User talk:Ckruschke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Titles versus professions at Creationism[edit]

Hi Ckruschke. Thanks for your contribution at Creationism. "Scientist" is a job description, not a title, and so the term is generally reserved for people who are currently doing science. There are terms that span both uses: an ex-president, governor or ambassador is corrected referred to as "Mr./Madam President", etc., and "Coach" can be used even when someone is well into their broadcasting career. To the best of my knowledge, Ken Ham has never claimed to be a scientist and I'm not aware of any independent, reliable sources that make the claim for him. As he self-identifies as a creationist, that's probably the best term to use. Thanks! Garamond Lethet
16:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

After reading through your well thoughtout argument, I agree. I simply saw it as a degree. In the USG, a civil servant with this type of degree is classified as a scientist - but again, I see your point. Thanks for the note! Ckruschke (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruscke
At the Department of Energy labs, Ph.D. students are classed as "indeterminate" and, after a successful postdoc and a year of probation, earn the right to be referred to as "indefinite". No, I'm not kidding.... Garamond Lethet
19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Really...? DoD categorizes these types in the "Engineer and Scientist" career group in a very broad sense - even w/o higher degrees. Guess you guys have a higher pecking order than us... Ckruschke (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Santa Claus's reindeer[edit]

I thought I was "fixing" what an IP editor changed. I should have just reverted them. Thanks for catching that.--Asher196 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks for the note - I sometimes think I'm doing something when I'm actually restoring incorrect info - happens to me all the time when I go through my Watchlist and work too fast. Take care! - Ckruschke (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Gospel of Mark[edit]

That adoptionism section is all over the place and I'm not sure what to do. From my reading there seems to be a lot of dispute over whether there's adoptionism in Mark, but if there is, it has interesting implications. You're welcome to join in. PiCo (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if I could ask you to do something for Gospel of Mark. At Gospel of Matthew there's a template for the detailed content of Matthew - you can see it about halfway down, a long list of incidents from Matthew on the right hand side. It's a template. There's no such template on Mark. instead, there's a very long subsection with the same title, Detailed Content. Would you like to be the one who does us all a favour by transferring that content to a new template like the one on Matthew? It would be a kindness. PiCo (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on adoptionism on the Mark Talk pages. Unfortunately I'm too stupid to speak intelligently on the subject so I mostly just watch the discussion (as I do most of the deep philosophical discussions on these pages).
I'll look at the Matthew page and figure out what you are talking about. If its simply crafting a table from existing information based upon a previous template - THAT - I can probably do well. Ckruschke (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Thank you my friend (for creating the Marcan template I mean, as well as any further such you might feel moved to). Having read a bit more, I think adoptionism in Mark deserves to stay, but there's too much on it - it just needs a few lines, probably saying that the matter is important but opinions differ. The ending of Mark is a real puzzle - apparently the extra-short ending is the real one, with the women finding the tomb empty, not resurrection sighting, an angel (it's clearly an angel as it's clothed in white, the preferred outfit for self-respecting angelic beings) telling them to go tell everyone, and then they don't. Very strange - I mean, if an angel told you do something, wouldn't you feel a little bit wicked if you didn't? I have my own theory, which is that the gospel had an oral part that followed the written one - people wouldn't read this alone as we do today (not many people were literate back then), but rather someone, a leader, would read it to the group, and then they'd deliver the oral message, the one the women were given, and it would be, of course, about the full Christ-message, whatever that may have been in 70 AD. Not that anyone will listen to me, of course. PiCo (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
And then there is the Old Latin Codex Vercellensis in which the last page of the Gospel of Mark has been excised and replaced with the long ending. Ignocrates (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the adoptionism section was added or expanded by Ret.Prof. 'Nuff said. Ignocrates (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
See my archived comments here. I'll find the page numbers tonight and add them here. Ignocrates (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
See pp.140-143 of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture for a clear and insightful explanation of the difficulty and how later manuscripts were altered to remove this embarrassment ("unto him" --> "onto him"). Ignocrates (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the incite guys! Ckruschke (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Ckruschke


A discussion that you participated in at Talk:MythBusters has now recommenced at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Should inanimate objects be considered "main cast" in the infobox?. Your participation would be appreciated. --AussieLegend () 02:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think my opinion has changed, meaning I continue to disagree with you, but it isn't quite as vocal as some of the others. Ckruschke (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


Collect knows full well that RfC's tend to run 30 days, that is part of the reason I see their goading as particularly disruptive, and poisoning the process. Essentially they have turned the entire content dispute into a battleground that most reasonable editors don't want to bother with. This is a strategy I've seen before and it's unfortunate. I feel a few of us were hearing each other and making valid points moving the discussion forward. Removing the entirety of Phil's racial comments is completely violating NPOV, modifying what we have is reasonable. I hope that makes sense. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I know how it works. Honestly, its very clear that you are in ther minority and I don't think that's changing. This has nothing to do with you or my opinion of your viewpoint - I try not to carry grudges and be fair even when my viewpoint is 180 deg from someone else's - who knows, we may collaborate on another issue or on a different page. However, sometimes these things go on "forever" when its clear pretty early what the ending will be... Ckruschke (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Things change though, and I still hope reasonableness will prevail. This is also one aspect of a larger issue on how to deal with the entire controversy, I still hold hope that the AfD will get overturned, which will allow the entire section in the DD article to be addressed as a summary only. I think that is ultimately best. As it stands now the battleground has made reasonable discussion unworkable. But i still have hope. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox television episode[edit]

There are some issues with proposed parameters for {{Infobox television episode}}. I've left a message at WT:TV about this but unfortunately the templates used in the TV project draw little interest, even though they often cause us grief. Because of this I'm approaching experienced editors directly, with a view to getting some more input. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox television episode provides an introduction to the issues. Your attention would be greatly appreciated at the discussions. --AussieLegend () 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

CMT definition[edit]

Hoping you will support the compromise I have proposed. Radath (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Radath - I'm trying to keep up. However, I am somewhat handicapped by the fact that I look at Wiki as only a hobby and as such I only get on once or twice during weekdays and seldom if all during the weekends. Thus for fast-flying threads like this one, I miss about 3/4 of the conversation... Ckruschke (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Dispute resolution[edit]

A content dispute resolution process has been started at [1]. Please participate and contribute to a resolution. Wdford (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wdford - looks like some old disputes are starting to rear up - might be time to close discussion on the lede for awhile... Ckruschke (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent sources are needed when describing creationist pseudoscience[edit]

WP:FRIND says we cannot include the ideas promoted by pseudoscientists such as Young Earth Creationists unless there has been independent notice of those ideas. If you can point to a non-creationist source which shows these ideas are prominent enough to warrant description in our article, then that's what you need to do. We cannot use AiG and ICR as our only sources for content at Young Earth Creationism. jps (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There are and it should be no problem to provide. However, section blanking should be a last resort - not the first - especially considering AiG and ICR AREN'T the only sources on the YEC page. I'm trying to understand why you wouldn't just flag it rather than make someone like me restore the original text AND THEN put in references...? However, I will go ahead and do this for you. Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
What references are you going to use to show that young earth creationists as a whole believe these things? They are very parochial beliefs. jps (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
For example, I did a rather thorough search of the literature on creationism (e.g. Numbers fantastic book) and saw nothing about these conjectures involving inbreeding and people living to 130. It's just someone's idea they made up one day. We can only discuss ideas that are universally acknowledged by non-creationists as being indicative of creationism. We cannot take creationists' word for it because they are not reliable sources for what is important about their beliefs. They are, after all, in the business of evangelism and so their stated goal is to claim that everything they say is important. jps (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Young Earth Creationism is actually a much discussed topic (although dirisively) in the media and among non-Christian scientists/academics. It wasn't very hard to find several articles where "what do YEC believe" in media, even if the discussion was just tangential. I'm going to put in those ref's along with keeping the original ones (so that the original source documents act as the expositional basis and the media sources act as corroboration). If you don't feel that what I put in is ok, please either flag the sections as whole or just let me know and I'll give it another lash. I think I'm going to have to put in one place a "needs better ref" flag on something that I was unable to independently verify - the inbreeding part that you talked about above. Should be ready in 10-20 min.
That being said, I'm somewhat taken aback by your insistence that this is simple proseletizing or wishful thinking when its adherents claim it as actual science. Although correctly fringe by definition, your "Creationists' word for it" is called "A Theory", just like any other theory. If it is proved as false, then so be it. However, it is just like any other "theory" proposed by evolutionists that they have been unable to prove. I've heard many YEC call the adherents of evolution as being evangelists for their own unproven theories. We need to maintain a NPOV. I also think that you are misapplying RS. A media source is either RS or not RS - a person isn't. So you can't say that "We cannot take creationists' word for it because they are not reliable sources" because this is against Wiki policy. You can (rightfully) say that AiG and ICR are not RS because of their somewhat skewed position and I support that.
Not implying that you aren't acting in good faith, but we just need to be careful of our wording. This has been a good dialogue and I appreciate your comments. I'll be back on sometime tomorrow so I might not reply back right away.Ckruschke (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
The point is that everyone can make up "theories" in the vein of creationists. Wikipedia explicitly is designed to not just include those things that people make up. It needs to be addressed by experts on the subject. I anxiously await you finding sources where geologists, astronomers, and biologists actually take seriously the creationist claims. If you cannot, they don't belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok... It looks like we are talking about different things. You are stating that in order for this information to be here, you need an independent reference that corroborates AGREEMENT with the statements. What I've thought you've been stating is you need independent references REITERATING the statements. I agree with the latter, but I'm in complete disagreement with the former. If the text says "YEC" believe X, why would we need a separate ref that states agreement with that assertion. If that were true, 90% of all the Christian pages would be almost completely blank which despite what anyone believes, is clearly not the case and they are supported by Wiki guidance.
So I'm not sure what to do at this point. Since I have the section ready with corroborating ref's that affirm the text that "Creationists think X" is really what they think, I'm inclined to just put it back in with the edit tag "corroborrating ref's as requested by jps", but I don't want to start an edit war since this now appears to be not what your original edit note meant. I also have no time to open a thread on Talk. I can stick around for a couple more minutes - if you reply back I'd welcome a suggestion. Ckruschke (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
I put a Talk thread on the page. Please go to it and state your position accordingly. Ckruschke (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Oh, don't get me wrong! Agreement with any belief isn't necessary in the source, but certainly addressing the belief directly is required. I have not seen a bona fide scientist address the belief that inbreeding is the cause of the geneological changes in Genesis. Have you? jps (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
No - I agree with that. As I said above, I was having trouble finding even a source corroborating that belief from a non-YEC news organization. Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. Sometimes its hard to flesh out what people are saying. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Redirects Dan Anderson (voice actor) and Glennis Yeager[edit]

Hello. I've restored the redirects on both of those pages since a purpose redirects is to redirect the user onto the pages with the material relevant to the subjects if the subjects do not meet WP:BIO. So, since the two articles are plausible but does not currently have enough material, I've redirected it back to its appropriate targets. KJ «Click Here» 23:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I left a discussion on your Talk page. Not a huge deal to me - thought that Wiki frowned on circular links... Ckruschke (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Love the One You're With[edit]

Please stop removing the Bucks Fizz info from this page. A song should have an article if it has been covered by several notable artists. This is one and Bucks Fizz are a very notable band, therefore it should be noted. The fact that it peaked at #47 is irrelevant, it was notable as the follow-up to a top 10 hit and was an important release because of that (in fact crucial to the demise of the group in this case). Chart positions are not the only criteria for notability, but either way it was a chart hit which satifies notability anyway. Your undue weight argument also doesn't hold water - it's not my fault that the other sections aren't longer or editors haven't put the work in. However, feel free to see what consensus says and I will go with that. Thank you.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Tuzapicabit - as I've said, it has nothing to do with the band, the follow-up song, or our opinion of the group. The notability is based on THAT SONG. It peaked at #47 therefore it is by definition "Not Notable" - doesn't matter how many people wrote it up. As an example of the converse, I thought all of Styx's albums were great, but the press hated them. Do these albums become "not notable", eventhough they were gold/platinum/double platinum albums just because they had unfavorable reviews? Similarly, a band's single is "not notable" if it flops even if everyone in the world rights it up as "a possible hit". Not being mean - just being honest - I have no axe to grind against the band or you. Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


I've reverted you. We've had a discussion about this before, see[2]. Kuban's at least one of the most prominent and cited writers on this. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Doug. Obviously "I" was not included in your "we" since I didn't get on Wikipedia for the first time until five months later so I'm not sure how I would have known this. Not to be argumentative, but I've seen pages that look just like his, well cited and similarly "scholarly", on the Creation side and they are dismissed off-hand as non-RS/self-published personal webpages/blogs (thus my criteria for the ref's removal), but if Wiki decided he was ok then that's ok with me. I've never heard of him, but I would have no reason to hear of him. Just FYI - when you mass reverted my removal of Kuban's ref's, you also removed legitimate edits which I just redid. So FYI in case you see me editing on the same two pages.
Take care Doug. Thanks for looking out for me as always. Ckruschke (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Sorry, it was the 'wikipedia community' or 'noticeboard' 'we'. But that was pretty ambiguous, my bad. I'd forgotten it myself but did a search as I was sure we'd discussed Talk origins before. I take your point about similar pages, but the difference is, and I think its important, that Kuban is taken seriously in scholarly sources. If that wasn't the case I'd agree with you. Sorry also that I didn't look carefully at what I was reverting. Very bad of me, especially to do it twice. I try to break down my edits into multiple edits always hoping that some will be left when reverting, but that's no excuse for me not seeing you were inserting something at OOPARTS. I doubt that you think I'm looking after you very well. :) I also must figure out why this font has shrunk so much, that doesn't help. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I give you Kudos for remembering a discussion from eight years ago AND finding it. I might be able to do the former, but not the latter...
The font size issue is "odd". I'm only 44, but I'm having a tough time seeing stuff on even my 21" monitor... Ckruschke (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Did you see my post to [{Talk:Creation Evidence Museum]]? It's just a list of sources using him. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yea I did. Its all good. Thanks again - Ckruschke (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
It's nice to be young. I'm 71. Although the least time I had my eyes checked I had to have new glasses because I needed a weaker prescription! I know that the foundation has been messing with fonts recently. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
My Dad is exactly the same age as you and I can't imagine him being as heavily involved on Wiki as you are (although he's on the computer alot, it isn't as involved as you are). He had coke-bottle glasses for years, but had Lasik done in 2007 or so. He's since moved onto wearing bifocals full time for reading. I bet it was a nice surprise to see your eyes get better! I had Lasik in January, although my eyes weren't nearly as bad as Dad's, and its taken a little getting used to. Although I can see great (Doc checked me out to 20/15 and I don't need reading glasses - which he kept warning me I would) I have trouble seeing really close in where in the past that was my "no glasses comfort zone" for doing really fine work like models and such. However, I'm really happy to be glassless for the first time in 34 yrs. Take care. Ckruschke (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks but poll failed...[edit]

Thanks for the early input to straw poll on edit placement/style for Objections to Evolution .... but it's become obvious the edit style topic isn't heading for consensus, useful discussion, or even good example of situation handling so ... I appreciate it but you were like the ONLY one to be on topic and can not go on with poll. Think that area of needs will have to wait or come in other ways and meanwhile I will work where seems more likely that it might be useful results. Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The O2E page is a hard one to edit. There are so many people who allow their POV to get in the way of honest comment/concensus that its almost impossible - by definition - to get anything done. I've been the "voice in the wilderness" for so long trying to make changes to the way the information is presented on this page, much to no avail, that its almost comforting to see someone else be kicked for once...  ;-)
I haven't been on Wiki as much in the past month as I've been in the past, but if you need/want my help/input on this page or any other, please do not hesitate to let me know. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


I just wanted to mention that the "Golden Raspbberry" awards had been spammed to dozens upon dozens of article by a single SPA, and that myself and other editors discussed the "award" at some length at Wikiproject Film and now at AN/I. The consensus is that we don't add these parody awards, which are really a form of derision and not genuine awards, to biographical articles without sourcing independent of the people who award the "razzies." Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh - I did not know this - sounds good. Thanks for the follow-up note! Ckruschke (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Veggie Tales[edit]

I put "better as a redirect" since I don't believe any single episode of the series meets Wikipedia standards for notability. I am aware of the double redirects, had no one reverted me, I was planning on removing the redirects from the list of episodes page. I probabley should have just listed the episode articles at Afd, but if you have better ideas, I'd like to hear them. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I thought you were going to say something about the pages not meeting the
"WP:NOR" and "WP:PRIMARY" redirect here. For the Norway WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway. For information on primary topics, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation.
To raise issues with specific articles, see the No original research noticeboard.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)

The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable 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. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.

Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see the NOR noticeboard.

Using sources[edit]

Policy shortcut:

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.

Reliable sources[edit]

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.

In general, the most reliable sources are:

  • peer-reviewed journals
  • books published by university presses
  • university-level textbooks
  • magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
  • mainstream newspapers

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see self-published sources for exceptions.

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources[edit]

"WP:PS" redirects here. For the essay about policies, see Wikipedia:Policy shopping.
"WP:PRIMARY" redirects here. For the article naming guideline, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Policy shortcuts:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:[2]

  • Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3]
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.
  • A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[7]
Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
  • Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.[8] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.
Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles).

Synthesis of published material[edit]

Policy shortcuts:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

  • A simple example of original synthesis:
N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
  • Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:
N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.
  • The following is a more complex example of original synthesis, based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. The first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to this dispute:
YesY 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.
  • Now comes the original synthesis:
N 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.

The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

Further information: Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not

Original images[edit]

Policy shortcut:
See also WP:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature and WP:Image use policy#Image titles and file names.

Because of copyright laws in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.

It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.

Translations and transcriptions[edit]

See also: WP:Translation
Policy shortcut:

Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources.

Routine calculations[edit]

Policy shortcut:

Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. See also Category:Conversion templates.

Related policies[edit]


Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described here.

Neutral point of view[edit]

The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

  • If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.[10]

See also[edit]



  1. ^ a b By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
  2. ^ This University of Maryland library page provides typical examples of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Retrieved 07/26/2013.
  3. ^ Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs. For definitions of primary sources:
    • The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
    • The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
    • Duke University, Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."
  4. ^ Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
  5. ^ University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".
  6. ^ The Ithaca College Library compares research articles to review articles. Be aware that either type of article can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources.
  7. ^ Book reviews may be found listed under separate sections within a news source or might be embedded within larger news reports. Multiple coverage in book reviews is considered one of the notability criteria for books; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book; a book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author and related writing issues than be considered a secondary source for the topics covered within the book. For definitions of book reviews:
    • Princeton's Wordnet 2011 scholarly definitions repository defines book review as "a critical review of a book (usually, [of] a recently published book)."
    • VirginiaTech University Libraries provides the following definition: "A book review is an article that is published in a newspaper, magazine or scholarly work that describes and evaluates a book... Reviews differ from literary critiques of books. Critiques explore the style and themes used by an author or genre."
  8. ^ While it is a tertiary source, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.
  9. ^ Jimmy Wales has said of synthesized historical theories: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004)
  10. ^ Wales, Jimmy. "WikiEN-l --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--", September 29, 2003.

Further reading[edit]


I think you'll have a tough time convincing anyone that these videos lack notability. If you set the bar this low, that videos that have sold millions of copies and are in a very well known genre are not notable, you have thus caught up thousands of other pages on Wikipedia. I was involved in a notability discussion on Afd and this was basically the final opinion of the moderator. I'm not saying not to do it - just saying I think it will be for naught.