Wikipedia talk:No original research

Lead

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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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)

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)

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)

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)

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"."

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)

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)

Beginning of lead

One of my intentions when I originally added the first sentence,[1] 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.[2] 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)

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)