Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

The trouble with SYN

Both the quoted examples do not go to the heart of the matter:

Simple examples

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security^[cite], but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world^[cite].

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security^[cite], and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world^[cite].

These are simply POV wording problems; removing the POV wording gives:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security^[cite], since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world^[cite].

And a balancing fact would be useful

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security^[cite], since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world^[cite], in the 70 years prior there were 159 wars^[cite].

This is now free from the attention grabbing POV flaws, but it is still potentially SYN. (People on either side of the argument might say that the implied statement was different of course.) However it is not a sentence I would have a problem with. Clearly it is very granular and would be followed with extensive articles relating to the various successes and failures of the UN and the positions of various commentators on the reasons for those. But it is not, per se a bad sentence.

Complex example

(I have remarked before that using an example about citation in a policy about citation is not helpful, especially as the ideas in the policy and the example are not straightforward.)

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references. If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This suffers mainly from "non-brilliant prose" to be polite. Secondly there is no SYN going on. Assuming that the Harvard manual is relevant we could write:

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book^[cite]. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.^[cite] (Harvard defines plagiarism as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.^[cite])

This removes an irrelevant sentence, and provides a definition, which, if relevant to the case (I.E. Smith has not said something like "plagiarism in the Oxford sense of the word" for example) does not answer or purport to answer the question "Did Jones commit plagiarism", but does add to the readers understanding of what would constitute plagiarism according to an accepted authority in the field of writing. It is therefore not in violation of WP:SYN.

Moreover if the following were all backed up with citations

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying material from another author's book^[cite]. Jones responded that he had copied Robinson's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.^[cite] (Harvard defines plagiarism as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.^[cite])

-somewhat unlikely, I will grant - then there is an implied conclusion "Jones committed plagiarism." - or at least "Jones admitted to actions which would constitute plagiarism." which is in violation of SYN, and yet in the latter example the definition is more relevant than in the former, and again (as in the final version of the simple example) the exposition is wholly unobjectionable.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Actually I am wrong to say that my final version, and the commentary on the complex example is wrong to say that that version violates WP:SYN, since SYN only disallows "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Since the source "Jones" explicitly stated that plagiarism was committed , and the source "Smith" in the policy page example explicitly (or virtually explicitly) denies it, SYN technically allows us to adduce either conclusion, which is plainly a Bad Thing™. Rich Farmbrough, 16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

SYN rightly forbids editors from making conclusions that are not already made in sources. However, it should not prevent pertinent matter from being included from a NPOV. If the inclusion of that matter could be read to imply a conclusion, that is not relevant. It may well imply it, because (as in the above example perhaps) it is true, but that is entirely up to the reader to judge: that is a fundamental of NPOV editing.

In the situation outlined in the examples above, it is perfectly reasonable, when plagiarism is an issue, to define plagiarism. The argument is that the sources on Jones and Smith do not define it and therefore neither should we in relation to them. However, this argument is undermined by the policy example given, because it assumes that the definition of plagiarism is relevant by linking to the article plagiarism. The reader then has to dodge between articles to make sense of the article he or she is trying to read, which is not the most helpful presentation for a reader. It is obviously much more convenient to give a summary of plagiarism, where it is most convenient for the reader.

It is not then a question of whether plagiarism is or is not defined in relation to the dispute between Smith and Jones, but simply a question of where it is defined—in the same article or a click away in a different article. The fact that it needs to be defined is embodied in the policy example.

There is an argument that a short definition of plagiarism in the Smith/Jones article will be selected in order to push towards a particular conclusion. This is a NPOV concern, not a NOR one. It seems fairly obvious that if the plagiarism issue concerns the use of references, then the aspect of plagiarism that needs to be defined should be relevant to that.

Ty 03:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"advances a position"

In the phrase "advances a position" that is used in WP:NOR, what does "position" mean? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It means a point of view (explicit or implicit) which is novel, or otherwise not directly supported by the provided sources. Crum375 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A "position" is any interpretation or conclusion (either stated or implied). What the policy is repeatedly saying is that in order to state an interpretation or conclusion in an article, you need a source that directly states that interpretation or conclusion. In the case of WP:SYN, it notes that you should not put two bits of information together in a way that forms an interpretation or conclusion... unless there is a source that takes the same information and reaches the same interpretation or conclusion. If it isn't in a source, we should not say it in an article. Blueboar (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the basic dictionary definition explains it well: wikt:position, #4 "An opinion, stand, or stance." (example: "My position on this issue is unchanged.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on merging Words to avoid into Words to watch

• Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable ≠ Original research

The recent changes leave us with a claim that all unverifiable claims are always original research. I don't think this is true, either according to how Wikipedia editors apply these policies (WP:V and WP:NOR are generally taken to be different policies), or according to common-sense understandings of original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought they were the same thing, or at least, "original research" is a particular case of unverifiable information. What might the difference be?--Kotniski (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All material for which a reliable published source doesn't exist is by definition OR, as we use the term. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So in fact we can merge this page with WP:V?--Kotniski (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That was the point of Wikipedia:Attribution, which didn't work. I have a mind to rewrite and re-propose it, with the current policies as summary-style sections of it, because it makes no sense to have them as separate pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at User:Kotniski/Neu? Is it a possible starting point?--Kotniski (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely is, and thank you for writing it. I was going to have a go tomorrow writing the kind of thing I had in mind, and hoped we could compare notes. We had lots of support for WP:ATT. I was getting emails from people saying they'd understood the policies for the first time, and that was with a version of ATT that was much wordier than it needed to be, to satisfy people who wanted minimal change. I've never given up entirely on seeing them combined. If we retain V, NOR, and NPOV summary-style, but have a freshly written (and very tight) ATT as an overall summary, that might satisfy everyone. But it would have to be written on user subpages to start with. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be more practical to retrieve sections of ATT which have consensus, and reword the various policy pages accordingly. Summary style for sections which are already verbally identical may be less controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that wp:or 's topic is a subset of wp:ver's topic. Both need work to reduce the current widespread abuse of them by deletionists and POV pushers. But WP:Ver;s topic includes things that wp:or's doesn't. For example, For example, statements (right or wrong, sourced or un-sourced) which by their nature are of 100% objective facts.North8000 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that North's understanding is typical of the community's view.

An unintentional typo is a simple example of an unverifiable, non-NOR statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So if V is basically just NOR with a slightly (and fairly trivially) wider scope, we don't need the two separate pages, right? It's just an obvious fork.--Kotniski (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of advice pages, the community "needs" whatever pages it chooses to have. So far, the community has chosen to have separate pages. There may (or may not) be some practical value to having separate pages, since "violates NOR" gives the offender a better idea of what the problem is compared to "isn't attributable", but consensus is king on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I was an offender off the streets, I'd be far more likely to understand "isn't attributable" than "violates NOR", but in any case, the shortcut "NOR" could still link to the combined page or a particular section of it.--Kotniski (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

From a TOPIC standpoint, WP:NOR is a subset of wp:ver. I think that it's rightful place is to exist seperately and expand on the topic of it's title.

For policy organizational purposes, we have to set aside the thought that unsourced = OR and OR = unsourced. Separate policies for synonyms would obviously be a mistake.

From a CURRENT CONTENT standpoint, WP:NOR covers WP:NOR specific content, and then covers things that should rightfully be in WP:VER (or overlaps with wp:ver) and I think should be moved there. For example, the whole Primary/Secondary/Tertiary section relates to WP:VER in general and is not unique to WP:NOR. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition of NOR

Not sure what's going on with the recent edits, but this has been part of NOR since the year dot, and indeed is the definition of OR. Something for which no source exists is OR.

North8000, what makes you think this is new? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The "new" part was my mistake......I should have looked back 20 or 30 edits instead of at just the recent ones. Sorry. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

But folks, the term "fiddling while Rome burns" comes to mind with the complete resistance to any changes. Wikipedia has changed big time over the last few years. It has switched to these policies being widely used for abuse, opposite to their intent. The creators are leaving. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just 20 or 30 edits back; this is what the policy means, N, and always has. Something for which no source exists is what we call OR on Wikipedia, because it means that a Wikipedian made it up. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

N, just to pick up on your point about change, what change would you like to see? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I could do a more thorough, organized proposal, but here would be the gist of it: As a preface, 90% of the statements in Wikipedia violate a strict and thorough interpretation of WP:NOR+WP:VER. And about 90% of the cited sources in WP violate WP:VER's requirements for sources. So then where does that leave us? It them wide open for abuse by POV pushers, deletionists and other social misfits who are lording over and chasing away the creators of good content. The fixes would be:

1. The required strength of sourcing goes up if the statement itself is challenged (however brief and unsupported the challenge) as being incorrect, controversial or truly original thought/research per the outside world definition of the term), and down if the statement itself is not so-challenged.

2. Second (and more simply and more importantly) would be a guideline that says that in order to do the more extreme measures of deleting or prominent tagging in the name of OR, you must make a claim (however brief and unsupported) that the statement is incorrect, controversial, or truly original thought/research per the outside world definition of the term. This simple and "minor" change would have a huge positive impact on what has been happening to Wikipedia.

Thanks for listening. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with the argument that the NOR policy is misused, because I've been on the receiving end of the misuse (as I saw it) a few times myself. It stems from two things: first, as you say, POV pushers use it to remove material that isn't nailed down a thousand fold. But I don't think that's the main issue. The main issue in my view is that lots of people have difficulty summarizing source material accurately, or recognizing an accurate summary when they see it. We used to be taught how to do this in school from a very early age (primary school), but it looks to me as though it's not widely taught anymore, because it's one of the key issues I see Wikipedians struggling with. This is why you see so many articles as quote farms, because people are worried about trying to paraphrase what the sources are saying.

When people do paraphrase, it can lead to claims of OR, even when you're correctly summarizing the source's key points. I don't know what to do about this, because it's not the fault of the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, it's nearly impossible to talk about wp:OR separately from wp:ver. For example, the core of what wp:or says is sourcing, which is defined by wp:ver. I just happen to be talking here rather than there because, in practice, "OR" & WP:OR is a main "pointy end of the spear" of wp:ver.

In practice, the well written summary that you describe can easily get deleted as OR by any deletionist or POV pusher. . My idea #2 would 90% solve that. The deleter would have to make at least a brief unsupported challenge of your summary in order to delete it. Sounds minor, but I think that it would make a huge change. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

North, you have linked POV pushers and "deletionists" several times in your comments... I know what a POV pusher is, but what do you mean by "deletionist"? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to appear to link them, (they aren't linked) just to list the two most common situations of abuse of the policies. I've seen the term "deletionist" used a lot, I though it was sort of known. These are people who's main "contribution" is attacking, tagging and deleting other people's work rather than creating or adding to material. Out in the real world these people are kept at bay, they just bark at the parade rather than leading, following or cheering it. In Wikipedia they are in hog heaven. Wikipedia is like making it legal for them to go out in front of their house and throw rocks at any car that is 1 mph over the limit, which is 90% of everybody. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of truth in that, North, but the way to counter it is to get to know the content policies really well, then create your material in accordance with them. That gives it more sticking power. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The (fixable) problem is that it's usually impossible or hugely difficult to meet them 100% as written.North8000 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The key is to find good sourcing and stick closely to what it says. If you have a specific example you need help with, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't mean this to be about any of my issues but one of those might be a good example. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re SlimVirgin's remarks "The main issue in my view is that lots of people have difficulty summarizing source material accurately, or recognizing an accurate summary when they see it. ... This is why you see so many articles as quote farms, because people are worried about trying to paraphrase what the sources are saying." -

Venturing out from the safety of quoting sources, to contributing by summarizing sources in one's own words, may be difficult for some editors because WP:NOR is unclear to them and they have of fear of making a mistake. An example of the lack of clarity in WP:NOR is the use of the word "position". From the discussion so far in the previous section, it appears that the word "position" is used in WP:NOR as a term with a different definition than what is found in dictionaries. Yet the term "position" is not defined in WP:NOR. When the word "position" was first used in WP:NOR, its meaning was consistent with the definition found in dictionaries. Somehow over the years it has come to mean something different that has never been specifically defined in WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A position means a point of view, a stance, a take. We use it here the way anyone else uses it, so far as I know. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob, regarding the "fear of OR", it's easier than you think. All you need to do is summarize the gist of what you understand the source is saying, without making it say, or seem to say, something it isn't saying (i.e. "advancing a position"). If someone disagrees, then you'll need to hammer out a consensual version. That's all there is to it. Crum375 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

North, I think that your claim that "90% of the statements in Wikipedia" is gross and unwarranted hyperbole. I'd bet, in fact, that you can't identify even two articles that reach your 90% level. I just looked through a couple of Special:Random pages, and actually found zero unverifiable statements (which surprised me). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll go you one better than that. I'll let you pick a typical article (not too short) and I'll find and detail a lot of WP:NOR/VER violations in it. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Try Castanea mollissima (aka Chinese Chessnut tree) Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than "typical" I think that you have picked one that is in the top 1% most bulletproof in this area. An expertly written, thoroughly sourced article on a narrow, mature scientific topic. But, so much the better, I accept the challenge. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK... try Abraham Lincoln... Nirvana (band)... or Great Seal of the United States. Or are these not "typical" either? (if so, what do you consider "typical"?) Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

All three of those are more typical, but I said I was fine with the first one. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Will probably take me a week or 2 but I'm going to do this. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be waiting for your response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

New section to discuss NOR in context of purpose and limits of Wikipedia

I think there needs to be a section in this policy page that discusses NOR in the context of the purpose and limits of Wikipedia, i.e. it is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that we need to recognize what the real issues are and what you want that section to "weigh in" on. Practically nobody is arguing for putting "new discoveries" "new ideas" "original writing" etc. yet the 100% policy status quo folks keep caricaturing folks seeking changes as seeking such. Most calls for change are subtler changes in wp:nor+wp:ver that would solve numerous current problems. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand your comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Is your idea to:

- just reinforce that Wikipedia isn't for new discoveries, theories, ideas etc.

OR

- reinforce that every statement that doesn't have a wp:ver grade reference that literally says the same thing can be deleted

North8000 (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me try to clarify. I'll take it one step at a time. I felt that explaining NOR and OR could best be done by first simply explaining what's the purpose of Wikipedia. Simply stated, Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize existing published information. I didn't see this simple, yet important, statement anywhere in WP:NOR. There is a statement in the lead that says, "What this means is that all material added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." But I don't think that gives the reader a simple and clear idea of Wikipedia's purpose. (Am I being clear so far re this first step in clarifying what I was thinking?) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to be a free reliable encyclopaedia that can be edited by anyone. That it summarizes existing information rather than publishing original research derives from that rather than being its purpose. Dmcq (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. And "derives from" doesn't mean it shouldn't be said (while acknowledging such). And I think that "big picture" statements (vs. considering granular level dogma to be wp's "mission" )would set it on a course to fixing wp:nor/wp:ver to avoid the problems that they are inadvertently causing.North8000 (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Dmcq's comment, "Wikipedia's purpose is to be a free reliable encyclopaedia that can be edited by anyone." - The definitions of encyclopedia and the description in the article Encyclopedia, don't seem to limit an encyclopedia to existing published research. So that characterization alone may be problematic in a policy about NOR. Characterizing Wikipedia's purpose as a summary of existing published information seems more simple, clear and accurate, and it lays the foundation for discussing NOR in Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the big picture in that area is RELIABLE. And that WP:VER and WP:NOR are there to and should be defined to serve that purpose, not to try to consider themselves and their precepts to be mission statements. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>That's correct. WP:NOR is not here to be the mission statement of Wikipedia but to support it. Perhaps you or someone else might direct us to the area of Wikipedia where the official mission statement of Wikipedia is written? Then we can use it to guide WP:NOR. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Help:About says: "Wikipedia's intent is to cover existing knowledge which is verifiable from other sources, original research and ideas are therefore excluded." Crum375 (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is the following sentence consistent with the above statement?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's roughly equivalent, but I like the current ABOUT text better, because it includes the concept of NOR more explicitly. Crum375 (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "It's roughly equivalent" - Good.

Re "but I like the current ABOUT text better, because it includes the concept of NOR more explicitly." - Actually, the sentence I suggested does include the concept of NOR explicitly when it said, "not meant to be a source of information that has not been published." I didn't use the term "original research" because I felt that the term needs clarification and I wanted to start off the section with familiar language that is clear. Explaining what is meant by "original research (OR)" will follow. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Outdent

Folks are trying to synthesize wp's mission from (their preferred) policies which is backwards. The top level statement of purpose (from the wp bylaws) is

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

"In coordination with a network of chapters and individual volunteers, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

Followed by the statement of vision "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. "

Followed by the relevant part of the WP Values "An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse."

The policies should implement the above rather than looking in a mirror to "see" their mission. North8000 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'll have to look some more North8000 (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked and Wikimedia is the name of the Wikipedia organization. And so I submit that my comments are still applicable.

The first sentence in WP:Policies and guidelines says '... and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia.', which is an edited version of Larry Sangers statement in the very first version of that document. The original from 1st November 2001 was 'Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia--indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to become a reliable (probably, peer-approved) resource.' Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Great statement that you found. I don't know whether we are agreeing or disagreeing. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked and Wikimedia is the name of the Wikipedia organization. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia here means the encyclopaedia part of Wikimedia, in fact in this context only the english version. It is self governing by consensus under normal circumstances and what is said about Wikimedia is just too far distant. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Highest level is always the most distant. But I think that the statement that you found and quoted is both high level and a very useful (and more useful) implementation of such. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to put a mission statement in the NOR policy (or any of our other policies)... if you want to create WP:Mission statement that is fine, but let's not clutter up all our polices. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here is the subject sentence.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I would not call that a mission statement, so I will clarify my comment... I do think that sentence is important, as it directly explains why we do not allow original research. It could be the very first sentence of the policy. That said, I don't think we need to expand on it or create an entire section devoted to explaining it. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes have been made in the lead towards topic of WP:V

Just for everyone's information, here was the state of the lead on February 4, 2010 and the state of the lead now. Note that the changes have mainly put more of the topic of WP:V into the lead.

The lead - 16:58, 4 February 2010

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

"No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

The lead - now 17:31, 1 May 2010

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

What this means is that all material added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence can be provided if needed. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.

"No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, that jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This page and WP:V are forks of each other, to all practical purposes. There's no reason to keep them separate.--Kotniski (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?

Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [1] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, [2] and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss at the RfC, not here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The purpose of this RfC needs to be clarified: it aims to demote WP:PSCI from policy to an ignorable guideline. Currently, WP:NPOV requires a neutral point of view, but makes an important exception allowing pseudoscience to be labeled as such. PSCI also ensures that articles can assert that science and pseudoscience are not simply two equal viewpoints. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in policy

In fact PSCI (see above) seems to be in direct contradiction with this page (WP:NOR). If it stays, this page will have to be rewritten to take account of the exceptions it provides.--Kotniski (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict between these pages. Would you like to provide specifics? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that one says that something can be labelled pseudoscience if it is "obviously" pseudoscience (which is an exception to the principle that statements need to be reliably sourceable). It also says that mainstream views should be presented to counter fringe ones, which is an exception to the statement in this policy that information must come from sources that relate directly to the topic (since the sources for the mainstream information won't necessarily relate to the particular fringe view).--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth stating here that these discussions aren't purely hypothetical. We recently had a serious attempt to put the article Ghost into the pseudoscience category and add material to the effect that "belief in ghosts is a pseudoscientific belief". The editors who were doing this thought they had an excellent source for this, but I am pretty sure that so far as they are concerned "ghosts" are obvious pseudoscience, even though that's a straightforward category error for any but the most relaxed and colloquial meaning of "pseudoscience". Hans Adler 19:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If two sources contradict each other on points that each source treats as important, those sources are inherently related. For example, if a pseudoscience source says the world will end in 2012, any scientific source that, as its main thesis, makes predictions about life on earth after 2012 could be used to refute the claim. The topic provision could exclude sources that only mention something in passing, or if the source topic is sufficiently different from the article topic that it isn't clear that words have the same meaning in the different contexts (for example, Gemini in astrology vs. Gemini in astronomy Jc3s5h (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought sensible, but I don't see that stated clearly on this page.--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I'll follow-up on WhatamIdoing's question by looking at the first sentence in your response.

"Well, that one says that something can be labelled pseudoscience if it is "obviously" pseudoscience (which is an exception to the principle that statements need to be reliably sourceable)."

I don't understand this point of yours. You seem to claim that since WP:NOR requires material to be supported by reliable sources, that WP:NOR says that all material supported by reliable sources is acceptable. Was that your point in the first sentence? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's that we can give something a label without any support other than our considering it obvious. I mean, we wouldn't call someone homosexual just because we think it "obvious" that they are.--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I still don't understand your point regarding WP:NOR. Are you saying that WP:NOR is labelling something unfairly, or allowing something to be labelled unfairly? Perhaps it would help if you gave an excerpt from WP:NOR that you feel is the problem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe the problem in this case is more with the other page than this one (but if "pseudoscience" is concluded to be a special case at NPOV, then because the subject matter of the two pages overlap so much, it probably ought to be mentioned as a special case at NOR). But let's wait and see what the outcome at NPOV is.--Kotniski (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that something is "obviously" pseudoscience? IMO the answer is "because all of the best sources directly say that it is pseudoscience".

So where is the contradiction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary Sources

I've noticed a tendency of late for editors on RS/N to reject reliable primary sources out of hand, even for what are uninterpreted statements of facts. WP:PRIMARY seems to be written with "opinion" pieces in mind, rather than for documents that may support simple statements of fact, like government issued ID documents or other official statements and documents such as court rulings. The section perhaps needs some tweaking? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Even sources that may appear to be obvious within themselves may require interpretation or reference to other factors. For example, we might find an indictment posted online. But we might no be aware that the indictment was withdrawn a week later. We might see some legal language that appears meaningful to a layman, but which a lawyer will recognize as boilerplate (or vice versa). We might find property tax records that indicate a Joe Smith owns a home worth $1.2 million dollars, but we might have the wrong Joe Smith, or we might not know that properties are only appraised every ten years, or that the reported value is adjusted at 60% of the appraised value, etc. Furthermore, secondary sources do more thawn interpret primary sources - they also serve as filters that block out trivia. So just because we find a primary source that seems obvious, there are still good reasons to continue to limit their use.   Will Beback  talk  03:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this myself, but the current wording is sufficient. Primary sources are not a problem in and of themselves-it's how they're often used to support novel claims, including mounting a challenge against views in secondary sources, or extrapolating conclusions from them--which the policy plainly warns against. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, limiting their use is reasonable, however I'm talking about a more general blanket rejection. With regards your examples, WP:PRIMARY all of those problems apply with secondary sources as well (often!) and correct application of WP:PRIMARY can help mitigate them (such as indictments being withdrawn). I guess I'm more concerned with the introductory examples part than the "our policy" section per se.--Insider201283 (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, quite common... a lot of editors obviously never actually read the policy before they cite it. They assume it says you should never use a primary source... but the policy states categorically that Primary sources may be used... but must be used with caution and care. Sadly, I suspect that this is one of those problems that you can only deal with when it happens... by pointing out what the policy actually says. I don't think we can make the policy much clearer than it is, beyond bolding the "may be used" sentence to highlight it (which I have done). Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true that they may be used with care in certain situations, and they should not be rejected without consideration of those factors.   Will Beback  talk  18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

everything is OR

How come summarizing the plot of a movie/book is considered original research, but summarizing a scholarly article is not considered original research? It's the same thing. 76.85.196.138 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually both are allowed if done descriptively, i.e. when we don't introduce our own interpretation or analysis, or highlight some specific aspect to advance a position. Crum375 (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

... which is more likely to happen in the case of a piece of art in the widest sense than in the case of a scholarly article that has been written to communicate specific information. It's no OR to say that Romeo and Juliet is about two young people, called Romeo and Juliet, and it is OR to say that a certain scholarly article doesn't argue a specific point convincingly. (If it isn't convincing we just don't mention it.) Hans Adler 10:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But, in practice, anybody is allowed to knock any of the above out as OR, even if that is not the higher level intention of the policy. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In practice, editors on a page have to decide by consensus if a summary of a primary source is purely descriptive. If there is interpretation or analysis, or selective highlighting to advance a position, it requires a secondary source as support. Crum375 (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum, what you describe is how it should be principle. In practice, if it is a contentious article, or if it is being visited by a deletionist, someone just says "OR" and deletes the material. Then, unless the original editor can find a ref that explicitly says what the deleted material said (which is rare)it stays out. Such is fine if the deleted material is contentious/contested, but often it is not. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

North, I think you have your terminology confused. Deletionist on WP means an editor who insists on higher notability or "importance" standards for articles than the average editor. This has nothing to do with what you are describing, which has to do with reliable sourcing and original research, not notability or importance. In the case you are describing, we actually encourage editors to challenge any material for which they don't see adequate sourcing, and insist on secondary sources for any interpretation or selective highlighting of primary ones. This applies to all types of articles, not just contentious ones or BLPs. Crum375 (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant deletionists in the broader sense...those who primarily just attack articles and never create or improve anything. Beyond that clarification, we're just circling back to what has been our central disagreement.....my assertion that, taking wp:v and wp:or literally defines 90% of Wikipedia as not "adequately" sourced, and that that disparity between the rules and reality is causing many problems. North8000 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is broad consensus, as reflected in the core sourcing policies, that all material on WP be attributable to verifiable reliable sources. Editors who go around making sure that articles conform to the sourcing policies are good editors, not "deletionists", and should be commended for their efforts. That there are articles which need improvement is not in question, and the way to solve that is to fix them, not to lower the good articles to the lowest common denominator. Crum375 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are mis-characterizing what I said, but I think that we've both said what we had to say on this. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to correct any mis-characterization. Crum375 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me: North8000 is talking about a situation where you have a reference, and you've tried to summarize that reference, but someone else has decided that you're doing OR by writing the summary, and zapped it. The situation as described is just silly, it's like asking "do you have a reference to support your use of that reference?". In this case, you should put back the summary, make it clear that you do have a ref for it, and maybe even re-write it a little in the hopes of fixing the real problem instead of what was being complained about. Don't get hung up on people playing wikipedia lawyer.

And if I may offer some criticism: (1) it doesn't help to start using made-up, insider technical jargon (a "deletionist" isn't someone who likes to delete things?), and (2) it doesn't help to start reciting motherhood statements to someone who clearly knows about the issues already: Wikipedia requires "verifiable reliable sources"! -- Doom (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I sort of understand your first point...I either didn't understand the WP definition of deletionist or was trying to make up my own. But I didn't understand where you are saying I played the "motherhood" card. Sincerely, 20:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to debate this abstractly. Both extremes exist, and we must do something against both. Getting rid of true original research is usually rather easy. You just say it is original research and remove it. If you are right, at most a small number of editors will oppose your move, and it's enough to draw wider attention to the situation. Some people overdo it, though, either because of a fundamentalist reading of the policy or for ulterior motives. And it can be hard to defend a perfectly valid summary of what the sources say against invalid claims that it is OR. Depending on individual editors' experiences they consider either one or the other to be the more important problem, but they are really both of similar importance.

I think I can best explain it with the analogous situation of deletionism/inclusionism. I guess at most times I can be described as moderately deletionist. I am not normally interested in AfDs, but whenever an AfD makes a big splash and I notice it, I am either indifferent or tend to deletion. Sometimes (rarely) such an AfD will make me temporarily interested in AfDs in general and I will go through a day's list to see if any of them is going wrong and needs attention. In that case I usually stop at AfDs of subjects that are obviously notable and that someone absolutely wants to delete. Not because I am looking for that, but because that's what catches my eyes.

When in my normal editing environment I tend to feel that Wikipedia is full of hopeless crap that asks for deletion, but is defended by unreasonable inclusionists. When I am frequenting AfDs I tend to feel that Wikipedia is full of unreasonable deletionists who try to kill promising new articles. In reality both problems exist. Our policies will always be interpreted differently by different people. They need to be formulated so as to get the overall balance right. Hans Adler 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said. But I think that you skipped one case. This is where somebody did not contest the material or call it crap, they just knocked it out saying "OR". MOST statements in WP will not meet WP:VER 100% (explicitly stated by a found-and-listed high grade secondary source) and so you can knock out your choice of 90% of Wikipedia without even contesting the material or calling it crap. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between summarily removing something for lack of citation, and summarily removing it for OR. There are lots of uncited (but verifiable) statements in Wikipedia that are not OR... and even seemingly well cited material can be removed for OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is the way I think it should be, That OR means OR, in some semblence of the outside world definition of that term, or per the higher level definition of that term in WP:NOR. But I think that the definition strongly supported by Crum, and which is often applied in practice is that simply Uncited = OR, and OR = uncited. North8000 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Everything must be attributable (i.e. must have a source, either cited or available). Anything challenged, likely to be challenged, or quoted, must be attributed via inline citation. Any implication or interpretation must be directly supported by a reliable secondary source. WP:OR is anything which is challenged and we can't provide a source for. Crum375 (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum, you just stated the main change that I have been lobbying for as being current policy. "WP:OR is anything which IS CHALLENGED and we can't provide a source for." And here I thought that were were opponents on this issue. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not following. And the full statement is "anything challenged, likely to be challenged, or quoted, must be attributed to a reliable source." Crum375 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Put vaguely, my man complaint is that the nuts and bolts of the policy basically ignores and even cancels out the "anything challenged, likely to be challenged....must be attributed to a reliable source" phrase.

Here is a trivial example that goes right to the heart of it:

Let's say that I write an uncited statement "the sun will rise tomorrow in New York"

1. Under the current policy, to delete it someone could just say: "It is unsourced, I have deleted it."

2. Under my proposed change, to delete it someone must say "I think it is wrong, and it is unsourced, so I have deleted it" He doesn't have to support his "I think that it is wrong" statement, he just has to assert it.

In either case, to put it back in, I would need to find a reputable source that took the time to write such a thing. But in real life, the deletion of such a statement is unlikely to occur under rule #2.

It's as simple as that. Rather that redefining OR, I am proposing merely making up a deletion rule that implements the "challenged or likely to be challenged" part of the policy. This seems like a minor change but in practice I think that it would make a HUGE positive difference. Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

North, can you say what exactly your proposed wording change is, which would make the HUGE difference? And is it to WP:V, WP:NOR or both? Perhaps this will help me understand you. Crum375 (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. But I'll be out of commission for 2 days and so it will take 3 days. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---

"Anything which is challenged and we can't provide a source for" is suspected of being original research, and may be removed on the basis of the suspicion. The only way to be sure it is original research is to establish the editor who added it can be trusted to tell the truth, and for that editor to tell us it is original research conducted by him/herself, or some other person the editor had private communication with. Since this is rare, it is rare for us to know if unattributable material is original research or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Any material on Wikipedia must be attributable. If material is challenged, and no source can be provided, we assume it's OR. It may not be "original research" performed by the person adding the material, but for our intents and purposes there are only two classes of material: attributable or OR. And once it's established that it's OR (i.e. the requested reliable source cannot be provided), the unsourced material goes out. If at some point a reliable source is found, the material becomes attributable, and attributed if the source is cited inline. Nothing to do with "suspicion", or "truth", or "trust": after a challenge, you either provide the source, or the material goes out as WP:OR. Crum375 (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I reject all Wikipedia talk page jargon, including the above jargon espoused by Crum357. This rejection is final. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

OR is unnecessary jargon. Content is either attributable or not attributable. Eventually, the distinction will be made and content that is not attributable will be removed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that WP:NOR came into being to emphasize that WP is not the place to present new ideas, new theories etc.. And that fundamentally, WP:VER was and is the arbiter of WP:NOR, and, structurally, the subject of WP:NOR is a subset of the subject of WP:VER. And then as WP:NOR grew it started including content that should have been in WP:VER. I mean, why the heck is coverage of source types (Primary, Secondary, Tertiary etc.) in WP:NOR instead of WP:VER? What really should happen is some of the content from WP:NOR should get moved to WP:VER. Finally, wikipedia-wide, "OR" has become the commonly used noun to refer to any WP:VER violation, which further complicates this discussion. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

North, you are correct that WP:NOR is essentially a subset of WP:V. We did try to combine V and NOR, in WP:ATT, and put that result up for a community wide vote. Although there were more votes in favor than against, the margin wasn't considered wide enough to promote ATT to policy status, so it remains as a special "summary" page. You are also right that labeling something "OR" on Wikipedia essentially means that the material in question is not attributable, i.e. no reliable source can be found for it. Crum375 (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re North8000's comment "I mean, why the heck is coverage of source types (Primary, Secondary, Tertiary etc.) in WP:NOR instead of WP:VER? What really should happen is some of the content from WP:NOR should get moved to WP:VER." - I agree that there is too much of WP:VER material in WP:NOR and I have mentioned this in the past, long ago, to no avail. There has been too much of WP:V type of material added to WP:NOR, including the recent changes in the lead that were mentioned in the above section Changes have been made in the lead towards topic of WP:V. These changes may be motivated by a desire by some to combine WP:VER and WP:NOR. In other words, include WP:VER type of material in WP:NOR to support the claim that the two policies should be combined. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think North's point, shared by most Wikipedians, myself included, is that there is really no justification for NOR and V to be separate policies, since they basically say the same thing: "All material on Wikipedia must be attributable to reliable sources." I have yet to hear a convincing argument why NOR and V should be kept separate. Crum375 (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, That's not the way it works. The burden of proof is on those trying to make the change. As you mentioned, this was brought up before and with the participation of hundreds of Wikipedians in a community wide vote, there was not enough consensus to make the change. If you feel it should be brought up again, take it to the appropriate place. Who knows, maybe it will gain enough consensus this time with the extra padding of WP:VER material that has been put in WP:NOR since the last vote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I am not following your point. WP:ATT is the combined summary of WP:V and WP:NOR. Last time it came to a vote, a majority of Wikipedians voted to replace V and NOR by ATT, but the majority was not large enough to approve that change. I have yet to hear a convincing argument why V and NOR should remain separate, when they are both saying essentially the same thing, with a slightly different focus. The bottom line of both is that "All material on Wikipedia must be attributable to reliable sources." If you or anyone else have a good argument as to why they should remain separate, please explain it. Crum375 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As I see it only significant difference between V and NOR is this... both deal with the need to cite what we write (attribution), but from different angles... V focuses more on the citation while NOR focuses more on the words we write. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

NOR was created as a fork of V in 2003, a few months after V was created, in response to something Jimbo said on the mailing list. It was a mistake to create it as a separate policy, entirely understandable at the time as people were struggling to create a set of coherent guidelines. It's not so understandable that we continue the split over six years later, because both are saying the same thing, namely don't add anything to WP that isn't attributable i.e. that hasn't already been published by a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, North, all of this time and energy spent making unverifiable assertions about how Wikipedia works reminds me that you promised to pick apart Castanea mollissima and prove to me that 90% of it violated this policy.

I hope that you'll direct your energies to that commitment before long, because I think that focusing on a specific example will help us correct the misunderstandings you obviously have about this policy.

As for the other half of your problem -- that some people sincerely believe that removing dubious and unsourced statements is a service to the encyclopedia -- yes, their behavior is permissible, and "Deleted per WP:NOR" is itself, a sufficient "challenge" under WP:BURDEN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing this during my 5 minutes of internet access today, so please forgive not handling the 2 big things that I promised. But quickly, you are mistating what I said in a fundamental way. I am not arguing for retention of "dubious" statements. I am proposing that one would need to also make a perfunctory challenge of a statement (in addition to just saying "OR") in order to delete it.

Second, I essentially said that 90% of Wikipedia violates a thorough application of WP:VER + WP:NOR, and that I could totally pick apart even a "top 1%" article (e.g. Castanea mollissima)on that basis, I did not say that 90% of a "top 1%" article violates it.

Third, (addressing notes by others) I'm guessing that the informal "overwhelming consensus" (vs. majority) criteria for combining wp:ver and wp:nor was based on such being such a big move. There is a middle route. This would be to pare down wp:nor to focus on the "WP is not the place to present new theories and new ideas" aspect, and move the other material more suited to vp:ver from wp:nor to wp:ver.

Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

North, if someone removes unsourced material and leaves an edit summary that says "Deleted per NOR", that action is the "perfunctory challenge" that you keep asking for. From where I stand, your argument looks like this:

• An editor removes unsourced material and names this policy as his/her excuse for doing so.
• You say, You have to give a "challenge", which is some sort of excuse for removing that statement.
• The other editor replies, I did give you some sort of excuse: I typed "Deleted per NOR" in the edit summary.

Do you mean, perhaps, that you want editors to verbally challenge the legitimacy of a given unsourced claim substantially in advance of removing the unsourced claim?

This has been proposed many times before, and the community always rejects it. Editors must use their best judgment. Unsourced information can -- and sometimes should be -- removed on the spot if an editor believes that the claim is sufficiently dubious/unlikely to be verifiable that the article is better off without the unsourced claim than with it. Surely we can agree that unsourced claims that, in the editors' opinion, are likely to be unverifiable (e.g., "Chemotherapy has killed far more people than cancer.") can be removed, rather than left hanging about for an arbitrary time period and a bureaucratic "challenge".

As for the "top 1%" article: I doubt that Castanea mollissima, which is rated Start-class, is really in the top 1%. I suspect (but do not know) that it was selected by way of Special:Random. It actually seems pretty typical for non-stubs. But it's on my watchlist: when you're reliably online again, I'll be looking for your comments there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who chose Castanea mollissima for North to "pick apart"... and yes, I picked it at random. I even offered some other, larger articles (also picked at random), but North seems to want to demonstrate his skills on that one. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What North means is a perfunctory challenge to the statement's truth as well as its verifiability. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If that were the case, it wouldn't make sense, for two reasons. First, the core policy that addresses the issue of "challenging material" is V, not NOR, while it seems that North is focusing on NOR. Second, the "truth" of a statement on Wikipedia is never at issue, since V specifically says that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Since everything on WP must be attributable, if something is not attributed, we may challenge its attributability, i.e. express doubt as to whether a reliable source can be found for it. The way to resolve that doubt and reply to the challenge is to provide the source, i.e. prove that the material in question is attributable. Crum375 (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the problem here stems from the fact that NOR can also be used to challenge material... but we use it for a different and specific subset of material (material that constitutes Original research). Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

But according to NOR, "if no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research." So it all boils down to the same thing: everything must be attributable, and when material is challenged, it must either become attributed or go out. Crum375 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The alternative is to tag the problem. Whether to remove the problem immediately or tag is up to the editor making the challenge, and the seriousness of the problem. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagging is always an option. But when there is a challenge and no source, at some point the unsourced challenged material must go out. The exact point when, depends on context, as you say. Crum375 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Jackson had it right when he said: :What North means is a perfunctory challenge to the statement's truth as well as its verifiability." and that is my proposal. I think that I am talking about a very different angle on this topic than Blueboar and Crum375 are. They are talking about the underlying structure and principles of the policy, and how it would apply to what most would agree is it's intended target, a questionable un-sourced statement. My statement is that I agree with them on those things., but that such is irrelevant to the situations that I am addressing which are important. I am dealing with the "unintended consequences" which are huge. That is that the mechanics of "enforcement" are very important, especially in an environment where 90% of which in WP violates a strict and thorough application of WP:VER/WP:NOR. The "90%" makes those rules very open to abuse, and I think that my proposal would help in those areas. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

North, if we are not talking about the same thing... then I guess I don't really understand what your concern is. Can you give us an example (ie point us to a real article that can illustrate what the problem is)? Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are three. These are merely examples, NOT motivations for my activity here.

In the article "Dorothy Molter", the article originally said that her cabin was moved from it's original site to the current museum site. In reality, it spent a few years at an intermediate location. I know because I visited it several times at all three locations. On November 23, 2009, 14:53 I made an (unreferenced) correction accordingly. Anybody could revert/delete my correction by just saying "OR". (And, I have a life, which means that I will not spend the hours trying to find a source for that correction just to keep it in.) Under my proposal, they would have to say "OR and I think you're wrong" instead of just "OR" in order to delete it.

Next is in the article "Boy Scouts of America Membership Controversies" which has been a 5 year disaster area where, per my February 7th "suggestions to fix" and swan song in the discussion section, I threw up my hands and left. Recently one of the main persons I often disagreed with (and obviously one of the higher caliber individuals of those)asked me to come back and work on it. Inside the "Related Issues" section there is a 'BSA Membership Size" section. The half-hearted disclaimer not-withstanding, the first sentence implies that the membership decline was primarily caused by a Supreme Court decision. Very controversial OR which, of course, I could simply delete, but I'm not that type. Instead I would like to replace it with a more cautious (unsourced) and less controversial statement.(ala "The Dale decision may be one of the causes") And no, I do not have the free hours to spend to try to source the new milder statement, which is actually 2 statements, the second (implied) one being that there are multiple causes. This is a 5 year contentious article where people have been using "NOR" as a magic bullet to tilt the article to their POV and under my proposal, someone would have to say "OR and I think you're wrong" to revert/delete it instead of just "OR".

Next is in the the same article in the "Position on Homosexuality". The BSA policy is a few sentences and is published on their official web site. For 5 years, the actual policy was kept out of the article. and instead personal erroneous derivations of it were put into the article. The actual policies we kept out by saying that they are from a "Primary Source" per WP:NOR. Under my proposal, one would also have to say: "I think you are wrong, those are not the policies" in order to knock it out.

My proposed change simply implements the "Challenged or likely to be challenged" part of the policy in practice (and, from it's context that refers to a challenge other than just "unsourced"), something that the current policy does NOT do. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks North, this helps...

Your first example definitely is an OR situation. You added a statement about the intermediary location of the house based on your own personal knowledge. That is classic Original Research. Personally, I would have tagged it and requested that you provide a source (and only removed it after you did not provide one)... but not everyone is as forgiving as I am, and I think it is not inappropriate to remove your addition with a simple "this is OR" summary. You can always return it when you do have time to search for and provide a source for the statement.

The second example is also an OR situation... but of a different kind. Here we seem to have competing bits of OR. The fact is, we can not draw any conclusions as to why membership in the Boy Scouts is falling (even a hedged "may be one of the causes") unless we can point to a source. I think both conclusions could and should be removed, and have no problem with "this is OR" as a summary.

Both of these examples are also WP:V violations (there is intentional overlap between WP:V and WP:NOR.) As the WP:BURDEN section of WP:V makes clear the burden of finding sources to support what we say in our articles lies with those who wish to include or keep material in the article... and anything that is unsourced may be challenged and removed. You can always add it back with a citation, but it is up to you to find that citation. Yes, summary removal is not always the best option, but it is always an option. This has strong community support and is unlikely to change any time soon. While this policy does not repeat what is stated at WP:BURDEN, it does apply to this policy.

The example third is trickier... here we have a source... but it is a primary source which has limitations. As the policy states, primary sources may be used, but only with caution. It is not OR to state: "The official position of the BSA on Homosexuality is X" and cite an official BSA document that lays out that position... but we do need to be careful not to go beyond a blunt descriptive statement. In this case, I agree that simply saying "this is OR" is not enough. I would agree that a talk page discussion is in order, so that the various sides can debate how this policy impacts what can and can't be said in the article. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that this first one provides the cleanest example of my point, which is a statement which is correct, informative, and, more importantly uncontested. I would argue that a policy that supports your taking it out without even questioning it's accuracy does a disservice to Wikipedia, and is also in conflict with the intent/spirit of why "challenged or Likely to be challenged" is in the policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm in sympathy with a lot of what North8000 has been saying here, and I want to explain why I think it's a concern: some wikipedians unfortunately get involved with enforcing the letter of the rules, and not paying attention to the spirit of the enterprise. They play "gotcha" games, something like "Ha, there's no ref on this sentence, find a ref or I'll delete it! Oh, and look over there, there's no ref over there, now find a reference for that!" In general, we need to avoid phrasing rules so that encourages people to tag up articles on subjects they don't know anything about (and don't intend to learn anything about). The reason we say refs are needed only on points that are "likely to be challenged" is to avoid pedantic nerds demanding that wikipedians engage in what amounts to mindless busy work. I agree with North8000 that the reason for a challenge should be that there's some actual doubt about the point. Additional references should never be demanded solely for legalistic reasons. -- Doom (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As an aside, I think that you have described one of the main types of people situations for abuse of wp:nor. The other is to selectively knock out material to slant an article towards a POV. Like "I know that statement is true, but it tends to work against my POV agenda, good thing I get to knock it out by merely saying "OR"."

random break

North... you say that the statement is correct... how am I to know that the statement is correct? You say it is informative... how do I know it isn't misinformation? Am I supposed to simply trust you? Look at it from someone else's perspective... I have know way of knowing whether you know what you are talking about. Perhaps you were confused when you thought the house was in a third location. Heck, for all I know, you could be out right lying (I assume not, but I don't know that you are not). The point is I have no way to verify what you say unless you provide a source... and nether do our readers. The average anonymous Wikipedia user such as yourself is simply not a reliable source for information.

More importantly, you say the statement is uncontested... I disagree. If someone has removed the statement with an edit summary of "this is OR", then it has been contested. The removal itself is a form of contest. Personally, I think "WP:V requires a source for this" would be a more appropriate challenge, and tagging a more appropriate way to issue the challenge, but removing because "this is OR" is also legitimate.

I do understand that our rules can be frustrating... and yes, people do abuse the rules or apply them too strictly sometimes... but the fact is, you have given us two situations where you admittedly added unsourced information to two different articles, (the third case is different because you have a source) and now that someone has challenged that information you seem to want to change the rules to allow it. If I am mis-characterizing your situation, I apologize... but that is how it appears. This is not an appropriate way to respond to a challenge. The appropriate response is to take the time out of your busy life to go out and find a source... so you can return the information. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Blueboar,

To correct the one area where you mis-characterized it, nobody has challenged the two situations which you said are OR. In fact the second one I have not even written my described OR yet.

The other is some eternal confusion on terminology which I wish we could clarify once and for all. When I say "challenged / unchallenged" I mean any challenge other than uncited/OR. This is clearly what WP:NOR means by that, otherwise that statement in the policy would reduce to a circular absurdity.

Finally, to answer your question which was: " Am I supposed to simply trust you? Look at it from someone else's perspective... I have know way of knowing whether you know what you are talking about...." The answer is NO, you need not trust me. Under my proposal, you would simply question the statement's veracity while deleting it on the grounds of OR. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I misunderstood. I thought you said you had added unsourced material and people had challenged it... I definitely apologize. Thank you for clarifying.

So are you saying that you would accept removal with an edit summary of "this is BS", but would not accept removal with an edit summary that said "this is OR"? Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Under my idea, the edit summary would need to assert both "BS" and "OR" to delete it. And then, YES. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

North, to rely on "BS" in an edit summary for removing material, you'd need a new WP:BS policy, which currently doesn't exist. In fact, odds are that if you were to write such a policy, it would conflict with WP:V, which says the only criterion for inclusion of material on WP is having a reliable source for it, not whether we think it's true. Crum375 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was answering the question using your term. (BS). More precisely under my idea you would just need to question it's correctness AND claim OR. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But the point is that "correctness" of the material is not a criterion for its inclusion. What matters, per WP:V, is whether there is a source for it, not whether we think it's true. Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not out to change (nor am I arguing) the underlying rule. I am proposing to change an enforcement procedure. An analogy would be that it's against the law to go 1 mph or more over the speed limit. In Wikipedia, everyone is allowed to throw rocks (delete) at (their choice of) any car that is >= 1 mph over the speed limit (which is 90% of everybody) My proposed change does not change the speeding law, it just places additional condition (questioning the statement's correctness) before one can throw rocks. North8000 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But you are still missing the point, North. We can't question the statement's "correctness" because we don't care about its correctness: we only care whether or not it can be attributed to a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I submit that correctness (accuracy, reliability) IS the goal, and wp:VER and the sourcing aspects of WP:NOR are merely a means to that end. This circles back to top level Wikimedia statements that we discussed. SOme folks are trying to infer/derive overall objectives from the current rules, which, I submit, is the reverse of what it should be. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

After today I'll be gone to where they don't have the internet until May 16th. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to claim material is BS and uncited to delete it, it should suffice to claim it is uncited and non-trivial to find a source. For example, the claim "the Berber people use the Julian calendar might or might not be true, but it isn't easy to find a definitive source that says so. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In practice, the vast majority of editors refuse to delete material that is uncited (currently) but probably verifiable -- and the editors who routinely delete good information -- material that they know to be valid/verifiable -- are few and far between.

Like most editors, I assume that plausible, but uncited, material is probably verifiable -- and thus I leave it alone. On those occasions that I remove something for being "unsourced" or otherwise in violation of a content policy, it is because I believe the information to be both unsourced and wrong. I think that a simple edit summary of "unsourced" is rather more civil than "unsourced, likely unsourceable, and furthermore patently idiotic". "Unsourced" also succinctly tells the other editor exactly what s/he needs to do to address my concerns. I think it would be appropriate for you to assume, until proven otherwise, that every single edit summary of "unsourced" or "violates NOR" or anything like that includes the implied statement, "and probably wrong, too". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in the system there's a statement by JW saying, if you come across an unsourced statement you think simply wrong, just delete it. Otherwise, usually just tag it.

WP:V certainly appears to say the only criterion is verifiability, but this might contradict WP:DUE, which says views of a tiny/insignificant minority of RSs should be excluded. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Plz see my comment about 20 lines up. Didn't want to duplicate it. Sincerely, 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

After today I'll be gone to where they don't have the internet until May 16th. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

food for thought...

Not asking a question, just thinking aloud. The role of wikipedians is to collate other knowledge, but there is one dodgy spot there... In scientific literature, the handy phrase "to the best of the author's knowledge" is used often to claim a statement which the literature does not disprove, in doing so the author does not impossibly quote everything ever written, but gives his name as proof.
Making up an example,

1. "both elves and vulcans have pointy ears, are better than humans etc" is a statement that can be referenced to two separate primary sources, but not one for both.
2. "Given the many parallels between elves and vulcans listed above, many fans believe the author of star trek, Gene Rodenberry, may have modeled vulcans from elves" is very borderline statement as it is referenced from fan forums, which are unreliable source but used to present a point of view.
3. "Despite the above, Gene Rodenberry may have never possibly confirmed this" cannot be used (nor can "Despite the above, to the best of this anonymous author's knowledge, Gene Rodenberry may have never possibly confirmed this").
   

So in conclusion, despite it being obvious that the vulcan pointed ears came from folklore elves (say, vulcans could have 4 ears or none), it would be impossible to include (not that it warrants it, being a silly example). --Squidonius (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the second half of your post. But logically dissecting the "to the best of the author's knowledge", such is not a claim, but a statement that the author is not absolutely certain of the statement, but considers it to have a very high probability of being true. And the reliability of that assessment itself is dependent on the knowledge and qualities of the writer. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Officially, Wikipedia rules forbid application of writer expertise when writing, (a rule that is thankfully often violated) so it is sort of a moot point here. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first statement would be an example of WP:SYNT, combining two statements from different sources to reach a conclusion. With the others, if the source is unreliable (a fan site) we should not include it... but since the material comes from an external source (ie not a Wikipedian) the statements are not within the scope of WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

SlimVirgin rewrote the lead on April 12, and invited discussion on her changes. There was acknowledgment that in general the rewrite was helpful, though questions were raised about some aspects of the change. Some points of concern were:

• Using an example (Paris) in the lead, as examples should be in the body
• Removing "or original thought", as including that phrase was felt to strengthen and broaden the policy
• Removing Wikipedia:Citing sources, as this is a potentially useful link
• Removing the link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which usefully accompanies No original research

Suggestions included:

• Having greater clarity regarding synthesis, to differentiate between synthesis that advances a position not present in the source documents (thereby is original research) and synthesis that summarises and clarifies the evidence in the source documents (thereby is explanatory, and valid for an encyclopedia
• Having a clearer definition of "original research"
• Various modifications of wording

While it may not be fully clear what overall advantage has been gained by the rewrite given the concerns raised; neither is there a distinct feeling that the previous version was superior. A suggested way forward is that people embrace SlimVirgin's overall aim of improving the lead and the policy page (her work on policy pages is exemplary), and allow the overall rewrite to stand, ammending those areas which are a cause of concern, working on the suggestions, and entering into discussions as appropriate. SilkTork 12:09 pm, 15 May 2010

---

We had agreement last month to reword this a little, but it didn't get done at the time, so I've just added it. It says the same thing, but the writing's clearer. Reproducing below part of the discussion from last month. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous

Current

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that citations must be added for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources. What this means is that all material added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, that jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks very good to me. The first paragraph is wonderful. My only suggestion is to replace "but we know that sources for that" in the second paragraph with "but also because we know that sources for that" or "and also because ...". — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good re-write. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That would turn it into a slightly different point.

My suggestion is: "'Paris is the capital of France' needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist."

Your suggestion is: "'Paris is the capital of France' needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but also because we know that sources for that sentence exist."

The first says it's okay without a source, and it doesn't violate NOR because we know that sources exist for it. The second says it's okay without a source because we know that sources exist for it. But we often know that sources exist for something and yet we still need to see them. The point here is that it's okay without a source for a different reason, namely that no one is likely to object. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of the NOR policy is that what we call "original research" comes down to claims that are not already published. So claims that really are already published elsewhere are not "original research" for us regardless whether sources are explicitly cited. Indeed, according to the second paragraph of the policy as it stand, what matters is "you must be able to cite reliable sources" (my bold). We might say that we don't know whether some particular claim has been published before, and so we need to see sources to tell whether the claim is original research. But if we already know that the claim is published elsewhere, then we know we are able to cite sources for it, so it is not original research here. So one reason we know that the claim about Paris is not original research is that we know we can cite sources for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my only point is that the reason "Paris is the capital of France" doesn't need a source is not that we know sources exist for it. We know sources exist for lots of things that we insist on sources for. That we know there's a source may be a necessary condition of not asking for one, but it's not a sufficient condition. The reason we don't ask for a source (per V) is that we know no one will reasonably object to the sentence. The first version of the sentence I proposed avoids all these issues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Editors don't usually require citations for statements of plain facts for which everyone knows that sources exist.

I don't think that you haven't taken the logic back far enough. WP:V does not require a source for "Paris is the capital of France" because no one will "reasonably object" to it. Now: Why will no one "reasonably object" to this statement? Well, because everyone knows is sourceable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Refinements of wording: I recommend the following slight changes to the wording, to provide clarification of meaning:

• Old: "what we call original research"
• New: "what we call original research" [with italics]
• Old: "doesn't need a source"     [confusing as just "source"]
• New: "doesn't need a cited source"
• Old: "in harmony"   [sounds too easy or too smooth]
• New: "in conjunction"

Should other phrases be adjusted? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the lead is only a part of it, but I think that about half of all of mis-uses of this policy and it's biggest fundamental problem could be solved by merely giving more weight to the "challenged or likely to be challenged" part of this policy (quoted from wp:V). Including adding something on the order of "if the accuracy of a statement is challenged, if it is not directly supported per wp:verifiability, it is to be removed. This adds the hint that a challenge (however brief and unsupported the challenge is) of the accuracy of the statement is required (not merely a claim of "OR" or "Synth") in order to have it removed. Again, the disparity between reality (about 1/2 of the sentences in WP are from knowledge/synth and undisputed rather than from statements in references) and the rule leaves it open to abuse, and such has been widespread. I believe that this subtle change would help fix that.

A better example than "Paris is the capital of France" would be "most people believe that the sun will rise tomorrow". We have no reason to believe that such a poll exists to reference. If someone challenges the accuracy/correctness of the statement, they can remove it for being unsupported. However, there would be nothing implying they can remove it for merely claiming it is OR/Synth.

One could claim that this is the purview of wp:V, not wp:OR, but in reality the subject of wp:or is a subset of wp:v and so it has to deal with that. If it is going to make up what are essentially wp:V rules, it has to do so in a way that will prevent them from being widely abused. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is an advantage to retaining "original thought". We don't want to get trapped in "but it's just a new idea I had, not research!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that "advances a position" is not well enough defined. I agree with the thought. The problem is that there can be synthesis that doesn't "advance a position" but does clarify or illuminate. The bad effect is that while the wording forbids synthesis that "advances a position" (a good prohibition) the practice too often is the prohibition of all synthesis, even when that synthesis doesn't "advance a position," it clarifies or illuminates. Such clarification or illumination is one of the best attributes of an encyclopedia and ought to be encouraged.

Yes, that can be difficult - but that difficulty is inherent in the nature of a (good) encyclopedia. It would be grievously wrong to throw out one of the best attributes of an encyclopedia through the over-application of a rule. The question is "Is this instance of synthesis one which advances a new position or is it one that clarifies or enhances?" That is, does the synthesis illuminate some aspect of a topic or is it an attempt to manipulate sources in order to create false favoritism for an idea? "False favoritism" implies that sources are being misused in order to create flawed support for a "novel" idea.

Perhaps what is needed is examples of valid synthesis, synthesis that does illuminate, does not "advance new ideas." (Here I am strongly attached to valid syllogism: if both the major premise and the minor premise are valid in an encyclopedic sense then I favor the embracing of the conclusion, whether or not such conclusion has been explicitly published elsewhere. This statement does hinge on the meaning of "valid." I embrace meaningful and thoughtful enforcement of "valid" in this context. I am not advocating any sort of loophole that allows actual "original research" to intrude. I do not believe and I think the responsible persons who contribute to Wikipedia similarly do not believe that original research is bad or invalid. The assertion and the policy is, simply, that Wikipedia is not the place for such to appear. Wikipedia and its supporters and maintainers do not assume the burden of vetting original research. All such belongs elsewhere. This prohibition, however, should not be interpreted to forbid all thought. "Thought" and "encyclopedia" are not disjoint. An encyclopedia that excludes thought is a weak encyclopedia.) Minasbeede (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a little more discussion on a re-write of the heart of one of the core content policies. I'll add this to the WP:centralized discussion list.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• "but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." must? Sole Soul (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good (though why we need three different pages saying pretty much the same thing is still beyond me).--Kotniski (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• The old version had a Wikilink to Wikipedia:Citing sources, which is helpful to new editors. It is not always obvious where to find such specific information. Edison (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove "original thought"

Why remove it? I thought it added to the policy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"The term "original research"..."

This sentence defines the term by what it is not (i.e. published). It would be better to begin by trying to explain what original research is. The previous version had the same problem, but was a little better because it tried to explain what the policy includes rather than defining a term.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of the term "original research" depends on the position of the person reading (or otherwise perceiving) the research. From the point of view of the researcher, it is his/her contribution above and beyond what he/she learned from literature, private correspondence, interviews, etc. From the point of view of a journal that publishes original research, it is that which has not yet been published elsewhere. From the point of the reading public, it is that which appears in a given publication and is not otherwise available to the public.

By the way, the current definition is flawed in that new material that appears in any publication is original research, whether the publication is reliable or not.

Also, the term "research" implies a good faith effort to present correct material. Deliberate lies are not any kind of research, they are just lies. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians

It's not a word that is in common usage. This could be reworded or linked to WP:Wikipedians.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own..."

I liked the link to WP:NOT#OR--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

I don't think it adds much, and using "source" without explaining that it must be published and reliable opens the policy to arguments.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Paris is the capital of France" example

What aspect of the policy does this example illustrate?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The "current version" doesn't look like an improvement over the "previous version" and one of the reasons may be the Paris example. Perhaps we should review the guidance on writing a lead that is given in WP:LEAD, e.g.,

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

Just my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That quote is good to keep in mind when writing or editing a lead. Examples are used to illustrate specific aspects of a policy, so they generally don't belong in the lead, which should be summarizing the policy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the author doesn't want to explain this proposed change, I'll try to answer my own question. The example is about material that "needs no source." That is the domain of the Burden of evidence section of WP:Verifiability, not NOR. The example doesn't belong in this policy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"If no source exists..."

The same problem as with "but a source must exist..." (above)--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing this discussion

The discussion seems to have ended. We need to determine consensus on the proposal and close the discussion. Could someone please close it?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two ideas to improve this guideline

In reality, OR is where you find it and I believe too many editors find OR behind every corner because it is seemingly an unambiguous phrase—Original and Research (as opposed to unoriginal research). Most English speaking people know what those two words mean so it is easy to look at almost anything in WP and say Someone researched this, but since there isn’t an explicit source for what (an article, a paragraph, a list entry, a sentence, a fact) it must be original research. We all know what OR and SYN is and the guideline explains these ideas well. What it doesn’t do well, is to explain what is not OR and is not SYN. (There are some essays that do this marginally well). Therefore my first idea toward improving the guideline is too include some very clear and concise language about what is not OR and not SYN.

For articles, OR is asserted routinely in deletion debates. This is a typical piece of boiler plate (often repeated in different ways by many editors) I see in AfDs often:

• as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.

Unfortunately, this comment asserts OR but does not actually indicate what the OR actually is (other than the explicit title of the article (not the specific topic of the article)) has never been published.

I believe the guideline would be improved if there were a section entitled something like Asserting OR and SYN – Points to make. The content of this section would encourage editors, when asserting OR or SYN to make specific references to conclusions and facts that are unsupported by sources or synthesized from multiple sources. In the case of synthesis, the assertion should include some construct as to what is being synthesized.

In summary, we all know what OR and SYN is, but we don’t do a good job of conveying what it isn’t, nor do we put the burden of proving OR or SYN on the editors asserting it. I think the guideline should address these ideas.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since most (if not all) OR and SYNT problems involve statements that are unsourced or improperly sourced, the burden falls on those who wish to add or keep the problematic statements in the article, not with those who assert that there is a problem. See WP:BURDEN. In other words, if someone challenges a statement as being OR, it is up to the person who wants to keep the statement to demonstrate that it isn't OR (by providing proper references). Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's usually pretty easy to prove something isn't OR by giving the source, but seemingly impossible to prove there isn't a source that exists somewhere with the questionable information. So I agree with Blueboar on this.

However, I think you and I may somewhat agree that WP:NOR shouldn't be used improperly to delete legitimate contributions. For some editors it may be hard to tell the difference between a good summary of reliable sources and Synth, and because of that some editors may do too much deleting and others may be scared away from contributing or may end up doing nothing more than quoting a source because they are afraid of being reverted. There was a part of WP:NOR that was the kind of thing that you may like but it was moved and modified, and resulted in the point being less prominent.

"Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing." (From 2nd paragraph here.)

I think something like that should be in the lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "If you are able to discover something new..."

The sentence "If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. Once your discovery has been published in a reliable source, it may be referenced." was recently removed from the Reliable sources section, without discussion. Before editing the policy, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I echo that... when you are trying to edit core policy, it is vital to go slowly and deliberately... a step at a time and with full discussion. There has been a flurry of edits, counter edits, reverts and un-reverts during the last few weeks, I now have no idea what is being proposed or why. I am trying my best to resist a knee jerk reaction, but I am sorely tempted to simply revert the page back to the "long standing consensus version" that existed a few months ago so that I can request a line by line review of the changes. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It appears that it was first removed as indicated by this diff. Only reason give was "tightening". Perhaps it was inadvertent, since it is a long standing part of WP:NOR and I seem to recall using it myself in discussions of article editing with other editors. It is useful in clarifying the limits of the last sentence of the previous paragraph there. Please get consensus before removing again. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The more repetitive policies are, the less people can make their way through them. It can be important to stress points more than once, but I don't think this is one of them, given how obvious it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel there is repetition, perhaps you should modify the other part of the policy page? In any case, please get consensus before proceeding on the project page with your desired changes. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted your changes back into the project page, and thus you are trying to dictate by edit warring. Pardon me for not accepting the invitation to edit war with you. I've done enough reverting to suit me. However, others should feel free to make a single reversion if they don't approve of your tactics. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob, the policy needs to be moderately well-written, and not unduly repetitive, or making points willy-nilly. We have a section about editors inserting their own material, and what's allowed and what's not allowed. That sentence about discoveries, if you insist on having it, belongs in that section, which is where I placed it.

My preference is to remove it, because if anyone is able to get beyond the lead and still think WP might be the place to publish their new discovery, then editing an encyclopedia is probably not for them. But if you insist on it, at least allow it to go in the section that's specifically about editors adding their own work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on consensus. If you are not able to abide by editing in an orderly manner, perhaps you should consider participating somewhere else. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In spite of all this, I looked at what you are trying to do. It seems OK for the most part. All I would suggest is a change in the order of the sentences to get to the self-cite part first, and delete the sentence re premier which doesn't seem to be about self-citing, since it is simply about OR and might be better elsewhere. Where, is for another discussion about there being a section missing about the basic concept of OR, as defined in Wikipedia. I made the change, so let's see what happens WP:BRD. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We generally don't use WP:BRD on policy pages, except for very minor changes, or when other methods of consensus building have stalled.

I think it's important to keep the "If you ... discover something new.." sentence. It addresses the discovery aspect of original research in a way that is not found elsewhere in the policy. It might work better in a different section, but I'd like to see it retained somewhere. This looked okay. Changing the order of those sentences in Citing oneself is fine with me.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the idea of that "discover" sentence belongs somewhere. It seems to be at the heart of OR and the misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. For now, adding that sentence to the self-cite section is OK with me, until a better place is found for it. Also, I think it is important to keep the self-cite sentence "If an editor has published..." as the lead sentence, since it best explains the main idea of the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus to remove the "discovery" sentences from the Reliable sources section and add one to the Citing oneself section. There also seems to be consensus to change the order of the sentences in Citing oneself. If there are no objections, I'll make the change.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You may want to check the article for the "discovery" sentences that you referred to because I did a search for "discover" in the article and I didn't find any instances. Also, I think the change in order that you mentioned is the one that has already been done, so you might want to check that section. However, it remains to place the "discover" sentence into the Citing oneself section. It would be fine with me if you placed the sentence "If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery" as the second sentence in the Citing oneself section without changing the lead sentence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the following version of the Citing oneself section what you would like to do (with the added sentence highlighted for this discussion in bold font)?

Click on show to view the contents of this section

If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks good.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What Does Topic Mean?

This sentence is in the proposed lead in - To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article... Does topic mean:

• The literal title of the article
• The general subject of the article

Because we employ naming conventions for various types of articles, literal titles of articles may not be supported by reliable sources while the general subject of the article is. For example: Echo Peak (Wyoming). It is highly unlikely that you will find sources about Echo Peak (Wyoming) using that title. Unfortunately, the vague understanding of what topic means allows some editors to assert OR when the exact (literal) title of an article is not repeated in sources. These types of assertions are most prevalent in Lists but also in articles with titles that combine two or more ideas into an article theme. I believe that the consensus of the community is that topic means The General Subject of the Article and not The Literal Title of the Article. In other words, if a List of Mammals of Yellowstone National Park has never been published with that literal title, the general subject of the list--Mammals in Yellowstone--is not OR because there are sufficient sources to support the general subject. If my belief is correct, then the word Topic in the lead ought to be clarified in some way along those lines.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, it seems to me that it would be better to say something like, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that support the material being added"; perhaps clarifying with something like "in the context where it is being inserted" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine. We are not just saying that the added material must be supported, because this could allow too much latitude for people to synthesize "support" from indirect references. What we are saying is that to avoid violating WP:OR and WP:SYN, you need to provide a source directly related to the topic of the article. In other words, you can't provide a source for something else, which only indirectly relates to the article's topic. Note that the source need not be focused on the article topic, but it must still refer to it directly. Crum375 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum is correct... While we do not mean to limit the term "topic" to the exact literal wording of the article title... we do mean the term "topic" to be understood fairly narrowly... I would say what we mean is more along the lines of: "The Specific Subject of the Article" (as opposed to "the general subject of the article").

To give an example... if you are working on the article on Killer Whales a book on Orcas is acceptable... a book on Dolphins is not acceptable... even though both are aquatic mammals. On the other hand, a book on aquatic mammals that discusses killer whales in some detail would be acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The whole concept of saying the supporting source must be related to the topic of the article is dubious at best, and Blueboar's interpretation is complete crap. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why you think so? Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To think that sources can be put in nice little categories, and prohibit exchange of information except in carefully defined directions like Blueboar wants is much like the desire of Leslie R. Groves to prevent the scientists of the Manhattan Project from exchanging classified information unless they could prove in advance the exchange would benefit the project.

If you want to find a source that is too far removed from killer whales to be likely contain any relevant information, try an article about Jonah. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

From the perspective of my question, sourcing is not the issue here, it is what are you finding sources for? I like Blueboar's explanation: While we do not mean to limit the term "topic" to the exact literal wording of the article title... we do mean the term "topic" to be understood fairly narrowly... I would say what we mean is more along the lines of: "The Specific Subject of the Article" (as opposed to "the general subject of the article"). Any wording in the guideline that makes the above thought perfectly clear would be useful. Too many editors believe the word Topic means the literal title of the article.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the criteria should be that the topic of the article and the topic of the source should be close enough that words have the same meaning, and that unstated assumptions are compatible. For example, it might be inappropriate to directly compare a source about standardized tests of New York high school students in an article about standardized testing in Texas, because the tests are different and one set of tests is probably more difficult than the other.

The kind of criteria discussed above, and presently in the policy, are just wrong, because they prevent verification of details in articles. Say, for example, you want to know what calendar replaced the Julian calendar in Greece. Articles and books about Greek law and religion would be appropriate sources, even though "Religion in Greece" and "Julian calendar" don't, on the surface, seem to be the same topic. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I said above that the language of the current policy (which has been there for a long time) is fine, but I think I agree that it needs a minor tweak. I think it should say something like (addition in bold), "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of being discussed in the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." This should be used in conjunction with WP:SYN, so we don't introduce unrelated material to advance a position which is not directly supported by any source. Crum375 (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think topic(s) being discussed in the article is a viable phrase and would support it. And in the context of Lists I would interpret it this way:

If the article's title was List of Mammals of Yellowstone National Park, then the content (properly sourced) would have to relate to Mammals and Yellowstone. The fact that someone had never published something specifically entitled List of... would not not make the article OR.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be allowed to use sources which don't mention the article subject to add "background", as long as, per WP:SYN, the combination of sources doesn't advance — explicitly or implicitly — a new position not directly supported by any of the sources. Crum375 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To further explain the above proposed change, if we have an article about John X. Smith who participated in the Boer Wars (according to reliable sources), we may use sources about the Boer Wars which don't mention Mr. Smith, for extra "background" information. But we may not combine sources to advance (explicitly or by implication) a new position which is not directly supported by any reliable source, per WP:SYN. Crum375 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be a big improvement to specify that citations should directly relate to the topic being discussed at a given spot in the article, as opposed to having to directly relate to the overall topic of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

the phrase "topic(s) being discussed in the article" can be interpreted as the topic or topics that are the main theme of the article, but the criteria should be that any claim in the article, no matter how narrow or peripheral to the main topic of the article, may be supported by a source that relates to that particular claim.

As for Mike's comment about mammals in Yellowstone, sources could relate to mammals or, not and, Yellowstone. For example, one source might say that there are bison in Yellowstone, and another state that bison are mammals. It would be an uncontroversial conclusion that bison belong in the list of Yellowstone mammals. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree - or is what I really meant.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And to highlight what Jc3s5h said just above, it would have to be an "uncontroversial conclusion". If the combination of sources becomes controversial, it is "advancing a position", and in that case requires a source directly supporting it, per WP:SYN. Crum375 (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree - that is a very rationale and easy case to identify, assert and defend. A List of Large Mammals of Yellowstone is not OR because Large and Small are commonly used terms about Mammals. On the other hand a List of Stupid Mammals of Yellowstone would be OR because there are probably no sources that talk about Stupid Mammals.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the danger we need to avoid is that editors will take sources unrelated to the article's main topic and create a "collage" of some kind, which could advance, explicitly or implicitly, a new position, in violation of WP:SYN. A good example was the Hutaree article, where some editors wanted to use sources showing that original Christians were peaceful and non-violent, to counter the Hutaree's views. In this case, bringing in sources which show Christians are peaceful (and not also mentioning the Hutaree) would create a new position and would require a source directly supporting that position. So yes, we may bring in sources which don't mention the article subject, for example to add background information, but we may not do so to advance a new position, per SYN. Crum375 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an actual example for consideration. At [3] an editor claims to be able to find citations claiming that several different things are the oldest institution in the world. Assume this is correct. Then, on a literal reading of policy, the article on each of those things might say without qualification that it's the oldest, with only the general article on institutions giving the different views. Peter jackson (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think editors need to use their judgment, because there are appropriate and inappropriate uses. For example, a book on dolphins might have an excellent section on how dolphin physiology compares and contrasts with that of orcas, and this might be highly appropriate to include in either Dolphin or Orca, or both. But if it's really a tiny mention, it might not be the ideal source. For example, someone over at Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis has recently been trying to use a mere three or four words in a (decent enough) primary source that is mostly about something else, to discredit major reviews and consensus statements by major medical organizations on the specific subject.

We shouldn't take these things to extremes: Nobody thinks that a medical textbook is a lousy or NOR-violating source on the grounds that the specific disease in question only occupies 1% of the entire textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Beginning of lead

One of my intentions when I originally added the first sentence,[4] was to have something that simply stated the idea and was easy to understand by everyone, without having to look up any terms etc . Unfortunately, it has morphed into something else, and its content has changed.[5] I think that this is partly because editors have grown use to writing for the other editors here instead of for all the silent readers who come to this page to learn about NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That was mostly my edit you reverted (with a little bit by Crum)... My intent (and I suspect Crum's intent as well) was to simplify and clarify the wording to make it even easier for people to understand, but not to change the meaning. In what way did our edits change the meaning? (here is the dif as of your last change.) Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the new last sentence of the first para; I think we're over-egging the pudding. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about that last sentence being superfluous. It repeats a list of "things" which need to be sourced, different from the previous list, which may raise a question of what is the significance of those differences. It also repeats for the third time or so in the same paragraph the same warning not to publish anything new or unsourced, which seems shrill and unprofessional. Crum375 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... but I do think something should be said somewhere in the policy about Wikipedia not being the first place of publication for new ideas or information... that goes to the heart of what No Original Research is all about. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BB, can you say what new information you see the phrase "Wikipedia is not meant to be the first place of publication for new material" adding? Consider that the first paragraph already says:

• "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which as a tertiary source summarizes material already published elsewhere"
• "Wikipedia does not publish original research...'original research' refers to material...not already published by reliable sources."

Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried to weave the "not first" verbiage into the lead anyway. Thoughts? Crum375 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the simple-english version that I originally put at the beginning of the lead was pretty good. Oh well.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here disagrees with your words. The question is how to best integrate the idea behind them into the policy. Crum375 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right... it isn't that we disagree with Bob's words, or with the concept behind them... I think we simply have differing ideas on how to best phrase it in a clear and concise way. As for my initial edit... I simply found his language a bit long winded for my taste... but if others prefer it his way, I certainly will not object. I was more concerned by the fact that Bob thought my language changed the meaning in some way... I don't understand how it did, so I figured I would ask. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "The question is how to best integrate the idea" and "how to best phrase it in a clear and concise way" -

The answer is what I originally proposed for the beginning of the lead.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

The above would replace the following recent additions which were an attempt "to best phrase it in a clear and concise way".

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which as a tertiary source summarizes material already published elsewhere." and "Since Wikipedia should not be the first to publish new material..."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with your version: (1) "Information" carries an implication that it's correct, so "material" is better; (2) "existing published information" implies that there's such a thing as "non-existing" published information; (3) the second clause repeats the first.

I do wonder why any of this is necessary though (any version, not just Bob's). It makes the lead unnecessarily clunky and repetitive. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis doesn't use standard interpretations of english, so it isn't useful. Sorry, but thanks for trying. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Lead sentence of WP:NOR

{{rfctag|policy}}

What should the first few sentences say?

A) Wikipedia is a tertiary source summarizing material already published elsewhere; it is not a first publisher of new material. As such it does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources, and to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

B) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information, and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published. Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources, and to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

C) (current version) Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources, and to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

Comments

(no threaded replies here, please)

• Please note that version B consists of only adding a first sentence in front of the current version C. Version A also adds a first sentence but with a slight modification of the first sentence of the current version C. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• I proposed Version B (i.e. the first sentence) because it is simple, informative, and easily understood by everyone. It clearly describes the need for editors to put into Wikpedia only published information. The first sentence that is version B was previously added to WP:NOR but it was modified into the first sentence of version A by Blueboar, Crum375, and SlimVirgin, who seemed to think that the basic idea was worthwhile but wanted to put it into different words. (Some of them may have changed their opinions since then.)

To avoid any misunderstanding, here is what I proposed, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I added the original and simpler alternative, to simply state that we don't publish OR. Crum375 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the proposed change (version B), it's more direct and to the point. ThemFromSpace 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) (refactored to specify version B, also per Mike Cline below) ThemFromSpace 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I prefer version A... I think it is more direct and to the point. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Version C. I don't think we should labour the point about what WP is at the beginning of this policy. But if we're going to say anything about it in the lead, then I prefer Version A because it's more succinct and better written. Policies need to be as succinct as possible or people won't read them, and that has to apply to every sentence and every paragraph. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Version C (the original longstanding version before the recent changes) as my preferred version, but I can live with A. Crum375 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Version B because it describes what WP actually is--an encyclopedia, instead of Version A which describes how WP is used (compared to primary and secondary sources). An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, tertiary sources are not necessarily encyclopedias. Version C is flawed because it does not say what WP is--an encyclopedia, but instead, falsely, says what WP does--publish (WP doesn't publish anything).--Mike Cline (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Version C. Version A requires an understanding of the term tertiary source. A link is provided but it would be much easier to not use the term so early on. Version B is just silly. You could start every policy with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" but would it get us anywhere? Perhaps the person who wrote it thought that encyclopedias never publish original research. This is not true. For example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a collection of essays by experts in the field. The NOR policy is required of Wikipedia because we are not credentialist. Yaris678 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I am moving this from above since we are supposed to put threaded discussion here... as I said above, I think version A is more direct and to the point. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not direct because the term "tertiary source" needs to be looked up to be understood. Sorry, since I think it was your idea to put in "tertiary source". Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, no... I didn't add that term. But I still find version A more direct and to the point, even with the link. I suppose we will have to simply disagree on that. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• If C is wrong, so are A and B, because they both include it verbatim (it's the text that follows them). And WP does publish information, but only if it has been first published elsewhere. Crum375 (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • A and B precede C on the policy page. They don't replace C. I think Mike Cline said that C was flawed was because it didn't say what B said. Mike points out that B says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and C does not. Thus B completes the info in C, which Mike believes is flawed without it. Seems reasonable to me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Mike said above "Version C is flawed because it does not say what WP is--an encyclopedia, but instead, falsely, says what WP does--publish (WP doesn't publish anything)." He says that it is wrong because it incorrectly says that Wikpedia "publishes", but that's plainly wrong, and even if he is right, it is included in both A and B, as I noted above. Crum375 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I think Mike Cline meant that C was flawed because it didn't say what B said. Mike seemed to point out that B says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia etc and C does not. Thus B would add to the info in C. I think you may have inadvertently confused the issue since your remarks might be interpreted as meaning that C has been substantially changed, when in fact it is substantially the same as it was, with some minor cosmetic changes by SlimVirgin recently. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I am confused: how can my note that "C is the original longstanding version" be interpreted as "C has been substantially changed"? Crum375 (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
          • My apologies for the confusion. I was focusing on the lead sentence, not the entire paragraph as indeed each reflects: D. All of the above. As a lead sentence however, Version B is the most concise and instructive. Additionally, if the phrase WP does not publishe original research was modified slightly to read WP should not contain original research it would be signfiicantly more instructive.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that B is oddly written as it stands, and the policy needs to be well-written as far as possible. Holding a content RfC is fine, but writing-by-numbers doesn't work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what you wrote, "The problem is that B is oddly written as it stands..." and "Holding a content RfC is fine, but writing-by-numbers doesn't work." Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I feel the writing could be improved in a number of ways, and as Yaris said encyclopedias do publish OR, including the very good ones such as the EB, so starting the policy by saying WP is an encyclopedia implies that there's a link between that and no OR, which is wrong—but if it doesn't imply a link there's no point in mentioning it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you are taking the term "encyclopedia" out of context. The full phrase was "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information..." Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a question of trying to make every word count. In this sentence "is an encyclopedia" isn't doing any work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's needed because without it the sentence wouldn't sound right. Read it over yourself without "is an encyclopedia which" and perhaps you will see what I mean. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but there are other things about the sentence that aren't quite right either, which is why I wasn't keen on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's discuss them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned them above. [6] The key thing is that the policy should try to stay tight. It's already a bit repetitive, so it would be good not to add any more. We say WP does not publish OR, and we explain what that means. Adding that we're an encyclopedia says nothing relevant. Adding that we're a tertiary source or not a first publisher—these are just different ways of saying we don't publish material not already published by reliable sources. But we already say that, so I don't see the point of repeating it using different words. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... I think we are all agreeing on concept here... but are quibbling over the exact wording and language of how we say it. I agree with SV that Bob's proposed language seems clunky and somehow "not quite right"... but I am having difficulty expressing exactly what it is that I find wrong. I also understand her point about version A (although I still prefer it). This may simply be a question of what sounds best to each of us. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also a question of word count. We have so many policies and guidelines now that people are overwhelmed, and the longer each of them is, the less likely it is to be read. So we shouldn't say in 20 words what we can say in 10. I feel we need to try to stick to that very closely. The policy's already a bit wordy in places. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Well, it looks like it's boiling down to a matter of judgement. I think the editors who are active here have lost touch with what it is like for less experienced editors to come to the policy page to learn about NOR, or even some experienced ones that have trouble understanding what is written in this policy. When you discuss these things among yourselves on this talk page, I think you develop understandings of what you put into this policy because of all the time that you spend discussing it here. It's a far different case for people who don't spend so much time thinking about this policy page, in my opinion. I guess that's the way it's going to be here. But Wikipedia seems to survive in spite of that. Anyhow, thanks for trying to do the best that you can. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob... don't give up yet... can you say what you want to say in fewer words? That may help. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could find some way to satisfy you and still put in what I think is best, but that sentence is about as good as I can make it. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm never sure about what others think here, I think we agree that the idea of the first sentence in A and B is to say what Wikipedia is, and do it in a way that leads into the subject of NOR. My preference is to do it in a way where none of the terms used need to be clarified for the reader. Perhaps we could move towards a meeting of the minds by first modifying version A so that it doesn't contain "tertiary source"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone else noted above, it doesn't make sense to start every policy by a general "Wikipedia is..." statement. But ironically, if we were to do so, the most direct description of what "Wikipedia is" in relation to WP:NOR is a tertiary source, because this exactly conveys the fact that it should be a summary of secondary sources, and not include original research. Crum375 (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's consensus that we ought to add something, how about this?

Wikipedia is not a first publisher of new material and does not publish what we call original research. The term "original research" refers to any material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. This includes any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material in which the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's SlimVirgin's version with even few words:

Wikipedia does not publish original research, a term referring to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. Original research includes any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material that advances a point of view (POV) not advanced by any of the sources.

--Mike Cline (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I like Mike Cline's version although I wouldn't link to the guideline WP:IRS from this policy - it could imply the guideline has been upgraded.

Also, it seems to me that the main point that versions A and B are trying to get across is that Wikipedia comprises summaries of information published elsewhere. I agree that this is important... it deserves to be mentioned early on... but perhaps not so important that it deserves to be in the very first sentence. Perhaps the best way to do this is to revive a sentence that used to be in the SYNTH section, but isn’t there any more. i.e.

Wikipedia does not publish original research, a term referring to material - such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories - not already published by reliable sources. Original research includes any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material that advances a point of view (POV) not advanced by any of the sources. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: it is good editing.

Or perhaps some other sentence about summarising... just a thought.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how or why this got started, but what was wrong with the lead as it was?

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources. [7]

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the version of the lead we had before all the recent changes. If we want to add more words, let's gain consensus first rather than tweaking back and forth and making it more repetitive. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a falsehood to claim that a person can copy text or concepts from any published source, reliable or otherwise, and still call it original research. To do so is both false and plagiarism. I have revised the policy accordingly. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Wow. That's an audacious move, considering it's one of the three options above that we are discussing. Well, I know from previous experience that if I tried to revert it back you would just edit war so.... Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from this discussion that there was no consensus for the change in the first place, and some of the recent suggestions for improving the change took us closer to the wording before the change, so it would have been better had it been agreed before making it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You and three other editors contributed to the version A on the policy page that you just replaced, by yourself, with version C. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's equally clear from this discussion that there is no consensus for the old version any longer, either. WP:Consensus doesn't authorize reverting to an old version simply because it had support last month. I think you (and everyone) should have left it alone until the discussion ended (with optional addition of suitable tags to point other editors to this disucssion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If no version has consensus, it really does not matter which version is currently on the page... what matters is that we work together to reach a new consensus version. In other words... don't argue about what doesn't have consensus... figure out what does. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "If no version has consensus, it really does not matter which version is currently on the page..." - It does matter because the version that is on the page will be the version that remains if a sufficiently large enough consensus is not reached. SlimVirgin supports version C and SlimVirgin just put that version on the policy page at will. So far no one has supported SlimVirgin's action and two editors have opposed it. I just reverted SlimVirgin's action. I think it would be edit warring if SlimVirgin reverted it back without gaining consensus here. SlimVirgin, Try waiting for the resolution of this RFC like the rest of us, or are you special? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

sigh... OK... I'll support her action... it is the version that was on the page before we started this discussion and thus, presumably, the last version to actually have a consensus. It might well be the case that it no longer enjoys that status, but neither has any of the proposed replacements. I see no harm in at least temporarily retaining it while we hammer out a consensus (if we can) on replacement language. More to the point, it is accepted that being BOLD on policy pages is not a good idea. Policy pages can change, but they should change very slowly and deliberately... and that means keeping old language until new language is finalized. If you need to warn people that the section is under discussion, tag it.

Personally, I think the "long standing version" (a term I am reluctant to use) is quite acceptable... Yes, I still prefer version A, but that is not the same thing as objecting to the other versions (which I don't). Version C is my second choice (for the above reasons)... and I could certainly live with your version if that gained consensus. Ultimately they all say the same thing in different words. Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion - Break 1

My motivation in all this is not to change policy but to make it clearer. I guess we have different ideas about how to do that. WP:NOR will be useful in any case. I just hope that it can improve in clarity and editors understand it better, so that there is more productive editing in Wikipedia by more editors, with fewer disputes.

I first came up with version B because I saw all information as being divided between that which is published and that which isn't. I tried to say, without any jargon, that Wikipedia is not concerned with unpublished information, since this is the basis of NOR. And I thought that would be a good beginning of WP:NOR.

Version B:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob's description of version B would be better if it showed the version he is changing from, with strkeout text, as well as what he wants to replace it with. Also, for logical consistency, version B should say something like "a source of information that has not been published elsewhere", since Wikipedia is a publication. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that version B consists of only adding a first sentence in front of the current version C. See RfC: Lead sentence of WP:NOR. Thanks for your suggestions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Small question

I was wondering: should we put somewhere in there that this policy isn't a requirement to blindly acknowledge every reliable-looking source as such? For example, I've seen videos of newscasts from normally reputable sources that are obviously skewed and/or fake. That way, if, say, someone uses a video from a Chinese news network to "prove" the massacres at Tiananmen Squre didn't happen (just an example), it can be removed despite being from a "reliable source". Basically, a statement like, "This policy does not require editors to stop using their heads when looking at sources. If a document, photograph, or video purports to be from a reliable source, but is an obvious fake, or the source's coverage is blatantly skewed so as to constitute a fringe opinion despite claiming otherwise, its removal on those grounds would not constitute OR". Or would this lead to excessive wiki-lawyering, and/or is this covered by IAR already? I bring this up because I've seen a few blatant fakes (mostly videos) in I/P topics get removed with that rationale, and the removal is hotly contested as being OR, (things like "saying it looks edited and fake is OR" when the video is clearly fake to amateur eyes). The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a question about the reliability of sources. I think it would be better placed at WT:Identifying reliable sources. That said, this post does make the case quite well for the suggestion made at #All material in unreliable sources is original research? Yaris678 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I only brought it here because the argument against removing these videos was, "Well, your saying it looks fake is OR", I wasn't exactly sure where to take it. I'll move it as necessary a little later on- I've got some other business to attend to. But it's at least good to hear that my idea might just have something behind it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. That was a big misunderstanding by whoever said "Well, your saying it looks fake is OR". NOR applies to the content of articles not the selection of sources. If we demanded published sources that told us which sources we could use we would go round in circles. It sounds like different people have different ideas about what actually happened. I think the best guide in that context is the policy WP:NPOV. If the editors of your article can't agree on how to apply NPOV, you could post a message at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Yaris678 (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I can sort of see where someone could get confused about OR in that way, but I'll take your suggestion and move this elsewhere. In this particular case, it was a debate (mercifully over now) about a video of a celebration supposedly glorifying a mass murderer. The video was so obviously edited and fake that even I noticed, but someone didn't want it removed due to the rationale I mentioned above. Eventually it was, because it was also tangientially related at best. But I'll move it over to WT:Identifying reliable sources. Thanks!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Beginning of lead

One of my intentions when I originally added the first sentence,[8] was to have something that simply stated the idea and was easy to understand by everyone, without having to look up any terms etc . Unfortunately, it has morphed into something else, and its content has changed.[9] I think that this is partly because editors have grown use to writing for the other editors here instead of for all the silent readers who come to this page to learn about NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That was mostly my edit you reverted (with a little bit by Crum)... My intent (and I suspect Crum's intent as well) was to simplify and clarify the wording to make it even easier for people to understand, but not to change the meaning. In what way did our edits change the meaning? (here is the dif as of your last change.) Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the new last sentence of the first para; I think we're over-egging the pudding. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about that last sentence being superfluous. It repeats a list of "things" which need to be sourced, different from the previous list, which may raise a question of what is the significance of those differences. It also repeats for the third time or so in the same paragraph the same warning not to publish anything new or unsourced, which seems shrill and unprofessional. Crum375 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... but I do think something should be said somewhere in the policy about Wikipedia not being the first place of publication for new ideas or information... that goes to the heart of what No Original Research is all about. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BB, can you say what new information you see the phrase "Wikipedia is not meant to be the first place of publication for new material" adding? Consider that the first paragraph already says:

• "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which as a tertiary source summarizes material already published elsewhere"
• "Wikipedia does not publish original research...'original research' refers to material...not already published by reliable sources."

Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried to weave the "not first" verbiage into the lead anyway. Thoughts? Crum375 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the simple-english version that I originally put at the beginning of the lead was pretty good. Oh well.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here disagrees with your words. The question is how to best integrate the idea behind them into the policy. Crum375 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right... it isn't that we disagree with Bob's words, or with the concept behind them... I think we simply have differing ideas on how to best phrase it in a clear and concise way. As for my initial edit... I simply found his language a bit long winded for my taste... but if others prefer it his way, I certainly will not object. I was more concerned by the fact that Bob thought my language changed the meaning in some way... I don't understand how it did, so I figured I would ask. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "The question is how to best integrate the idea" and "how to best phrase it in a clear and concise way" -

The answer is what I originally proposed for the beginning of the lead.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

The above would replace the following recent additions which were an attempt "to best phrase it in a clear and concise way".

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which as a tertiary source summarizes material already published elsewhere." and "Since Wikipedia should not be the first to publish new material..."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with your version: (1) "Information" carries an implication that it's correct, so "material" is better; (2) "existing published information" implies that there's such a thing as "non-existing" published information; (3) the second clause repeats the first.

I do wonder why any of this is necessary though (any version, not just Bob's). It makes the lead unnecessarily clunky and repetitive. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis doesn't use standard interpretations of english, so it isn't useful. Sorry, but thanks for trying. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Lead sentence of WP:NOR

{{rfctag|policy}}

What should the first few sentences say?

A) Wikipedia is a tertiary source summarizing material already published elsewhere; it is not a first publisher of new material. As such it does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources, and to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

B) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information, and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published. Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources, and to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

C) (current version) Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources, and to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

Comments

(no threaded replies here, please)

• Please note that version B consists of only adding a first sentence in front of the current version C. Version A also adds a first sentence but with a slight modification of the first sentence of the current version C. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• I proposed Version B (i.e. the first sentence) because it is simple, informative, and easily understood by everyone. It clearly describes the need for editors to put into Wikpedia only published information. The first sentence that is version B was previously added to WP:NOR but it was modified into the first sentence of version A by Blueboar, Crum375, and SlimVirgin, who seemed to think that the basic idea was worthwhile but wanted to put it into different words. (Some of them may have changed their opinions since then.)

To avoid any misunderstanding, here is what I proposed, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I added the original and simpler alternative, to simply state that we don't publish OR. Crum375 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the proposed change (version B), it's more direct and to the point. ThemFromSpace 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) (refactored to specify version B, also per Mike Cline below) ThemFromSpace 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I prefer version A... I think it is more direct and to the point. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Version C. I don't think we should labour the point about what WP is at the beginning of this policy. But if we're going to say anything about it in the lead, then I prefer Version A because it's more succinct and better written. Policies need to be as succinct as possible or people won't read them, and that has to apply to every sentence and every paragraph. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Version C (the original longstanding version before the recent changes) as my preferred version, but I can live with A. Crum375 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Version B because it describes what WP actually is--an encyclopedia, instead of Version A which describes how WP is used (compared to primary and secondary sources). An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, tertiary sources are not necessarily encyclopedias. Version C is flawed because it does not say what WP is--an encyclopedia, but instead, falsely, says what WP does--publish (WP doesn't publish anything).--Mike Cline (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Version C. Version A requires an understanding of the term tertiary source. A link is provided but it would be much easier to not use the term so early on. Version B is just silly. You could start every policy with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" but would it get us anywhere? Perhaps the person who wrote it thought that encyclopedias never publish original research. This is not true. For example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a collection of essays by experts in the field. The NOR policy is required of Wikipedia because we are not credentialist. Yaris678 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I am moving this from above since we are supposed to put threaded discussion here... as I said above, I think version A is more direct and to the point. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not direct because the term "tertiary source" needs to be looked up to be understood. Sorry, since I think it was your idea to put in "tertiary source". Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, no... I didn't add that term. But I still find version A more direct and to the point, even with the link. I suppose we will have to simply disagree on that. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• If C is wrong, so are A and B, because they both include it verbatim (it's the text that follows them). And WP does publish information, but only if it has been first published elsewhere. Crum375 (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • A and B precede C on the policy page. They don't replace C. I think Mike Cline said that C was flawed was because it didn't say what B said. Mike points out that B says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and C does not. Thus B completes the info in C, which Mike believes is flawed without it. Seems reasonable to me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Mike said above "Version C is flawed because it does not say what WP is--an encyclopedia, but instead, falsely, says what WP does--publish (WP doesn't publish anything)." He says that it is wrong because it incorrectly says that Wikpedia "publishes", but that's plainly wrong, and even if he is right, it is included in both A and B, as I noted above. Crum375 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I think Mike Cline meant that C was flawed because it didn't say what B said. Mike seemed to point out that B says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia etc and C does not. Thus B would add to the info in C. I think you may have inadvertently confused the issue since your remarks might be interpreted as meaning that C has been substantially changed, when in fact it is substantially the same as it was, with some minor cosmetic changes by SlimVirgin recently. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I am confused: how can my note that "C is the original longstanding version" be interpreted as "C has been substantially changed"? Crum375 (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
          • My apologies for the confusion. I was focusing on the lead sentence, not the entire paragraph as indeed each reflects: D. All of the above. As a lead sentence however, Version B is the most concise and instructive. Additionally, if the phrase WP does not publishe original research was modified slightly to read WP should not contain original research it would be signfiicantly more instructive.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that B is oddly written as it stands, and the policy needs to be well-written as far as possible. Holding a content RfC is fine, but writing-by-numbers doesn't work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what you wrote, "The problem is that B is oddly written as it stands..." and "Holding a content RfC is fine, but writing-by-numbers doesn't work." Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I feel the writing could be improved in a number of ways, and as Yaris said encyclopedias do publish OR, including the very good ones such as the EB, so starting the policy by saying WP is an encyclopedia implies that there's a link between that and no OR, which is wrong—but if it doesn't imply a link there's no point in mentioning it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you are taking the term "encyclopedia" out of context. The full phrase was "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information..." Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a question of trying to make every word count. In this sentence "is an encyclopedia" isn't doing any work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's needed because without it the sentence wouldn't sound right. Read it over yourself without "is an encyclopedia which" and perhaps you will see what I mean. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but there are other things about the sentence that aren't quite right either, which is why I wasn't keen on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's discuss them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned them above. [10] The key thing is that the policy should try to stay tight. It's already a bit repetitive, so it would be good not to add any more. We say WP does not publish OR, and we explain what that means. Adding that we're an encyclopedia says nothing relevant. Adding that we're a tertiary source or not a first publisher—these are just different ways of saying we don't publish material not already published by reliable sources. But we already say that, so I don't see the point of repeating it using different words. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... I think we are all agreeing on concept here... but are quibbling over the exact wording and language of how we say it. I agree with SV that Bob's proposed language seems clunky and somehow "not quite right"... but I am having difficulty expressing exactly what it is that I find wrong. I also understand her point about version A (although I still prefer it). This may simply be a question of what sounds best to each of us. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also a question of word count. We have so many policies and guidelines now that people are overwhelmed, and the longer each of them is, the less likely it is to be read. So we shouldn't say in 20 words what we can say in 10. I feel we need to try to stick to that very closely. The policy's already a bit wordy in places. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Well, it looks like it's boiling down to a matter of judgement. I think the editors who are active here have lost touch with what it is like for less experienced editors to come to the policy page to learn about NOR, or even some experienced ones that have trouble understanding what is written in this policy. When you discuss these things among yourselves on this talk page, I think you develop understandings of what you put into this policy because of all the time that you spend discussing it here. It's a far different case for people who don't spend so much time thinking about this policy page, in my opinion. I guess that's the way it's going to be here. But Wikipedia seems to survive in spite of that. Anyhow, thanks for trying to do the best that you can. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob... don't give up yet... can you say what you want to say in fewer words? That may help. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could find some way to satisfy you and still put in what I think is best, but that sentence is about as good as I can make it. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm never sure about what others think here, I think we agree that the idea of the first sentence in A and B is to say what Wikipedia is, and do it in a way that leads into the subject of NOR. My preference is to do it in a way where none of the terms used need to be clarified for the reader. Perhaps we could move towards a meeting of the minds by first modifying version A so that it doesn't contain "tertiary source"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone else noted above, it doesn't make sense to start every policy by a general "Wikipedia is..." statement. But ironically, if we were to do so, the most direct description of what "Wikipedia is" in relation to WP:NOR is a tertiary source, because this exactly conveys the fact that it should be a summary of secondary sources, and not include original research. Crum375 (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's consensus that we ought to add something, how about this?

Wikipedia is not a first publisher of new material and does not publish what we call original research. The term "original research" refers to any material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. This includes any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material in which the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's SlimVirgin's version with even few words:

Wikipedia does not publish original research, a term referring to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. Original research includes any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material that advances a point of view (POV) not advanced by any of the sources.

--Mike Cline (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I like Mike Cline's version although I wouldn't link to the guideline WP:IRS from this policy - it could imply the guideline has been upgraded.

Also, it seems to me that the main point that versions A and B are trying to get across is that Wikipedia comprises summaries of information published elsewhere. I agree that this is important... it deserves to be mentioned early on... but perhaps not so important that it deserves to be in the very first sentence. Perhaps the best way to do this is to revive a sentence that used to be in the SYNTH section, but isn’t there any more. i.e.

Wikipedia does not publish original research, a term referring to material - such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories - not already published by reliable sources. Original research includes any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material that advances a point of view (POV) not advanced by any of the sources. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: it is good editing.

Or perhaps some other sentence about summarising... just a thought.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how or why this got started, but what was wrong with the lead as it was?

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources. [11]

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the version of the lead we had before all the recent changes. If we want to add more words, let's gain consensus first rather than tweaking back and forth and making it more repetitive. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a falsehood to claim that a person can copy text or concepts from any published source, reliable or otherwise, and still call it original research. To do so is both false and plagiarism. I have revised the policy accordingly. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Wow. That's an audacious move, considering it's one of the three options above that we are discussing. Well, I know from previous experience that if I tried to revert it back you would just edit war so.... Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from this discussion that there was no consensus for the change in the first place, and some of the recent suggestions for improving the change took us closer to the wording before the change, so it would have been better had it been agreed before making it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You and three other editors contributed to the version A on the policy page that you just replaced, by yourself, with version C. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's equally clear from this discussion that there is no consensus for the old version any longer, either. WP:Consensus doesn't authorize reverting to an old version simply because it had support last month. I think you (and everyone) should have left it alone until the discussion ended (with optional addition of suitable tags to point other editors to this disucssion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If no version has consensus, it really does not matter which version is currently on the page... what matters is that we work together to reach a new consensus version. In other words... don't argue about what doesn't have consensus... figure out what does. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "If no version has consensus, it really does not matter which version is currently on the page..." - It does matter because the version that is on the page will be the version that remains if a sufficiently large enough consensus is not reached. SlimVirgin supports version C and SlimVirgin just put that version on the policy page at will. So far no one has supported SlimVirgin's action and two editors have opposed it. I just reverted SlimVirgin's action. I think it would be edit warring if SlimVirgin reverted it back without gaining consensus here. SlimVirgin, Try waiting for the resolution of this RFC like the rest of us, or are you special? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

sigh... OK... I'll support her action... it is the version that was on the page before we started this discussion and thus, presumably, the last version to actually have a consensus. It might well be the case that it no longer enjoys that status, but neither has any of the proposed replacements. I see no harm in at least temporarily retaining it while we hammer out a consensus (if we can) on replacement language. More to the point, it is accepted that being BOLD on policy pages is not a good idea. Policy pages can change, but they should change very slowly and deliberately... and that means keeping old language until new language is finalized. If you need to warn people that the section is under discussion, tag it.

Personally, I think the "long standing version" (a term I am reluctant to use) is quite acceptable... Yes, I still prefer version A, but that is not the same thing as objecting to the other versions (which I don't). Version C is my second choice (for the above reasons)... and I could certainly live with your version if that gained consensus. Ultimately they all say the same thing in different words. Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion - Break 1

My motivation in all this is not to change policy but to make it clearer. I guess we have different ideas about how to do that. WP:NOR will be useful in any case. I just hope that it can improve in clarity and editors understand it better, so that there is more productive editing in Wikipedia by more editors, with fewer disputes.

I first came up with version B because I saw all information as being divided between that which is published and that which isn't. I tried to say, without any jargon, that Wikipedia is not concerned with unpublished information, since this is the basis of NOR. And I thought that would be a good beginning of WP:NOR.

Version B:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob's description of version B would be better if it showed the version he is changing from, with strkeout text, as well as what he wants to replace it with. Also, for logical consistency, version B should say something like "a source of information that has not been published elsewhere", since Wikipedia is a publication. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that version B consists of only adding a first sentence in front of the current version C. See RfC: Lead sentence of WP:NOR. Thanks for your suggestions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Small question

I was wondering: should we put somewhere in there that this policy isn't a requirement to blindly acknowledge every reliable-looking source as such? For example, I've seen videos of newscasts from normally reputable sources that are obviously skewed and/or fake. That way, if, say, someone uses a video from a Chinese news network to "prove" the massacres at Tiananmen Squre didn't happen (just an example), it can be removed despite being from a "reliable source". Basically, a statement like, "This policy does not require editors to stop using their heads when looking at sources. If a document, photograph, or video purports to be from a reliable source, but is an obvious fake, or the source's coverage is blatantly skewed so as to constitute a fringe opinion despite claiming otherwise, its removal on those grounds would not constitute OR". Or would this lead to excessive wiki-lawyering, and/or is this covered by IAR already? I bring this up because I've seen a few blatant fakes (mostly videos) in I/P topics get removed with that rationale, and the removal is hotly contested as being OR, (things like "saying it looks edited and fake is OR" when the video is clearly fake to amateur eyes). The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a question about the reliability of sources. I think it would be better placed at WT:Identifying reliable sources. That said, this post does make the case quite well for the suggestion made at #All material in unreliable sources is original research? Yaris678 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I only brought it here because the argument against removing these videos was, "Well, your saying it looks fake is OR", I wasn't exactly sure where to take it. I'll move it as necessary a little later on- I've got some other business to attend to. But it's at least good to hear that my idea might just have something behind it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. That was a big misunderstanding by whoever said "Well, your saying it looks fake is OR". NOR applies to the content of articles not the selection of sources. If we demanded published sources that told us which sources we could use we would go round in circles. It sounds like different people have different ideas about what actually happened. I think the best guide in that context is the policy WP:NPOV. If the editors of your article can't agree on how to apply NPOV, you could post a message at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Yaris678 (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I can sort of see where someone could get confused about OR in that way, but I'll take your suggestion and move this elsewhere. In this particular case, it was a debate (mercifully over now) about a video of a celebration supposedly glorifying a mass murderer. The video was so obviously edited and fake that even I noticed, but someone didn't want it removed due to the rationale I mentioned above. Eventually it was, because it was also tangientially related at best. But I'll move it over to WT:Identifying reliable sources. Thanks!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All material in unreliable sources is original research?

Should the "No original research" policy use a definition that indicates all material in unreliable publications is original research? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC) revised 18:48 UTC.

I believe the definition of original research should be changed as follows:

The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.

The current version confounds the concept of an idea being original, and the concept of being verifiable in a reliable source. This NOR policy should confine itself to originality, and the Verifiability policy should confine itself to verifiability. To do otherwise reduces the comprehension of the concepts because readers won't be able to tell which is which. It also encourages regular readers of the policies to use non-standard definitions of the phrase "original research" and confuses new editors who receive incomprehensible edit summaries when their contributions are deleted.

An example of why this definition is nonstandard, consider that corporations often practice defensive publication in non-peer-reviewed publications to prevent a later would-be inventor claiming the ideas as the would-be inventor's original idea. This illustrates that as far as the rest of the world is concerned, an idea is no longer original once it is published, whether the publication is good, bad, or indifferent. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't understand what point is being made, but removing that reliable sources are required would obviously be a major change to NOR, as well as to V, NPOV and BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• There would be no change whatsoever, only a more clear explanation about why certain contributions should be rejected. If I try to include material from the fake autobiography of Howard Hughes as if it were a true autobiography, my contribution should be deleted with a edit summary that mentions WP:V. If I add an article about my own proposal to replace the Gregorian calendar, the article should be deleted and the main theme of the deletion discussion should be this policy.
• SlimVirgin's approach, if taken to it's logical conclusion, would be to have one policy, and every policy-releted deletion could just have an edit summary that says "Violates the WP:Master Policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't understand your point, in that case. It's true that I don't think V and NOR should be separate, but I don't think that's the point you're making here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• My point is that there is more than one reason for rejecting a contribution. One is it is original (or appears to be original because there is no source cited and the challenger can't easily find a source). A different reason is that although there is a source, and therefore it isn't original research, the source is not reliable and therefore the information is not verifiable. The current definition claims these to different reasons are actually one reason, and it would be just fine to delete contributions that cite rotten sources with an edit summary that says "Undo per WP:No original research". Jc3s5h (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for not getting this, Jc, but I'm still not seeing your point. We define OR on WP as material that has not been published by a reliable source. We define reliable source loosely here. Within that context, I can't follow what you mean by "The current definition claims these to different reasons are actually one reason, and it would be just fine to delete contributions that cite rotten sources with an edit summary that says 'Undo per WP:No original research'." Are you saying that providing a poor source shows it's not OR? Not really, because we define OR as material for which no reliable source exists. These are all just working definitions. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, It seems like the term "original research" has been used in Wikipedia for information that is originated by the editor who tries to put it in Wikipedia. If the editor didn't originate the information but instead cites an unreliable source written by someone else, then the material is excluded because the source is unreliable, not because the editor originated it.

For instance, suppose a professor gives a seminar on his unpublished results and hands out the notes of the seminar. Then suppose a Wikpedia editor uses those notes as a source for a Wikipedia article. Isn't it more natural to exclude that information by saying that it is from an unreliable source, rather than it is original research by the editor? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's a misunderstanding. It may originate with the editor who adds it, but it may not. "Original research" = material for which no reliable source exists," as the policy says. This is why the ArbCom, for example, has several times ruled that using certain non-reliable sources amounts to OR. It's just a definition. OR = "material that is not attributable to a reliable published source." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "This is why the ArbCom, for example, has several times ruled that using certain non-reliable sources amounts to OR. " - I would have to see the case that you are referring to, since it may be that the editor may have originated information by using unreliable sources to form conclusions that weren't in the unreliable sources.

However, if ArbCom called the editor's contributions original research, even though the editor didn't originate the information himself, that would still be an unnaturally defined term. The information that the editor did not originate, could have been excluded from Wikipedia without calling it "original research", because it was from an unreliable source. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I think you are missing the point. On WP we define "OR" as "material not attributable to a reliable source". It may not be what first comes to your mind, but that's the way it's defined in WP:OR. And I think we all agree that both OR and V, as defined on WP, are misnomers. See my post below addressing the terminology issue. Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC

<outdent>Re "I think you are missing the point." - Then I don't think you were able to understand what I wrote. I considered the possibility that the Wikipedian term "original research" was intended to be unnaturally defined by those like yourself, SlimVirgin and others who write policy and desire that definition. All I did was point out that if that was the definition, where information that was not originated by the editor was called "original research", it was a needlessly unnatural definition because the subject material of the editor could have been excluded because it was from an unreliable source, and there was no need to call it "original research." --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two separate issues. We use "OR" as shorthand for saying "this material seems to me to be unattributable," which can also mean "the sources you have provided are unreliable or otherwise unacceptable." But if your point about "unnatural" is that the term OR is a misnomer and can cause confusion for newcomers, we are in agreement, and that's what I tried to address in the section below. Crum375 (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've known for a long time that the term "original research" had a special meaning on Wikipedia, but not this special. I don't think many people on Wikipedia are aware of this very special meaning of "original research" that includes information that is not originated by an editor. If that actually is what WP:NOR currently states, it is an easy thing to clear up because I think very few Wikipedians make that interpretation. Then the present RFC is the type of change that is needed to fix WP:NOR. Your remarks have only made the change of the present RFC more valuable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, here is what the policy actually says, taken over the last five years (bold added):

• 2005: "What is original research? Original research refers to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source."[12]
• 2006: "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source."[13]
• 2007: "Original research is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research."[14]
• 2008: "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."[15]
• 2009: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."[16]
• 2010: "The term original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources."[17]

As you can see, "OR" = "not published by RS". It's been this way for years, with no significant change, so this is clearly what we mean by "OR" on Wikipedia. Crum375 (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go back to the use of "reputable". Reliable sources is what's required for verification of facts. WP:OR, which would be better framed as WP:Attribution, is about opinions, deduction, synthesis and analysis, not facts, and it is the reputability, not reliability, of the source that matters. That someone commented so, is not of interest because it was reliably sourced, but because it was sourced in a publication of repute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no "facts" on WP, only material which must be attributable to reliable sources to be included. WP:OR is simply WP shorthand for "material not attributable to reliable sources." The quality of reliable sources, which includes their "reputability", is addressed in WP:SOURCES. Crum375 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: facts. Have another read through Carbon. It is jam packed with facts, each verifiable to a primary source. NOR has no relevance to such articles. Wikipedia includes an abundance of facts, precise and incontestable. They are not spread uniformly across all articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Today's fact can be tomorrow's fiction, and vice versa. It was a "fact" that Pluto was a planet up until four years ago. Dark matter and dark energy were considered science fiction by many until recently. We don't differentiate Wikipedia material based on what people call it, or whether it's considered "factual" or "true". The only relevant criterion we care about, for material to be added to this site (ignoring neutrality issues), is whether it is attributable to a reliable source. If it isn't, it's defined as "OR". Crum375 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, accept that facts vary perhaps continuously from incontestable to terminology, inferred and hypothetical. Don't agree that new editors understand why material sourced from less-than-reliable (how were they to know) sources is called original research. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, According to what you've presented, WP:NOR says that information not originated by an editor, but appearing in an unreliable source, is "original research". Since such information from an unreliable source is simply excluded anyhow without that definition of "original research", would you like to see that unnatural aspect of the definition cleaned up with a simple change like the one in this RFC? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for being dense, but I am not still following. WP:NOR defines OR as material which is unattributable to a reliable source. This is the current definition, and has been consistently so for years, as I have shown above. So it's really very simple: either the material can be cited to a reliable source, in which case it is not OR, or it cannot, in which case it is OR. I don't see any "unnatural aspect" to the definition, or any in-between cases. The issue I referred to in my post below has to do with the choice of terminology and the artificial separation between NOR and V. Crum375 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried and apparently I'm unable to get through to you, so have a nice day. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. If you can think of a better way of explaining your concern, let me know. Crum375 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Crum375, Hi again. Please note that the present RFC is for a change in the definition of original research. Are you aware of that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I may be dense, but I don't understand why we should care about any material not published by a reliable source. We must emphasize that if we add any material not published by a reliable source, it is original research by our definition. Crum375 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have revised the question to make it clearer. As it stands now, someone could add material from the fake Hughes autobiography as if it were actually written by Hughes. I could undo the edit and claim it is original research. But it isn't really original research, it's been published for decades. The current definition is FALSE. I also reject the notion of making up false definitions of words and then using the excuse that the definition only applies within this policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For a view of how the outside world thinks about the meaning of original research, see this Nature policy. I believe I can boil their policy down: "if the main result, conclusion, or implications are not apparent from the other work" it may be original enough for Nature to consider publishing it. They do say that other factors might be considered, such as if the other work is not in English.

Of course, Nature wants to exclude work that is NOT original, while we want to exclude work that IS original. But still, Nature does not say previously published work might still be considered original, so long as the publication that published it is unreliable. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I think Jc3 has a point here. It is an issue of the policy's scope... If I read a statement on some nutjob website, that material isn't original to me (the Wikipedia editor who wants to add it to an article). Thus, it isn't Original Research for me to use it (it would be piss-poor research on my part, but not original research). The scope of NOR is whether the material has been published... the "where" of publication falls within the scope of WP:V, WP:RS and other policies and guidelines. I would agree that we need to remind editors to look for reliable sources... but not in the opening few sentences... not in the definition of what OR is. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The current WP:NOR policy says (bold added): "If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." This is the essence of OR. If there are no reliable sources for some material, it is considered to be "original research" on WP. This does not mean the editor adding the material actually created or invented it out of thin air, or "researched" it, it's just that we call all unsourced or poorly sourced material on WP (for which an appropriate source cannot be found) "original research". That's been the policy and its definition since I came here, and it still makes good sense to me. Crum375 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I know that is what the policy says, and that it has said it for a long time (do we know when that language was added?)... and, until now, I have agreed with everything in that passage. But I am beginning to think that it is wrong... and that we should remove the word "reliable", or mention it in a different way. The reality is, as long as you can show that your material has been published, you are demonstrating that you are not adding original research.

Remember, the fact that something passes WP:NOR does not automatically mean you can add it to an article. We do have other policies and guidelines. To be acceptable, material has to also pass WP:V, WP:NPOV and all our other policies and guidelines... However, as long as something is published, it simply isn't original research.

A few weeks ago, someone asked what the distinction between WP:NOR and WP:V was... I think this is a large part of it right here. When it comes to sourcing our material... NOR should tell our editors that our material must come from a published source. Leave it to WP:V to tell them that the source must be reliable. (of course, WP:ATT told them that the source had to be published and reliable at the same time... but...) Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem stems from the fact that WP:NOR sits on a shaky foundation as a separate policy. Logically, it should be an integral part of WP:V, and should focus, perhaps, on the issue of WP:SYN or other non-obvious unsourced material. In other words, we all understand that to say that "The Eiffel Tower is 1063 feet tall" we need a reliable source saying that. But when it comes to combining information from different sources and coming up with explicit or implicit conclusions, not everyone understands that we are not allowed to synthesize new conclusions to advance a position, while we are allowed, and even encouraged, to find reliable sources and use our own words to neutrally summarize what they write about an issue. Also, the distinction between the three different classes of reliable sources, WP:PSTS, and the need to avoid interpreting, analyzing or otherwise misusing primary sources, is not obvious to most editors. So at the moment, V focuses on the general need for reliable sources for everything we say, and NOR adds some fine tuning: no WP:SYN; descriptive, limited and careful use of primary sources; allowing no more than routine arithmetic calculations; how to handle translations, etc. So the problem is the basic title of NOR: it's really a subset of V. Ideally, it should just be subsumed by it, under WP:ATT, in which case we could just say, "this material is not attributed and I hereby challenge it". And if no source is provided within a reasonable time, "this material is not attributable, so I am removing it." No NOR terminology would be needed once we upgrade to this combined policy. Crum375 (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support such changes that remove statements that are not true in the normal use of English outside Wikipedia. "Original research" is material that is arguably reasonable, but that has not been previously published. "Original research" does not include nonsense, whether original nonsense, or published nonsense, or publish truth found only in unreliable sources. Original research is not the only reason to refuse material, and we should not expand definitions beyond readily accepted language. To do so is to make our most basic, prominent, introductory documents opaque to the uncultured, and this makes it difficult for new editors. It would be better for this policy to say "Material not attributable to a reliable source is not acceptable in Wikipedia." NOR explanations can go in the lower rationales. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The policy passage quoted above seems inconsistent, unclear. The 1st sentence simply says "no source", but the 2nd suddenly starts talking about reliable ones. Peter jackson (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support the removal of the mention of reliable sources from the lead of WP:NOR for the reasons given by Blueboar. However, I actually prefer the idea of merging WP:NOR into WP:V, as suggested by Slim[18] and Crum[19]. Yaris678 (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yaris, I took the liberty of fixing the link to my diff. Feel free to correct me if you meant something else. Crum375 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - "reliable sources" serves no useful purpose. Both "material not published" and "material not published by reliable sources" are original research. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support to delete the expression "reliable sources" in the sentence under question. There's no point in us having two policies that mean the same thing. And we should normally use meanings that are the most commonly understood meaning. Doing so improves clarity. Maurreen (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I think Jc3s5h makes a good point, though I don't see the harm of reiterating in three words ("by reliable sources") the need to use RSs. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Original research is confusing, and it should not be further confused by making people think that content published in an unreliable source is original research. Such content is not removed because it is original research but because it is unreliable. Incidentally, unreliable should always be reasonably interpreted, and not interpreted in a bureaucratic way to mean simply mean published in a certain place. II | (t - c) 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolving the issue

I think we can resolve the issue with a minimum of change... mostly by simply moving some content around in the second paragraph. Here is what I suggest...

Blueboar's Suggested Language

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published . It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.

If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires that sources also be reliable. This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a source that is both published and reliable, even if not actually attributed. A source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged — and a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, and we know that sources for that sentence exist.

Comments on Blueboar's suggestion

I think this language would make it clearer that while reliability isn't an OR issue... because of WP:V, you still need to be able to cite a reliable source when dealing with OR issues. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I fail to see why Wikipedia should be concerned with non-reliable sources. For us, if it's not reliable, it does not belong on this site, period. We call any material for which no reliable source can be found "original research", per our longstanding tradition. We can do away with the OR terminology by simply focusing on attribution, and clarifying that all material on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree... no where in my suggestion does it say say that you can use unreliable sources... all we are pointing out is that NOR requires published sources while WP:V says those sources must also be reliable. That's all. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But if we are all in agreement that NOR is a subset of V, there is no special allowance for unreliable sources in NOR any more than in V, its parent. A source is either reliable, or not. Any material which does not have a reliable source is "original research", by our longstanding definition. And if material is original research, i.e. is not attributable to any reliable source, it does not belong on WP, period. If people don't like the terminology "original research", let's get rid of it by focusing on "attributability". Crum375 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

See also my expanded points below. Crum375 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly there are varying degrees of reliability, and also varying degrees of the extent that the source's reliability has been established in Wikipedia, including per the attributes defined in the two policies. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think NOR is a subset of V... they are definitely related and overlap a lot... but they are distinct concepts. I think they are both sub-concepts of "Attribution" (which is why I was in favor of the WP:ATT merger way back when). Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, NOR is more subtle, since it focuses more on synthesized material which seemingly relies on reliable sources, while V focuses on the general need to supply sources to any added material. But I think we are in agreement that these distinctions in emphasis still belong under a single "attribution" policy. Crum375 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We should not misuse the phrase "original research" because Crum375's "longstanding tradition" is a tradition of the crowd that infests Wikipedia talk pages, not a longstanding tradition of the English language.

I actually support the idea of an attribution policy that merges verifiability, no original research, and the reliable sources guideline. But since Jimbo Wales didn't like it when that was attempted, that has little chance of happening. So I will settle for not torturing the English language.

Blueboar's language could be a way to go, but I think it is too long because it repeats (with attribution) too much material from other policies. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I gather you don't think the material is worth repeating? Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think repeating material in one policy in another makes both of them prone to becoming nonsense when one policy is edited and the other isn't. Also, both policies become so long that people overlook the provision that applies to the case they are interested in, because it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that this proposal is an improvement. These changes will make this page more closely describe what the community does and what it means when it points someone to this page.

For Crum (and SV, and others): The real policy is what the community does and says. This page is currently (and has been for years, as proven above) an inaccurate description of the community's policy. The community does not—and never has—say that every single unattributable/unverifiable statement violates WP:NOR. Consider the case of fat-fingering a statistic while typing: The resulting claim ("01% of women will develop breast cancer" rather than "10% of women") is unattributable to any reliable source. But the community will revert it with an explanation that it violates WP:V, not WP:NOR.

The reason for this is that the community needs to be able to make a distinction between specific kinds of "no source says that", so that editors know exactly what needs to be corrected. Making NOR's scope cover every single sort of "no source says that" does not help the community.

As an analogy: Among older folks in parts of Europe, "scientific" is a synonym for "academic". So you get old men nattering on about their "scientific reading" of metaphysical poetry, which leaves all the physicists and chemists wondering how you run experiments on the meaning of an old poem. Conflating NOR with all of WP:V is just as silly as conflating "science" with "all of academia". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

I think most people agree with the core concepts of V and NOR. The problems seem to stem from poor terminology. There are two specific terminology issues which are perennial trouble makers, and they happen to be the very names of these two policies, both of which are unfortunate misnomers. "Verifiability" implies "verity", or "truth", yet its very first sentence tells us (correctly) that we don't care about truth, only sources. "Original research" implies Wikipedians working furtively in their secret basement lab and coming up with their own original inventions, while the policy tells us "to demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources." In other words, we don't care if you or someone else came up with this material, if it's not attributable to a published reliable source, it does not belong on WP. So both key policies start off with a bad title and use bad terminology. Does it surprise anyone that we keep running into confused editors and endless talk page threads?
The solution is simple: let's combine the two, and focus on attributability. The key: All material on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source. And any unattributed material which is challenged, likely to be challenged, or quoted, must be cited inline to a reliable source. All other details are secondary. We can explain that synthesizing material from reliable sources to advance a position is not allowed, while searching for reliable sources and neutrally summarizing material from them, without creating (or implying) new conclusions is part of normal editing. We can explain that reliable sources fall into three classes, WP:PSTS, and explain that primary sources should be used sparingly and carefully. We can explain that simple arithmetic is allowed, but beyond that, reliable sources are required, and so on. In other words, all material currently in WP:V and WP:NOR can be included in WP:ATT, and the result will be simplicity, clarity, and harmony. Comments? Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely support any movement to revive WP:ATT. Unfortunately, I think you will find that there will be strong resistance to such a move... and as many people will oppose the idea as did the first time around (You might ask at VPP just to see if there is any favorable consensus.) Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think at least part of the problem last time was that, despite our attempts to publicize it and get more inputs, some people still felt left out of the process. This time we would need to get very deep participation, with emphasis on addressing any counter-points raised by those who opposed in the last round. I think it would be very helpful to hear people's objections, even if nothing else comes out of it. Crum375 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are 4 foundational points which govern article content (I'm presenting a simple view of each):

1. Verifiability - all material must be attributable to a reliable source
2. Non-synthesis - Do not combine sources to make a novel point
3. Neutral language - Describe subjects objectively
4. Due weight - Coverage in the article should be in proportion to that of published sources.

Right now, points 3 & 4 are both included in WP:NPOV, since they are closely related. A proposal to combine points 1 & 2, which are also related, makes sense to me.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start trying in my userspace to work on a version of ATT that (a) combines NOR and V, (b) is as tight and as clear as possible, and (c) that takes into account some of the objections to both that I've seen over the years. If I can create a working first draft I'll then invite other people to take a look, and maybe we can produce something that would gain consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Could we pretend to ignore the existence of WP:A and fix the terminology issues here. To help the new contributors, guidance should be simple and positive (not using "not"s). "All material on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source" is good. "Wikipedia publishes material attributable to reliable sources" may be even better. OR is merely a common example of material not attributable to reliable sources, and is prominent only because there are people determined to promote (in good faith of course) their own whatever. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Forget the existence of WP:ATT for a moment. WP:OR is simply an adjunct to WP:V. V says, effectively, that all material must be attributable to a reliable source. OR clarifies that "material" may also be an implication or synthesis created from reliable sources, and such implications or syntheses must also be attributable. OR also explains the concept of "primary source", and cautions editors that it must be used sparingly and carefully, and so on. The point is that OR is in reality an amplification of V, focusing on the more subtle aspects of "materials" which must be attributable. So it seems we are in agreement that to stop the confusion we have today, V and NOR should be combined. It also seems that WP:A ("everything on WP must be attributable") is the best way to do it, though other ideas are of course welcome. Crum375 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as just one WP user, one thing I think I can guarantee right now is that a combination of WP:NOR and WP:V into one page such as WP:ATT will definitely not stop or substantially reduce arguments over how policy affects practice in WP. Right now it's two policy pages covering related material but where WP:NOR is a much more nuanced and subtle extension of WP:V. Some folks seriously think that making logical sense of what it's called (specifically the argument has been to call it "attribution" rather than "verifiabilty" and "no original research") will reduce disputes and let everyone rest content that all the major logical flaws have been resolved and that the policy talk pages will now proceed to settle down from what some see as unnecessary arguments. I personally disagree with this implicit assumption, and think that a change of existing foundational policy (the three-part core content policy into two policies instead of three) will result in essentially no net improvement in how editors manage disagreements with one another and w.r.t. how this page and that at WT:V play out for the more experienced users who try to resolve issues on these talk pages.
....... Personally I like the idea of WP:ATT, conceptually at least, though the community roughly two years ago rejected it rather vociferously after it was labeled a policy page upon somewhat WP:CONLIMITED discussion among a limited number of users who happened to be regular WP "policy wonks", so to speak. A major issue is, of course, after nearly a decade of WP existence, countless WP users have come to rely on the basic existing format. What is proposed is a major change in policy format that has almost a decade of generally successful practical results for WP. Recall (or if you weren't here then and tracking this basic stuff, I suppose take somebody's word for it or go back and research it) that WP:Verifiability originally meant roughly that the expectation is for a contributor "to be able to to verify a particular piece of information" presented in an article. Since WP's origin, though, the expectation has increasingly become that users are expected to be prepared to cite the source of a contested piece of information in-line via a Harvard citation or equivalent.
....... As has been pointed out by Crum375 and others, there are very arguably more rationally acceptable ways of naming the policy in light of the growing expectation for in-line citations, and in light of the general similarity between V and NOR, that could readily be placed under one umbrella on one project policy page such as WP:ATT. I don't think it's necessary nor helpful on-balance to put all the same information on one page as opposed to two policy pages. IMO, the existing bifurcation of related policy provisions into two separate pages is not necessarily a net disadvantage to WP, nor need it necessarily be subject to WP:FORK standards, nor necessarily be subject to any other WP standard other than that they're the original three core content policies. Pretty much from the beginning (recall NOR was added after NPOV and V) they've been admitted to overlap and compliment one another. They are the original content policy pages, and they've been well consensused, and as I said countless WP users have come to rely upon this basic format. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Kenosis, "WP:ATT will definitely not stop or substantially reduce arguments over how policy affects practice in WP." Agreed, and that is not a proper objective here. Basic policy is not for dispute resolution, but for introducing basic concepts to new editors. POV pushers will find a way to wikilawyer even if we can sand down the terminology rough edges. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if... Anyway I think I said my piece, and I apologize if my last piece was excessively lengthy. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, explanation unnecessary, but thanks, and no, your piece was not too lengthy, I've read much written by you and never have I seen you write anything not worth reading.

You might be missing my point. A few terminology rough points ("OR" includes sourced erroneous material; "secondary sources" include anything repeated) are problematic to new editors, and non-editors contemplating getting involved. They mean that our use of language is opaque. I don't disagree that the existing language was consensused by existing (encultured) editors; I disagree that this is a reason to not fix cases of misuse of standard use of the language. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I definitely encourage "sanding down" the language of this page wherever possible. IMO, there's certainly some of that kind of cleanup to be done. When attempting this, it seems to me that collectively we've had problems in reconciling on the one hand a desire for concise language containing just the basics for new editors, with on the other hand a desire for language that also captures subtleties with which more experienced editors are familiar. Sometimes, as experienced editors know, the language comes into play in content disagreements among editors, where the subleties can be important. And what we often end up with is language that reads like "committee language", which is pretty much what it is-- generally coherent, but with bits and pieces of contributions stitched together here and there that still retain a bit of a Frankensteinian character.
.......W.r.t. the two illustrations you just gave, I think I agree. Secondary sources could perhaps be better explained-- a mere repetition in another source is not necessarily a secondary source for the primary source from which the repetition is drawn. And unsourced erroneous material is not OR, but instead is properly a WP:SOURCES analysis. . ... Kenosis (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that an analysis of the "nuts and bolts" of this yields:

1. Structurally the subject of WP:OR is a subset of the subject of WP:VER.

2. I'm assuming / it sounds like WP:NOR was created to address the more specialized area of WP not being the place to present new ideas, new theories, I.E. not the place for Original Research (per the outside world's definition of that term which is different than Wikipedia's.) I'm guessing that somewhere along the line it left that track and mostly reverted to it's logical underpinnings which is basically wp:ver.

3. When one tries to understand what is happening regarding OR/NOR out in Wikipedialand, one must understand one huge thing. In common use, "OR" has become the noun to refer to a(n alleged) violation of wp:VER.

I would personally prefer something like wp:att which would "start over". A good chance to fix its fundamental problems which tweaking will never do. One is the over-emphasis on primary/secondary/tertiary to define source suitabilities. The other is that a strict interpretation of WP:NOR & WP:VER as written defines 90% of Wikipedia as being in violation. But, rather than starting by moving the mountain of combining the two policies, why not just start moving material that is obviously simply about sourcing out of WP:OR into WP:VER? A good place to start would be the most obviously misplaced one, the section on Primary/Secondary/Tertiary source types.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that I'm still waiting for evidence to support your claim that "90% of Wikipedia" violates the policies. I have not seen the slightest evidence that even 10% violates these pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Tangential -- I tried a very quick check to see about the 90% figure. I pulled 10 random articles (not counting two without content). If that set is any indication, about 80 percent of our articles have less than a page of body text. The longest article in the set was Scissor-tailed Flycatcher.

The only thing I noticed that might be in violation was Mirza Dildar Baig. Maurreen (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I had set my sights on dissecting that entire article which is a few hour job which I haven't gotten done. Also just was "unhooked" on a beach for 5 days. I think I'll just take a paragraph out of a good article and do this. But think about it. Every sentence contains on average 2-3 explicit and implicit statements. As interpreted by the regulars here (i.e. ignoring the "challenged or likely to be challenged" statement, which is ignored/negated by the mechanics of the policy) each statement needs a reference that literally supports it, and by a reference must meet several tests. Most of the time it must be secondary. But more importantly, each reference must meet the wp:ver criteria for reliability, including "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy;...Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article". And the person putting / keeping the material in must prove all of the above.

Now that I have written this, I think that my "90%" figure might be low.  :-) North8000 (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See new section I'm adding below North8000 (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)