamel 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Rsduhamel wrote "In the meantime there should be a way to include material that is supported by a preponderance of evidence while proper citations are sought." My first response is, what's the rush? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. My second response is, the only evidence that counts is citations from reliable sources, so how can there be a preponderance of evidence if there is no evidence? (In the case of the map coordinates example, there is some evidence to cite, and one could argue about whether the deduction is obvious or not.) --Gerry Ashton 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To Rsduhamel: Characterizing the placement of a citation needed tag as a threat seems a little over-reactive -- it is more a polite reminder that someone doesn't see that statement as self-evident. In the particular case of the census places, you were not asserting some specific location on specific maps (which I agree would be fairly trivial to verify). You were in fact making a generalization, or drawing a conclusion, based on you observations. I'd say that is a little bit on the far side of the line between OR and self-evident. older ≠ wiser 21:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I think we are headed for agreement here. However, like I've said, I have a life outside Wikipedia and I have to turn my attention elsewhere for the time being. I'll respond to this ASAP. Rsduhamel 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

... putting a "fact" or "cn" tag on a statement is a threat to delete it. Well, maybe; it can also be taken as a note that says "Hey, this is something that other editors might delete on sight, but I think it's important and has a reasonable chance of being correct - can someone help find a source so that the information will definitely stay in the article?"

Also, as a point of information: I've seen hundreds of articles where "Citation needed" tags stayed in place for months (and, since I'm not systematically tracking these, quite possibly years). I've also seen a number of postings to talk pages saying that the editor planned to deleted tagged information since no one has responded to it in quite a while. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The disinformation caused by the OR policy

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

There is an article titled Height and Intelligence. This section cites some sources. Of course, no one in their right mind would take the time to investigate the sources in a Wikipedia article. In this case it is not really necessary. Anyone that would write research purporting to advance the notion that increased height brought greater intelligence is clearly suffering from some form of ego and personality disorder. Logic can easily defeat this thesis.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow logic to defeat this strange crackpot idea purporting to be scholarly research. One must find a verified source. But this would require a source with similar psychological disorders. Unless of course this source happened to be reading Wikipedia.01001 01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the example is too confused for me. I would just observe that someone who is taller is probably 'scaled up' in all dimensions, so 10% more height would logically mean 33% more brain volume. 33% deeper thoughts? Sandpiper 02:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's actually a non-causitive correlation - healthier people are smarter, healthier people are taller. Wily D 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, WilyD you should be ashamed. If you guys cannot be bothered to read the wikipedia article, let alone drag yourselves to the library to investigate any of the scientific research on this topic (cited in the article in question) then what business do you have writing an encyclopedia? 01001 makes the case for WP:NOR here quite elegantly, once again (like his views on the evolutionary loss of body hair, see here) he persists in stating that his opinions *must* be true, despite the demonstrated fact that scientists have seriously considered, and then soundly rejected them. I cannot imagine a clearer example of ignorance, and there is absolutely no way that the whims of willfully ignorant bozos ought to decide what gets presented as scientific fact in an encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I actually write largely about what I actually do scientific research on, or from verifiable sources. This is just idle musing on a talk page, don't take it for anything more. Wily D 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, too much coffee on my part. Pete.Hurd 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of scientific papers concluding that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer and man does not cause climate change. There are countless scientific papers claiming that black people are inferior, Asian people are inferior, Jews are inferior etc. etc. The article Height and Intelligence may not be racist but it is its first cousin. It is insidious.

The science here or pseudo science as others have termed it is certainly not settled. It is not standard and it is not established. Wikipedia should not be denigrating the physical traits of different types of people. This particular article should be deleted, and the sooner the better.01001 01:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You suggested above that the notion that greater height brought greater intelligence could easily be disproved by logic. I presented a simple logical argument showing why, in fact, greater height might automatically bring greater intelligence. I'm not saying it is true, just that you are incorrect to argue that it is an illogical idea. It is not obvious to me why the simple argument I advanced would be false. Is it to you? In general, I beleive it happens to be true that larger brains (taken across species) tends to correlate with greater intelligence. I'm sure someone could make a paper out of that, and almost certainly they have. Sandpiper 13:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Greater brain size doesn't necessarily mean greater intelligence. Whales and elephants, for example, have much larger brains than humans, but we don't think they are more intelligent. Giant humans have larger brains, and midgets have smaller brains, but intelligence doesn't appear to vary accordingly. Men may have larger brains, on average, too, but it doesn't seem to be proven that men are more intelligent on average. StuRat 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, one should be able to have greater brain mass on a shorter base. Second, as stated above larger animals have larger brains but lesser intelligence. Thus larger bodies require greater brain size to match the intelligence of the smaller animal. Thus from just a physical and mechanical point of view, human intelligence should be inversely proportional with height. The real question here is why is this not in Wikipedia? This would not be an issue but apparently taller people have serious ego problems and are publishing all manner of things negative to people of shorter stature, all of it having much less basis than the above.

The physics of human height

torque = rotational inertia X angular acceleration. Rotational inertia = sum of the products of the mass of each particle by the square of its distance from the axis of rotation. [3]These equations mean that the shorter human can accelerate more quickly than the taller human. The taller human requires considerably more torque to gets its body moving. This also means that the taller human can generate considerably more torque. For similar reasons the shorter human can decelerate more quickly and change directions more quickly than the taller human. This gives the shorter human more agility and quickness than the taller human.

These equations of rotational dynamics also show that the shorter human is prone to be more coordinated than the taller human. When the taller human sets himself in motion his body gains more angular momentum than the shorter human and it requires considerably more torque for the taller human to control his body. The shorter human will tend to be more coordinated than the taller human.

When the taller human starts to lose his balance, again his body will gain more angular momentum which will require more torque to control. The shorter human will tend to have better balance than the taller human.

These effects can easily be understood if one tries to control a 12 inch (30 cm) ruler as opposed to a yardstick (1 m ruler). The shorter ruler will be much easier to accelerate, decelerate, change directions, control and balance, although the yardstick can generate more power.

In many sports such as baseball, the greater torques that the taller players can generate give them almost an overwhelming advantage over the shorter player. In other sports such as basketball, the greater reach of the taller players is an overwhelming advantage. In American football the taller bodies can carry much more mass than the shorter bodies and this gives the taller body an advantage. However, in the case of running backs in American football the shorter players are able to use the advantages of greater acceleration, agility, coordination and balance to compete successfully against the more massive taller players. Many running backs enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame measure 5 feet 10 inches (178cm) or less, significantly shorter than elite players at other positions.

Acceleration, agility, coordination and balance are at a great premium in indoor soccer and we find a large number of players in this sport of short stature. There is also a great abundance of players of short stature in outdoor soccer(International football).

and the effect of torque upon intelligence is?Sandpiper

The same with the above, why is this not in Wikipedia with all the negative crap in there about people with shorter stature?01001 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

01001, we do not allow original research in articles because we only publish material from that information which has been published by exterior reliable sources. To avoid wasting any more of your time, I suggest that if you want to balance the article, you find research contradicting that currently presented in the Height and intelligence article, and add information based on it.

I apologize if you feel offended by the page, but it isn't our job to be non-offensive. --tjstrf talk 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is your job to be balanced, and further all the stuff in that article and the heightism article is a synthesis to advance a point of view.01001 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is our job to maintain a neutral point of view, yes, but that is within context of the citeable sources that we have available to us. If all the information we can find supports one view, then that's going to be the view the article takes. If no other citeable information is present, then we can't go including original research or unreliable info just to meet some imaginary medium of balance.

We still have no explanation as how the material in the height and intelligence article is not a synthesis to advance a point of view.01001 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, I am certain contradictory research does exist in this case. You can help us by finding it and adding it to the article. --tjstrf talk 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

now there is a link, i read the article. As suggsted, there is no way of quickly checking that the sources are being referenced accurately. However, there are enough of them to suggest someone has had a serious attempt at presenting the debate accurately, and the article does not read as biased. If it is biased, then I would have to say it goes out of its way to suggest that the link between intelligence and height is not a causal one. This does seem to me logical: if you starve children I would not be surprised that both their height and intelligence were affected. Perhaps this is where the debate on the nutritional quality of junk food comes into play? From my answer you would correctly conclude that I have gained the impression from the article that there does exist a proven, undisputed correlation between height and intelligence. As suggested, if you think this is incorrect, then what is needed is sources claiming no such correlation exists. Sandpiper 07:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please come to Osteopathic medicine. There seems to be a clearcut case of a WP:SYN violation which keeps getting reverted. There is discussion on this matter here. I would appreciate some third-party opinions. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Buy Why??

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Wasn't all research original research at one point in time, just because someone writes a book about something or publishes a theory doesn't mean his opinion is any more valid than anyone elses, I mean, If I fly on a American Airlines jet and see that the seats are all cream colored, but some book says that all American Airlines seats are blue, doesn't that mean that my original research is completely valid?

I think this is where OR overlaps with notability. I could come up with some brilliant theory that would solve world hunger and be totally convincing but it would not be a worthy article to write in wikipedia because I am not notable. If a reputable journal published my theory than that can be used as a citation in a new wikipedia article describing my theory.

As for your American Airlines comparison, your observation that contradicts what a book says provides a good point. However, you can take into consideration when the book was published and maybe they changed the color of their seats since you boarded the plane so both cases could be right. MrMurph101 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I feel that wikipedia should be a place where people can share valid information, even if obtained through original experiments and that the notability of a person shouldn't impede them from providing the world with new and exciting technologies, and if they need a place to share their discoveries, I feel wikipedia should be a place that they can do so. Planes&mustangs510 03:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that Wikiversity allows, and even encourages, OR. StuRat 16:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the plane itself is a primary source. if you took a photograph, placed it on wiki as evidence of that source, then you would be entitled to mention it. Reporting what exists is not original research. Wikipedias meaning of original research is not the same as that used in real life: on wikipedia the act of collating information from diverse sources is not original research, whereas in real life it is. Sandpiper 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You could take a picture and put in on the article with an accurate description of the picture. But if you referred to the picture in the text and said it refuted what the reference said, that would be OR. Of course, with evidence that the source is wrong or outdated, you don't have to report what it said either. People can draw their own conclusions from primary sources, we don't need to do OR by stating the obvious. Dhaluza 09:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The difficult issue of contradictory sources, as being discussed below. If two sources are quite evidently contradictory then simply omitting one of them is in itself OR, because you have chosen which is correct. It seems to me essentially absurd and in itself a contradiction of policy to argue that the plane itself having different coloured seats could not be mentioned in the article. It would however be difficult to substantiate this without some proof, hence the need for the photograph. But you can't really argue that it would be incorrect to mention the colour of some particular plane's seats. Who knows how this has come about, perhaps a mixup at the drycleaners, but it is a demonstrable situation that there was at least one exception to the books information. But it would also be Or to argue that the books is dismissable as a source because of the existence of the plane. Sandpiper 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Two minor points

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The policy read, "reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you." - sources can't write anything, as defined later, sources are books, journals or newspapers. Authors can however write about things. I have changed this to "reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." I hope this is OK.

Also the list that at present states:

It introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines new terms;

Should either be:

It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines new terms;

Or omitting the "new" and "original", if the word "introduces" is sufficient for the meaning:

It introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces ideas;
It defines new terms;

I tried to insert the word "new", but this change was reverted. Which option would people prefer? Tim Vickers 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need the "new" in "new theory" - this helps clarify that we are talking about new, unpublished theories here. Same for "original". Enchanter 08:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It needs a 'new', 'introduces' is probably meant to mean 'presents for the first time', but could be read as 'brings into wiki'. For variety you could try 'novel', but it might not be understood so well. Sandpiper 10:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Added "new", thank you. Tim Vickers 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Original images

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I propose to clarify the section on original images by adding a sub-sentence at the very end, resulting in:

“Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader, or a diagram representing a business or engineering process from one particular viewpoint where there possibly are many competing viewpoints.”

In my opinion, the selection of one particular viewpoint among many constitutes original research. Iterator12n 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that would be right, Iterator. All images represent one point of view among competing ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How about adding the words not-broadly-accepted, as in:

“Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader, or a not-broadly-accepted diagram representing a business or engineering process from one particular viewpoint where there possibly are many competing viewpoints.”

Take for instance Agile software development. There is an opinion out there that the article needs improvement. Fair enough. For one thing, there isn't a clear consensus on what agile development actually IS, and the article as a whole reflects this lack of consensus. Editors have proposed to construct (for the purpose of the article) a diagram to clarify the ontology of agile software development. Trouble is that such a diagram, in all likelihood, will represent just one view of the process's essence. On the other hand, if there would be no objection to one view where there may be many competing views, I would be the first one to add my (let's assume not broadly accepted) diagram with my view of agile software development. Others could compete with their not-broadly-accepted diagrams. The threshold to edit warring with diagrams is lower than edit warring with words - a picture is worth a thousand words.

In sum, I still propose to clarify the policy on original images in a restrictive sense.

Iterator12n 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On a different tack, some images do "propose unpublished ideas or arguments". For example, I recall a photograph of an unusual animal carcass in the American Southwest that the uploader considered to be an example of animal sacrifice, though he could not point to any documented tradition of animal sacrifice in the area. Perhaps we should also have a guideline against "look at this strange thing I stumbled upon"-type photographs.--Pharos 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Objections to copy-edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

User:SlimVirgin has repeatedly objected to the copy-edits made in these edits as she feels that

"Your edit aren't clarifying things — they're either making no difference, or they're introducing problems — and most of the people who agree with you are people who themselves don't understand the policies (one or two of whom have caused real trouble around them in the past)."

The specific objections are:

1) Introduces a new theory is unnecessary; if it's introducing it, it's a new one;

The next line is

It introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;

So the phrase "Introduces ideas" wasn't seen as enough and the word "original" was added, either you need such an additional clarifying word in both items, or in neither.

2) Sources are people or publications, so saying "who" of a source is fine The old wording was "a reliable published source who writes about", but all the reliable sources listed later were books, newspaper articles etc, nowhere is this policy are people referred to as "reliable sources". Indeed, people can never be reliable sources.

3) "A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports ..." But what if it isn't?

The old wording was "A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. " the edit was to "A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports and is a secondary source." - this does not change the meaning of the sentence.

4) Nothing wrong with his or her.

"His and her" or even worse "s/he" is clumsy English, "their" is clearer.

5) By a publisher, not in a source, because sources are sometimes people.

People are not reliable sources, people write reliable sources. Tim Vickers 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We often judge documents according to who wrote them, and not who published them, and in such cases we view the author as the source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding #3, it does change the meaning. Old wording meant: When you have 'A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports then you have something that is a secondary source. Your version means: When you have a A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident then you have something that is a based on eye-witness reports' and then you have something that is a secondary source. The problem with the change is that the whole point of saying analysis and commentary was a secondary source was solely because it was based on eye-witness reports and if instead the analysis and commentary were based on other things it may or may not be a secondary source. So your change ends up diluting the point of the example by changing the emphasis. Granted I think the entire section is horrible and inaccurate way to explain the whole issue of primary/secondary sources, but most people have heard me say that more than enough times.--BirgitteSB 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe alot of the misunderstanding here is because SV looking at how these edits effect sources used as primary sources and Tim is looking at how they effect sources used as secondary sources. The bar of reliably for sources used as primary sources is very low. You simply need to know sources are not fabricated to use them as primary sources and you probably can say you are using people as sources(but I do think that is stretching it a bit; more like you are using people's assertions or words or claims). When it comes to sources used as secondary sources; you cannot use people by any stretch and there are much higher standards of reliability in general. If I misunderstand you, SV, please help me understand where you see people being used as secondary sources--BirgitteSB 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Brigitte. If journalist X publishes a story about something he wasn't personally involved in, he's a secondary source. In most cases, we regard the newspaper as the source, but if he were to publish it on his personal website, whether it could be used or not would boil down to who he was, what his expertise was etc i.e. we would regard him as the source, and it would be his authority that would matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any real examples of this sort of thing? I am thinking that in practice we are only using personal website to source things like "X believes/claims/disputes Y". Which is really using it as a primary source. I could be wrong, but I not really seen people, in good practice, sourcing analysis from a personal website.--BirgitteSB 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All kinds of material can be sourced to personal websites; see WP:V for the provisions on self-published sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am having problems with your use of "people". When you source something to self-published material you judge the reliability of the material based on the author. However the source is the material not the person. The self-published "Reader's Guide" from the Kipling Society, may or may not be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, but the "Reader's Guide" is the source not the people who worked on. The reliability must judged based on those people, because of the lack of other benchmarks for reliability. However the people are not the source of the information, the eight volume book at the library is. I can see you sourcing a quote to person rather than to that person's material, but that would always be as a primary source.--BirgitteSB 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What about "If a journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports, then it is a secondary source." I think that is both clearer than the original and avoids any possible ambiguity. Where I reworded "a reliable published source who writes about" is specifically about "reliable sources". I'm puzzled as to when unpublished primary sources (which are when you use "people" as sources) are ever considered as reliable sources. In the journalist case, it is not "Him" who is the source, it is a website written by him. I think it is very unclear to conflate people and the sources they write. Indeed, that would contradict how we cite sources, If I cite a website written by Joe Bloggs, it would be simply wrong to put the citation as "Joe Bloggs", instead the citation is http:joebloggs.org "Stuff I did in my holidays" by Joe Bloggs Tim Vickers 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But what you say simply isn't true. Why do you believe a journalist's story must be based on eye-witness reports before it can be a secondary source? And unpublished material is never used as a source. Tim, I'm bewildered by where you're going with all this. You seem to be laboring under several fundamental misunderstandings of policy, but I can't even work out what they are. In the Joe Bloggs website case, you judge whether to use it according to who Bloggs is i.e. he is your source. Otherwise, how would you decide whether to use his site? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, neither version addresses that, what about - "If a journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is not based on personal experience, then it is a secondary source." As to "people", the problem is that in talking about reliable sources, people are never the source. Instead it is material published by people that may be considered reliable sources. The identity of the author may indeed be an factor in deciding if their writing is a reliable source, but this is not the same as the person being a source themselves. Although you might refer to an author as "a source" in colloquial English, when you in fact mean the material that they have produced and published, this is certainly not clear enough for policy. Tim Vickers 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Old version - "a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."

New version - "a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you."

FWIW, SV are you simply missing that Tim is simply trying to make some fairly basic corrections of grammar (which having looked at the diff may well seem irrelevant, but they are generally correct)? These are not intended to be policy changes. Spenny 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of copy-edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

The reversion of the edits we are currently discussing is not a positive action. SlimVirgin, you are the only person who has problems with the edits. Please do not act unilaterally. Tim Vickers 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I also have problems with the edits. I feel that a policy should remain as stable as possible, since the entire community relies on it on a daily basis. I think we should only make changes when there is an overriding reason for them, and a wide consensus. If you'd like to suggest changes, please do so here, and we can address them individually. Thanks, Crum375 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to what you think an editor should do when they see obvious grammatical errors. Tim edited these in good faith - reverted. He placed discussion on this page. No adverse comments, edits applied - reverted without discussion on the page. He then places edits one by one so it is very clear as to the purpose of each one - reverted. I was very clear in my message as to my purpose in reverting. This is not acting in good faith. Do you want Wikipedia to be the best it can be or are you satisfied with basic grammatical errors in important policy pages? Spenny 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you examine the diff you will see that the policy was not changed in any way. Instead the same policy was expressed in clearer terms and better grammar. To take one particularly bad example from the version you reverted to, why exactly do you feel the phrase "situate the research; that is, provide contextual information" is better than "provide context for this point of view"? Tim Vickers 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur, and this pedantic reversion is inappropriate. Spenny 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I don't know what's going on here, but a couple of days ago, you had no experience of writing policy or commenting on talk. Then you suddenly turned up and tried to change NPOV, RS, V, and NOR, introducing pointless changes along with changes that made no sense, and reverting when people objected, claiming you were only interested in grammar. It has the feel of almost WP:POINT about it. Please stop whatever it is. These policies need to be stable, above all else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for diffs - You claim I introduced "pointless changes along with changes that made no sense, and reverting when people objected," could you please provide a diff for any reversions I have made on these policy pages that restored my edits after their removal by other editors? Tim Vickers 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for the changes are listed above. Please could you explain, for example, why you prefer "situate the research; that is, provide contextual information" over the alternative of "provide context for this point of view"? Tim Vickers 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim, this is my own reversion. It restores some subtle and non-trivial changes to the policy. As one example of several issues there, newspapers can be both primary and secondary. "[N]ewspaper accounts which contain first-hand material" is effectively defined as primary, while it could be also secondary, depending for example on whether the journalist is describing what s/he personally saw. In general, it is best to change policies on a piecemeal basis, as larger changes invite problems. If this were just any article it would not be so critical, but by being a core policy such changes affect the entire project and can cause multiple problems. Crum375 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet that example you quote is altering what Tim wrote by omission, as the full alteration reads newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, rather than analysis or commentary of other material exactly to clarify the point you have made which did not exist in the version you prefer. SV refers to WP:POINT yet it seems to be that the reversions are just that, not the corrections. Spenny 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian, can you explain in your own words what the primary/secondary issue is, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think there are two different issues. Firstly, the vast majority of the edits that Tim has made are small but valid corrections which make the words mean what the author thinks they say, but actually they don't. Without meaning to be discourteous (and these discussions often read the wrong way) if you do not see that, then perhaps you are not as sensitive to correct grammar as some other people are (I am trying to be polite :) ). In other words, you suggest that you don't see that the changes have a point, but they do: correct English which better expresses the intended meaning of the article. Whilst I don't always write good English, I can recognise it and I would characterise the vast majority of the changes in that way. I do appreciate that you hold this page dear, but rather like the dreaded synth example, I get the feeling you are a little to attached to its foibles, for the best possible motives.

What I would agree with is that in the section on primary/secondary sources, Tim has gone further than simple grammar. Again, it is clear (to me) that he has read the prose and found it wanting. The changes here are not policy changes, but I can understand that you would want to stand back and consider them. I've looked at them and can understand why you are nervous, but I think you are actually working against policy if you do not see that Tim is very clearly working in good faith and if you looked at his changes, and the comments here on the talk page over the past few days, I don't think you should question it. I think the underlying issue is your statement that stability is more important than anything else. I would hope you might question whether you really believe that comment - have a think about it.

I am sure Tim could give you a little homily on why he has felt the need to correct the page, but I feel that it must be the same approach as I take - wandering aimlessly around Wiki and you see something that needs to be fixed. It then becomes a point of honour for the greater good if someone reverts the change, especially when the logic is not sound for the reversion. Spenny 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"wandering aimlessly around Wiki" and fixing things can be detrimental to policy pages, that are based on many compromises, where each word has significance. That is the problem we have here. It is best to leave changes to Talk page discussion, especially when someone has limited experience editing these topics. Crum375 23:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Play nice please - I am simply trying to lighten the tone. I feel you are WikiLawyering here: editing for proper meaning should be welcomed, not fought off, the skill of writing correct English is not something that requires re-learning for these pages, and it is a rare skill too. It does not create a good impression of the old guard. I'd be more sympathetic to your position (which I do understand) if what you were defending was properly written, but it isn't. Step back, you have someone here who has a skill that this page needs and you are alienating him - are you sure about your motives? Spenny 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian, once again, can you give me your understanding of the primary/secondary issue? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are querying the specific quote that Crum highlighted, then the issue is that the policy page as written does not offer clarity on primary vs secondary sources, in that some sources may be others. By adding the clearly worded example, the edit highlights that judgement needs to be taken in determining the mode that the source is working in, it is an uncontentious clarification of policy. I'm not sure what it is that you are getting at aside from that. Spenny 07:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is that I'm not sure you understand the issues you're arguing about, so I'd like to know whether you can explain the primary/secondary issue. What does "in that some sources may be others" mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue I am arguing about is that you are reverting good faith improvements. In terms of the primary secondary source issue, the dodgy English that made no sense that you highlight was simply a vague attempt at supporting Tim's useful clarification that a newspaper should not be considered exclusively to be a primary or secondary source: it is at one time an amalgam of different sources and qualities. It is a useful clarification. My understanding of those sources in that context are a red herring. The underlying point remains unanswered: why do you have an issue with minor grammatical corrections and why have you not engaged constructively with Tim's good faith attempts to improve the article? Spenny 12:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I'd rate it as impolite that I attempted to take this discussion offline to your talk page and it is simply archived (seems to mean deleted as there is no obvious link to an archive that I discern) without comment or response. I did a little reading around this morning and I am now a little less convinced of my belief that you are acting in good faith. Spenny 12:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you felt none of these changes here were improvements? Thank you. Tim Vickers 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Working towards a consensus wording

Latest comment: 16 years ago33 comments9 people in discussion

To focus the discussion a little and make it less personal, could people please indicate which of these edits they object to? That would allow us to replace the majority of the grammatical corrections and clarifications and concentrate on working towards a consensus wording on the disputed changes. Tim Vickers 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant edits are:

edit 1

How you reworded this makes it much clearer. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree this is much better. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 2

This is more concise and clear with your change. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I am neutral on this; this is grammatically better, the old might be clearer for all the repetition. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 3

No problems with this minor change. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 4

This one could be better, how about: - "If a journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is not based on personal experience, then it is a secondary source." Tim Vickers 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It still relies on the negative, which I think is uncomfortable. I think a fresh start might help. The analysis and commentary of a journalist discussing the cause of a road traffic accident based upon the testimony of witnesses would be a secondary source, as opposed to a war correspondent giving his eye-witness account in the same paper, which would be a primary source. Too long perhaps, but I think it works towards understanding the definition of the terms. Spenny 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A journalist's article about a war, based upon interviews with soldiers, would be a secondary source: while a war correspondent giving an eye-witness account would be a primary source. Tim Vickers 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that. Gets rid of the stilted English and clarifies both concepts in a simple example that the average person should be able to grasp. (I would have used a semicolon though :) ) Spenny 21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 5

This change is constructive. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of 'they' in a singular fashion is poor. I don't know that else can be done, but I prefer the awkward, gendered singulars over using plurals for gender-free construction. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of singular their is preferable to the awkwardly gendered styles.Newbyguesses - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 6

The way it was worded before "published by a reputable publisher may be published" is awkward. Tim's change makes the wording much clearer and improved. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Best to avoid that repetition, especially since publication definition is awkward. Unsure if 'source' is best, but that sentence is awkward and should change. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How about simply inverting the sentence? The no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another by insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a ~~reputable~~ reliable source may be used in Wikipedia. -- MarcoTolo 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Much better. Although say "reliable source", since this has a defined meaning. Tim Vickers 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Amended. -- MarcoTolo 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 7

Suggested alternative to both versions: "The prohibition against original research limits the possibility that editors may present their own points of view in articles." Enchanter 11:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Tim Vickers 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Enchanter's the best. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 8

I prefer "provide context", I think it's clearer to most people than "situate your research". DrKiernan 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"situate the research" is awkward wording. Tim's change makes the wording much clearer. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
'situate the research' is almost meaningless. This it the one edit I really want to see enacted. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 9

No problem with this change. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I have stated below why I think this change is preferable. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is appropriate to suggest that silence is approval for these changes presented in this way. I would not like to see a revert justified on no consensus for change after a reasonable passage of time. Spenny 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that assuming silence is approval would be a good idea. Hopefully things will calm down a bit and there will be more comments. It is a shame that we have not been better able to separate valid concerns from the invalid ones so far. I see plenty of good faith as well as a middle ground in this and am beginning to think it would be best if everyone went into mediation. I don't think the "peanut gallery" effect of the open wiki is helping things.--BirgitteSB 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment and the comment is provocative by implication. Obviously, I am surprised that the changes that have caused sufficient concern for the page to be locked down, are not worthy of critical comment. However, I don't think it has got anywhere near needing mediation, it is a very small issue really, I am sure that this will now go forward sensibly and fairly. 'Nuff said. Spenny 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Have we reached consensus?

The page has now been unprotected. Are there any editors with strong objections to the consensus wordings that are outlined above? Tim Vickers 20:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put the agreed changes from above on the page. Thanks people. Tim Vickers 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Excluded or included?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One of the sections is titled "What is excluded?"; however, the contents of that sections suggest what is constituted as OR, rather than what is not considered OR, as the section title suggests. Should this be changed to a more appropriate title (i.e. "Examples," etc.)? Although I am an admin and can change this in an instant, I am loath to, given the current state of affairs and full protection of the page. —Kurykh 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"I do not think that means what you think it means."

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

A number of Tim's edits to the page were grammar issues that, while I saw the new ones as improved, they weren't vital to me. however, there were two things I needed to bring up:

It introduces a theory or method of solution;

In point, this is poor phrasing. Tim's was indeed, slightly better. You see, I introduce theories into Wikipedia pages all the time. They're not original research, though, because I have cites and pieces of info around. But the statement, as it stands, doesn't actually say that. Tim's edit was in my opinion, needed; SlimVirgin's changelog statement that "if it's old, it wouldn't be introducing it, would it?" shows she is working off a different inference in that sentence than I believe it means, and in *that* case, it definitely needs changing, but as SV rv'ed it with that comment because of genuine misunderstanding, it needs to be reworked. My suggestion would actually be It introduces a novel theory or method of solution;; that gets at what I believe Tim is looking for, without the misunderstanding that SV is having with the word 'new' there, which is a vague word with a half dozen meanings these days.

It is still possesses a slightly awkward form, It introduces a novel theory or novel method of solution; is uncomfortable but removes a hanging ambiguity. It introduces a novel concept is more embracing, but perhaps too vague at the same time, It introduces a novel concept such as a theory or method of solution. Spenny 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim's rewrite of it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view was absolutely better. So much so, though it used almost the exact same words, that it almost makes me believe SV is reverting Tim's stuff because it's Tim's.

On the other hand, the use of 'their' and 'they' for singular gender-free usage is actually still really atrocious. I hate 's/he' with a passion, but I really find the awkwardness of 'his or her' preferable.

And no, I'm not regularly around this place; but I'm nearing 1000 edits, and I have a good understanding of these policies that I've been using, and I'm a writer and sometime journalist who does tech manuals and usability design (so I spend a lot of time saying 'how is that going to be misunderstood?'), who would like to see much more clarity in policies.

(btw, on the other issue, 'may be deleted' is never a good phrasing, as, depending whether you're an editor or an admin, it can be read as a crapshoot (may be deleted....may not be...), and to an admin, it can be read as permission (you may (can) delete). 'Will be' is obviously incorrect, but 'may be' is never a good term to use when you don't want misinterpretations. --Thespian 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"May be" is fine. It means both that it might be deleted, and that it's allowed to be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not; it has two different possible meanings, that might mean the same and might not mean the same. 'May' is a modal verb, and also a defective verb, which means in combination that a lot of the possibilities for interpretation lie on the shoulders of the reader; and there are many reasons why that's a bad idea in policies and instructions. It is imprecise as it stands with two valid interpretations, and imprecision leads to problems. --Thespian 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's very clear in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To whom? To you, obviously. But someone else had a misunderstanding about it, regardless of whether it seems clear to you. At that point, it becomes obvious that they interpreted the language as 'the administrator has permission to delete it' without the inferred other meaning, and subsequently decided on the phrasing 'will be deleted' (a reasonable assumption from there, if trying for something more definitive) as a reasonable interpretation of that. The fact that an editor thought in good faith (and nothing about the editor says to me they'll intentionally do anything they don't believe is for the good of the project, even if they don't agree with you) that was how it was meant, and did not read 'both meanings' into it indicates that it doesn't have the clarity that you think it does. --Thespian 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammar is very important. An editor who knows what they mean but writes words that do not express that meaning clearly must listen with open ears when asked for clarification, and not simply revert to their favourite, unclear, wording for the sake of "stability" or "resistance to change". Especially when no policy change is made thereby, and in fact the policy is enhanced by being made clearer, in better english.

On the use of singular their - the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) ISBN 0 521 62181 X gives under the entry, they, them, their an extensive list of authoratative sources that all encourage the use of singular their etc. An example provided: "everyone has to consider their future".

The New Oxford (1998), Merriam-Webster (2000), Canadian Oxford (1998), Webster's English Usage (1989), and Style Manual (2002) of the Australian Government are all given as favouring the use of singular their — the final publication given here describes the use of singular their, they, etc. as a "standard idiom in most contexts". The particular advantage of this commonly accepted construction is that it avoids clumsy and pointless sexist he, or, she, or he/she. Such usage is standard, indeed superior to he/she or other formulations. The trend for its even more widespread use is "probably irreversible" (Burchfield (1996)), and according to the author of the Cambridge Guide, Pam Peters, Associate Professor of Linguistics at Macquarie University, (on page 538).Newbyguesses - Talk 14:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with just using "he," or if people find that objectionable, "she": both are better than "he or she," in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I think you're looking to support it, instead of looking at the actual usage. I suggest you go and read the oppinions and citations given in our very own article, Singular they, which, while not coming down on either side, definitely provides cites that very few experts in the field agree with the usage, regardless of the Australian Government's support (remember that governments have also tried to mandate the value of pi; while language is certainly more fluid than mathematics, I do not accept government support as actually meaning anything outside of their own in-house style guides). --Thespian 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well-put, User:Thespian, though, as I understand it, no competent government ever actually has tried to legislate "PI", that is an urban myth. What does/do "Strunk & White" say about it? I have a feeling that source would be supporting also (s)he rather than "they", (being an American source) but cant just check that at the moment. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 09:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a "competent government," it was the 1897 Indiana State legislature. Google it.

Minasbeede 12:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Here's the cite: The Indiana Pi Bill --Thespian 10:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

There is no agreement about the exact meaning of "primary source" versus "secondary source" as the terms relate to wikipedia. Further there is no consensus on their exact proper useage in wikipedia. There is some rough agreement, good enough so it is mostly not worth worrying about. But we've been over all this before, right slim? Historians and scientists dealing with quantitative objective data each use the term "primary source" to mean different things. Further, the source itself is not "primary" or "secondary" but how you use a claim from a source makes it so with respect to wikipedia's sourcing of that claim. If wikipedia quotes a reporter's article then that article is wikipedia's primary source on quotes from that article. Which can include an analysis which is original with the reporter. So the article is the primary source for that analysis. It can also include the reporter's quoting of some other source which then makes the article a secondary source for wikipedia's sourcing of information the reporter had a source for. The data the reporter used for his analysis was a source other than the reporter himself, but his original analysis is not sourced from that other source and so his article is a primary source for wikipedia's use of that analysis. Historians see documents as primary sources while often scientists refer to the actual experiments as their original source. Experts prefer primary sources but "wikipedia prefers secondary sources" is claimed by some leading to a dysfunctional relationship between experts and wikipedia causing an expert retention problem and wikiality where people who don't know a subject vote on how to write it based on newspaper misreports. All of this is too much for this policy and I think the less the policy talks about primary and secondary sources the better. WAS 4.250 08:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What counts as primary and secondary is relative to the position of the person using the source. A primary source is a person (or group, govt etc) very close to an event, probably directly involved, and we usually mean a document created by that person about the event. A person involved in or witnessing a car accident is a primary source; a newspaper article about that accident (and not only one containing analysis) is a secondary source for us, because the reporter wasn't there: he had to ask other people what happened. But in 50 years time, that same article will be a primary source on road conditions in location A at time T. Given the limited kind of research we do at WP, what's primary and secondary is usually pretty straightforward. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All of this is too much for this policy and I think the less the policy talks about primary and secondary sources the better. I could not agree more. For Wikipedia purposes, the only significant difference we need to deal with is documentary sources vs. reliable sources. When we are only using a sources to document something (X said Y; 1904 scientific consensus was Z) they must be handled differently than all other sources from which we present information from at face value.--BirgitteSB 13:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow, Birgitte. How are you differentiating documentary from reliable sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have used the word reliable because it's meaning so muddied already around here, but it is done so I will do my best to explain. Think of the past debates about out-of-date (discredited) sources. People would say they aren't reliable and shouldn't be used, but others would object to declaring them unacceptable because we need to be able to use them to document the history. At the same time, any source which isn't reliable is still allowed to be used in article about itself (basically to document self-professed claims). And here we are defining out "primary sources" in order to point out that editors need to be careful to only document what is said in such sources without adding their own interpretation. To make that point is the important part of the whole primary/secondary section.

In the end, I think many of these issues come together, for our purposes at Wikipedia, into two basic classes of sources. One class is the high-quality "reliable" sources that we want articles to be primarily based on. These sources are up-to-date, written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for, and published in a trustworthy manner. The other class consists of all other sources which should only be be used with extreme care, making sure they are only cited to document that such a source makes such a claim (direct quotes of the source, careful paraphrase of what the author of the source claims, facts and figures in infoboxes) Of course, there is a alot of detail that can be said about different issues that make something a second-class source, some are too questionable (notable conspiracy theory web-site), some are too old (Bede's History of England), some are too "raw" (transcripts of the Nixon tapes). But really the only thing matters is they do not qualify as a first-class source, they are not of good enough quality to base articles primarily on them.

Of course this really doesn't have a great deal to do with original research. Except that editors try to base articles on these second-class sources. And they can only do that by stretching them into saying more than they do. An editor reads in a 1914 encyclopedia that "[The Caucasian race] leads the other races in literature, commerce and all the arts of civilization." While that would make a great direct quote in some racial theory article, the editor wants to use it as a citation for "White racial superiority was a commonly held belief among educators in America at the beginning of the 20th century" Now that interpretation is original research; so the question of which sources we should base articles on shows up on the original research policy. And it leads us to trying to separate out different classes of sources to the purpose of giving a stronger warning about original research for one class. I have always found the primary/secondary/tertiary to be very problematic for our purposes here. Honestly we don't really need to care about the secondary/tertiary division. The only thing we really care about here is that editors have a tendency to violate the original research policy when using these raw, first-hand, or out-of-date (discredited) sources. So we sell the idea that raw and first-hand things are primary sources, and ignore out-of-date (discredited). Unless we see a problem in the mainspace with an out-of-date (discredited) source and then we tell people "Age can make a source become primary" and hope they don't pop over here and realize that the "Secondary Sources" section perfectly defines the source they are working with. Well most of people reading this understand these problems already

I am sure the way I have classified these sources above contains problems as well. It could even turn out to be far worse than the primary/secondary classification. However I just cannot stop myself from tinkering with ideas on how minimize or do away this primary/secondary mess. It is really terrible. I know most people reading this understand the primary/secondary issue and will say that the inaccurate oversimplification we promote works most of the time. And I cannot disagree. The problem is that when it doesn't work, there is no other guidance offered. The problem is that while most people reading this understand the issue, I think we can all remember when we did not understand and when we misunderstood. I don't mind relying on things that are difficult to understand, but I do hate to rely on something that is so easy to misunderstand if there is any other option.--BirgitteSB 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying, and I mostly agree with you — that the main issue is between good and bad sources, not primary and secondary, if I've understood you correctly. The problem is that anyone who handles source material (journalists, researchers, academics) understands the importance of distinguishing between primary and secondary sources, so it would be obtuse of us not to rely on it too — and even if it were removed with agreement, someone else would only come and add it again in a few weeks time, because it is a useful and widely recognized distinction. I've found it very helpful many times in explaining to people why certain sources are inappropriate; even if they've not heard of the primary/secondary distinction before, when it's explained, they usually get it instantly and go off to find a secondary source. It cuts through a lot of fluff. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It can be useful; up to a point. But past the point, we have nothing else to guide people. I wouldn't want to see anyone pull this out of the policy at this time. But I do hope that we are able to come to a better understanding of sources over time, and that eventually this crutch can be done away with. Because even though people believe us when we tell them "this is a primary source, and this is a secondary source", it is inaccurate and at times deceptive. On top of that, we are also mostly ignoring the problem with ~~out-of-date~~ sources which have been discredited over time.--BirgitteSB 22:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that all published sources are out-of-date, just to different degrees. Dhaluza 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you find that more accurate?--BirgitteSB 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting discussion. The other point to remembered about the primary/secondary/tertiary division is that what category you assign a source to depends on what you want to use it for. So, the Bible is a primary source, and a commentary on the Bible, secondary. But that is if the interest is the bible. If you are writing an article about commentaries as an intellectual endeavor, or the career of some biblical exegete, so-and-so's commentary becomes primary material for the article about so-and-so. Or, to choose another example, a report in a newspaper is a secondary source, but if you are writing an article about the politics of some reporter, his reports become primary for that purpose. Or, again, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. But if, say, some journalist wanted to write a column on "medical advice in wikipedia", our tertiary articles become primary material.

From the perspective of WP:NOR, I'm not sure that the distinction between primary/secondary is all that important, with the exception that we need to instruct users that it is possible to use primary sources in ways that result in original research. (This is best tackled through no-new-syntheses, imo.)

semper fictilis 13:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The examples you give illustrate the issue well. What's primary and secondary is relative to the context of the user: where they are in time, and what they're using the source for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The examples of primary and secondary sources given in the NOR article raise another question, when referring to articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Are such articles primary sources? They surely don't belong in the same category as e.g. census results, diaries, written lab notes etc. (given as examples of primary sources), since they could well have resulted from the analysis of such lab notes. And is an editorial which discusses such an article, (a) a secondary source and (b) per definition more authoritative than the original article? One could argue that the peer-review process creates an entity which is somewhere between primary and secondary in terms of reliability, since only articles which pass review get published. And since editorials (I assume) aren't subjected to peer review, are they as reliable as the original article, or simply opinion pieces with nothing other than the reputation of the editor as a guarantee for reliability? Any ideas? Thanks. --TraceyR 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are such articles [published in peer-reviewed journals] primary sources? Not primarily (and "no" for the way Wikipedia currently using these terms), however almost anything can also be used as primary source in the right circumstances. Same goes for the editorials. The terms primary and secondary sources are not really about reliability so much as proximity. What this section of the policy is really saying is "This kind of article show you the trees, rather than the forest. Be very careful on how you interpret this into an neutral encyclopedic (naturally a forest view) article".--BirgitteSB 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good explanation, Birgitte. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Inverviewing people

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I'm new. I'm working on an article for a small commuter line/tourist railroad called Samtrak. There is a small amount of published material in our local newspaper that I can quote, but I'd like interview both the owner and engineer for the railroad to verify the newspaper articles and fill in missing information. Is that considered original research? Should I archive the interview online (recording and transcript) so it can be verified that I'm quoting it correctly. What's the Wikipedia way for doing this? PerlDreamer 18:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be "original research" and not allowed. If you just post the interview online on your own website, it would be covered under WP:NOR#Citing_oneself. Self-published websites are not considered reliable sources, since anyone can put up a website and there is no fact-checking required. (see WP:V) If you can get it published on a reliable source, which for your topic might be the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society website, then it may be permissible. That's the only way I can think of in your case that it might be okay. --Aude (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to approach this from the point of view of "how does the reader know you are not hoaxing them". Your interview claims must be sourceable to a published reliable source. WAS 4.250 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There are degrees of evidence. This would be considered weaker than a published third-party account, and it would not be strong enough to replace such a published account even if you knew it to be more "true". For a topic that is not likely to be controversial and that has at least some other published reference to confirm it is not a total fabrication, I would encourage you to do what you are describing. The opportunity to have useful material with accessible source outweighs the chance that it could be a hoax and we couldnt figure it out. alteripse 02:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia does not publish original research. It doesn't matter what the subject is, it is not what we are here to do. Tim Vickers 02:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, What PerlDreamer is proposing is not original research, but replicating someone else's results. My advice would be to do this, not for Wikipedia, but because it'll be interesting and worthwhile. Wikipedia may not, in the end, be the ultimate host, but he should be able to find some other home for it. And the exercise of doing this will surely make his contributions to this and other articles more subtle and nuanced. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. But that doesn't mean that original research is not worth doing. semper fictilis 03:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. For adding contect to Wikipedia, we'll stick to published facts, and look into another site, probably the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the National Railroad Historical Society. If we went to the Oregon Electric Railroad Historical Society Museum to take pictures of the Samtrak cars for the article, would that also be original content? - unsigned

Original research is allowed in images because so far it has not been a big problem and there is no good alternative. If anyone doubts the description of an image (no that is not a blald eagle, geoge bush, tom's bend bridge, whatever) then take it to talk and let the community reach a consensus on if to include the image in the article and if so what to label it. At factory farming there is a months old debate on whether an image is or is not appropriate for that article. WAS 4.250 05:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is verifiability - after all, anyone can contact the people he interviewed and ask them the same things for the purpose of fact-checking. The issue is more that the people being interviewed are primary sources (an NOR issue), and verifying them is more difficult than verifying widely-published printed material. Dcoetzee 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Okay, I've unlocked the article, I hope you can all work it out without edit warring again. Remember, one bold edit, one reversion, and then lots of discussion to consensus, and then the next bold edit, the next reversion, the next discussion and the next consensus, and then the next...

Good luck. Hiding Talk 12:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Open Source Software vs. Wikipedia

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

It is clear to me that Open Source Software brings a product of much higher quality than Wikipedia brings. Also Open Source Software not only allows OR, but thrives on it.01001 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a false analogy. Encyclopedias are not software. Dcoetzee 07:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How are encyclopedias different, and why does that matter? I think this is a very important issue because open source software has good policy.01001 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Software compiles and runs. Providing a reliable published source for all claims that are questioned is wikipedia's way of ensuring a similar level of quality. Allowing people to simply add stuff without backing it up would be like adding lines of code and releasing it without ever bothering to compile and run it. WAS 4.250 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Compiling and running the code is analogous to checking spelling and grammer. Crappy code will compile and run. This is not how open source software gets its excellent quality control.01001 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

None the less, quality control measures are needed and sourcing is an important one for wikipedia. It is needed because there are many different versions of "truth" and the best wikipedia can do in a contested case is to say well this reliable published source says this and that one says that. WAS 4.250 13:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you were to follow up on this analogy, I would say original research is analogous to the design of original algorithms and data structures. Our writing is original, just as a particular implementation may be, but we should leave it to the researchers to come up with - and thoroughly analyze - fundamentally new ideas. For example, there are countless amateur cryptography systems out there that have been broken, when they ought to have used a well-known published system. Dcoetzee 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed alternative example of synthesis

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

I've noted a number of problems with the example on synthesis above in the "Chicago manual of style" section, which I think justify removing the example. I would suggest either having no example (we don't illustrate any other points in the policy with examples), or a simpler, more straightforward one that is more easily understood. Here's some suggested text based on a previous discussion at the now defunct WP:ATT/FAQ:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its constituent parts have been published by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources for the edits you want to make, be careful that you're not analysing the material in a way that produces a new idea or argument of your own. Just because A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, doesn't mean that A and B can be joined in order to advance position C.

Example:

"In 1950, average rainfall in Northland was 10 centimeters per year_{Reliable source 1}, whereas in 2005 the average rainfall was 9 centimeters per year_{Reliable source 2}. Therefore the climate in Northland is changing, and getting drier over time_{No source}."

Under the attribution policy, the conclusion that the climate in Northland is getting drier is not permitted, where it is not backed up by an appropriate source. This is because coming to a conclusion like this requires careful consideration of the source data, which Wikipedia is not in a position to verify. A climate researcher would consider how the measurements were made, and analyse the available data and relevant theories, before coming to a conclusion. Wikipedia is not in a position to verify this background research itself. Instead, a conclusion from combining other ideas must be attributed to a reliable published source, unless it is straightforward and uncontroversial.

On the other hand, a straightforward observation which draws no novel or controversial conclusions, such as "In 1950, Northland had 10 centimeters of rainfall^{reliable source 1}, but was considerably drier in 2005_{no source per se}, with only 2 cm_{reliable source2}", may be acceptable.

Lots of other examples would be possible. Any comments or suggestions for improvements, or alternative examples? Enchanter 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not an example for SYNT - it is an example for a missing source. A synthetic example for SYNT could be (in an article about Jones):

(A) Jones says he attended school X between 1977 and 1980.[1] According to Department of Education records, school X closed down in 1976.[2] (Subtle SYNT by juxtaposition - we need a source to connect Jones to the school closing)
(B) Jones says he attended school X between 1977 and 1980,[1] but according to Department of Education records, school X closed down in 1976,[2] raising doubts as to his actual attendance there. (Typical SYNT by combining sourced facts - we need a source to connect them for us)

But then, I personally think that a real life example, where editors actually misunderstood the concept of SYNT is best, which is what we have in the article. If you can find a better real life example, where people actually got confused, then we can evaluate it here. Crum375 20:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A real-life example brings in issues like "is this real-life case being accurately described" and "is the analysis of this real-life case really correct". It's also likely to contain other confusing parts. A made up example doesn't have these problems. Ken Arromdee 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

AgreedEnchanter 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I like those suggestions, especially (B) - it's giving a good example of a case where it's not Wikipedia's role to combine facts to get a conclusion, even if the facts and logic are not in doubt.

I'd like to reemphasise the points made in the discussion above, in particular that the current example is not based at all closely on a real case. In reality it is also a largely made-up example, and in my view a very confusing one - so much so that we don't seem to have a consensus on what points it is trying to make.

I would therefore support replacing the current example with example (B) that you have suggested, along with a bit more wording to explain and discuss it. Enchanter 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So how would you rephrase (B) to make it acceptable. I'm afraid I don't see that reporting the fact that someone claims to have attended a particular school, and the other fact that the particular school was closed at the particular time, as objectionable. Drawing a conclusion explaining the contradiction may be objectionable, but it is not reasonable to argue that the fact of the school being closed may not be mentioned after mentioning the claim that someone had been attending it. Failing to mention that the school was known to be closed at that time is essentially misrepresenting the information. More, deliberately leaving out the second piece of information is effectively carrying out a piece of OR that the first item is correct, and the second false. Sandpiper 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not wedded to any example as long as it works. I would observe that objectors to change need engage constructively in this discussion rather than continue the revert war - it seems that there is no point in gaining consensus here without the understanding that those fixated on the sanctity of the current example will work with it. The assertion that a real life example is a requirement is not really sustainable in my view.

The requirements are much more basic: simple, neutral, uncontroversial, understandable. It worries me that we still have no common ground that the current example is broken so perhaps the first step to gaining consensus is to come up with some basic tests of what will satisfy the requirements of an example from a reader's perspective not from an editor's. A concern of mine is that any example that is simple enough to make the point, may not fulfil the mystique of SYNTH. Any synth is ultimately an unsourced statement. There is only a point to be made if there is some misunderstanding that the citations appear to support the implication of the unsourced statement. Arguably the examples above are simply contradictory sources where the only statement that can be made safely is that the sources are contradictory - that is not OR, that is basic indivisible logic and I don't think it is a good synth example.

The formulation of the problem is that given A is true and B is true, can statement C be justified from those facts without relying on more than simple, basic and obvious logic. William Shatner is the star of Star Trek, Star Trek is a TV show, William Shatner is a TV star. Synth or logic? cf William Shatner is the star of Star Trek, Star Trek is a popular TV show, William Shatner is a popular TV star.Spenny 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. example B above is such an obvious contradiction that it is in fact permissable synthesis, or essentially that however neutrally you phrased it, it would be impossible for a reader to fail to conclude that both statements could not possibly be true. So it is not a helpfull example, unless exactly as an example of permissable synthesis? Sandpiper

I think we are talking about two types of original research here. For each type of original research, there are different reasons why we don't want it in Wikipedia.

1) The original idea for the no original research policy was to avoid having statements in Wikipedia that we couldn't judge the truth of. This is the original and most obvious form of original research. If someone cites some results of physics experiments and puts forward their own new theory to explain the results, we are not equipped to judge whether it is groundbreaking work or a crackpot theory. So unless the theory has been published in a reliable source first, we don't want it in Wikipedia.

2) But going beyond this original definition of OR, there are more areas where we don't want new ideas in Wikipedia, even if they are well sourced and obviously logically true. This is particularly the case where the new ideas are controversial, or make allegations against individuals. These are the kinds of cases that Crum's examples were getting at. To give another example:

Suppose you were to give quotes from a politician saying "I did X" and then "I didn't do X", and use that to demonstrate or insinuate that the politician is a liar. We might all agree that those quotes are genuine, and that they show he is a liar. But it is not the job of encyclopedia writers to dig out evidence of politicians lying. We exclude it not because we are not sure whether it is true or not, but because it is not the role of an encyclopedia to investigate and judge the relevance of this sort of material.

Importantly, although we exclude the basic logical deduction for the politican lying, we don't need to exclude basic logical deductions for straightforward uncontroversial cases (converting miles to kilometers, etc). I think it is the possibility of overextending the rules on controversial cases, where we are avoiding "advancing a position", to uncontroversial cases that is causing Spenny's and Sandpiper's concerns above. They are right in that an outright ban on making logical inferences or mathematical deductions would be inappropriate for a scholarly encyclopedia - but noone has really been arguing for this.

I think the policy would be clearer if we identified more specifically the reasons why we need to stick particularly close to sources in certain circumstances, and where boundaries should lie. It's a good idea on policy pages to explain clearly why we have a particular policy - noone likes following a rule if the reason it was introduced is not made clear.

The above is an oversimplification as there are more issues to consider in judging the boundaries of OR, but I hope it makes sense as an attempt to summarise the current debate. Comments welcome. Enchanter 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a really useful analysis. I think what it does show is that the idea that SYNTH by simple example doesn't really work, and actually the argument for the SYNTH policy is potentially a paradox: if you cite facts from which you can make a simple logical deduction you may arrive at a position that should not be mentioned, therefore you shouldn't really introduce the facts in the first place. A good example is the Medical discussion that was raised, where there is a comparison of grades introduced into the article. There is no purpose to these grades in the article except to denigrate one branch of medicine - yet they are "facts" which no one is disputing (and to the innocent they would see this as censorship).

However, the argument is not really about a joining of facts, it is more fundamental: about introducing any citation that is used to advance a position that is not already stated by external sources - a single fact can be used to do that, and the joining of sources is a red herring. That is the paradox: to include an incontrovertible fact can be used to advance a position therefore the fact should not be included. A trivial example: tall people bang their heads on doorways(fact) should not be in an article on building regulations as it is advancing a position that the regulations need to be adjusted. If there is a study that there should be an increase in the height of doorways(fact) then this is allowed. However, it is not the synthesis of the (possibly implied) suggestion of an increase is needed, that causes the editing issue, it is the need to remove the fact in the first place because although it is indisputably a fact, its very presence in the context of the article, with or without supporting argument, causes the issue.

So having worked my way to an understanding of why there is the argument for a real world example, I think I have got closer to why it still does not work. For it to work, you need to establish in simple terms what is the controversy - which means that the example must have better background. The existing example does not work because it attempts to short cut the background and it also short cuts the explanation - I think in part because SYNTH is about a paradoxical position - it potentially goes against common sense from one point of view.

What are the elements of a good SYNTH example:

- Can be seen to be logically correct.
- Can be seen to be advancing a position in such a way that a reader can tell that there is something suspicious.
- Needs to be uncontroversial in the sense of not pushing political or religious buttons.

The existing example does not work for me because I don't understand the context of the first sentence - what is "fine" about the uncited analysis before the extra information is there? The article is already broken and unless the example demonstrates how this initial controversial statement is valid and the extension is not, then it does not work.

Am I being dense,or are we simply supposed to be showing "Don't cite facts to advance a position" which is the core policy - don't introduce new arguments to advance a position - the example does not address this policy, the example given is a special case? Spenny 08:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of this difficulty is because wiki has a NOR policy, when it is not talking about OR in the normally accepted academic sense. I think when the policy started, the writers probably had exactly the same meaning in mind, but wiki OR is now an entirely different thing. I am sure a lot of people do not like the line "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.", but I presume it remains here, because unless editors carry out original research in the normal sense, no encyclopedia is possible. The difficulty here seems to me that the attempt to ban synthesis is in conflict with a normal expectation of collecting information.

As I commented above, to deliberately leave out reliable information that a school was closed at the time someone was attending it is in itself to make a choice about which version is correct. This is clearly not a good example for demonstrating rules about synthesis if it relies upon side issues of controversiality to justify its existence. With regard to politicians, this seems to me more an issue of whether a statement is libelous, not whether it is true or OR. It is not libelous to state sourced facts. It would be potentially libelous to draw a conclusion that the person had lied in claiming to have attended the school, but it might also be the case that the school records had been mistakenly recorded, that the person's attendance was correct. The more I consider this, the more I think this is a very bad example to choose. It is more an example of what to do when equally valid contradictory information exists. Explain both pieces of information giving them equal weight. I agree there is a conflict between an attempt to ban all possible synthesis and still making a neutral presentation of facts. But this cannot be resolved by arguing that synthesis trumps neutrality. It has to be resolved by accepting that inevitably situations exist in which there is contradictory information. This can only be resolved by explaining all the information, without further comment.

As to tall people and doorways, I am reminded of a local town which has a number of elizabethan houses with doorways 5 foot high. I dare say they were all built to code at that time. In this case, there is no obvious contradiction between the facts that people hit there heads, and that building regulations exist. Whether hitting ones head gets mentioned would depend upon whether someone though it worth mentioning. This is a much better example of synthesis, though it risks the problem again that trivially it is very probably true and a real encyclopedia would have no difficulty including it.

Returning to politicians lying. It would be unacceptable to claim that the politician did lie, but it would not be unacceptable to state that on one occasion he said x, and on another he said the contradictory Y. This is straight reporting of established facts. I can only imagine such an issue coming up in the context of reporting what a politicain had done about something, and it would then obviously be correct to state that on one occasion his view was x, but at another it was Y. Failing to report either is immediately to take a position on which is valid, and is unacceptable. It exactly is the role of people writing an encyclopedia to judge what is relevant for inclusion in an article, and in this example to dig out evidence for what the politician has done. Not because he is a politician, but because the role of an editor is to find, assess and neutrally present sourced information. Sandpiper 09:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pondering this some more, I think the issues around the example should flag up that there is a real problem with the policy. I think the issue is around "a real encyclopaedia would have no issue including it." An editor would not include an incomplete contentious issue, or it would only include it if it had a complete context. It is counter-intuitive to exclude facts, and to have a policy that suggests something like that would be so hard to justify, yet at the heart of it, that is the rule that is being sought - unless facts are used to support fully formed positions, it might be inappropriate to include them. I think SYNTH is a red-herring for this issue: it is quite possible, as has been discussed, to put well cited sources into an article and still come up with a collection of information that clearly implies a position. There may be no other discussion, the facts are impeccably sourced, yet without the qualification of a cited comparison, the effect can be inappropriate.

For example, an article London Football Clubs might simply list the average attendance of all the clubs without comment. A simplistic view would be that it was a neutral statement of a verifiable fact and complete in its own right, indeed, this sort of table is included in many articles and can rightly be viewed as encyclopaedic. However, there might have been an agenda by an editor to make the argument that one team was less popular by implication of its average attendance when all it may show is that the ground is constrained by capacity. Well versed in WikiLawyering, he knows better than to place this argument overtly, yet the other editors of the article know his agenda and would not be able to defend against this (worse, they might have individual articles showing the issues at different grounds from a club's point of view, but with no comparative article in the public domain, they could not use the synthesis as it would be OR to combine the comparison).

I don't think there is a specific rule that can deal with this, yet we understand that the underlying principles of the encyclopaedia are being subtly undermined: if there is no third party document readily to hand to put the statistical comparison in context, it is extremely difficult to deal with. I think SYNTH doesn't work as a policy - if the problem is straightforward, it is dealt with under advancing a novel argument; if it is complex then a rule to catch it relies on interpretation and potentially catches the acceptable as well. Spenny 08:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your example shows the difficulty of inventing a good one, or might just show a suggestion of the general solution to such cases? If it is a know fact that the ground has a limited capacity, then I don't see why such a table should not include a footnote to that effect. Fight facts with facts. You can't constrain the ability of an editor to make judgements on what is reasonable content, such as average attendances at grounds. On the other hand, if there is no information on exactly the ground's capacity, then it is only surmise that this is what is causing the low attendance and shouldn't be in the article anyway. If no one can produce a clear example, perhaps that is because there is in reality no difficulty? Sandpiper 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree, and that brings us back to take the original example out as it is confusing the basic principle which is no OR. Try and define the detail of what is a judgement call just leads to knots. Stick with it looks like OR, it smells like OR, it is OR. Anything else needs some other concept, and I think the idea of synthesis/analysis not already falling under the existing definitions undermines the original definitions. Spenny 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the "school" example given by Crum, I don't necessarily agree with the comments that this was "too obvious" (although it might be in some contexts). To give some more context and explanation for what the example is driving at, let's try:

Jones says he obtained a degree in physics at university X between 1977 and 1980_{reliable source 1}, but according to Department of Education records, university X closed down in 1976_{reliable source 2}, raising doubts as to whether he ever attended_{no source}.

This analysis, suggesting that Jones has lied about his qualifications, is not permitted on Wikipedia, even though it is backed up by reliable sources, and the logic is sound. This is because coming to a novel conclusion requires a careful analysis of the facts which Wikipedia is not in a position to provide. It is possible, for example, that one of the sources was wrong (reliable sources are not necessarily infallible sources), or that they had been interpreted incorrectly (for example, the names of two universities could have become mixed up).

A researcher coming to the conclusion that he had lied about his qualifications would carry out a careful analysis of the facts, and would need to stand ready to respond if Jones challenged the allegations. Wikipedia is not in a position to verify this analysis, or stand by the allegations if challenged, as this is not part of its mission to summarise existing published knowledge. Therefore the allegations can only be published in Wikipedia if they can be attributed to a reliable published source.

The above explanation is perhaps too long and should be edited down. However, do people agree with the general reasoning of the example set out above? Enchanter 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a really good shot. I don't think you should edit down the explanation as you will lose the sense of why there is a controversy over the obvious logical extension. There is a subtlety in the example that even if you remove raising doubts... the says... ...but is in fact an analysis. Perhaps we could further test this example by showing what could be safely written??? Spenny 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

the tail end of the example 'raising doubts...' is not justifiable from the facts stated, so is a good example. The more difficult question is, what is an acceptable way of presenting the two facts without drawing a conclusion. There does have to be an accepted way of neutrally presenting the conflicting information. Sandpiper

Just to be clear, had you picked up that Jones says he obtained a degree in physics at university X between 1977 and 1980_{reliable source 1}, but according to Department of Education records, university X closed down in 1976_{reliable source 2} has a fairly clear implication of criticism too - which potentially makes it a really good example? I can imagine that such a comment on certain well-known people with dubious degrees would claim libel in the UK with that simple juxtaposition. Spenny 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your concern here is that the rules will lead to some material being excluded from Wikipedia. I think this is a valid concern, but it's important to understand that there will be some instances - and I think this is one of them - where it is not appropriate to include the conflicting information in Wikipedia at all.

To give some context to why this is, it's important to realise how high profile Wikipedia has become. Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about people and organisations, many of them not very well known, and these articles very often show up high in the google rankings. Wikipedia volunteers have to deal with hundreds upon hundreds of complaints from people who are unhappy with articles about them, for whatever reason. Sometimes these complaints are not well founded, but often they are - it's not uncommon to find people with an agenda inserting denigrating information (sourced or unsourced) into articles about people and organisations.

Dealing with these problems is unrewarding and no fun. The Wikipedia volunteers manning the phones and responding to the email complaints have to deal with unhappy people, legal threats, and bad press on this sort of thing on a daily basis. Given the resources that Wikipedia has, we cannot expect these volunteers to investigate these issues in detail, combing through sources to decide if a particular allegation or combination of sources is appropriate or not. That's why for this kind of article, we need to insist - as a matter of policy - that any allegations are explicitly attributed to a reliable source. That way, if Wikipedia is making an allegation against someone, we can ask the person complaining to take up to complaint with the source, rather than with Wikipedia directly. This is so even if the allegation isn't made explicitly, but only implied (for example, by including information that implies but does not explicitly state that someone lied about their qualifications).

Does this mean that valid, sourced information will be excluded from Wikipedia? Yes. But we have to put up with that, because allowing this kind of information will lead to more bad press, legal threats, emotional hurt, and work for the foundation than it is worth. And ultimately, it is the people at the foundation who deal with these legal threats that we rely on to keep the whole project running - so we owe it to them to give their concerns priority when setting policy.

The above applies particularly for living people or organisations (which was the subject of the example), and there is a case that we can be more relaxed about including information for other types of article, particularly when the issues are uncontroversial. It may be worth being explicit about this, perhaps saying something like: "It is important that this policy is applied stricly for articles about living people or organisations. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.".

Does this make sense, and should we consider making some of these points directly in the policy page? Enchanter 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that there is no one size of policy that can fit all. The "lightweight" articles have a lower need of proof than the heavyweight - serious science or history that has the potential to be the reference of choice some time in the future, vs. the enjoyable fluff of the History of the Cornflake, vs. the real legal issue of repeating libellous statements (where in the UK the onus is on the teller to prove that they are true, with some fairly nasty caveats in there too, quite a high standard to defend). I think some of the conflict here is just that. You either stick with a vague undefined policy and hope people go with the spirit, or you spiral down into ever more detailed rules, as what Wiki does is not actually very easily defined. Spenny 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no one size fits all policy. Describing accurately what sources say requires judgement and a genuine understanding of the source, so it's not possible to provide a simple set of rules that will fit every case.

I think the case of biographical details of living people is a sufficiently big problem for Wikipedia that it's worth spelling out on the policy pages that anything relating to living people needs to be extremely well sourced. To an extent Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does that job already, although it may still be worth emphasising the point here.

Going back to the example we are discussing, do you think it is still on the right track? Enchanter 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is on the right track, and I think that context clarification of why this sort of juxtaposition of fact can indeed be inappropriate is necessary to make the section work. I've revised my position on SYNTH a bit with myself - I don't think it is an important concept, but it is not the intent that it is an important concept, it is simply the need to explain novel analysis where this might not be understood. I think the jargon and folklore of Wiki is in danger of making it into an important concept. So having said that, if the section is a light discussion then I think it would work better. I think the whole tone of the section is too technical and would be better written along the lines of deleting the existing section in its entirety, with a retitle to make it less jargony:

Creating a new analysis from reliable sources.

When considering whether an edit introduces a new concept, it is important to understand that it is not just the introduction of underlying facts that need to be considered, but the analysis of those facts too. In Wikipedia, the process of creating new ideas out of proven facts is often called synthesis. Whilst creating articles is about collating information and there is a low level of analysis that cannot be avoided in that process, it is assumed that there should be no need for significant new analysis. The acid test for what is reasonable is the concept of advancing a position. If the analysis required to present a concept is more than a simple summary, especially if it creates a contentious view point, then, however well grounded in fact it is, an objector would be entitled to request the citation of the analysis. If no justification is forthcoming, then the analysis should be removed. Further, in sensitive articles, such as living biographies, the simple arrangement of facts on a page might be enough to create an analysis. Although it might be considered to be censorship to remove proven facts about a topic, editors need to be sensitive to the feelings of individuals and be aware that even inadvertent libel can create legal issues that could threaten the viability of Wikipedia. To give an example of the problem,...

Do you think that helps the page as a whole? I know it is opening a can of worms, but I think that at the moment the presentation is the issue which is causing the most problem. Spenny 21:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter, I think that if the real concern is being sued, then there should be a rule specifically explaining what content may be excluded for legal reasons. It seems to me that an extraordinary complication is being introduced by attempting to squeeze the issue of legal difficulties into a section essentially dealing with a different issue, which only partially overlaps. Further up the page is another example, where someone is talking about the colour of airline seats, and having discovered a plane with seats in the 'wrong' colour. Perhaps people feel safer discussing source 1 which claims all seats are blue, and source 2 which is a photo of red seats. I am still inclined that the correct course is to report both sources and leave the issue of which is wrong to others to debate. I don't really see why this does not apply to the politician argument. Either a government source claims the school was closed, or it does not. Where is the legal issue? If what you are saying is that people may object to any article and someone has to deal with it, surely that is a consequence of having many articles. But I am now coming round in a circle: if wiki feels it needs to restrict content for resource reasons, then it should say that in the rule, not flounder about claiming it is an issue of reliability. There are lots of people on here arguing that rules are unreasonable, because in the way they are framed, they are.Sandpiper 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably time for re-summary and archive the above as this has spun off in various directions which will not allow consensus on the underlying simple issue of the example. Spenny 08:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Spenny's introduction is along the right general lines. However, in response to Sandpiper's comments, I think we need to emphasise reliability more.

Being sued is a genuine concern, but I don't think it's the core issue here - the issue is one of reliability. Going back to the "qualifications" example, I think the core issue is that when we quote the two sources together - one saying he claimed to have a qualification, one seeming to contradict him - we lead the reader to a conclusion that might be plain wrong. The government records we are quoting might be wrong. Or he may have been misquoted in the source. Or there might be a misunderstanding in the names of the qualifications. It's easy to underestimate the potential for confusion and different interpretations of even quite straightforward information.

For something like lying about qualifications, Wikipedia should never be seen as the source of the information - we just don't want the arguments about whether the sources are right or wrong or not, or whether they have been interpreted correctly, to take place at Wikipedia. Instead, we attribute the allegations to someone else, and say "Source X claims that Mr Jones lied about his qualifications, citing ...". That way, we are factually reporting on what someone else says, rather than trying to establish truth ourselves.

I agree that for more straightforward claims, we don't need to be so strict about applying the rule. And certainly, any rule that gave a blanket ban on quoting contradictory sources wouldn't make sense at all. I think the wording still needs a bit of work to make sure that it covers all cases reasonably sensibly. Enchanter 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)