Wikipedia talk:No original research

RFC - Replace examples in WP:SYNTH with link to examples

Please comment on the following proposed version for WP:synth. It differs from the present version only by replacing the two examples currently in the section with a link to a page that contains the two examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

---

== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "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. For examples see Original synthesis at Wikipedia:No original research/Examples.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

---

Comment of requester: This is an improved version that has a size that makes for better reading and communication and has a link to the examples, instead of having them in the section. I think it is a mistake to have most of WP:SYNTH filled with examples since it takes up too much space compared to the other more important parts and obscures them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I like Bob's idea. He makes the rule easy to understand: thus, easy to follow! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, the WP:NOR/Examples page was never meant to replace the examples in WP:NOR. As I stated here, the reason for that is because I believe it’s best to keep a couple of main examples of synth right in the policy. Unlike subpages, main Policy pages are watched closely so there's less chance of having poor or misleading examples added. I also think it's good to have a couple of examples right in the policy, because it helps give direct substance to the concepts outlined therein - subpages can help expand on those, but aren't necessary to the core understanding of the policy. Therefore, I oppose Bob's proposed changes. Dreadstar ☥ 19:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the link is to a page in the history of the examples page so it can't be altered. The only way to change it is by going through WP:NOR to link to another page in the examples page history that contains the desired changes. This is somewhat serendipidity since I made this link because you recently removed one of the examples over there, so I linked to a page that has all of the examples. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I oppose replacing the examples with a link. We need one page, the policy page, that people can look at to find out what OR is, without having to visit yet another page too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some significant percentage of people who would not follow the link if the examples were removed, will read the examples if they remain on the page, and concrete examples are a teaching tool that makes accessible what abstract description may fail to convey. In addition to the see also link, the examples section can have a link at the the end not unlike: "See Wikipedia:No original research/Examples for additional examples of improper original synthesis", but the few on the page should remain. The examples are not filling the page, obscuring other points. It's a short list that I don't think places much strain on those visiting. Moreover, those who would find reading through them too much to handle are, in any event, exactly the types who aren't likely to visit a linked satellite page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose to moving examples to a sub-page as examples should add clarity to what may be a confusing policy point. I believe it's important for key examples to remain in-line rather than having user's jump to another page. For example, someone is likely to be confused by the A, B, C stuff in WP:SYNTH. The examples should then be clear enough that the reader then understands A, B, C. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Examples like this are common and illuminating in policy pages. These examples are particularly good ones. Sub-pages are not well watched, and may fill up with poor examples. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the link in WP:SYNTH is to a page in the history of the examples page, so it can't be altered without going through WP:NOR to link to another page in the history with the desired changes. What do you think of the alternate proposal below? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal (only reorganizes within section and keeps examples)

Re Fuhghettaboutit's comment: "Moreover, those who would find reading through them too much to handle are, in any event, exactly the types who aren't likely to visit a linked satellite page." - If they found the more complex example too much to handle and stopped reading, they would miss the important last paragraph of the section which comes after the examples. How would all of you feel about putting the last paragraph after the first paragraph and then have the examples follow?

Click on show to view the contents of this section

== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "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.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

A simple example of original synthesis:

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

Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts are true, the sentence implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how, when no source is provided, facts can easily be manipulated:

The UN's 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 an original synthesis. It is based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones:

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:

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 first paragraph was properly sourced. The second paragraph was original research because it expressed the 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 in Wikipedia by a contributor.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not only do I think that change does no damage, I think it reads better, i.e., I support that change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support alternate proposal to move the last paragraph up to just below the lead. The next line can then be changed from "A simple example" to "A simple example of synthesis". --Marc Kupper|talk 08:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• It was like that [1] before someone moved it, as I recall without discussion (though maybe I missed the discussion, or have forgotten it). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you would like to implement the alternate proposal? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes either way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you oppose the alternate proposal? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The last small paragraph of WP:SYNTH is important because it helps avoid the misapplication of NOR, but unfortunately, it is located in a place where it can easily be overlooked. I recall having a hard time finding it when I needed to refer to it. When I came to the examples I stopped my search for it in that section because it looked like all that was left were the examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying the following comment of Blueboar from the section below: Are there other issues.--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I assume you are talking about the "best practice" paragraph... is so, I completely agree. At minimum, this paragraph lead off the section (similar to how I proposed above... but with the newly agreed upon language). Alternatively, perhaps it could be stated in its own section (suggest a header of: "Source based research" if we go this route). Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request for the above Alternate proposal

Please note that this proposal involves no policy change. It moves the last paragraph in WP:SYN to the position of being the second paragraph, and changes the beginning of the resulting third paragraph from "A simple example:" to "A simple example of original synthesis:". The consensus consists of support from 4 editors including myself, and an unclear position from another. Otherwise, there have been no objections since the Alternate proposal was first proposed Sept 3 2009, almost 2 weeks ago. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH - why does this section exist?

The edit war over the WP:SYNTH examples reminds me that I’ve always been confused by WP:SYNTH and why it exists as part of policy. The section starts out with “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” I'm thinking “Why isn't this reduced to a more general rule such as 'Do not reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?'” What's special about synthesis of multiple sources that's not covered under the more general rule?

My confusion deepens when I see the the first example. It's a single sentence about the UN and 160 wars that's entirely out of context and seems to bear no relationship at all to “RS A, RS B, synthesis C” that was used in the section lead.

The second example has paragraph with two sentences that presumably are based on one, maybe two RS. It just says “The first paragraph was properly sourced.” It’s a better example in that it shows sourced material followed by a WP:OR conclusion. However, I don’t see this as a direct example and clarification of “RS A, RS B, synthesis C.” It is a good example of “RS A, synthesis or conclusion B” but not “RS A and RS B synthesized into C.”

I'm guessing the WP:SYN section got added as someone must have wikilawyered their way around the more general "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below." (the below links to WP:SYN). --Marc Kupper|talk 07:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no... the SYN section was developed quite a while before the line you quote was added. The section was created to tell editors not to include what they see as logical conclusions... conclusions based upon reliable sources, but not actually made by any of the sources they cite. The examples are there to show that this is not always easy to detect (in part because the conclusions often are logical). We probably should have called the section "No original logic" instead of "Synthesis". Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if Mark Kupper's guess was off the mark, his point is valid. Renaming it to "No original logic" sounds sensible, but doesn't quite address his point. The general 'Do not reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources' would cover "No original logic" too. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we could easily remove the A+B=C sentences. That's sometimes what SYN is, but not invariably. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that helped a lot. While it seems redundant I now see that it's necessary to have a section like WP:SYN as there are some who will argue that logical conclusions are not "original" research.

The use of the word "synthesis" still bugs me a little but I found it is correct. It turns out there's a lesser used definition of synthesis. It's in the World Book Dictionary as the very last entry and is "according to Thomas Hobbes, Isaac Newton, and others, deductive reasoning." Thus "synthesis" can cover an editor derived conclusion or deduction, even if the article is based on one RS. I can't say I'm comfortable with needing to use a definition that only shows up in the largest dictionaries but I can't think of a better word at the moment. I'm going to follow this with the current lead paragraph, save the edit, and then immediately edit the lead to a proposed version. Use the history/diff to see the changes.

Do not combine material from one or more sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C, regardless of how logical it may seem. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same conclusion in relation to the topic of the article.

The tweaks are minor but would then cover synthesis from one source. I changed that last "argument" as while it's the correct word it seems to link better with the earlier use of "conclusion" in the paragraph. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of getting rid of A+B=C? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's late for me and I can't think of a clean way to replace it. I like how it's showing that we have a reliable source(s), synthesized conclusion, and then restating that it should not be done. I'll sleep on it and will see if a wording comes to mind that has less emphasis on synthesizing multiple sources vs. deductions or conclusions from a single source. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the problem and hopefully the solution or the road down which the solution lies. The focus in the present language is wrong. We don't care whether material is from one source or multiple sources for purposes of original research, but we do care that items of information are being combined to form a conclusion regardless of whether the data (and never the datum) is taken from a single source or multiple sources. The information is always going to be multiple items thereof and that's where the plural comes in. The restatement above goes some way to clear up up but still keeps the focus in the latter half on the plurality of sources rather than on the information in the sources. I think this resolves the problem (among other tweaks, note the changes from by sources to in sources)

Do not combine items of information (facts, opinion, etc.) from a source or sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly reached in the source or sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published in a reliable source, and B is published in a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if one or more reliable sources have published the same deductive chain and result in relation to the topic of the article.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(Here's my 2 cents.) Perhaps the simplest way is to just modify the first sentence of the first paragraph in WP:SYNTH:

== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by a ny of the source s. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "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.

In this way, we remove the implication that this applies only to the case where the two facts are in different sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a version that does not use A, B, C. I also moved the concluding paragraph up and reformulated the first example so that it shows the source sentence first and then the synthesis.

== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==

Care must be taken to not form arguments or conclusions that are not explicitly stated by a source. A synthesis of published material that advances a new position constitutes original research. Stating an argument or conclusion in an article is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same position in relation to the topic of the article.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

example commented out per feedback.--Marc Kupper|talk 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not include the second example here. If we use it, then does not need rewording as it's an example of a deliberate synthesis where the first example could be accidental but it also shows why citing the sources is valuable. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to retain the point about combining multiple sources, which is the essence of SYN. Also, you changed the example. Could we please not involve the examples in discussing the way the introduction is written?

As the intro to that section is written at the moment, what do you see as the problem with it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not perfect talk page etiquette but I've commented the modified example out from my previous post. Using strikeout on the large block was too distracting. We can include plural sources by replacing "a source" in the first sentence with "sources." Would that work? One thing I don't like about my own rewording is that it's does not have a strong statement about "logical conclusions are OR." That got weakened as I was trying to work in both synthesized arguments and conclusions. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I like your latest proposal. I actually complained about the current wording of the policy over a year ago; but no luck changing it back them. Asking that "A and B, therefore C" come exactly from one publication/source is unreasonable. In fact, this particular requirement is ignored by large swaths of our Mathematics articles for a good reason. By observing the current policy you'd have to commit a copyright violation (wrt. derivative work) by copying entire lines of reasoning "as is" since you're technically allowed to make only superficial wording changes. Your proposal is much more reasonable, in that A, B, and C may come from different sources as long as all are germane to the article's topic. I also like that you put it in words, instead of syllogisms. Pcap ping 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

More problematic, is that some make a synthesis from different sources that use the same terminology with different meanings. Something like A=>B (source 1), B=>C (source 2), therefore A=>C (no citation), when the two sources don't mean the same thing by B. I've not seen this often, but I've seen some occurrences. Might be an example worth adding in the examples part, but it might be overkill as well given that it's rare. Your proposed phasing still prohibits this practice. Pcap ping 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think an example is important as some people have difficulty understanding the description of synthesis. Chillum 15:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that one, or even more examples are needed, but the defitintion of "syntehsis" here should not be given in syllogism, since you can't cover all aspects that way. Pcap ping 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparison

Current version

Marc's proposal

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "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 ... (Examples) ... Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

Care must be taken to not form arguments or conclusions that are not explicitly stated by a source. A synthesis of published material that advances a new position constitutes original research. Stating an argument or conclusion in an article is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same position in relation to the topic of the article. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. (Followed by examples)

I personally found the A, B, C wording to make the concept very clear. While the new wording does cover the basic concept I don't think it explains it as well as the old wording. The idea of synthesis has been very difficult for some editors to understand in my history of dealing with people. Perhaps it will not be an issue with examples. Chillum 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The old wording is confusing because the A-B-C part actually imposes an additional restiction not found in the 1st sentence of the current policy. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." only implies that you need a citation for each of A, B and C; it does not imply that you need a citation for "A and B implies C". The difference is significant. Pcap ping 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the new wording (or just the 1st sentence from the old), does allow syllogisms like: "The sky is blue" (cite 1), "the Sun is hot" (cite 2), therefore "an elephant is a mammal" (cite3); you can easily "fix" this (as a syllogism, not as a meaningful article) by replacing therefore with and. But I don't think the "SYNT" part of the policy was meant to prohibit Wikipedia:NONSENSE. That's a different issue to me than "improper synthesis". Pcap ping 16:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My point here is that even the current WP:SYNT doesn't prohibit this article: "The sky is blue (cite 1). The Sun is hot (cite 2). An elephant is a mammal (cite3)." because no attempt to present one statement as a conclusion of others is made. All statements are properly sourced, so it's not WP:OR. Still this "article" is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, which we don't want here. But the purpose of this policy isn't to prohibit such nonsensical article in here; there's another policy for that, which I've just linked to. So, the proposed change in wording separates the concerns, i.e. makes the policies more orthogonal. Pcap ping 17:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh... perhaps it is to early in the morning for me. I will re-read this section later. Chillum 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the comparison, I do find the original version much easier to understand. Is it perfect, no... but I think it does a better job of explaining what the issue is than the proposal. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Blueboar, the current (original) version is better at explaining the issue and is easier to understand. Dreadstar ☥ 22:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer the original too. The proposal doesn't clearly address the idea that each part is sourced correctly, but that the combination is OR. Marc: what is it about the current introduction to SYN that you find problematic? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin asks what I find problematic with the current introduction. I see that it needs extremely careful reading, pretty much at the wikilawyer level to understand it.

I believe it is beneficial to have a section of NOR that reinforces that the editor must not introduce unpublished arguments, conclusions, ideas, etc. in an article. It does not matter if those arguments/conclusions are constructed via analysis (or analysis), synthesis, fallacy, insanity, or some other method. I believe the first WP:SYN example is a good one as it shows how a factual statement from a source was modified into an argument.

I also believe it would be beneficial to remind editors to not include they see as logical conclusions... conclusions based upon reliable sources, but not actually made by any of the sources they cite. (this is from Blueboar 17:24, 3 September 2009 above)

I'm now starting to see that we should not use words like synthesis, analysis, fallacy, etc. in core policy. Policy should be accessible to a wide audience and needs to be as readable as possible. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

May I add to Marc's important remark about readability, when policy is discussed extensively here on this talk page, the terminology and concepts become familiar to the editors here. We should recognize that the typical reader of WP:NOR doesn't have that advantage. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Prefer the original version, per Blueboar. --JN466 12:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

May I also add, in the original version the explanation of the concept of synth is split up. There's most of the explanation, then the examples, then the short remaining part of the explanation at the end, where it can get lost. Marc's version puts all of the explanation at the beginning before the examples. Even if you disagree with other aspects of Marc's proposal, surely you can at least agree with this simple improvement, which is the Alternate proposal in a previous section above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the current version. Given the choices, it is clearer and more to the point. When running into WP:SYN situations, which is all too common, I find it useful to be able to point to the basic "if A and B are individually well sourced, it doesn't mean you can juxtapose them to advance a conclusion C from them, unless C is also well sourced, and all sources must refer to the specific subject." I would also add that conclusion C needs specific sourcing whether it is directly stated or just implied by juxtaposition. Crum375 (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Crum375, What do you think about the part of Marc's proposal that has the examples following the explanation of SYNTH? Would that simple change be acceptable to you, i.e. the change mentioned in my previous message and suggested in the Alternate proposal in a previous section above? It seems better than the current version because a small important part of the explanation doesn't get lost by being alone at the end of the WP:SYNTH section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the current version, with the point about "summarizing existing sources is not OR" at the end is fine, but I don't see that order as crucial. I think the current UN example is too confusing as presented. Crum375 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Crum375, I personally had the experience awhile back of not noticing the "summarizing existing sources is not OR" paragraph because of its position alone after the complex example. So it can go unnoticed in its current position. The way it's positioned, it looks like part of the explanation of the second example and can make the reading less smooth too. In what I experienced, I was checking WP:SYNTH for some info. I looked at the first paragraph and since the example was next, I figured only the example remained in the section and I stopped reading, since I wasn't interested in the example at that time. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can live with it being higher up, though perhaps it could be shortened. This entire section is very wordy and confusing as it stands. Crum375 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re "This entire section is very wordy and confusing as it stands." - Ain't that the truth. I think it's due to the examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The original version is superior, precisely because it provides these critical examples. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, people invariably say "but it's all sourced from reliable sources". I can't tell you how many times I've run into this problem; reliably sourced material being used to advance a position not found in any of the sources, or to make arguments on topics not actually addressed in the sources. If anything, we need more examples in the policy, not fewer. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this section is probably the most difficult piece of Wiki-policy for the average editor to understand... not because we do a poor job of trying to explain it, but because the underlying concept is very complex. The line between source based research and sythesis is often blurred and hard for the average editor to figure out. I think the examples help. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, you've said a true word there. JN466 21:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was playing with some new wording, read WP:SYN again, and now it makes sense to me... The wording I was working on was "Any arguments, conclusions, ideas, etc. in an article must be explicitly stated in reliable sources. Developing a new position in an article, even if it is based on reliable sources, is original research. ¶Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." That will also cover OR ideas developed by methods other than synthesis such as what's used in the first example. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Best practice?

As long as we are discussing the wording... I would like us to take a look at the "Best practice" line... Experienced editors know what the line means, but to a novice editor it may not be at all clear where the line between "best practice editing" and "synthesis" lies. The problem is that it is quite possible to take "material from different reliable sources on the topic, and put those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim" and still form an improper synthesis.

Thinking about this... I think the problem might be resolved if we swap paragraphs... put the one about good editing and best practice first... and then warn editors about forming a synthetic statement. Using the current language (with a minimum of tweeking) it would look like this:

Original research is often introduced to articles through synthesis. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "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.

Then give the examples. I think this clarifies the distinction. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that this can still be misinterpreted. Remember the (real-life) example presented some weeks ago (included as the first example in WP:ORIGINALSYN) about the activist who had called for a boycott of a company. An editor then added material to the effect that the sales figures and share price of the company dropped after the activist's boycott call. Crucially, neither of these sources mentioned the activist, or linked the drop in sales and share price to the activist's actions.

I am concerned that the above wording does not explain clearly enough what was wrong about what the editor did, as its leading statement seems to describe just what he did. We have heard editors defending SYN in this manner before, using the same phrasing: "But I took material from different reliable sources on the topic and put those claims on the page in my own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim, just like you say. And I did not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Because I did not explicitly say it was the activist's actions that caused the drop in sales, I just presented the attested facts and left it to the reader to draw their own conclusions."

That "not guilty" argument is precisely wrong, and I fear this reversal of the wording may encourage editors to use it. --JN466 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suggested that we reverse the paragraph order in part because I saw the current order encouraging exactly the same sort of error ... Perhaps the problem isn't the order... but that there is a flaw in our statement about best practice? Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably so. We need a way to define the point at which a juxtaposition of unrelated material becomes, or suggests, a novel conclusion. Basically, editors combine such material because they have come to a conclusion in their own minds. The editor in the boycott example felt, at the very least, that it was "interesting" that the company's sales and share price dropped after the boycott call. But the point is no source had said it was "interesting". The boycott call had no significance in secondary sources commenting about sales that year. Even if it were true that the activist's boycott call had something to do with the company's poor performance, Wikipedia should not be the first place where people can read about this.

In the past, we had addressed this by requiring that editors only cite sources that "directly refer to" or "directly mention" the article topic. That would have taken care of the boycott call example. We then changed this to sources that "are directly related to" the article topic. I remember Jayjg pointing out at the time that this opened a huge loophole – because in the editor's mind, there was a "direct relationship" between the boycott call and the drop in sales, even though the sources documenting the drop in sales did not mention the boycott call.

Perhaps a way to address this is that in all cases involving explicit or implicit conclusions that might be in any way contentious, the sources cited must directly mention the article topic, to ensure that Wikipedia is not the first place where a significant novel conclusion is published. JN466 12:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this concern covered by a saying not to state a "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, because the editor never stated the conclusion that the boycott call had anything to do with the poor sales. They just said there was a boycott call, and then said that the company's sales were poor that year, citing a source that did not mention the boycott call. JN466 12:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Another example I discussed with SlimVirgin a while back was where a person widely accused of having lied about his achievements claimed to have commandeered a particular ship during their military career. An editor reported the claim in an article and added a sentence reporting the "interesting fact" that there was no ship of that name listed in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Obviously, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships did not mention the article subject. I felt adding this sentence was OR, because no RS could be found that had reported the discrepancy before Wikipedia, but SlimVirgin felt it was alright. It's these sorts of issues that are at stake here.

If we allow sources that do not mention the article topic, we have to find some way of clarifying which types of "interesting facts" are okay to mention and which ones are not. JN466 12:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I like your suggested wording. I think it makes things clearer.

Jayen, I agree with you in principle, but I wouldn't want to see SYN tightened even more. Although the example you gave above was arguably OR, it was also an interesting and relevant point that was added. The danger with tightening things even more is that we risk strangling an editor's ability to communicate his understanding of a topic. We do that a little anyway, and we have to do it somewhat, but we also need to allow some leeway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the fundamental principle of Wikipedia was that we should communicate the understandings expressed in reliable sources, rather than the understanding of our editors. I'm wary that editors with limited subject matter expertise often come across facts that strike them as interesting and relevant, where an expert might readily recognise a fallacy, or have more detailed background knowledge that puts things in a different light. Surely we have all learned, if we are old enough, that some of the things which appeared quite logical to us and which we passionately believed in 10 or 25 years ago were based on partial information.

Taking the boycott case as an example, an expert might know that other retail companies had a bad pre-Christmas season as well that year -- there was a global economic crisis and share prices generally tumbled. That would explain why no sources linked the company's poor performance to the boycott call: it was unremarkable, conforming to the general market trend at the time. I think editors should resist the temptation to communicate their own hunches, findings and understandings, especially where these are based on "inspired" cross-connections drawn from extraneous sources, as in the boycott case, and concentrate instead on reviewing the best published sources that are focused directly on the specific article topic. On average, this will raise rather than lower the quality level of Wikipedia articles.

Looking at Blueboar's proposed wording, how about saying, "Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Make sure that you do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated ..." etc. JN466 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Current version	Blueboar's proposal	Jayen's proposal
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "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 ... (Examples) ... Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.	Original research is often introduced to articles through synthesis. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "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. (Examples) ...	Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Make sure that you do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "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.

Jayen, I'm not seeing a substantive difference in your proposal. For example, Blueboar says, "Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." And you say, "Make sure that you do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Is there a real difference between "reach a conclusion" and "reach or suggest a conclusion"? I can see "suggest" is maybe a little weaker, but what would a real example of that difference be, in a WP context? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(This is my first, and maybe only, post in this thread.) I think Jayen's proposal is very nice. It fixes something that I have always thought was unfortunate about the present language here, which does not say that best practice actually includes doing any broad research of sources or even reading significant parts of them. Instead, the present language suggests cherry-picking facts out of numerous sources without regard for the topic as a whole. Jayen's version restores the proper order of events: first, do some general reading on the topic, taking note of what you see. Second, write the article, making sure it agrees with the things you read. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl, what do you see as the difference between Jayen's and Blueboar's? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic"; that activity is not mentioned in Blueboar's version. If you asked me what the best practice is when writing articles, I would say: find the best sources on the topic, read them carefully to see what they say about it, and then write an article to accurately summarize what they say. This is true both in Wikipedia and in general life. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant, and Carl said it very well: (1) the present language suggests cherry-picking facts out of numerous sources without regard for the topic as a whole; (2) best practice [is to] find the best sources on the topic, read them carefully to see what they say about it, and then write an article to accurately summarize what they say. We have articles on important topics – see e.g. our article on Nobel-Prize winner Doris Lessing (permalink) – where no one has done that research. As a result, the articles are just collections of cherry-picked facts, many of them of peripheral importance, while the real meat is missing. --JN466 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What if we combined my proposal with Jayen's Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Combined version

Original research is often introduced to articles through synthesis. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "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. (Examples) ...

Yes, it's good, though I'm a little worried about "suggest." I'd like to hear how broad the scope of that is intended to be. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point... we are talking about implied conclusions here (ie stating A and B in such a way that conclusion C is clearly implied, even if it is not actually stated)... So let's use the word we mean... "reach or imply a conclusion" would be a better way to phrase it (or "reach or clearly imply a conclusion" if we want some leeway). Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the combined version and that it use imply rather than suggest. Clearly imply has merit but but I can't see how it would help prevent or cause future battles over if something is implied in an article any more or less than just imply. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Imply" is fine with me. Also, personally I prefer it without the bold. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, –

1. What I proposed was meant to be combined with Blueboar's version in just the way Blueboar has done above.
2. The bold font was only meant to mark the differences between my version and Blueboar's.
3. I am fine with "imply". What I had in mind are cases like the boycott. Mentioning that (1) there was a boycott call in the run-up to Christmas and (2) the company experienced poor pre-Christmas sales avoids the charge of "reaching a conclusion", but it clearly implies such a conclusion. Unless such a connection is stated or implied in reliable sources, an editor should not change the article in this way either.
4. However, I do fear Bob below has a point about our using the word synthesis in the first sentence without explaining it.

JN466 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you folks are performing organ transplants when the patient only needs minor surgery, and you're harming the patient. Yikes! You are using a term "synthesis" in the first paragraph without explaining what it is until the second paragraph and you didn't address the issue of synthesis of material from the same source. (Didn't SlimVirgin bring up the "same source" issue originally?) The following version modifies just the first sentence, addressing the "same source" issue, and moves the last paragraph to after the first paragraph. Note that we still have "synthesis" described before the term is used, which is the way of this and the current version.

== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==

Do not combine material to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "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.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

(Examples)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.

No matter how many sources or citations one includes in adding to content, the converse of the subject/headline is always true. (That is "Wikipedia does publish original research or original thought.") At some point there was original research and original thought. It is humanly impossible to publish otherwise. So the entire premise of "no original research" is a lie. And non-truth is currently supported by the verifiability policy. Then, neutral point of view is automatically violated as policy, due to human error in writing an outright lie and allowing its support. Is there any concensus here to correct the error of policy? Edward Palamar (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Original" applies only to the person adding text to Wikipedia; as long as the originality of thought is removed one step from WP (and of course considered reliable) then there's no violation. --MASEM (t) 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One step, two steps - the actual publishing contains original thought. Why are the two uses of the word "original" not either placed in quotes and redefined, or have citations of their own, to make the sentence as printed a non-lie? Edward Palamar (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify... What we mean is that information appearing in Wikipedia should not be the original thought of the editor who adds it. To put it another way: Wikipedia should not be the original venue of publication for information (this last statement, or something similar, used to be in the policy, we should probably re-add it). If information is previously published elsewhere, it did not originate with the Wikipedian who added it; Wikipedia is not the original venue of publication. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your second point is correct, but not necessarily the first. We do allow an editor to publish his original thought on Wikipedia if it has already been published in a reliable source elsewhere. So the point of originality, as you say, is that Wikipedia should not be the original publisher of the material. Crum375 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK... I stand corrected. Information appearing in Wikipedia should not be the original thought of the edtior who adds it UNLESS it has been previously published elsewhere (in a reliable source). The rest stands.

What do people think about adding: Wikipedia should not be the original venue of publication for information? Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we do allow some types of original information, such as self-made drawings, diagrams, photos, audio or video recordings, etc. So it's not quite that strict. Crum375 (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true. But let's face it. The term "original research" is a misnomer. What is meant is unpublished research or facts.

It's interesting that if it was properly named in the beginning, we would just as easily be talking about UR instead of OR, and there would be less confusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: self-made drawings, diagrams, photos etc. Not quite... read the section on user-created images again... if the information presented in the drawing constitutes OR, we don't allow it. What we do allow is a user-created image that visually depicts information that has been reliably published elsewhere. It is a visual equivalent of an editor summarizing information from a reliable source into their own words. The image may be original... but the information is not. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That may sound good in theory, but is not what happens in practice. Photos depict tons of new information not in any published text, and diagrams and drawings, or Wikipedian-made "computer renderings", have lots of unsourced details. You could start arguing about major issues, but the more minor ones are not worth the debating time and energy. As bottom line, all those allowed things introduce new material. Crum375 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a problem. We've discussed maps of genetic distribution, where an editor may cherrypick from published source from different times, even using the sources incorrectly, and it's really hard to disentangle such maps. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, identifying OR can sometimes be a problem. But the difficulty in identifying OR is not (and should not be) a license to violate NOR. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this flaw in Wikipedia policy, that is the stated lie "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." is conducive to violations of which I have been accused falsely (i.e. - what goes around, comes around), the actuality of what the rest of you seem to imply is - "An editor can only copy and paste another's writing." This statement uses 52 characters compared to 65 found in the lie. With all due respect to Wikipedia's efforts to have a comprehensive encyclopedia inclusive to contributions by anyone, there should be a similar practice of ethics in valueing anyone who may read it. None of you have seriously looked at the statement to the point of seeing how damaging it already is, else you wouldn't be trying to defend it. Edward Palamar (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edward, I think you fail to see that while the wording of "No original research" may not reach your standards, editors are aware of the practical implications of the rule itself. You are defining "original research" to mean "research that originated somewhere," which yes, the wording can be taken that way. But your interpretation makes "original research" redundant; if something is "unoriginal research," what does that mean? That it is research copied from other research? However, the vast majority of editors see "original research" to be unpublished or otherwise unverified research. And that is the consensus, and thus is the rule for WP. Wiki-lawyering the wording of a specific rule of guideline isn't going to turn over a long line of history of editting under the guideline. WP is not like legislation; just because a word or phrase can be taken in two different directions does not overturn or change a rule.

In sum, the consensus definition for original research/thought is different than yours. While you may dislike the wording, the importance is the spirit of the guideline and the consensus behind it. Angryapathy (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Original research" is a confusing term that we're stuck with. As I mentioned, it should have been called "Unpublished research".

As to Edward's other point, the last paragraph of WP:SYNTH helps avoid the misapplication of NOR, but unfortunately, it is located in a place where it can easily be overlooked. I had a hard time finding it when I needed to refer to it, and perhaps some of you had similar experiences. There is a proposal to improve its location. Please see Alternate proposal in a previous section above and add your comments there. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Analysis:

Wikipedia has written a sentence including the statement that it does not publish original thought, that is, what one would normally assume to be mental activity within the mind of a man.

In order for any words formulated from the mental activity to be verbalized, orally or in writing, there needs to be Grace, a source of strength, to overcome the inability of man to control his tongue. Man, without Grace, in the basic condition of a being doomed to die, is incapable of survival on his own, hence he has lost the ability to control his tongue, including thought. The enlightenment of the mind with Grace permits both the ability to think and to verbalize those thoughts. Any editor inside or outside of Wikipedia was under these bounds, the enlightenment due to Christ's Redemption being the release from original sin (inclusive to said bounds). If we take the use of 'original' as in 'original thought' to be thought before being enlightened, we would have to be alive before the time of Christ's Redemption, or we would have to reject Him willfully. In terms of free thought, to reject Him willfully would be a violation of neutral point of view. And as we who are alive are not alive before the time of Christ, the use of 'original' must refer to something else after Christ's Salvific work. As it is humanly impossible to verbalize without thought, 'original thought' can only refer to thought originating in a specific person or persons after Christ's coming. The thought is necessary to verbalize, so in this it remains intact as a consistent whole to the end of an auditory (oral) verbalization or of a written (published) message. For whatever reason one chooses to advocate the cutting off of the necessary thought to the end of publication does not change the fact that the thought is still present in the publication. Hence, it is not an issue of the wording of the sentence, it is the content and its implications.

There is not enough data to make the statement concerning consensus definition, Angryapathy. There are billions of people, with only eight showing. Also, I haven't failed in seeing anything as regards the sentence as quoted. Even if one only copies and pastes from another's writing, one has to think while doing it, original thought. Anything with more effort requires more thought, more original thought. When one selects "Save Page" one is publishing, even more original thought. And one has had to do original research to "Save Page". And unless one becomes brain dead while saving the page, there still is original research being put into publishing. But most importantly, there is no spirit in a lie. "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." is much better as it allows, if necessary, some positive group interaction. Edward Palamar (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Edward, we don't need to consult with billions, we have eight here, and now nine when I press [Save Page]. The consensus reached is among the nine of us. Hundreds may be lurking but WP:SILENCE applies. Also, consensus can change at any time. You have commented on the issues surrounding the words "no original research." What words do you recommend be used instead of "no original research?" --Marc Kupper|talk 23:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In place of "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." This would allow for a prophet/prophetess to prove him/herself rather than striking the prophet/prophetess with a lie. Edward Palamar (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that but as it's very close to the previous wording I took a look to see why it was added and then removed. Here's the previous wording at the time it was added 13 September 2007 (talk page) and removed 17 Dec 2007 (talk page). The talk page links are the section in the talk page related to the change at the instant the change was made.

• Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. no original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
• Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:

It looks like both the addition and removal were for clarity rather than to deal with specific issues. I prefer the 2007 wording (final version) over the new proposal as it seems easier to understand. It'll be the very first sentence in NOR. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of clarity, it is best not to repeat the word(s) which one is trying to define in the definition. "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." is not close to the lie as exposed in this : the putting of a sword into man between mind and work in "original thought" carries over as the same for "original research". And in both occurences, "original thought" and "original research", it constitutes assault. It is better to define "No original research" as a policy without the absolute, i.e., the use of "should", to allow for editors to place material they feel is correct and of benefit to everyone else, not in defiance, but to improve Wikipedia. There is always the discussion page to iron out things. Edward Palamar (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe, based on the edits that Edward had been blocked for, that this argument mainly focuses around Edward trying to get around the policy of only including information that can be cited from reliable sources. This is one of the cores of WP, as people often wish to publish their ideas straight to Wikipedia without having any sort of fact-checking; Wikipedia is an appealing venue as it can be editted by anyone and is extremely popular. However, I highly doubt that this policy will ever change to allow anyone to post their unchecked thoughts and opinions on WP. This would destroy the reference ability and credibility of this site. Also, while Edward seems to be focusing on the title of, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought," any sort of confusion that may arise from that statement is explained by reading the rest of the article, which clarifies what those two terms mean. Angryapathy (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AH... Edward has been blocked for repeatedly adding OR? That explains his insistance that the policy is "a lie" and "flawed". And don't worry Angryapathy... this policy may get tweeked and even majorly re-worked from time to time, but the fundamental principle behind it isn't going to change... it is (as you say) a core policy. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the good reasons to refute a lie, is to counter the damage it may have already done. Angryapathy, you tried to give spirit to a lie, yet in your belief, as stated, you reject a reliable source. You have also stated elsewhere here that WP does not publish facts. Now that statement is correct only under the assumption that everyone else enjoys the placing of a sword between a man's mind and a man's work. The lie you support seems to me to continue to wreak havoc with more lies. Edward Palamar (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed, you don't have to agree with the policy... but you do have to follow it if you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, Blueboar. As to introducing the block issue here, there is already a place for addressing that. The meaning of "no original research" has been defined in licit terms. Edward Palamar (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

While I would love to continue this disucssion, I think it is a moot point since the policy is explicit in that information must come from a reliable source and be verifiable. The sentence that Edward is questioning is basically a "header", where further explanation of the guideline/rule follows. If Edward has information that fits this criteria, he can add it. Angryapathy (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The boundaries of OR?

If I claim that 777 × 286 = 222222 without citing a source, is that "OR"? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, if presented merely as a claim about arithmetic. We have a relatively well-established practice regarding the use of calculations such as that, and more complex ones as well. Did some more specific situation come up? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, what if it's merely an algebraic identity that anyone can easily check in a few seconds, such as the following?

${\begin{aligned}\left(a^{2}+b^{2}\right)\left(c^{2}+d^{2}\right)&{}=\left(ac-bd\right)^{2}+\left(ad+bc\right)^{2}\ \qquad \qquad (1)\\&{}=\left(ac+bd\right)^{2}+\left(ad-bc\right)^{2}.\qquad \qquad (2)\end{aligned}}$

Or a trigonmetric identity, such as this?:

$\sec(\theta _{1}+\cdots +\theta _{n})={\frac {\sec \theta _{1}\cdots \sec \theta _{n}}{e_{0}-e_{2}+e_{4}-\cdots }}$

where e_k is the kth-degree elementary symmetric polynomial in the n variables x_i = tan θ_i, i = 1, ..., n, and the number of terms in the denominator depends on n.

That one might take more than a minute, but it's just a secondary-school exercise. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think OR using BASIC (grade school level) math... simple multiplication, division, addition and subtraction of numbers is OK. But I would draw the line there. If you have to use algebraic or trigonometric calculation (even if fairly simple) you need a source. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No and yes. See WP:NOR#Routine_calculations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The algebraic identity shown above is just a routine calculation of which there are too many to count in Wikipedia; we do not have any problem with such calculations in practice, and they do not violate the OR policy. The secant example is more questionable, especially without any context to help. I would be more concerned about its accessibility and clarity than its originality.

In the end, the spirit of the OR policy is to keep crackpot theories off Wikipedia, not to stop people from writing clear explanations of standard material. The more obvious it is that something is just a neutral explanation of standard material, the less problem anyone can have with it. For example, if multiple textbooks make the same sort of calculation, including it on WP does not violate any policy, even if the form used here is not identical to the form used elsewhere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If something is just a routine textbook calculation, then it should be easy to cite a source, and citing a source is better for article stability. Problems arise if an editor says, "But this is the same as so-and-so," and they can't cite a reliable published source that says so.

To be honest, I don't care if it can be shown on the talk page that mathematically some A equates to B. If no source has bothered to point that out before, then we'd be the first to do so, and that is original research, whether it's correct or not. That's not our business; our business is summarising what reliable sources have said about a topic, presenting viewpoints and statements in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources. JN466 11:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't equate originality of presentation with originality of content. Of course, whenever there are serious objections to something, we remove it. But "it wasn't written exactly that way in any book" is not an objection about original research. Unless we are going to make articles consisting of entirely direct quotes, paraphrasing and original writing will always be necessary. In the context of mathematics, that may include rephrasing algebraic deductions as well as rephrasing prose, because algebraic deductions are part of the language that is used to communicate mathematics. I am speaking here with a great deal of experience with both good and bad mathematics articles on WP, experience cleaning up mathematical OR and experience with articles that have original content that is not OR. There is actually a relatively clear line between unacceptable and acceptable content in mathematics articles, but that line will not be easily found by exploring the text of the page WP:NOR as it is currently written, because the present language is written with a very different set of articles in mind. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with the with the above the above paragraph of CBM. Pcap ping 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to be losing the point of having OR in the first place. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Obviously we want it to be of high quality, and to do so we require contents to be supported by reliable sources with the hope that the quality of the sources translates to that of Wikipedia. In other words, OR is only "the means to the end". If some math examples didn't appear in exactly the same way in any source, it could be, strictly speaking, considered "synthetic". But what is the harm? What is wrong with OR isn't because it is "original" but because OR materials tend to be unverifiable or are incredible claims. Simply saying "synthesis" is wrong is very wrong: it has to take this context into account. Otherwise we get a silly situation that many math examples are judged synthetic and are subject to deletion. -- Taku (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to an editor making up an example, as long as equivalent examples (same structure, but different figures for example) are used in reliable sources. JN466 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There are usually issues other than originality that are more compelling. Examples that are written in a way that does not make them obviously right are probably not written well, and probably will not help the intended audience of the article. Once the examples are clarified and simplified to be appropriate for the average reader, it is usually very clear which ones are "standard" and which ones are not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. This was a problem I tried to point to & start a conversation about with my draft of Wikipedia:These are not original research, specifically:

Simple logical deductions [are not original research]. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should, again, not be included under this case because they require skills that not all readers possess, and involve a large number of steps that introduce the possibility of errors.

My intent was to close off points of contention whose only purpose was to wikilawyer over statements otherwise perfectly acceptable to an average reader -- tendentious editing. For example, no one needs to provide a source for the statement "X is a town in the country of Y" if all of the population statistics is taken from the government statistical office of Y -- an intelligent reader will be able to deduce that fact. Responding directly to Michael Hardy's example above, we assume readers can perform basic mathematical calculations -- or have a calculator at hand. However, we do not expect them to perform integral calculus because most Wikipedia users do not know how to do this. (Where we should draw the line in this discipline -- & others -- has never been discussed to my knowledge.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your province example ... we know Biarritz is in the Basque Country, and we know that the Basque Country is an autonomous region of Spain; ergo, Biarritz is in Spain, right? ;) The point remains, if there is any contention, as there often is in geography, an editor needs a source that makes the direct statement "Biarritz is a city in Spain". Failing that, it goes. JN466 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the basic rules here?

Hi Everyone. I've been lurking here for a while, trying to make sense of what the OR rule actually says. In the above discussions, I've noticed the disagreement over how restrictive or loose this rule should be, and over the best way to state the rule. I'd like to make a suggestion. (Although I know expertise holds no sway in Wikiland, I will mention that I am a professor who studies the law and behavior, specializing in how people deal with rules.)

I wondered how the law (at least in the US) would deal with the OR problem. After thinking about it a bit, I think I am able to boil this whole thing down into two simple rules (and one exception):

RULE 1: Any assertion of fact must be verifiable by a reliable source.

This rule basically overlaps with WP:V (as does much of the existing OR rule), and simply says that all fact are to be verifiable. No exceptions. (The law would also take the time to define what a "fact" is, which, in our case, would be a statement that explicitly or implicitly presents "true" information.)

RULE 2: Any inferences derived from facts must be attributable to a reliable source.

This second rule basically means that any commentary, explanation, insight, or other inference must not be that of the editor, but rather of some other entity that can be verified. The rule also implies the inference should be attributed to it's source, and not stated plainly so as to suggest that the inference is a fact (e.g., According to _____....).

EXCEPTION: Inferences derived through formal logic (e.g., mathematical transformation) are acceptable.

This exception is likely to cause some worry among some of you. In my impression of what the OR rule is supposed to do (as someone else put it "to keep crackpot theories off of WP"), some information may be perfectly acceptable, but would be excluded by the above rules. I propose that the inference "Alice Walton is 5th on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, and if numbers 1-4 are all males, and if Alice Walton is a female, then Alice Walton is the wealthiest female in America" is acceptable. In cases where formal logic leads to one and only one possible conclusion (which, for the most part involves math equations), I suggest that WP allow the info to be stated. (Perhaps with a footnote.)

Anyway, I thought I'd just throw out my version for your consideration. -Nick^talk 04:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd trim rule 2 to "Any inferences must be attributable to a reliable source." That removes wiggle room for secondary inferences and may be a good nutshell summary of the NOR page. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rule 3 ("exception") is not right. The original and fundamental goal of the NOR policy is to prevent people from adding unpublished/crank/crackpot theories to Wikipedia (for example, new theories of physics and mathematics). It is too time-consuming to read the often-poor exposition of these theories to find the errors, and the most persistent authors will not accept the flaws in their reasoning if those flaws are pointed out. So we adopted a different policy: it makes no difference if a new theory is correct or incorrect, if it has not appeared in the literature.

So if we added an exception that all "logically-correct" deductions are acceptable, it would nullify the purpose of the NOR policy. What is more accurate is that deductions that do not go beyond the spirit of the published literature are OK. Your example about wealthy women is fine, for example, as long as you attribute it to Forbes ("Jane Doe is the wealthiest woman on Forbes' list [3]"). Deductions that do not materially extend or change the literature, but merely explain what it says, are common and accepted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the only reason for NOR is to keep crackpot ideas out... it is to keep all original deduction, analisis and conclusions out... even the ones that are sane and perfectly logical. The excpetion for numerical computation was included to allow for BASIC things like converting kilometers into miles. The exception is not based on the fact that such calculations are logical, but because they are BASIC and will be helpful for our readers. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "only" and "crackpot"; I said "original and fundamental" and "unpublished/crank/crackpot",. See e.g. the version from December 21, 2003, which relies on the text on "primary research" that was in WP:NOT about the time. The reason that "whether it's true or not" is in bold there is because the point of the then-new policy was to avoid the need to disprove crackpot theories in order to remove them (disproving them is hard if they are written in a poor way and the creator is tendentious). The mailing list post from which Jimbo's famous quote was taken is part of a longer thread about minority views in the article on special relativity.

Since the page was created, the actual text of WP:NOR has drifted quite a bit, to the point that by 2005 WP:NOR was already a rephrasing of WP:V in more complicated language [2]. But we still have little difficulty, in practice, with "original" deductions that don't materially extend the published literature nor advocate a controversial position. The difficulty is entirely with things that either attempt to materially extend the literature (e.g. by introducing materially new theories) or advocate controversial positions for which there is not support in the literature. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of my interest in OR came from the fact that there are instances in which a piece of information might be verifiable, neutral, notable, and generally useful to our readers, yet be prohibited under OR. The "exception" I wrote above was my attempt to create a rule the allowed both basic math and the sort of examples I gave above (and the ones in my now archived question from a few weeks ago). As Carl says above, these are things that "do not materially extend the published literature" (which is a very good way to put it). Perhaps in these instances it might be best to cite WP:Ignore All Rules. And, Marc, I agree that the second rule should be trimmed. -Nick^talk 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had this discussion before, but I find the use of the word "fact" to be dangerous. WP does not publish facts, it only publishes information that is attributable to a reliable source. Angryapathy (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a common maxim, but of course it is not the entire story. Our mission is to create an encyclopedia, and that carries with it a certain burden of correctness. We cannot blindly write whatever we want while ignoring sources, but we also cannot ignore what we already know and trust sources blindly. Fortunately, there is no reason that we have to do either of those things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I had thought of the "fact" issue brought up by angryapathy, which is why I was careful to state "assertion of fact" instead of just "fact". I would assume that WP would only be interested in items that are believed to be true, and I also assume that most WP readers take it on good faith that we at least try to present only truthful information. -Nick^talk 20:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick... please be careful with termiology... If you have not done so, read WP:V, which states: "The threshold for inclusion is Verifiablility not Truth." We don't actually care whether information is considered "True" or "False" (because different sources often disagree on that point), we instead focus on whether it is "Verifiable"... which on Wikipedia means "Reliably published somewhere other than Wikipedia"... so, if a piece of information is verifiable, that means it has been published somewhere other than Wikipedia... and if this is the case, the piece of information can't be OR. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What I think Nick was saying, if we ignore the loaded word "true", is that it is inherent in being an "encyclopedia" that our articles are correct in the sense normally associated with that word. What we really want is for our articles to be both correct and verifiable; either alone is insufficient. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the word you are reaching for is word is "accurate"... rather than "true" or even "correct" (which can also be a loaded word). If you are saying that information in our articles needs to be both "verifiable" and "presented accurately", I would agree. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing from a patent

Is a patent considered a primary source? I notice it is NOT listed in the examples of primary sources as of 10 Sep 2009:

Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

I would like to develop a consensus on whether is it okay to add the word "patent" to the "Other examples..." list in the {{WP:NOR}} page. My PROPOSAL is to add patent to the list. What do others think? N2e (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is safe enough to treat patents as primary sources, but they are used so rarely as sources overall that I don't think it is worth adding them as an example. That same would be true, for example, for product packaging. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that patents are primary sources (being written by the creator of the item patented)... but I see no need to add them to the list. The items on the list are mearly examples, and the list is not exhaustive.

Note... If you are trying to omit a reference to a patent, thinking that this policy says Primary sources can not be used... please re-read the policy. It actually says Primary sources MAY be used... as long as we do so with caution. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer the OP - Patents are generally primary sources though I've seem some evaluative explanations of prior art that would qualify as a secondary source for the prior art. As for adding it to the list of primary sources, I'd say "no" as the primary source nature of patents is fairly intuitive. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, got it. CONSENSUS (at least to this point): Patents are generally primary sources, may be used (with caution), and 'No, we should not add patents to the list of examples in the WP:NOR article. Thanks everone for weighing in. N2e (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that an important characteristic of primary sources is that they tend not to have been checked for accuracy. Haven't patents been checked for accuracy by at least a patent examiner, and perhaps others at the patent office? That seems to have aspects similar to refereeing by a peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps patents are more like journal articles, rather than primary sources, with respect to reliability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope... I can invent a machine that I claim turns lead into gold, the patent office will ask about how it works to determine if the process is a) too commonly known to warrent a pattent, b) clearly based on a process or machine that is already under patent by someone else... but the one thing they don't do is check to see if my machine actually does what I claim it does...ie they don't check to see if it actually turns lead into gold. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's perpetual motion. But yeah, a patent is raw information and data, so it is very much primary source. Angryapathy (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is an even better example than my "turn lead into gold" one... there are any number of perpetual motion machines that have been patented over the years. So far, none actually work as claimed. Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're not aware of an important requirement for an invention to be patentable: usefulness.

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.[3]

I agree that some useless patents do get patented since the system is not perfect. I suppose one can say the same for some refereed journal articles. But both journal articles and patent applications are checked. There is an effort to check the patent for usefulness by the patent office by looking at the explanation of the invention and seeing if it makes sense. They don't try to build the invention and test it, but then scientific journals don't try to set up an experiment and take data to verify the data in a scientific paper. But the patent application and submitted scientific paper are both checked as to whether they are reasonable. Whereas primary sources are "raw" and unchecked. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That's not quite true. Primary sources are not necessarily raw and unchecked. A reporter on the scene of an accident can have her article published, and we will consider it a primary source, because she was close to the event she's describing. At the newspaper, prior to publishing, the article would have undergone a copy edit and perhaps a legal review, and maybe other types of scrutiny. It's still primary, due to closeness. In other words, 'primary' on WP does not equate to crude, unchecked or raw information, just information which is close to the source. In the case of a patent, it does undergo quite a bit of scrutiny. Typically, after the inventor there may be the patent lawyer reviewing and possibly modifying, then the patent examiner, and sometimes others. There may be some give and take, and the final version would be a result of input from several sources (sometimes even courts if there is subsequent litigation). Often the review of the prior art is fairly broad and well sourced, and can be considered 'secondary' (due to distance plus multiple independent reliable sources reviewing it), while the specific invention would generally be primary (due to distance). In summary, primary vs. secondary hinges on distance, not 'crudeness', and patents (in general) would be primary for the specific invention, and possibly secondary for the prior art review. Crum375 (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suppose we really have to say "It depends"... if a Patent is checked for some types of information but not for for other information, they are one of those things that stradle the line between Primary and Secondary. For OR purposes, we are probably better off treating them as if they were solidly Primary... ie, yeah, they can be used ... but use caution because they can be misused. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should steer clear of interpreting the primary material, such as the claims, or the disclosure of the invention, unless they are clear and non-controversial. In general, they are not as a reliable a source as an article in a reputable mainstream publication. But they are scrutinized by independent parties, so they are better than someone's web page or blog. Like any primary source (which the bulk of a patent typically is), they have to be used sparingly (if at all) and with great care. Ideally, they should be added on top of other secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Crum375, But couldn't the same criteria of "closeness" apply to a scientist who submits the results of his experiment to a peer-reviewed journal? The journal checks the paper and the patent office checks the patent. So, just as a journal article isn't considered a primary source, a patent wouldn't be considered a primary source either. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of a scientific paper, it typically consists of two distinct components: the observed data, which is primary, and the background, analysis and conclusions, which are secondary. The scientist takes herself farther from the raw data when she analyzes the results, compares them to the history, the theory and other people's published results, etc. If it's purely a description of the raw experiment, with no background, analysis, comparisons, perspectives, conclusions, then it would be primary, but that rarely gets published in a scientific journal. Crum375 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Again its similar with a patent. The applicant has to give background that describes the state of art of the field, compare the invention to existing devices, etc. The applicant doesn't just give the diagram of the invention, just like the scientist doesn't give just the raw data. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are some limited similarities between a scientific paper and a published patent. But a patent does not describe a scientific experiment; it claims a novel device or method to accomplish something, with no scientific proof. So there is (generally) no "raw data", nor analysis thereof. There is normally a review of the background of the invention, which can be used (carefully) as a secondary source for that general topic. But when it comes to the invention proper, it's essentially all primary material, all we can use it for is to repeat what it says, with no interpretation. So overall, scientific papers and patents are very different animals. Crum375 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that my own main use of patents on Wikipedia is as a useful research tool to discover more sources and to get more perspective on the topic. Using this information it's often possible to find more valid scientific sources which can serve as the main sources for the article. Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

re "But a patent does not describe a scientific experiment; it claims a novel device or method to accomplish something, with no scientific proof." - That's the case for many secondary sources that don't furnish proof, scientific or otherwise. Isn't the important characteristic of secondary sources that someone, other than the person who originates the information, has determined that the info is worth publishing? That's the case for patents. So they are secondary sources, submitted by the inventor, checked by the patent office and published. As I mentioned, the system isn't perfect, but neither are the systems for publishing info in other secondary sources.

I think you may be conflating unrelated issues. The "furnishing of proof" is not a criterion for a reliable and verifiable source on WP. That someone has determined that something is worthy of publication, is not a distinguishing feature between primary, secondary or tertiary sources. You can have a tertiary source which is me summarizing my knowledge about a topic on my website, referring to multiple secondary sources, yet nobody has vetted my article and thus it would fail WP:V, despite its being a tertiary source. Conversely, many primary sources can be well vetted and published by highly respected organizations and still only be primary. Again, primary, secondary and tertiary WP sources are distinguished by their distance from the raw data, not necessarily their quality or accuracy, or degree of vetting. Patents are vetted in a very limited fashion, with the focus on whether the invention is novel enough to merit a patent, not whether it "works", although there is a minimal sanity check for reasonableness (e.g. no perpetual motion patents allowed). Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(Out of chronological order) Actually, it was you that brought up the aspect of "proof". I was only trying to respond to your point. Seems like the discussion is getting a bit chaotic. Maybe it's time to end it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re "Let me add that my own main use of patents on Wikipedia is as a useful research tool to discover more sources and to get more perspective on the topic." - Then perhaps it would be helpful if you chose one of those patents as an example to show the type of problem that you are concerned with and how that misinformation might be adversely used in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is general: we may not interpret or analyze primary source material as Wikipedians, and must have someone else (i.e. a reliable verifiable source) do that for us. So we may be able to use the patent's background section to source the fact that prior to that invention, nobody else had done it, but we should avoid analyzing the specific invention based on the disclosure or claims (except in very general terms) because it would inevitably lead to interpreting primary material. Overall, dealing with primary material is tricky and should be avoided wherever possible, except when supplementing secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want you disappointed (as you mentioned in your removed comment), so here is a recent article I wrote which has a key patent which I tried to avoid as a source (but ended up using carefully). And here is a much older article, very contentious, which ended up in a big ArbCom case, which had a key patent described as an "example of high weirdness". I prefer not to delve into these specifics, however, because I think the key points in this discussion are very general. Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Crum... you said something that I think needs clarifying... that "we may not interpret or analyze primary source material as Wikipedians"... what you say is true, but it is true for ALL sources, not just Primary source material. We can not interpret or analyze secondary or tertiary source material either. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have three secondary sources, for example, addressing an issue, you may summarize or explain them in your own words, and provide the reference to the sources. If you have three primary sources for a topic, however, you should generally not summarize or explain them in your own words, unless the issue is very straight-forward and non-controversial. In other words, you have more leeway summarizing and explaining secondary (and tertiary) sources than primary sources, which should generally be reported verbatim. Adding profound analysis or interpretation, which is not specifically mentioned in any of the sources, even secondary or tertiary, would violate WP:NOR or WP:SYN, and should always be avoided. One crucial problem with primary sources is the easy way to abuse them by cherry-picking parts to enhance one POV and ignoring others, which would violate WP:NPOV. This problem would be reduced (but not eliminated) by using a secondary or tertiary source, which does the selection for us. Crum375 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

After the first three comments to my question which started this section, it appeared that we might have a consensus on the matter of whether or not we should add "patents" to the list of examples in the WP:NOR policy as it exists today; tentative consensus was looking to be "No". After that point however, there has been a great deal of discussion and debate about the nature of using patents as sources at all. However that debate ends, I do believe the strong opinions expressed probably argue FOR addressing the issue of patents explicitly in the NOR article -- whether we choose to add them to the list of examples of sources that are (generally) primary sources, or address them some other way. So I am withdrawing my earlier attempt at summarizing the consensus. I now think that we should work to develop a consensus such that we can explicitly address patents in the NOR policy. N2e (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that raises the question... Why do we need to explicitly address patents in the NOR policy? Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed SYN changes

From the earlier discussion, it seemed that two changes had potential consensus:

Current version

Proposed version

(First sentence of SYN section:) Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (Last sentence of SYN section:) Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

(First sentence of SYN section:) Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (Last sentence of SYN section:) Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

For the reasoning behind these proposals, see the discussion above. I would like us to raise an editprotected request to implement these changes. Before we do so, are there any objections? --JN466 18:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've had anything to say here, but I really like the phrase "most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic," I've seen too many cases where a published source that touches incidentally on the topic is used while ignoring sources that explicitly focus on the topic. Well done. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have hoped that both of those changes would be unnecessary because nobody would have to be explicitly told that, but unfortunately we really do have to spell things out for some of our less experienced and/or argumentative editors. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll just say again that I prefer to switch things around and state best practice first... to make clear how a misapplication of best practice involving synthesis can lead to OR). But that is just a preferance and not a necessity. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me to proceed. Seems like an improvement and will add clarity. N2e (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this change too. "Imply" addresses juxtaposition, which had been a concern of mine for a long time. I think this version is overall better. Crum375 (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Dreadstar ☥ 22:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There's an ambiguity in the following part of the proposed version:

Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic...

Is the editor doing the focusing or is the source doing the focusing? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good catch Bob... Suggest: "Best practice is to Write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources that focus on the article topic..." Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Except they may not actually focus on the article topic, only mention it incidentally, and still be valid and useful. How about "that relate to ..."? (or "relating to" instead of "focusing on"?) Crum375 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree... remember, we are talking about "best practice" here, not acceptable because it is "valid and useful". The best practice is to use sources that directly focus on the topic. We may not always achieve the goal... but it is still best. Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We need to build an encyclopedia. Best practice is to find the best possible sources that relate to the topic of interest. If you restrict "best practice" to ideal sources which focus on the article topic, you may well end up with absolutely nothing in many cases. So it doesn't make sense for a policy to focus on an ideal and often non-existent situation; we need to give editors real and practical guidance. Crum375 (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Re Blueboar's remark) That's what I tried to convince myself of too, but it was wishful thinking. Once the ambiguity is removed, it implies that other sources are undesirable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would remove the word "focusing", as the text reads fine without it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the same problem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible that the "most reliable published sources on the article topic" may not focus on the article topic. However, if there are sources that do focus on the article topic, those are more likely to be among the best sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with CBM. Crum375 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I consider focused sources more significant than those that treat a topic tangentially, I agree with Blueboar's change from "focusing on" to "that focus on". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Focused articles are generally better than broader ones, but not always, and in any case are not always available. So being focused is a plus, but not a requirement. Crum375 (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are saying it is a requirement... as I see it, best practice is always more than just what is required (that's why it's 'best')

But as another suggested alternative, what about "...most reliable published sources that directly discuss the article topic." Blueboar (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Best practice" has to be a practical guidance, so it can't just cover a (possibly) small subset of real-life cases encountered. And the sources may not actually "discuss" the article topic, but only mention it or relate to it. I think the original wording is quite reasonable: "...different reliable sources on the topic...", as it allows the various possibilities, which is what CBM noted above. Crum375 (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let us remember that the WP:GNG notability guideline requires that there be sources that "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." It adds that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So if there are no sources "directly addressing the subject in detail", we would not be having an article on it. JN466 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sources directly addressing (or relating to) the subject" would be acceptable too. The point is that there may be a combination of sources. Some may be right on topic but not as reliable, others may address it tangentially but be highly reliable. And of course this may be just one small aspect of the main article topic. A policy has to cover them all. Crum375 (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we are getting bogged down in something that doesn't even have to be mentioned. The following should work well,

"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources and summarizing their claims in your own words..."

I think that the main intent of this passage was to temper the prohibition on OR synthesis with the recognition that summarizing multiple sources is a type of synthesis that is allowed. The attempt at adding extra details here is a digression that leaves the main point less clear. Please note that this issue is already discussed, and discussed better, in the Sources section of WP:NOR. Here's an excerpt.

Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Using sourced material out of context is exactly what SYN is, and I feel we should address this point in the SYN section. The basic concern here is this: if there are influential, widely cited standard works on a subject, then good writing requires that an editor familiarize themselves with the standard works and summarize the arguments and analyses made in these sources. Even for topics that are less well covered, it is essential that editors familiarise themselves with those sources that have made the topic notable, and access those sources first of all. This is expected of any professional writer in real life, and following this practice ensures that our articles are seen as competent. Acquiring such background knowledge will help an editor evaluate the significance – or lack of it – of a tangential mention of some fact related to the article topic. The problem we seem to be having often is that editors see something in a source which does not mention the article topic, but which they feel may be related. Just to recap some examples of this problem:

1. We had mentioned the example with the boycott call of a minor activist and the targeted company's drop in sales. No source connected the boycott call to the drop in sales, but it was still added to the article on the activist (actually by the activist himself, if I recall correctly). I would argue that best practice here would have been to look for sources that connected the sales drop to the boycott call, i.e. that focused, at least in some part of the overall text, on the activist that was the subject of the article. Absent such sources, the drop in sales should not be mentioned as a fact in the article on the activist (except perhaps to say that the activist claimed on his website that he had caused it).
2. Another typical SYN pattern goes like this: "X became president of Y in 2006.(ref A) Since he became president, unemployment in Y has risen by x%, and industrial output has fallen by y%.(ref B, not ascribing this to President X) It should be clear to everyone that given the recent world-wide economic downturn, statements like this could be made about almost any head of government on earth. Adding information like this from sources that do not focus on X's tenure as president degrades an article. Adding information like this sourced to a widely cited analysis of President X's performance, on the other hand, is "best practice", because we are citing a source that focuses on President X.
3. An article on event Y in Israel cites U.S. reporter X's analysis of the event. Another editor adds a sourced statement alleging that American reporters writing on Israel are generally biased. The cited source, however, mentions neither U.S. reporter X whose article we quoted, nor does it mention the specific event Y the reporter wrote about. Again, I would argue that editing like this is not best practice and does not result in high-quality articles. Best practice is to find and include reliable sources focusing on event Y that present alternative viewpoints of the event, and to include these per WP:NPOV.

These are the sorts of situations that this would address. In such situations, it is important to locate and summarise existing detailed analyses focusing on the article topic, rather than synthesising a missing perspective.

Of course, let's not forget that in many cases where editors are seeking to add something via synthesis, there is an underlying "rightness" to their concern. What this proposed wording should do is encourage editors to do a little bit more work, digging for sources that actually make the points they have synthesised themselves. That should ultimately benefit article quality. At any rate, that is the intent of the proposal as written. JN466 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Except for some of those involved in this discussion, I don't think that readers will recognize all that from just the phrase on focusing. What the readers will think is that they need to use only articles that focus on the topic, where "focus" isn't defined. This is too restrictive in any case. Trying to clarify that with more verbiage just makes it even more awkward. Also, the ambiguity about the editor or source doing the focusing, mentioned previously, still remains. I stand by my previous recommendation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar suggested a way to remove the ambiguity of who does the focusing. Failing that, I am open to suggestions on how we can fix the concern shared by several editors here, that the current phrasing of the "best practice" description seems to encourage SYN cherry-picking rather than source research. JN466 17:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the cherry-picking aspect was addressed by changing "taking" to "researching". --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to finish off the 2nd part of the proposal

Okay. The current policy wording is,

"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

Looking back on the comments made in the above discussion, would anyone have an objection to the following wording?

"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

--JN466 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider an example of an article on Ulysses S. Grant. A biography of Grant would be a source on the topic of the article. Whereas a book on the American Civil War would not be on the topic of the article. I think best practice should include researching the American Civil War book for information on Grant.

Consider the following change instead:

"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the article topic in the most reliable published sources and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If a book on the American Civil War is among the most reliable published sources on Ulysses S. Grant, then I agree it would be best practice to cite it. That sort of thing often happens with minor topics that tend to be covered in works with wider scope, rather than having entire books devoted to them. I think the proposed wording allows that. Note that "reliable sources on the topic" is part of the present wording of this sentence; it never seems to have caused a problem. Could you live with the text as proposed? A number of people above said they liked it. JN466 10:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"reliable sources on the topic" is part of the present wording and your proposal has changed it to "reliable sources on the article topic" which is a bit stronger wording and more likely to put the book on the American Civil War out of the category of best practice. Since this discussion is about your changes and not other possible changes, your proposed changes would be acceptable to me if you didn't include "article". If you would like to include "article", it would be acceptable to include it in the way that I suggested in my version. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can live with that and will drop "article" from the proposal. JN466 21:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I support Jayen's proposal. Any information added to a Wikipedia article should, ideally, be based on reliable sources that present this information in direct connection with the article subject. Whether the source focuses on the specific article topic (Ulysses S. Grant) or a broader subject area (American Civil War) which includes the specific article topic, is irrelevant. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you seem to be agreeing with my point that using both types of sources would be best practice. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Pheny is saying that we should not distinguish between a book on the Civil War that includes a reasonably detailed discussion of Grant and (say) a biography that is specifically about Grant... both should be considered considered "reliable sources on the article topic" (Grant). However, a book on World War II that happens to mention Grant in passing (say to make a comparrison with Eisenhower), would not be a "reliable source on the article topic" (Grant). Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bob K31416's point. The revised rewording ("reliable published sources on the article topic"), implies that a book on the Civil War isn't as good as a book on Grant in an article on Grant. BTW, do we really need the word 'published'. That's covered elsewhere and isn't really relevent to the point that this is trying to convey. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to state my opinion for the record... Either version is acceptable in my book (I think they mean the exact same thing). I still think this paragraph should lead off the section... but we can discuss that later. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My objection to this passage is not to the intent, but to the language, which makes little sense: writing that one should "research articles" implies that the person is doing research for the writing of said articles, not taking information from them. How about this:

"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by summarizing the claims from the most reliable published sources in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

(I'd revise this sentence further for fluency, but I think this illustrates the most important thing that needs changing.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As an alternative to "on the article topic", we could use "in the relevent field". This would leave open using a book on the Civil War as a source for an article on Grant.

Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by summarizing the claims from the most reliable sources in the relevent field in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request for first part of proposal

{{editprotected}} I think we can implement the first half of the above proposal. It was previously discussed here and has attracted support from all editors who commented on it. The change involves adding the words "or imply" to the first sentence of the SYN section, so it would then read as follows: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (The second half of the proposal is still under discussion and should not be implemented at this time.) Thank you. JN466 17:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this edit. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I support it too. Crum375 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --JN466 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request for second part of proposal

{{editprotected}} I believe we now have a version for the second half of the above proposal that enjoys broad support, per the above discussions. The change involves revising the last sentence in the SYN section, which currently reads as follows:

"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

to the following:

"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

The proposal was first discussed at #Proposed_SYN_changes and enjoyed broad support then; it has only been tweaked since then ("sources on the topic" rather than "sources focused on the article topic"). This is probably still not the final and best version, but I think there is a general sense that this adds value over and above what we currently have. The good is not the enemy of the perfect. ;) Thanks. JN466 21:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done The final clause is awkward, but it is in the original anyway.  Skomorokh  21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwikilink Bengali wiki

Please add this [[bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়]] instead of [[bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়]] because our wikipedia namespace changed.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Crum375 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Hi,

I see that this page has been protected for a while. I hate seeing policy pages like this fully protected, because then things stagnate. We're a wiki! Sometimes there will be disagreements over exact wording on the policy page. That's okay! The idea is to compromise through edits and discussion on the talk page. Hopefully we can avoid the revert-based edit wars that happened leading up to the protection. It's important to discuss things on talk pages, but it's also important for people to boldly make edits and for others to edit those contributions *thoughtfully*, not simply with a revert or an undo. Most of the history of this policy is people making thoughtful contributions in an honest attempt to improve things. Even the bit of reverting recently was done in good faith, but hopefully we can move on. Especially considering that many of the involved editors have been around Wikipedia for a long time.

So, unless there is a good reason not to, I'll be unprotecting this page soon.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep it as is for now. Unfortunately, what went into WP:NOR was being decided by who had the greater reverting power. The present situation adds considerably more order to the process. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the present situation makes this not a wiki. And it makes it so that the page is basically unchangeable. You'd like to keep the protection longer. How much longer? Indefinite protection is simply not a solution for anything but a few exceptions like Main Page. And if you'd be okay with unprotecting it in a week, or a month, or a year, what's the difference with doing it now? kmccoy (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re "And it makes it so that the page is basically unchangeable. " - Would you care to explain this remark, considering the recent changes that were made during protection? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Three changes have been made since the protection was established. One was a minor edit to an interwiki. So, yes, two very small changes have been made since protection was put in place. I think "basically unchangeable" is a fairly accurate description of that situation. It also prevents anyone from changing the page by being bold, except admins who are willing to ignore the protection policy, and sets admins as the ones who may determine consensus (since they're the only ones with the technical means to implement changes discussed on the talk page.) This is not wiki-like. The protection needs to be removed, and editors need to figure out how to edit the page without revert wars. kmccoy (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary "protection is evil" - apparently you have a POV re protection in general and you shouldn't be deciding on what should be unprotected. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You hadn't figured out that I have a point of view regarding protection from the text I wrote previously? Of course I do. I believe that protecting pages so that they cannot be edited is contrary to the nature of a wiki and should be used sparingly and for limited durations. This is an indefinite full protection in reaction to a fairly minor revert war, which I believe is improper. (This belief also happens to coincide with our policy on protection, though I'm usually more of a common sense over policy sort of guy.) Why would having a point of view about protection mean that I shouldn't make such decisions? Clearly the person applying the protection had a point of view that indefinite protection is an appropriate response to the reverts that were happening here. Why doesn't that disqualify that admin from imposing the protection? kmccoy (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with bringing one's prejudice into a situation is that one may misjudge the situation by only considering one's prejudicial generalities without considering the specifics of the situation. This appears to be the case here with you. For example, you wrote, "I hate seeing policy pages like this fully protected, because then things stagnate." There hasn't been stagnation, as evidenced by the discussion on this talk page since the protection and the resulting edits on the policy page. What has subsided is determining changes on this policy page by reverting, and forcing changes or obstructing changes based on greater reverting power. An administrator who is judging whether or not to unprotect a policy page, should approach this task in an unbiased, unprejudicial manner. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah. I can look at the page history and see the results of protection. And I can look at the page's protection history. It's often been protected and then unprotected a few days later. My opposition to protection isn't "prejudice", with all the negative baggage that word carries, it's simply an affection for the idea of a wiki. I'm approaching this task unbiased in the way that counts, in that I really don't care about which version of the page from the string of reverts is the one that appears on the page itself. Having a bias against page protection isn't a problem, and won't stop me from removing the protection. After the protection is removed, there is nothing preventing people from continuing to discuss on the talk page. In fact, it's encouraged. But so is being bold. If necessary, editors who revert without comment and without joining the discussion can simply be blocked. That's a better solution than protection. kmccoy (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're apparently acting as an advocate of unprotection in general, not as an unprejudiced judge of this situation, and you seem to be boldly admitting it. Clearly, there's nothing I can do myself to stop you or to convince you not to remove the protection. But note that when protection was implemented, there weren't objections to that action like there is now to what you are planning to do. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Kmccoy, if you look at the discussions above, we have been discussing things and good making progress towards reaching a consensus (one of the most wiki-like concepts there is). This is exactly what protection is supposed to promote. Give it a bit more time... as for how much? As long as it takes to either reach consensus or determine that we can not do so. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're seeking a "consensus" on what? The final state of the article? The next edit? If you can't reach a consensus on whatever it is you're trying to reach it on, then you'd have the protection removed, even though you couldn't reach a consensus? kmccoy (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen what happens when someone just tries to add something to a guideline without discussing it first? It gets immediately reverted, and then a discussion starts whether or not to add the info, and consensus is reached whether to add, change, or ignore the new addition. Having the page protected just stops edit warring and goes straight to discussion. I agree that most pages should not be protected, but a guideline is more complicated than just an article on Wikipedia. It may not be what you consider to be "wiki", but it makes things go more smoothly and forces people to discuss before fighting. Angryapathy (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Then the editors need to figure out how to do edits without reverting. The inability of a few editors to avoid clicking rollback or undo should not impact the ability on everyone else to edit. If you'd like permanent protection as a rule for policy pages, then go around to the village pump and other noticeboards and gain support for that. But until then, permanent full protection is only for the main page and logo image and the like. And I have yet to see anyone here give a time period for this one. I saw some decent incremental edits before the reverts, and I've seen other policy pages edited without this problem, even without being fully protected. kmccoy (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that edits on this page can turn ugly, but offer no solutions except that your standard belief that, "Policy pages shouldn't be protected?" Honestly, has this page been permanently been changed less since the protection than it had before it was protected? Angryapathy (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Folks... I suggest that we drop this... it is sidetracking us from what is important... ie continuing our attempts to reach a consensus on our disputed language... that is the quickest way to see that the page gets unprotected. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there other issues

OK... I think we have consensus on at least some of our issues regarding the SYNT section (see above)... are their other issues we need to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to resolve the Alternate proposal that was mentioned in the RFC that is currently at the top of this page. Editors expressed support for the Alternate proposal, there was no clear opposition, although one editor may have reservations, but the respondents were small in number. Blueboar, I hope you and others would help that situation by contributing your opinions up there. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

May I add that it is quite timely since it involves moving the small last paragraph of WP:SYNTH with the sentence recently discussed and modified, to a more prominent place. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the "best practice" paragraph... is so, I completely agree. At minimum, this paragraph lead off the section (similar to how I proposed above... but with the newly agreed upon language). Alternatively, perhaps it could be stated in its own section (suggest a header of: "Source based research" if we go this route). Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the liberty of copying your message to the Alternative proposal section and indicating that it is a copy in that section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)