Wikipedia talk:No original research

Rewrite 2004-2005: Draft • Talk "Primary v. secondary sources" subpages "Change needed": Proposal • Talk "Various examples": Examples • Talk "Transclusion example": Example • Talk

Refocus

We keep getting sidetracked by arguments over details... what makes something a primary source, under what circumstances could a primary source become a secondary source, etc. etc. etc.

Let's refocus. I am still having difficutly understanding how the current PSTS section directly relates to the concept of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Maybe I am being dense... but if so, then I am not alone. Could someone please explain it to me (us) in blunt simple language? Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually making a primary source into a secondary source is one form of OR; the other is making Wikipedia a primary source. Really that is all there is to it, and if we just said this in the PSTS section we would be done. OK, maybe we would need to add that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but we don't need all the excess source typing baggage that PSTS has accumulated over time.

One important use of source issue is the opposite of your example, making a secondary source into a primary one. The PSTS section does not address that important point at all. Dhaluza (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are dense, then you are not the only one. I asked this numerous times over the last 4 months, and as far as I can remember, on the rare occasions it was answered, the answer was along the lines of either "It's been here a long time and there is consensus to keep it" or "This is a very importatnt part of determing OR. We use it all the time". When asked to clarify the first type of answer, the reply was that since nobody objected, there was obvious consensus for it (being snarky, but sound familar?). The second type of answer, when asked for some examples of how it's been used in the past to 'solve problems' was just ignored. If have a feeling that this will also suffer the same fate (being ignored). wbfergus ^Talk 19:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't to say that Wikipedia doesn't encourage original research for your own purposes (a science experiment you do for yourself) so long as you don't publish it as fact on Wikipedia. If you publish it in a book, it will be eligible for a source in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.177.222 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for PSTS

I line with my comments above, could we replace the current PSTS section with a streamlined version that focuses on NOR only, similar to this:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of new facts or thoughts, but is a compendium of knowledge drawn from existing material published by reliable sources.

• Wikipedia does not publish newly discovered previously unpublished facts—that would be original research making Wikipedia a primary source for those facts.
• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis—that would be original research making Wikipedia a secondary source for those thoughts.
• Wikipedia does publish collected and summarized facts and analysis—that is source based research making Wikipedia the tertiary source it is.

I think this stays true to the original intent of the policy as reflected in the history, and also uses the familiar terms, but without redefining them. It makes the important points easy to understand, dropping the unnecessary complexity accumulated over time that has expanded the definition of NOR beyond its original purpose. That material can be absorbed by other policies or guidelines, existing or proposed, if it is useful to their specific purposes. But anything that is not germane to NOR should not be included here. Dhaluza (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely the approach I proposed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source#Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Except that I didn't use the term "source based research" which seems a good idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it for the most part. However, I'm wondering if something can be done with "newly discovered facts". That seems a bit vague in how it relates to this (OR). It kind of sounds like primary source couldn't be used if they contained something new, and I think it's supposed to mean that Wikipedia doesn't publish those unless they come from something already published. Is that correct? wbfergus ^Talk 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've corrected it with a strikeout. Dhaluza (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dhaluza: I doff my hat. Your suggestion may be just the ticket out of the quagmire.

A few suggests with regard to readability/grammar,...

• Wikipedia does not publish previously unpublished facts. Such material is original research and would make Wikipedia a primary source for those facts.
• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis. Such material is the product of original research and and would make Wikipedia a secondary source for those thoughts.
• Wikipedia publishes only existing facts and analysis. This is source based research and makes Wikipedia the tertiary source that it is.

Your suggestion is fundamentally good, and these are just minor readability issues.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to put 'tertiary' first (i.e. the lines in "descending" order). That might compensate for the lack of distinction between "source based" (presently at the end) and what is effectively 'published but unacknowledged' (in the middle). Just a feeling though.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this line of thinking a lot and I think it has promise. I particularly like the idea of using the PSTS terminology, but only as actually needed, and without making Wikipedia policy a slave to all the typology's unintended and sometimes undesired implications. I think this is a promising way out. If we are going to continue to use the terms "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" at all, I think it would be best to keep the order as the one Fullstop proposed. This wording is limited to statements describing Wikipedia and its requirements only. It avoids making any claims about the outside world. I believe this approach is a very sound one. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I like this general approach. It's the first time I've seen something that's tied the PSTS material into NOR in a way that has actually helped me make sense out of it, while not making me worry that it is going to cut too broadly. It's also clean and simple and clearly and explicitly states what is prohibited. --Lquilter (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think Fullstop's wording is attractive. Compared to the existing policy wording, it explains much more concisely what is and what is not allowed by the policy, and, more significantly, it does so with far greater clarity, indeed with truly exceptional clarity in my opinion. - Neparis (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think Fullstop's version is an improvement. I would like to tweak it a bit further, and propose the following refinement:

Wikipedia is not a first publisher of new material—it is is a compendium of knowledge drawn from existing material published by reliable sources.

• Wikipedia does not publish previously unpublished facts or observations. That is original research, which would make Wikipedia a primary source for those statements.
• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis. That is the product of original research, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source for those thoughts.
• Wikipedia only republishes existing facts and analysis. This is source based research, and makes Wikipedia the tertiary source that it is intended to be.

-- Dhaluza (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree! This is a step in the right direction. Although avoiding analysis is nigh impossible. Some might argue that making a description out of a set of events is constructing an analysis. Also, this policy shouldn't be used to challenge the claims given in sources or the sources themselves. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise; when text is challenged by this policy, it should focus on the additional claims resulting from OR; not entitle the removal of facts --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I also agree that this is an improvement for the purposes of NOR, but it is only half the work done. Don't forget that definitions of primary and secondary will still have to exist somewhere, because they are referred to by guidelines, WP:Notability in particular, but also WP:WAF (others too, I'm sure). There are 300-odd links to the shortcut WP:PSTS, too.  —SMALLJIM  10:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The other half of the work has already been preformed performed, it is at WP:WITS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) - typo correction 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Um. I can't see where WP:WITS being the complement to this has been discussed - please direct me. But anyway wouldn't Dhaluza's proposal have a greater chance of gaining consensus if WP:PSTS was initially spun off as it stands?  —SMALLJIM  13:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. "I can't see where WP:WITS being the complement to this has been discussed" - that's a different question. I answered: "[...] it is only half the work done. Don't forget that definitions of primary and secondary will still have to exist somewhere, because they are referred to by guidelines, WP:Notability in particular, but also WP:WAF (others too, I'm sure).":

• "definitions of primary and secondary" exist in WP:WITS#Definitions
• "WP:Notability in particular" is addressed in WP:WITS#Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, last entry
• "also WP:WAF" is addressed indirectly in WP:WITS#Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, 5th entry
• "(others too, I'm sure)" - indeed "others" are also addressed in WP:WITS, just have a look around.

Answering your new question: WP:WITS has been discussed in several places: for example Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 32#WP:WITS and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a tertiary source. The relation between WP:WITS and Dhaluza's proposal is discussed above on this page in #Discussion, which will show you that the question would rather need to be "where is it discussed that Dhaluza's proposal is *derived* from WP:WITS?"

Re. "wouldn't Dhaluza's proposal have a greater chance of gaining consensus if WP:PSTS was initially spun off as it stands?" - It was already spun off, the spinoff currently is named Wikipedia:Evaluating sources. But whether that spinoff is a success, is a matter of debate, e.g. (Wikipedia:Evaluating sources) started as a subpage to NOR to explain the primary/secondary thing, but then it spread out and started giving general advice about sourcing, often doing nothing but state the obvious (...) (my bolding) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be that I misunderstood your "The other half of the work has already been preformed...". I assumed that "preformed" was a typo for "performed", which led me to think that you were saying that WP:WITS was already accepted as part of Dhaluza's proposal. You're saying the opposite is true: that Dhaluza's proposal is derived from WP:WITS, but I'm not at all sure that those commenting favourably here on that proposal are aware that they're including WP:WITS in their approval. I certainly wasn't (obviously), and I would reiterate that I think Dhaluza's latest refined proposal[1] stands the best chance of being accepted if it is accompanied by a simple removal of the existing PSTS text to a new WP:PSTS guideline (or even being initially added to NOR). I don't think that consensus for the WP:PSTS shortcut to be moved to WP:EVAL or WP:WITS would be easy to achieve, but maybe I'm misreading the sentiment here.  —SMALLJIM  17:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this approach a lot. It is short, easy to understand, and most importantly directly ties the entire PSTS concept into the broader concept of NOR. Well done. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm .. I'm not sure it's accurate, and it isn't comprehensive. First, what is the distinction between something's being OR and being the product of OR? Also, the republication of existing facts and analysis -- it misses out the crucial point that, in some cases of primary-source material, we don't republish it unless it's been published by a secondary source e.g. in BLPs. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not all inclusive, but then neither is the current policy section on PSTS, and that is the reason there has been so much discussion about PSTS over the last 4 months. I don't see how the current PSTS wording clarifies those points either. Regarding the "some cases of primary-source material", wouldn't that be better covered in the other policies, BLP and others? After all, Kenosis and numerous others have stated many times that these policies have an inherent interaction amongst them, so explaining the rare exceptions in regards to OR in those policies makes more sense than adding a list of exceptions in this policy. At least, that's my opinion. wbfergus ^Talk 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also say for the record though, and also to alleviate Slim's concerns and others, that while I think this proposal is far better, I would also be opposed to it being implemented until such time as there is an "official" replacement/home for the PSTS "stuff", whether it is the WITS or the Evakutaing Sources or something else. wbfergus ^Talk 14:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As I see it, Dhaluza's proposition is a generic solution that addresses the thousands of comments of the last six months.
The 'cons' of the proposition first:

• it is only inviting to people who want to collaborate and make the 'pedia a better place.
• it is not a magical miracle cure.
• it is not a weapon to beat people with.
• it is not convoluted enough to make people who "won't accept a clearer explanation" happy.
  For those who "make the language as tortured as possible," simple language is "not comprehensive."
• it is not vague, and thus impossible to invoke when moving goalposts.
• it is not inflexible, and thus particularly suitable to the dynamics of a wired community.
• it is "not confusing, not tortured, not ill-considered, not implying things we didn't mean to imply, not language gone on holiday."
• it no longer subverts NOR and other policies.
• it would be the end of endless talk, and might cause editors to have to resume contributing.

The 'pros' of the proposition are:

• the proposition is not a fundamental change to either NOR policy or to PSTS.
• it uses simple English, thus addressing the "tortured language" issue.
• it is short and to the point, consistently applying Occam's razor, and thus addressing "Which version is more succinct, and which do you think most editors will understand more easily?"
• the proposition actually (finally!) gives PSTS some relevance to NOR.
• it obviates the need to define "primary" and "secondary", thus...
  • avoids the issue of arbitrariness.
  • avoids any need to compensate for borderline cases
  • avoids redefining words that "every educated native English speaker understands."
  • avoids contradicting the terms "used by universities and professional researchers and publishers."
  • prevents sight of purpose to be lost.
• it no longer subverts NOR and other policies.
• it is in policy language, and clearly obligatory. Recommendations and options - ala "should" and "may" - are words for guidelines and weasels.
• it leaves the vagaries of definition(s) to mainspace articles. If there is such a thing as a non-tortured definition of ps/ss, then this should be in the appropriate articles(s) anyway. Those articles are linked to.

Now if people "would only collaborate, ... instead of constantly resisting, ... it would be a win-win situation."
-- Fullstop (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Smalljim and SlimVirgin, you said that the proposed WP:NOR language is incomplete because it does not discuss the needs of e.g. WP:BLP. I'd lile to follow up on this. Why not discuss WP:BLP issues on WP:BLP itself, and so forth with the other policies? Suggest discussing only the requirements actually needed for each policy on that policy page. A more comprehensive discussion of sourcing could still be done elsewhere, but as a guideline. I'd agree the current version of WP:EVAL could be improved. Why not improve it? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I've just seen this. My point wasn't that the language of the replacement is incomplete; I was just trying to forestall future problems by observing that replacing the existing PSTS section with it would break the 300-odd links that point to WP:PSTS. I don't think we can leave WP:PSTS pointing to Dhaluza's replacement because it says something completely different (that's the whole point), and I don't think it's a decision that can be deferred because of the large number of links involved. So what is the proposal regarding that shortcut - is it to add it to WP:WITS?  —SMALLJIM  09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A problem

I've been re-reading Dhaluza's proposal and I think the second sentence of the second bullet is actually wrong. The bullet says:

• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis. That is the product of original research, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source for those thoughts.

Adding OR in the form of commentary or analysis to WP makes WP a secondary source for the facts or earlier research that the commentary or analysis is about, but it makes it the primary source for that commentary or analysis itself. It's that question of context and what is the topic again. It's no different to publication in a book: If I write a book that contains my new commentary or analysis of WWII, it's a new secondary source for WWII, but the primary source for my new commentary.  —SMALLJIM  00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a different problem. When one analyzes published primary or secondary sources and forms a new conclusion, one's writing is a secondary source; everything in one's writing is a secondary source, including the new conclusion. So the second bullet is correct.

The problem is that while Wikipedia should be a tertiary source when viewed as a whole, it is OK for Wikipedia to be a secondary source if you're going to judge it on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. For example, a Wikipedia editor creates a four paragraph summary of a work of fiction, relying only on the work of fiction for those paragraphs. Those paragraphs, judged alone, would be a secondary source. But they're OK; Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources in this way. We would hope the rest of the article uses secondary sources, so the article as a whole would be a tertiary source. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Gerry. I disagree with your first paragraph - I think you're forgetting about the context. See below for a fuller explanation.  —SMALLJIM  13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

SmallJim, I think you are using a somewhat impractical definition of secondary sources, at least for WP purposes. Under this model, expert opinion would always be a primary source, but we treat this as a secondary source. Dhaluza (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is no conflict at all. :)

Assuming that the "That is" of the second bullet refers to "new commentary or analysis" and not the publication of it, the bullet is actually saying precisely the same thing SmallJim is saying in the WWII-book example. Which is: publication of his "new commentary or analysis" ... "would turn Wikipedia into a secondary source."

And the rest of the material in the book is ok, and covered by the third bullet. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GA, I think we should consider the summary of the work of fiction as part of the tertiary source work as a whole. Yes, this means this part passes from primary source to tertiary, skipping secondary, but that just shows the problem with the whole primary/secondary/tertiary continuum. For our purposes, we are concerned with secondary sources containing interpretation, analysis, etc. Simply describing the primary source does not make the description secondary from that perspective. Dhaluza (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GA, Upon further reflection, there is no conflict with the plot summary example, because "A tertiary source is a selection, distillation, summary or compilation of primary sources, secondary sources, or both." So the summary is not a secondary source, it is a tertiary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 10:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor who faithfully reproduces "a four paragraph summary of a work of fiction" is not engaging in "original research" because there is nothing new in a faithful reproduction. ::(When the conditions of WP:NOTE are met, someone else will have already reviewed the work of fiction anyway, and the WP editor's summary is an unembellished equivalent of that review)

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would helpful in addressing these types of problems to simply stop using the words "primary", "secondary", and tertiary, and simply ask the question: Is it WP:OR? One could come up with reasons why Wikipedia should or should not consider plot summaries WP:OR. These reasons may be unique to Wikipedia's special needs and situation. It simply doesn't matter whether the outside world classes them primary, secondary, or tertiary for some other purpose. Plot summaries may be one of those situations where the PSTS model simply isn't useful for Wikipedia's needs and using these labels here only confuses - asking what type a source simply doesn't tell us anything useful. We need a model and language that enable us to discuss Wikipedia's actual needs and give reasons that make sense in WIkipedia's actual context. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

perfectly true, but SmallJim's and Gerry's points were with respect to Dhaluza's proposal. That proposal (see section above this one) attempts to find a sensible replacement for PSTS, i.e. that among other things gets rid of the need to define ps/ss/ts in policy.

So, even though source-typing has no relevance to NOR, what SmallJim and Gerry are pointing out still needs to be examined, because proper objections (not just the banal "insufficient" or whatever) are *good*. They show that people are thinking, and they can help point out where the weaknesses are.

But I am grateful for your comment too: looking into the abyss takes its toll and I for one occasionally need to be told to blink. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's presumptuous of me as a relative newbie here, but I'm going to be bold and assert that you are all wrong! You are all forgetting the Thanks for the responses, but I'm sorry to have to admit that I still don't "get it". To me, you all seem to be forgetting the well-established principle that sources can often be either primary or secondary depending on the context, and the context here is the new commentary/analysis, not the topic to which it's being added. Looking at the wording of that second bullet again:

• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis. That is the product of original research, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source for those thoughts.

I have assumed that "those thoughts" refers to the "new commentary or analysis" (in the same way that in the first bullet "those statements" clearly refers to the "previously unpublished facts or observations"). So let's replace it:

• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis. That is the product of original research, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source for that new commentary or analysis.

Does that make what I'm trying to say any clearer? I can't see how the first publication of anything can be a secondary source for itself! That just doesn't make sense to me. Where's the "one step removed" (in authorship) that's required by the WP:PSTS definition of secondary source? Yes, that new commentary or analysis is one step removed from, and is therefore a secondary source for, the topic of the article to which it's added - but that's not what the bullet says.

A long-winded, but correct formulation of that bullet might be this:

• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis on any topic if that commentary or analysis is created by its own editors. Doing so would be publishing original research, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source for that topic (and a primary source for the new commentary or analysis).

If any of the above reasoning is incorrect, I'd be grateful if someone would explain where I'm going wrong, because, based on what I've learned here over the past couple of months, it seems quite straightforward to me.  —SMALLJIM  13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC). Refactored 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

It is more than presumptuous, Smalljim, it's forgetting who reads these comments. We are all wrong? Specifying the reference more tightly, all the arguments presented here are wrong? How likely is that? It's one thing to assert that some important point has apparently been overlooked in the discussion so far, but quite another to personalize this. I have another concern, myself. I consider [WP:NOR]] to be problematic in itself. The core principle is verifiability, [WP:V]]. As is noted in the present article, original research *can* be presented on Wikipedia, *if it is notable and is attributed,* provided that the fact asserted (that so-and-so commented, reported, concluded, claimed) can be verified. The problem addressed above is new analysis, done by an editor of Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors are presumed to be anonymous, and there is strong pressure here to avoid Wikipedia becoming a place to publish new analysis; it happens on Talk pages all the time, to be sure, but that analysis may be essential to the formation of editorial consensus. However, what if the analysis is obvious from the sources, and it is "new" merely because it has never before been stated -- as far as the editors know? I'd say that, routinely, such analysis is done here; editors look at all the available sources and "summarize" them. That summarization is a new analysis. Only exact quotation of secondary or tertiary sources would be otherwise. So we must back up a little bit. What is a problem is a new *controversial* analysis, that is *not* obvious from the sourced facts, that can reasonably be challenged.

Sometimes a new analysis ("summary") is properly controversial even when it would appear verifiable by examination of the primary source, so "summaries" should be handled with care. I've been dealing with an example: for a long time, Instant-runoff voting claimed, in the introduction, that "Robert's Rules of Order recommends IRV." I'm somewhat of an expert in the field, and I read Robert's Rules of Order on this, and the claim seemed substantially true to me. However, careful re-reading eventually led me to quite a contrary conclusion. That statement was a summarization, taking a complex discussion and reducing it to a single "sound bite," one quite valuable for promoting a particular POV, and its placement in the introduction, where the detail necessary to make an NPOV description of the facts may be inappropriate. The report was moved deeper into the article, and altered to actual quotation of the source, so that it could not be challenged as POV. (And something like an edit war began, more recently, over attempts to put, once again, a summary into the introduction. Naturally, the summary omitted the critical material.)

My point here is that summarization is essential to encyclopedic work, yet summarization is original research *even if NPOV*, unless the summarization is an exact quote, in which case it is not summarization at all, it's quoting a source. This is where peer review comes in. Summarization may exist in peer-reviewed publications, but peer-review does not guarantee that summarization existing in peer-reviewed articles is not biased. Peer-reviewed journals publish unvalidated opinion, particularly from experts, on the basis that the opinion is, to the community of review, notable. Thus peer-review establishes notability, not reliability, in fact. To determine reliability, one would have to review all subsequent comment on the original publication, it makes the research task daunting. There is a simpler standard, which is consensus of the editors, particularly when the editors include editors with various points of view, each set likely to come up with contrary material. A stable article with many editors has effectively been peer-reviewed, quite likely, just as print encyclopedias may submit preliminary drafts of articles to experts in the field. --Abd (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously I didn't include you in that statement, Abd, seeing as you have not commented here before. I would hope that those who are following this discussion understand that I was only referring to the remarks posted in this subtopic that comment on mine which started it. But thank you for giving me the opportunity to assure everyone that there was no intention to impugn anyone. And, of course it's not very likely that everyone else is wrong, which is why I said I was being presumptuous and bold. If I am wrong, though, I still don't "get it" and hope for enlightenment.  —SMALLJIM  16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect I've struck the offending remark and I apologise for getting overexcited. I hope I haven't offended anyone - it certainly wasn't my intention to do that.  —SMALLJIM  22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this be an improvement?

How about changing the bullet involved as follows:

*Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis. That is the product of original research synthesis, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source for those thoughts.

Would this be an improvement?

If there is basic agreement on this language and the issue is only tweaking a few words to address the problem discussed above, perhaps we could move towards closure. Even if we can't agree to exact wording on the proposal, if there is consensus that the proposal's general approach would be an improvement over what's currently there, that would seem to be a basis for moving forward. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to stand in the way of progress here. Regarding the issue I raised, I'd hoped (expected!) that everyone would immediately say, "Oh yes - of course!", and agree to change the text appropriately. But since that hasn't happened, I see that I must be failing to appreciate something important: if I started a new section to ask for clarification, would someone spare the time to help me?  —SMALLJIM  11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me (after the minor corrections). Dhaluza (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The current nutshell is better. There is more to OR than synthesis, and we don't want WP to be a primary source either. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is on one bullet point of a proposed replacement for the current PSTS language (see two sections above for the proposal and one section above for the problem with the bullet point.) Not the nutshell. Sorry for the confusion. --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What about this:

• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis by its editors on any topic. That is original research synthesis, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source for that topic.

Is it correct?  —SMALLJIM  23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much dislike "That is original research synthesis, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source for that topic." Some of my reasons are:

• "Original research synthesis" is a made-up phrase that no one will understand unless they have been following this talk page for a long time.
• There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia being a secondary source, when judged on a small piece of text. It is only when viewed as a whole that Wikipedia should be a tertiary source. Secondary sources sometimes form novel conclusions based on reviewing other publications, and sometimes just summarize the other publications. It is fine for Wikipedia to be a secondary source that summarizes other publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing the original then, is it correct to say that WP becomes a secondary source for any new commentary or analysis that is added by its editors to a topic?  —SMALLJIM  00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia is also a secondary source for any quotation or summary added by its editors. "Quotation" is significant in that it shows that someone gained access to and took notice of the quoted source. Of course, most summaries are new. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gerry. Setting aside quotations and summaries for a moment, may I just confirm one point, please: are you saying that Wikipedia is a secondary source for any new (i.e. previously unpublished) commentary or analysis that is added by its editors to a topic?  —SMALLJIM  14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New revision

Based on the comments to date, I think the "product of original research" and "original research synthesis" are just roundabout ways of saying "also original research". So based on this, can we consider the following alternative:

Wikipedia is not a first publisher of new material—it is is a compendium of knowledge drawn from existing material published by reliable sources.

1. Wikipedia does not publish previously unpublished facts or observations. This is original research, which would make Wikipedia a primary source for those statements.
2. Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis by its editors. This is also original research, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source on that subject.
3. Wikipedia only republishes existing facts and analysis. This is source based research, and makes Wikipedia the tertiary source that it is intended to be.

-- Dhaluza (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's much improved, but can you remind me what you intend to do with it?  —SMALLJIM  19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to extend the issue of primary/secondary sources, which I believe will never have complete agreement, into the nutshell. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a proposed nutshell, it's simply a proposed revision to the existing PSTS section. The box simply distinguishes the proposal from discussion. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my mistake, sorry. In the context of PSTS, this is fine with me, although it is somewhat more brief than the current text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also support the revision. --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I like this revision, although I still think it's not really necessary to have the PSTS language in there at all. However, given that it's in there, this could be a useful compromise. --Lquilter (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflation of concepts in PSS

I think one of the problems we have in trying to sort through the issues with the definition of Primary and Secondary sources is that there are multiple dimensions of observation compressed into a one dimensional measurement. This results in the conflation of separate and not always compatible concepts. The discussions here have revealed several different criteria for separating primary from secondary:

1. Closeness: The involvement of the subject in the publication process; e.g., an autobiography is primary while an independent biography is secondary.
2. Succession: How many hands the idea has passed through; e.g., a first-hand account is primary, while a second- or third-hand account is secondary.
3. Publication: Whether something is an original publication or a republication; e.g., The second-hand account is still primary upon first publication
4. Opinion: Whether something is fact or opinion; e.g. census statistics are primary, while assigning meaning to them is secondary.
5. History: The time period of the publication relative to the age of the subject; e.g. Whether something was written at the time or later, and/or how long ago.

There may be other nuances as well. We run into problems when these different criteria produce different results. For example, an eyewitness is a primary source, and a newspaper publishing the eyewitness account is secondary under all but the publication criteria. But if the reporter is also publishing their observations and analysis, we have a more ambiguous situation. And if another newspaper simply re-publishes this newspapers primary source material, is it still primary or does it then become secondary? There have been numerous other examples given here of other problematic taxonomies as well. The conflation of these ideas in the current PSTS definitions is a problem, and I don't see how to untangle this Gordian Knot. Dhaluza (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Mere reporting (repeating without commentary), of something doesn’t make a secondary source. Most news is primary source material, even if it is second hand. A secondary source makes some (any) kind of transformation of the information. And you’ve been at this for some time. Maybe it is complicated, like measuring the surface area of a cloud? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a primary source should stay primary through republication, but I have seen other comments that are not completely consistent with that. Also, we use news reports as secondary sources for establishing Notability, so is your comment that "most news is primary source" in conflict with that interpretation? BTW, your analogy of measuring the volume of a cloud is not complicated, per se, because we can come up with an unambiguous definition for it; but actually making the measurement would be difficult. This is the opposite of the problem we face here. Dhaluza (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Using news (usually newspapers) to demonstrate notability would seem to produce a complicated problem with source typing, but it doesn’t seem to. Perhaps it's because the existence of the policy WP:NOT#NEWS cuts off attempts to primarily use news. Newspapers are full of primary source material (the news) interspersed with secondary source material (editorials, reviews, feature stories). Making the news doesn’t demonstrate notability. A burst of news reports is explicitly excluded by WP:N. Having a publication say something about you, something that is not news, demonstrates notability. I initially said volume, but meant surface area, which is complicated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A short burst of news coverage is excluded by an explicit exception in WP:N, saying it is not sufficient, not that the coverage is primary source. Continuing news coverage over a period of time would be evidence of Notability. You might argue that the body of coverage is collectively a secondary source, but I think the Notability guidelines are really using secondary in the sense of third-party or independent, i.e. non-close sources as in item #1 above.

“Continuing news coverage over a period of time would be evidence of Notability”. Yes. I consider that to be true regardless of the source typing of the news coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As to your analogy, estimating the volume of a cloud might be used to derive its mass, which may have some practical application. Measuring the surface area of a cloud seems to be more of a useless pedantic folly, and that is like the problem we are dealing with here. Dhaluza (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A useless pedantic folly? Yes, that’s part of what I had in mind. [Source typing / determining surface area] may have application, and may be interesting, but take the analysis too far and it becomes useless pedantic folly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

When a journalist reports an eyewitness account, even as a verbatim quote, it implies that the journalist believes what the eyewitness has to say has both credibility and relevance. This makes reporting the quote from the journalist different from quoting the eyewitness directly for Wikipedia purposes. One is WP:OR, the other is not. And this is the case even though for many other purposes both could be classed in the same PSTS source class. Some aspects and traditional uses of the PSTS typology are suitable for Wikipedia's needs, others perhaps not. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting an eyewitness account does not mean the journalists "believe it," it just means that is what the eyewitness said. Newspaper articles contain conflicting eyewitness acounts all of the time. Amaltheus (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A good journalist won't report what they believe, but they will assess credibility and relevance as Shirahadasha said. This is the second-hand form of secondary source above. We look to journalists to be a filter for Notability, and in this respect the source is secondary for that purpose. It may be primary from a first publication sense, but for WP, there is no general requirement that we only publish something if it has been published more than once, so that is not relevant. For NOR purposes, we only need to ensure it has been published once in reliable sources. We may assign more weight to opinions that have been republished more than once per NPOV and relative weight, but that's not an OR issue. Dhaluza (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Specialist knowledge

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources

I think this is going to stop wikipedia from getting access to a lot of specialist knowledge, particularly in the physical sciences. There is a lot of specialist topics that live in the heads of only a few people on this globe and that then often in a rather scattered fashion. To write a good introductory piece for wikipedia that gives easy access to the topic for outsiders is inevitably somewhat of a creative act. If an expert is at all willing to do that they will often not have (or take) the time to find a suitable citation for every sentence they write. I think the most you can hope for is that they come up with a relevant text book or so. I think this needs to be relaxed and it probably can be relaxed as long as there is no opposition on the topic.

For the record, my changes to paramagnetism are almost exclusively drawn from my personal knowledge and trying to find quotes for everything I remember is really beyond my means. So: if anyone wants to revert it to its previous (rather abysmal) state: be my guest.

Jcwf (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It could perhaps use a rewording. But to put your concerns at ease, that section is meant to discourage specialists from adding their personal interpretations of prior research, and findings they've made in their own unpublished and/or unreviewed research. And while ideally every claim made in an article is cited, the fundamental policy here, verifiability, requires that content be verifiable and not verified. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The real policy governing this is WP:V. Things need to be verifiable, which means that you can and should include your specialized knowledge in Wikipedia pages, so long as nobody would disagree with you. For anything likely to be challenged, however, you need a citation. This is how things have worked for years on math and science pages, where there are a lot of conclusions that are simply not disputed by anybody. You can say E=MC², for example, without actually having to cite Einstein's article. COGDEN 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as what you are adding is verifiable in the literature, you will be fine. The spirit of NOR is not to prevent specialists from editing articles, it is to have a page to point to when we remove crank theories from articles. A sense of purpose and perspective is necessary. The best editors (specialist or not) of math and science articles do ensure that they don't add their personal interpretation, but stick to what is commonly accepted in their profession. The scientific citation guidelines give useful advice for sourcing science articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Needed clause: Lincoln's left foot

There have been rumblings in the rhetoric of pseudoscience POV-pushers at Wikipedia to use this guideline (especially WP:SYNTH) coupled with WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE to prevent simple logical statements and summaries from being included at Wikipedia. There is a real danger that this argument will gain traction here and that would be a disaster for the project. Let me illustrate the issue with a story:

In early attempts to build computers that would pass the Turing test, one of the problems was encountered was that computers did not have "base knowledge" on which to make simple analytical or synthetic arguments that were not only uncontroversial, they were almost silly. For example, one of the computers that failed the Turing test did so because the computer didn't realize that every time Abraham Lincoln was in Washington DC, his left foot was also in Washington DC. This is a simple synthetic argument that is made by human beings all the time: uncontroversial and unlikely to raise any eyebrows. However, in order for the computer to understand this, it had to be entered as a fact either synthetically (all human beings carry their left feet with them to new geographical locations because of the body being a physically connected entity) or plainly (Abraham Lincoln's left foot was in Washington DC when Abraham Lincoln was in Washington DC).

Here's the problem, we are a community of human beings: a computer is not writing this encyclopedia. However, an overly rigid interpretation of this guideline can effectively prevent us from applying simple human judgment to situations. Our synthesis guidelines here are good for complicated discussions, but they fail us in the simple every day summary reporting of facts. We don't often notice this, but I have become very aware of it when writing non-controversial articles. For example, I'm currently involved in a collaboration to bring force to a featured article status. There are dozens of instances in that article where small little syntheses have occurred for editorial reasons, readability reasons, or editorial reasons. The only reason no one complains is because the article is (relatively) non-controversial. This is a very different story when I start to edit articles about similarly non-controversial subjects (at least within the scientific community) that are related to science where there are those who dispute the scientific consensus. There, I invariably run into people yelling that I'm promoting an original research argument when I make a simple summary statement of standard scientific knowledge. And they have a point. The guideline, as written, makes no exception for simple "Lincoln's left foot" type syntheses. It's as if the guideline is intentionally incorporating one of the failures of computers into our encyclopedia and thereby has been made to hamper the good faith efforts of its very human editors. Go ahead and try to find a citation that's not a synthesis for the fact "Abraham Lincoln's left foot was in Washington when he was in Washington". It's impossible.

The problem is, when people become OR-synth fanatics in this way, they start to violate the spirit of Wikipedia:Summary style, WP:WEASEL and WP:NOT#CENSORED. Facts are excised from the encyclopedia on the flimsiest of rationales. E.g., this is an argument frequently made, a particular source, though it lambastes the idea for having all the features of pseudoscience, never uses the precise phrase "this idea is considered pseudoscience". Therefore, the person trying to protect the reputation of the idea rightly states that Wikipedia cannot use that source as a citation for the summary statement "this idea is pseudoscience" since that would be original research. Never mind the fact that indirect attribution, quotations, and simple "Lincoln's left foot" statement are the backbone of this encyclopedia. If they weren't we'd have an encyclopedia exclusively of direct quotes.

It would be very pointy of me to go smack {{fact}} tags all over the encyclopedia where these "Lincoln's left foot"-type synthetic points get made, but suffice to say they are made all the time. I think we need to address this in this policy. I'm amazed that we have to, but there seems to be no lengths that POV-pushers won't go to prevent us from writing a concise, coherent, and straightforward encyclopedia article about their pet idea.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Lincoln and his left foot analogy is elegant, but it depends entirely on the disputes involved whether this beautiful analogy applies. I will say that in my editing practice I almost never see the synth policy invoked inappropriately in a content dispute. And I encounter violations of synth over and over and over again, so if anything I say editors are inappropriately ignoring it far more than they're applying it overly strictly. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is, whether synth is being applied inappropriately or not is ultimately an editorial decision, not a decision that can be made on the basis of policy or guidelines alone. We need to have a clause in here that explicitly says that just to keep things sane. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno where you're finding this, but tedious as it can be, it's usually best to find good sources and state what they say. This has been well tested and taken to extremes at intelligent design, which is not science[cites], pseudoscience[cites] or junk science[cites]. It also helps that reliable secondary sources are required, which means that the primary pseudoscience sources have to be put in the context of reliable third party evaluation. Agree, it can be frustrating when it's hard to find a secondary source stating the obvious, but the end result is better for the effort. .. dave souza, talk 17:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Is this request related to content disputes such as currently raging in What the Bleep Do We Know!?? Too often in WP editors insist on substituting their own terminology, framing the issue differently than did the associated references. Very often, especially in articles which tend to overly inspire idealogues to lose sight this is an encyclopedia, not a battle against the forces of darkness, editors who choose their terms with the very intention to bring in a very peculiar emphasis, usually in the interest of disparaging or promoting the subject in a way not taken in the source itself. In other words, bad editing prodescribed in many policies. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This request is related to a whole host of policy disputes (not content disputes). Not just one in particular. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How can synth be applied "inappropriately"? Something is either synthesis or its not. If an editor is him/herself coming to a conclusion, then it is "original research." Either someone else has already concluded that A + B = Conclusion, or its a NOR violation. There is no gray area, nor need for one.

If a source says "every action has an equal and opposite reaction," it may be "obvious" for an editor to conclude that this is the reason why applying force to one end of a lever causes the other end go in the other direction. But if challenged, such an "obvious" conclusion ought to be attributable to any high school physics book.

NB: The issue is not whether core policy should have built in loopholes, but whether editors use common sense. Someone who {{fact}} templates an empirical observation might not working towards the betterment of the encyclopedia. But someone who questions whether another editor's deductions (here assertion of causality) are correct could very possibly know something that the person making the deductions doesn't.

Down to editorial decision is not whether something is synth or not; given the sources this can usually be objectively determined. Instead, down to editorial decision is whether someone who templates for the fun of it is being disruptive. This is not an issue for core policy. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Then find me a citation that shows that when Abraham Lincoln was in Washington DC, his left foot was in Washington DC. Once you do that, I'll drop the issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't confuse something that is so obvious that it doesn't need to be explicitly stated, with something that is not obvious enough which is why it then has to be explicitly stated. :)

And... a statement that reads "While Abraham Lincoln was in Washington DC, his left foot was in Washington DC" is purgable per 'Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collector of information'.

Also, as long as you are not yourself stating that "Lincoln's left foot was attached to his ankle while he mused over how much four score and seven were," no one can require you to provide a citation for it.

-- Fullstop (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't clearly don't understand the issue, Fullstop. The issue is that very soon we are going to see disputes go through unnecessary machinations because of some sloppy wording in our policy. Imagine writing an article and finding an important part of the story of Lincoln is that he had a foot operation on a certain date. Another source indicates that Lincoln was in Washington DC on that date. You write a sentence "Abraham Lincoln's foot was operated upon his return to Washington." Nice clean sentence. Also clearly a synthesis. Obviously, it isn't right, though, that someone come by and remove it as original research. Get out of here. Licoln was in Washington, so was his left foot. Don't confuse other issues here (like your irrelevant WP:NOT reference), this is a very real concern: these uncontroversial tiny syntheses are things that happen all the time across this encyclopedia. It's part of good encyclopedia research and it's not supposed to be discouraged by policy since most editors (like yourself) consider it to be "so obvious that it doesn't need to be explicitly stated". This is just a hypothetical example that has a little bit of cutesy-ness mixed in to keep things lively. If it is true that such activity is fine, then we really should explain that in our policy. We are charged with describing what happens at Wikipedia, after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The biggest issue I see with this is not the debate over correct logical deductions, but rather the poor understanding of the methodology by the general public and especially by certain groups. We see this all the time outside of wikipedia with regards to things like Inteligent Design, where people use scientifically-styled (but false) arguments to support their cause. As it seems that true scientific thinking is marginalised on wikipedia in many places (and much kudos to those that ensured sanity on various articles!), and that policies are often interpreted the layman's way rather than the scientist's way, such a special exception would only lead to further problems, I feel. However a similar note might be of use in a related area. I see statements based around wikilinked information flagged with {{fact}} all the time, however simply following the wikilink often provides ample references. Whilst the final inference (is that the right word?) would be up to the user, one would hope that "Lincon never lost either foot" would not get {{fact}}ed and provide the last piece of information needed to state the location of his left foot. LinaMishima (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the Abe's foot story relate to We Can Build You? . . dave souza, talk 09:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think SA has a point that we have a group of editors highly motivated to edit this policy based on their experience with a small number of contentious articles, and the larger group of editors who work on the majority of non-contentious articles are not only underrepresented, their viewpoints are also often overlooked. For example, the relevance of the "to advance a position" qualifier on WP:SYNTH was recently overlooked. We need to be mindful of the Law of unintended consequences when policy is crafted to treat the symptoms, rather than to prevent the disease. Dhaluza (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There's more involved here than just synthesis. Honestly, if the location of Lincoln's left foot was a notable issue, someone would have commented on it. It's not just a matter of inserting a fact that may have been overlooked. If it's been overlooked then maybe it's not as big of an issue as you may think it is. It may be the case that you're the only one who cares where Lincoln's left foot is, and that's where the original research comes in. One might want to say "Lincoln was in D.C., and thus his left foot was" to settle an argument occuring on a talk page, but if no one has thought to comment on Lincoln's left foot it's just your idea. It's certainly not notable. And when it's used to settle an argument, that's when it becomes problematic original research; it's a non-notable fact that's inserted into an article just to advance a position or win an argument.

Plus it's lazy. I can't tell you how many times people argue on these pages about not needing a source and the source is only three results away on Google. If it's important enough to be covered in a Wikipedia article, Google's covered it already. Dunno if the clause is in WP:SYNTH already, but that's a clause that's needed. "Try really hard to find a source. If you can't find one, ask for help. If no one can find one, then it's probably not important to begin with." This is a notability issue, not an original research issue. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is ultimately saying that the policy is only enforced when there is a controversy and that when there isn't a controversy the policy isn't enforced. This is diametrically opposed to WP:POLICY which, in a nutshell, says it's our job at these meta-pages to describe what actually goes on at Wikipedia and not to legislate best practices. WP:SYNTH is not written to describe controversies. WP:SYNTH is written to describe why normally extended synthetic arguments are excised from Wikipedia. In other words, since what actually goes on at Wikipedia is millions of instances of tiny little uncontroversial syntheses all the time, we need to be more clear as to what this part of our policy on No Original Research actually covers (as in, it doesn't cover uncontroversial synthesis of straightforward references). You are also making a notability argument that is more than a little dubious. I do not think that everything worth including at Wikipedia is necessarily accessible by Google. In fact, there is a lot more to write about than can be found through a simple Google search. The problem I'm describing isn't one of having "no source"; the problem is when people with concerted agendas nitpick and claim a source that doesn't have a direct quote that is identical to a passage in an article and therefore refuse to allow proper summary statements, paraphrasing, or obvious syntheses. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you are saying that in some instances synthesis is OK. I'm saying if something's notable enough to include in an article, no original synthesis is necessary. I am not saying synthesis is OK until it is controversial. I'm saying that synthesis causes controversy, needlessly, because if it was important enough to be in the article someone would have covered it. I know exactly what scenarios your talking about because I've been there in some of these cases. Each time I was around the editors weren't just arguing against synthesis in general, they were arguing against your synthesis. The reason they argued against your synthesis is because they felt it was a harsher or more critical tone of voice than any of the sources you said made up that synthesized summary. The argument was that what you were doing is original research; it's taking facts, changing some words around, adding tone-filled words that the original sources didn't use, and passing it off as a stronger critique than the original reliable critics provided. That's what the problem was. The solution was to scan Google to find non-originally synthesized sources similar to what you were saying. There was plenty and the problem was solved. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi SA, first, the policies are both descriptive and prescriptive.

We would only need a source for "Abraham Lincoln's left foot was in Washington when he was in Washington" if the proposition was advancing the position of a Wikipedian not advanced by any of the sources who wrote about Lincoln's trip. Otherwise, it would be a harmless deduction based on the common knowledge that people tend to take their body parts with them when they travel. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster and think a lot of discussion here is missing the point. Someone who opposes the inclusion of certain content may use strict interpretation of NOR as a justification for removing it. For example, the Smith-Jones dispute from the policy says:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book.

Suppose this was the original quote from Smith:

It's clear that Jones took these references directly from Larry's work without any credit to Larry, profiting immorally from Larry's research.

This quote does not use the word "plagiarism", but anyone who knows the word knows that's what he's talking about here. One would not want other editors eliminating the original text or making it more verbose without need. This is not a hypothetical or even infrequent scenario.

We'd like to say "use common sense", but whether or not an editor is defending an agenda, they frequently disagree on what "common sense" is. We'd like to say "punish disruptive editors", but an editor may in good faith adopt and act on an overstrict interpretation of NOR, if it is not clarified. "Disruption" is a loaded term like "vandalism" and requires getting inside the mind of the editor, which can only be done in the clearest of cases.

The policy already indicates that summarization is okay, but this is overly vague - ideally we'd have more examples of cases where limited synthesis is justified, because we can't write effective prose without it. Dcoetzee 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this OR? "A number of people have done this"

I'm having problems with an editor who says this line of mine here is OR:

A number of former Muslims have supported the publishing of the cartoons.

I'm telling him that I'm backing up this line and there are lines that come after it where former Muslims have supported something. Before you say its OR, look at what today's featured article also says:

Trembling Before G-d has had a wide impact especially within the Orthodox Jewish world, where the reception has been roundly negative.

This is also not sourced but it isnt OR, is it? How do I argue that what I'm doing is not OR? The editor wants that line to be referenced from a source. I cant find any source that says that, yet, it is obvious from the following 3 lines that indeed, "a number of former Muslims have supported the cartoons". How do I deal with this? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is how Matt57 is not saying "A number of former Muslims have supported the publishing of the cartoons", but the problem is how Matt57 is backing up this line. There are sources that person X has supported the cartoons. There are also different sources that say person X is a former Muslim. But there are no sources that say both of those things. For example:

• This source says Ayaan Hirsi supports the cartoons.
• This source says Hirsi is a former Muslim.

Matt57 is using two sources to say "former Muslims have supported the publishing of the cartoons". Is this not a vio of WP:SYNTH?Bless sins (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a logical deduction. But saying "a number" if the refs only support a number = 1 is at best WP:WEASEL. You could say "at least one", but the relevance of a statement like that would be questionable at best. At least one person can probably be found to support almost anything. One is the loneliest number.... 19:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs)

The question is not of one. Other references have been/can be provided. Secondly, I find the Smith and Jones example here to be logically deducible.Bless sins (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, it is a one-step logical deduction that requires no assumptions. The problem with characterizing that as a logical deduction is that it involves assumptions and intermediate steps, which is what makes it a synthesis to advance a position. Since there are several former Muslims commenting on the subject, it seems to be reasonable editorial discretion to group their comments together under that heading as was done. This is precisely the type of synthesis we need in articles to make them readable. This is not synthesis advancing the editor's point, it is reporting the references' points of view in juxtaposition with related information. Dhaluza (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to just be specific and mention that Hirsi Ali supports the cartoons. One of the links is a basic fact about Hirsi Ali, so I don't think it's a SYNTH issue. The notion of Hirsi Ali being ex-Muslim cannot be disputed really, so a cite pointing that out may not even be needed in that article (WP:CITE). It's like saying "Watt, a professor of Islamic studies, said X" - everyone knows Watt was a professor of Islamic studies, so there's no need for a supporting ref in that case. ITAQALLAH 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Everyone knows that Hirsi Ali is a woman, so I can say "some women, like Hirsi Ali, have supported the cartoons." Everyone knows that Hirsi is a politician, so I can say "some politicians, like Hirsi Ali, have supported the cartoons." Everyone knows that Hirsi ali is Dutch, so...This opens up a lot of possibilities.

Secondly, is the argument that "everyone knows Watt was a professor of Islamic studies" appropriate? Where do we draw the line on "everyone knows"?

Finally isn't it against the spirit of WP:NOR that wikipedia is the only source on earth that draws a connection between former Muslims and opinions on the cartoons? If there were reliable sources to support the claim, then I'd agree to its inclusion.Bless sins (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: your first point, I don't agree. It depends upon what is most relevant in the context of the discussion. It might be relevant to introduce her as a dutch politician, given the political side of the cartoons debate, or it might be relevant to just say that she's a critic.

Re: your second point, I'm just talking about how we introduce people in a factual and neutral manner. Other cases are dealt with on their own merits.

Re: your last point... as I said above it might be better to simply specify Hirsi Ali. It can also always be appropriately reworded if there are multiple sources so as to avoid the issue of potential OR or weasel wording (i.e. Critics such as X and Y support the cartoons because... ). ITAQALLAH 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It would not be WP:OR to collect and organize existing well sourced and undisputed information that directly pertains to the subject of an article. If we know that X and Y say A (that pertains to the article), and both X and Y belong to group G, we can say that some people from group G say A, and give X and Y as examples. Crum375 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment on "19:20, 12 January 2008". Former Muslims isn't the only category, 'women', 'dutch', 'politician', 'immigrant' are all categories that Hirsi belongs to.Bless sins (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Itaqallah. How do we determine "what is most relevant in the context of the discussion"? The controversy was not just religious, it got political, it is alleged that Muslim immigrants to Denmark had a bit to do with inciting it etc. There are several relevant categories here. None of which are supported by reliable sources.

Once again, the last point: isn't it against the spirit of WP:NOR that wikipedia is the only source on earth that draws a connection between former Muslims and opinions on the cartoons? No source in the entire world does this - if there was another source, I'd gladly accept it, and there would be no dispute.Bless sins (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to take out the sentence because it violates WP:WEASEL as [pointed out by Dhaluza. WP:WEASEL discourages usage of phrases like "some people have said". This is equivalent to "a number of former muslims have said/supported...". Fine, so I took it out. However I still dont know why a featured article would have the same kind of WEASEL wording or, how this is not weasel:

Trembling Before G-d has had a wide impact especially within the Orthodox Jewish world, where the reception has been roundly negative.

I found another way of saying it, which is to name the people in the first sentence. This is not weasel however its not the best:

Former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan have supported the publication of these cartoons.

So whats the best way of summing up the whole paragraph without it being a WEASEL issue? This summing up is done everywhere (e.g. the featured article) and as Dhaluza said, we need this kind of synthesis to make the articles readable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's better to name several examples, but the question remains as to what the relevance of "former" Muslims is. I think that's the point that's being challenged. Have any of them explained -- "I'm not a Muslim anymore, and I support publishing the cartoons because ..." or has any secondary sources said that lots of former Muslims support it? I'm not saying it's necessarily OR, just that I don't get the connection myself. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need any special significance other than being a common factor that can help organize the information. Since several people who self-identify as former Muslims have commented, we can group their comments on this basis. This may or may not be the optimal organization of the material, but it is a reasonable one. We do not need an outside source that organizes the information in this way, and we don't need the sources to specifically link their comments to their self-identification. Also the fact that the sources are former Muslims gives them a different viewpoint from people who are or who never have been Muslim, so there is a logical, as well as an editorial basis for this. Dhaluza (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What would the editorial basis for it be? That's what I don't get, especially as they were given their own section and were therefore being actively categorized as ex-Muslims, rather than it being mentioned in passing. People who have never been Muslims aren't identified as such (at least I hope they're not), even though that would be just as "logical," given that their lack of involvement with the religion would play a role in how they see things. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple organization. Imagine you are preparing a Powerpoint presentation. You need to divide the material into slides, and the slides into bullets. You need to organize the material so it logically fits together and flows. Each slide gets a title. Sometimes the titles don't have any special significance, other than simple organization. Dhaluza (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dhaluza for saying it well. SV, there's a number of different things: these people were asked specially what they thought of the cartoons so much so that they spent quite some time on talking about the thing (Wafa Sultan's video here e.g.) and these single individuals were being interviewed about it. A group of 13 went and signed a manifesto in response to the violence. Given that the affair is religious in nature, people want to know what different religious groups, Muslims and former Muslims want to think of the affair. As to why we should group them together and not just disperse them like anyone else, well we have sections explaining what Muslims thought of the affair. The voice of former Muslims also deserves its own place. Its an important voice of dissent. Thats why news sources went after them to get their opinions. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Grouping according to undisputed categories is not WP:OR per se. However, selecting specific groups could violate WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE, in principle. If there is already a source that tells us that group X said Y, then we can report it that way. But if, for example, we only have individual statements from people about a controversial subject, and we categorize the statements ourselves, we could be introducing subtle bias and violating WP:UNDUE by selecting only those specific groups and not others. Crum375 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there the problem is in being selective, not in organization. I agree that using suggestive, biased, or derogatory headings would be inappropriate. But in the present case, the sources self-identify with the group, so that does not seem to be an issue. Converting from a religion is not all that unusual. Dhaluza (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The reporters who interviewed the former Muslims did not do so arbitrarily. They felt that the perspective provided by former Muslims was notable, we can source it, and it certainly makes good sense in reporting to include that, as well. The perspective of those who would have once been highly likely to agree, but having left the group now may have other views certainly seems like a good 'insider's view' tack to take on the subject. The only debate I see is, would former Muslims have any axe to grind against the religion, making their comments more sour grapes than honest analysis, and that's up to the editorial discretion of the publishing body, not us. I think the inclusion offers a unique perspective, one which might not be considered otherwise by the casual reader, and which does offer an expanded view of the topic. Since it can be sourced, the only question is, as Matt57 presents, how best to phrase it to fit NPOV? ThuranX (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, organization of undisputed information (e.g. self admitted "ex Muslims" said X about the article's subject) is acceptable, in principle. The problem is selection — if there were "ex Hindus" who said something, should we include them as well? Aren't there near infinite such possibilities? And how do we decide relevance and notability without introducing POV or violating UNDUE? IMO we need a source that actually says "A number of ex Muslims said X" — we can't just group them on our own, as their inclusion, while excluding other possible groups, can be viewed as POV. If the reporters interviewed these people because they specifically wanted to get opinions from ex Muslims, then show that the reporters said that, and we can then include it. Crum375 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)No, I understand, and I thought I was making it fairly clear that the reporters whose articles we use as secondary sources already found that line, and we can work form what they've put out there. Do you really think the perspective of ex-hindi is particularly relevant to the Muslim reaction to the cartoons? I don't, and neither did any reporter, as I've never seen such an article. But to find people who once thought like the objectors, and now do not, and to go to them and ask 'As former insiders to this thinking, what say you?" is, as I said before, a logical angle on the story. And finally, as I said before, we're not choosing an arbitrary threshold of notability of perspectives on the thing, we're taking our cues from the members of the Fourth Estate. Most of the editors of wikipedia aren't professional writers of any ilk, be it comedy, fiction, technical, or journalistic. But the producers of most of our secondary sources are. They're far better at finding interesting, yet relevant approaches to stories. We don't have to find new angles, just cover what's been covered. Clearly, since there's more than one 'ex muslims' article, and zero 'ex-hindi' articles, the notability of the minority viewpoint as relevant has been established. Since there aren't any ex-hindi articles, i think that alone establishes the notability of such view - there is no notability. ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell grammar

SlimVirgin's revert[2] of Yukichigai's grammar correction in the nutshell is surely incorrect. When two singular nouns ("analysis" and "synthesis") are separated by "or", a singular verb should be used. See, for instance, OWL Online Writing Lab.  —SMALLJIM  23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you forgetting ideas, which is plural? Crum375 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ideas" is one of many subjective compliments of the sentence modifying the singular subject "analysis or synthesis". The plurality of "serve" is determined by the subject, not the subjective compliment(s). Yes, English is f%$#ed up like that, but that's how it is. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. After reading the OWL link, I'd like to point out that this situation is specifically addressed by point number 5 on that page. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The simple solution is to replace "that serve(s) to advance" with "that advances".

But that sentence is perhaps altogether too wordy...

1. The "of published facts, arguments, or ideas" is superfluous because it doesn't matter what the analysis/synthesis is of.
=> Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis that advances a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

2. Analysis is a prerequisite of synthesis, so "analysis or synthesis" is also just "analysis":
=> Articles may not contain any new analysis that advances a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

3. Fix the temporal (new -> not already):
=> Articles may not contain analysis that advances a position not already clearly advanced by the sources.

Someone else please take it from here, i.e. resolve the double negative (not .. not => only) etc.

-- Fullstop (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just noting the first point, "that serve(s) to advance" should not be replaced with "that advances." OR enthusiasts are sneaky sometimes, and arrange information in a way that will lead to a conclusion, without explicitly advancing it (synthesis by juxtaposition of irrelevant facts). It's best if such a thing doesn't seem "OK" by the nutshell. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the phrase we want is "seeks to advance"?  —SMALLJIM  11:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Same plural issue. Re Someguy1221's comment: Irrespective of whether its "serve(s) to advance," "seek(s) to advance" or "that advance(s)", a "sneaky" editor is going to deny allegations of misuse anyway. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was not about plurality - that's settled: the verb should be singular. I was responding to Someguy1221's more subtle point which suggested that there is a difference between the meanings of "advances" and "serves to advance". I don't see much of a difference in this context, but there is a difference when "seeks to advance" is used - it emphasises the intention of the writer.  —SMALLJIM  19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but I think it's easier for the rest of us if he doesn't have a leg to stand on. One word means the distinction between "hoping readers reach an unsupported conclusion" and "handing readers an unsupported conclusion," and I just think it's better that the nutshell itself not leave room for doubt. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little ambivalent, but I can certainly see a problem with "seeks to advance". Using good faith it might be hard to make an argument that we can sense the motivation of another editor. It seems to me like "seeks to advance" is calling into question, in a negative light, why the edit was made. Also it seems a little more slippery, i.e. lightweight. "Serves to advance" seems more firm and definite, while "seeks" seems a little more like a request to engage in long wars over what exactly what is being "sought". Just my opinion, sorry if that's sounds a bit confusing. Wjhonson (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. "Seeks to advance" would also cover the case where an inept editor tried but failed to advance a position - even though the failure would mean that there was no evidence of the attempt! We can't be sure what another was thinking, so you're right, "seeks to" doesn't belong here.  —SMALLJIM  09:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

People need to stop picking away at this. It was fine as it was -- singular or plural both fine -- plural sounded better. "Seeks to advance" speaks to intention; "serves to advance" doesn't. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, which "plural" do you speak of? -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The one you changed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it was grammatically incorrect. Regardless of how it "sounds" it would be more than a little embarrassing to have the nutshell of one of our more important policy documents sporting a rather blatant grammar error. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 12:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which sounds more natural to you (ignoring online grammar tutorials for the time being)?

"You shouldn't drive your car or ride your bike when their tires are flat."

"You shouldn't drive your car or ride your bike when its tires are flat."

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite an appropriate example. More appropriate would be...

"You shouldn't use your car or bike when their tires are flat."

"You shouldn't use your car or bike when its tires are flat."

Incidentally, the online grammar tutorial is from the English department at Purdue, not just some random website. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't answer the question. My point is that what sounds more natural depends on the sentence, and you don't learn that nuance from reading websites about grammar. More importantly, there's a lot of poor writing in this policy, because people won't allow any changes without picking at them a thousand times, so the least of our worries is the nutshell. It was fine then, and it's fine now. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What sounds natural to me is grammatically correct English. I'll admit for the more obscure bits of grammar it can pass unnoticed, but a plurality mixup isn't an obscure bit of grammar. It is, as I said, quite blatant, and obviously I wasn't the only person to notice. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, this isn't the place to discuss it, but if you're a native English speaker, and if you have an ear for what constitutes good writing, you should ignore "the rules" as explained on websites (even those run by Purdue), and listen to what sounds good to your ear. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)}

Here's a fun example

Does reading the Producer credit on a TV show and then reporting that credit on the producer's article constitute OR? I don't think it does since there's no 'interpretation' of the primary-sourced data being done, but I'm running into an editor (here) who insists that it is. The second half of the questions is: if it's acceptable to note that the person produced the episode, and you provide the credit for every episode of the show made, is it OR to count the number of episodes the person produced and say "He produced ## episodes of Show"? Torc2 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The show is a published source, and reading a source is not OR. Dhaluza (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dhaluza is entirely correct, there is no OR in stating the contents of a primary source, and TV show credits are highly reliable. As for counting the episodes someone is credited in, it is technically weak synthesis, I believe, however it might well be allowable. LinaMishima (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If the series is incomplete, I would rephrase as "he produced ## of the first ## episodes of Show" for the sake of durability, but I agree that no OR is occurring here. Limited synthesis is always okay, as long as you're not trying to imply some specious argument with it (like "he liked Show A more than Show B because he produced twice as many episodes of it"). Dcoetzee 09:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding synthesis, it is worth noting that most human languages rely upon weak synthesis in order to follow what it being said correctly. More importantly and controversially, researchers rarely publish material that is the product of weak synthesis, such as the trivial counting of something from sources, or observations that those trained in a field would find trivial to make but are deemed complex by those not similarly trained. LinaMishima (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I think this issue is closed. Torc2 (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Infinite verb forms

The best way to make a bad impression, in writing, is to replace a command ("stand! speak!") with an infinite-verb clause ("standing and speaking will be a good idea.") They are on opposite sides of the spectrum; one is forceful, the other apologetic. --VKokielov (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it so it will be right. I don't know what tone you're aiming at here. As to me, I think the whole affair can be rewritten, because it is a rule, an imperative. But that is only my opinion. --VKokielov (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a way, starting from my attempt:

To prove that you are not presenting original research, please cite reliable sources which contain relevant information, supported as it is presented and pertinent to the subject matter at hand. --VKokielov (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, commands are stronger, but there's no reason to assume editors will disobey them. We can be persuasive without being authoritarian. Torc2 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The tone we're aiming for is not one of command, VK. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are issuing a command, show it for what it is. The rules of honest discourse demand it. It is a minor point, but it's important, because to leave it the way it is gives the whole thing a legalistic feel. "Authoritarian", I think, is a bad word to relate to writing, because all good writing is authoritarian; everything else wiggles and squirms. (That used to be an aesthetic principle, by the way, and it is still a principle of human perception). --VKokielov (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy pages on Wikipedia often wiggle and squirm, unfortunately, because so many people edit them. Everything gets tweaked back and forth a thousand times until any semblance of good writing has disappeared. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Like I said, I'm only a disciple. Editing pages under one hundred thousand eyes takes gusto and a certain subtlety that you get only through experience. --VKokielov (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Make explicit when sourced lists NOT WP:OR

WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view says:

On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics.

We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them...

I have noticed that some articles will make a statement like "these are the views of this group" or "there are several views" and present a relevant and sourced list and no problem. Other pages you try to do the same thing and people delete the comments, saying WP:OR or WP:SYN, thought it seems to be it's really usually because of WP:Idontlikeit. On the other hand I ran into an example today that LOOKED ok to me, except it needed more sources, but I wasn't sure and just brought up the topic for discussion.

Therefore I think an explicit statement about this lists issue and explanation of and link to WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view is necessary somewhere on WP:OR, probably at Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. It should say something like:

However, it is not synthesis to state that some people believe "A" and then list various sourced opinions "A". Also, per Moral and political points of view on certain topics, especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics, listing all points of views is often necessary and not original research or synthesis.

Comments? Carol Moore 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Do you have any examples of what you think are good and bad articles in this regard, it will make understanding your point simpler, and so help people to know exactly what they are commenting on. Thanks. LinaMishima (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a potential problem here with undue weight. Let me explain. On the Earth article do we note that some people believe the Earth is flat? Similarly on the Buddha article do we list all 36 forms of belief? I'm an inclusionist and so initially you might think I'd say yes. However, we should acknowledge that enormous articles become unwieldy. Therefore I'd suggest that if there really are a *large* number of alternative views, or alternatively a number of minority views, that a new article detailing those views be created and linked into the main article. That would then satisfy proponents of Undue who believe all the extra text just clutters, and proponents of inclusion who believe all voices should be heard. Wjhonson (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Carol is trying to change the WP:NOR policy to get around WP:NEO; she is trying to do original research, finding a large series of primary sources that use a phrase, and then stringing them together to draw her own conclusions about them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't get it...

(I must admit that I've not read this whole discussion page so I apologise if this has already been covered).

I'm new to Wikipedia but not to academia. So far as the latter is concerned, quite within the meaning of the phrase 'original research' are items that, from existing (perhaps well-established) sources, are collected and presented under a single cumulative article.

In agreement (I guess) with most Wikipedia editors, it seems to me that wikipedia articles aren't for the purpose of editors drawing original conclusions from a body of research (indeed this would be a common goal amongst encyclopaedia editors in general); yet surely this is different from ruling that original research should be avoided. By the academic measure (or in my opinion any regular way of regarding it), all well-sourced Wikipedia articles in fact represent original research. I mean to say, how exactly does one come up with citations without doing any research? Why the need to make a distinct (and what seems to me unusual) definition for Wikipedia?

I suppose it's too late to bring this up though. Brambinger (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In Wikispeak you are confusing "research" with "original research". In this land, original research involves the creation of *new* information, not the repetition of old information, even merged, and paraphrase. If I write an article on geese and because of my own experiments conclude that geese love cheese, that would be original research. If however I read 12 books on geese and merge various bits and pieces of geese-lore together into a goose article, that is "research" but its not "original". All I'm doing to splicing together old information. Wjhonson (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I understand the Wikipedia concept. I just think the term 'original research' is misleading, as original research, in some sense, is being conducted in the creation of any legitimate article. I know a man who contributed to Britannica, and indeed he would say he needed to conduct research to complete his articles. Whether or not the term 'original' changes the emphasis or is just redundant is probably a matter of taste. Anyway, I'm aware this discussion isn't going to result in any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brambinger (talk • contribs) 08:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The original problem being that while you understand it, it was found that many people did not understand it. And so the perhaps redundant emphasis on the distinction that we're trying to draw. We all conduct research in order to write the articles here, as you said. We're just trying to seperate "research in published sources" from "research of things which aren't published or aren't sources", such as geese themselves. Wjhonson (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Although buried under all the indirect speech/pitiful prose, what the policy is trying to say is "hey you, editor! Don't include your own original research."

The distinction lies with whether the product is an editor's own, or someone else's. To that end, in wikispeak, the former is "original research", while reference to the latter is "source-based research." -- Fullstop (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, don't include your own brand new thoughts. However with the addition, that you also cannot include anyone else's brand new unpublished thoughts. Just because it's your neighbor telling you that geese like cheese, doesn't mean you can now include it. The policy really is saying that you need to use sources that come from fixed media. If you listen to a speech by your town mayor, you also cannot include it, unless you can point to some place where the speech is preserved in fixed media. Of course that gets more to verifiability as well. Wjhonson (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see directly above, I too remain confused about the difference between research and original research, especially on this issue of lists. Examples:

• a phrase that is commonly used in a neutral way has many well sourced uses. However, because it is rarely if ever defined as that common usage, some editors insist that ONLY a negative interpretation of the phrase which is very commonly commented upon by "reliable sources" can be used. Therefore a group of editors insist that NO mention of the the neutral uses of the phrase can be listed because that would be WP:OR.
• an article has a statement "the tenets of ___ism are" and then there's a list, with some items sourced and some not. If they were all sourced, would that make it research or WP:OR? Or only if the reliable source clearly said - this a tenet of ___ism.
• a description of what is in a book. There are two listings of contents by reliably sourced reviewers. And then the phrase "other revelations include: lists about 10 more with references to page numbers when the info is contained in the book.

Are these research or original research? I think this section has to make it very very clear. That's why I want to put something about lists in per the above. If no one comments in a week or so I'll just put up my version as I understand it at that time and then I'm sure someone will comment if it's wrong! Carol Moore 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Whatever you call it, it is not a violation of the original research policy to state that certain information is contained in a published book. It could be undue weight. If the book were not published, it could be a violation of both the original research policy and the verifiability policy. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Carol, you are dealing with a neologism, one which is not found in any dictionary, encyclopedia, or standard reference work. You have been told time and again that WP:NEO states explicitly:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

No editors "insist that ONLY a negative interpretation of the phrase which is very commonly commented upon by "reliable sources" can be used." Rather, they insist that, per WP:NEO, "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I stated this in general terms as problems arising in several articles which illustrate confusion on WP:OR per this thread's title. In the specific case you reference, there is legitimate debate over whether a phrase used for at least 30 years is a "new" phrase. I don't think it is.Carol Moore 05:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC

I agree with Jayjg, if I understand correctly. As I see it, we can do what the sources do. If the sources use a certain word to mean a certain thing, then we can use the word to mean the same thing. If the sources make an assertion, then we can make the same assertion in different words, with or without prose attribution, or quote it. If the sources state something about a word, we can state the same thing about that word. But if the sources merely use the word, we can't state something in mainspace about the word based on that. To include the word in a list would be, in effect, to state something about the word, therefore OR and not allowed in that case. Of course, the inclusion of any particular piece of information is also subject to other policies, to whether it fits neatly into a well-organized article, and to consensus among the editors. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

the sources is sometimes the problem. For controversial topics, one can find sources, respected secondary or trtiary sources, to support almost any position. We are then left with the job of deciding which is the better source, or synthesizing a position from them. There is no substitute for intelligent judgment in editing. DGG (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• "we can do what the sources do, etc." sounds good and maybe that phrase and/or whole description needs to be inserted in relevant part of article. And then use both paragraphed text and lists and even boxes as examples.
• thanks for mentioning list which I did not know exists!
• controversial and conflicting sources a problem - like if one was trying to "List" the tenets of communism or capitalism!
• and of course we assume we are not dealing with roving bands of 5 or 6 or 10 editors who will challenge any source on defacto POV grounds like WP:Idontlikeit in order to push a viewpoints they don't like out of articles about their favorite topic.
• I just deleted something as WP:OR because someone inferred that an expert was talking about a specific organization because he quoted specific points made by that organization, even though he did NOT name the group specifically in his text. I told him to find someone who actually made those claims against that specifically named organization. I hope I got that one right! :::Carol Moore 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC

Deductions

I would like to propose a limiting standard on application of this policy, because its enthusiasts can be a bit draconian. Saying "use common sense" is insufficient, because the policy there is so vague and weak that it really doesn't provide any defense. Specifically:

Deduction

Complete description of a topic often requires a basic process of deduction. Data from reliable sources may often be available in incomplete or inconsistent form because readers are assumed to have the skill to work out additional meanings for themselves. Wikipedia encourages editors to use good judgment to make basic scientific deductions, provided that they are obvious to one of reasonable skill in the art. For example, editors may:

• Convert the units of a physical quantity using physical constants and conversion factors.

• Deduce the orbital period of a body orbiting the sun from its semimajor axis using Kepler's Law.

• Predict the molecular weight and isoelectric point of a polypeptide from its published primary sequence.

Editors making deductions must be careful not to make mathematical errors or to overstate their conclusions -- for example, the theoretical values predicted for a polypeptide may bear no resemblance to the experimental values for the posttranslationally modified protein. The data used to make the deduction should be provided and appropriately referenced, and the rules, assumptions, and approximations used to make any deductions (beyond basic arithmetic) should be explicitly mentioned and Wikilinked. As conversions are done to allow comparison of data from more than one reliable source, they should cast data into units that are prevalent among the sources cited.

Editors removing such unsourced deductions do not need to prove that they are truly incorrect, but only that their accuracy or applicability is not obvious to someone readily verifiable by anyone familiar with the science.

What do you think? Wnt (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This assumes that a person editing an article is skilled in the art. This is not necessarily true for someone cleaning up after a vandal. Converting units is a widespread skill that does not even require skill in the art, but beyond that, it could be quite difficult to clean up after vandals. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Skilled in the art" may be good for patents, but not for Wikipedia articles. Our threshold is "reasonably educated person", or the common sense of the Clapham Bus rider. Anything more invites trouble. If the material is correct and important, someone will have published it in the desired form. Crum375 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful to go a bit beyound the concept of "deduction" and add some additional common examples where editors routinely summarize and explain in ways that are essential to making specialized knowledge comprehensive to a lay reader but which are technically OR. For example:

• Summaries in lay English can explain or translate common terminology, jargon, and foreign-language terms used in sources which are ordinarily known to people in the field but which would not be known to a non-expert. However, preferred practice is to create and link to reliably-sourced articles explaining the concepts underlying these terms.

Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have always had with these deductions is that often there are little important details left out by the publishers (or merely those who put it on the Wiki, unbeknownst to the person who is making the deduction). To take the polypeptide sequence as an example: While the primary sequence of a polypeptide could be used to logically deduce the molecular mass of the primary sequence, this does not necessarily imply the molecular mass of the polypeptide. For all of the posttranslational modifications it can undergo, the calculated molecular mass could be completely off-base. Deductions should really be limited to those cases in which the deduction can be made without any assumptions. If you find yourself making assumptions, you're probably conducting original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, but I'm having some trouble reconciling myself to it. The point of appealing to skill in the art rather than the "Clapham Bus rider" is to plug holes in more specialized literature. People may publish the pKa of thousands of acids and give an example of pH for different concentrations of hydrochloric acid, but no one is going to provide the pH of every concentration of every acid known to man because there's a formula for it. So if you want to edit an article about a known concentration of a certain acid featured in some particular news event this policy asks you to wait for the hit-and-miss event of whether a mainstream media with little interest in science chooses to comment on it, and do without the figure permanently if that's what they decide. I don't think that's right, if anyone who has taken a chemistry course can agree that the pH should be a certain value. I know that the policy describes a "reasonable educated person without skilled knowledge" in regard to primary sources, but that is different. A primary source is used cautiously because it is an isolated and perhaps debatable result, whereas the general laws that I've suggested people Wikilink while using them for calculation are the best-known and most widely accepted principles of the science, as evidenced by their familiarity to and obvious use by the consensus of skilled readers favoring the edit.

Where "summaries" of jargon and terminology are concerned, I find myself resisting in the opposite direction. If there is no calculation involved, but simply explanation, there should be a source available somewhere. If a neuroanatomist can tell you where the lateral geniculate nucleus is, then believe me, there's a ridiculous amount of literature out there that defines that term. So there's no need for off-the-cuff explanations except as a WP:IAR stopgap measure.

Lastly, my polypeptide example was chosen to illustrate that the conclusion of a calculation easily can be overstated, but the fact that a reader can repeat and concur with that within 12 hours in a non-biology article should serve as proof that someone skilled in the art can spot and revert an overstatement when one is improperly made. Yes, caution is needed, but not as much caution as it takes, say, to edit an article subject to an ethnic edit war without getting reverted. There's no need to toss the baby with the bathwater. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, you will get less resistance to "OR" if you are not trying to "advance a position." That normally means doing things that are uncontentious. So if there is a clear formula for something, and you can point to the formula in a good textbook (ideally with examples) and then run some numbers through it, that others with no specialized skill or knowledge can repeat, odds are the edit will stick as "verifiable". If someone comes along and says the formula is wrong, or is being misapplied, be ready to defend it, or it will all go out pending published proof. Crum375 (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but the reason why I think it needs to be spelled out in the policy is that I've seen a few situations where people start reverting calculations simply because they are "original research" with no other reason to disagree. One I remember in particular was when I was doing some editing in Bode's Law before because I thought that an unsourced statement that the law resulted from orbital resonance was misleading (the law predicts irrational ratios while the orbital resonances are all different rational numbers). Maybe my table comparing the numbers from the two articles would run afoul of the policy anyway, but the point is, under the policy as it is I didn't even have the right to work out the orbital period ratios from the Bode's Law distances let alone to make the comparison, and it all simply got reverted immediately. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think you could have argued in favor of your text, especially if it is known or implicit in the literature. The OR policy is not a stark line, and isn't intended to prevent people adding uncontroversial things that are well known to all in a particular field. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we have no formal peer reviewers here, we can allow just the bare minimum: a clear and uncontentious textbook formula, that can be used by non-experts, which requires no special assumptions to be made, could be considered "verifiable". But your case sounds like it was more complex. If something is correct and important enough, it will be published elsewhere, and we can then refer to it. Conversely, if it hasn't been published, it's either incorrect or not important enough. Crum375 (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Provided that they are obvious to one of reasonable skill in the art" is a really loaded phrase. I see the argument used to justify unsourced additions to articles like List of musical works in unusual time signatures or the various "List of music in this key" on the different key signature articles. That to me seems like a clear case of interpretation of the primary source. How about if you substitute "obvious to one" with "objectively verifiable by anybody with". I don't even like that, but it's a compromise. Maybe the musical ones should be mentioned specifically in the article? Torc2 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your change is good, but I prefer "readily" to "objectively" which to me sounds like it would attract disputes. I don't understand your point about the musical list - I'm no expert, but I assume anyone can tell whether a score is written in 5/8 time? Wnt (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that "readily". I like that. It points out that, if we are skilled in the art, we should not have to use a lot of effort to verify a deduction that we as editors are making. The word "readily" eliminates people pushing the envelope to do original research and claim it's "objectively verifiable! you're just ignorant in this art!" And of course we want to minimize conflicts based on interpretation as much as possible. Wjhonson (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If they have a printed score, they can. If they're interpreting the meter from listening to the song, that's definitely OR. They're interpreting something from the original source. How do they know it's 5/8 and not 5/4, or 10/8 or 15/8, or 10/16. With key signatures, it can be even more of a stretch, and is OR even with a score - two sharps in a key signature can indicate either D major, B minor, or a number of possible modes (E dorian, F# phrygian, etc.). Torc2 (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But is that correct? A source is not simply printed material. We have source references that are audio, and sources that are videos. If we watch a video and say in our summary "Bob took out a hammer and hit Mike with it.", do we need a printed transcript or stage directions to state that this is what the episode shows? If a typical viewer would state the summary is essentially the same way, then this is not original research rather it is source-based research. We are using the source to paraphrase in text, what the source states. We are not creating the fact of what the episode shows, we are only restating it. In this particular case, we are saying that if a person "proficient in the art" would state essentially the same thing about the source, then we can as well. So if a trained musician listens to an audio tape and would state "this is allegro", then we can state that as well without the need for it to first be printed. Not all sources allowed here, are print sources. Wouldn't you agree ?Wjhonson (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. It takes no specialized knowledge or skill, or any interpretation to see a video of somebody being hit with a hammer and say they were hit with a hammer. Can a well-trained musician figure out a moderately complex time signature from hearing it? Maybe (they can also get it wrong pretty easily), but Wiki has no way of verifying the credentials of the person who added the information, and no way for the average editor to verify the material itself. Can they say "this is allegro"? No, because allegro is an interpretive term; how do you know the score isn't marked presto and they just took it too slow? WP:OR is exceptionally clear about this, saying information based on primary sources should be descriptive only, and: "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." How do you figure out a key? Harmonic analysis. Looking at a score and seeing a meter marking is a description of the primary source; listening to the song and figuring out the meter from that is an evaluation of the primary source. Torc2 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of images

I noticed a possible loophole/room for misinterpretation in the section on original images, in that it did not cover requirements on the interpretation of images. I suggest adding a short paragraph to emphasize two points that should be uncontroversial:

• The interpretation of images must be based on specifically related verifiable, reliable sources. (cf. WP:V)
• Images must not be used out of context or in contexts for which reliable sources do not exist. (cf. WP:NOR#Sources).

I suggest the following wording:

Editors should note that the interpretation of images, particularly depictions of allegorical or symbolic works, is subject to this policy. Descriptions in articles and captions of the meaning and context of an image must draw on reliable sources specifically relating to that image. Images must not be used out of context or in contexts that are not supported by reliable sources.

This is a straightforward reiteration of long-standing existing policy - there's nothing new about either of these principles. It is, however, useful to make it clear in this section that the text that accompanies images is subject to the same requirements as any other text anywhere else in an article.

I've had some personal experience of this issue. Some years ago, I rewrote the article on the Vinča signs to which an editor had added a series of images to support a fringe theory from an unreliable source that the signs were an early version of the Etruscan alphabet (see [3]). The article has been much improved since then, but the issue of the misuse of the images is something that's stuck in my mind for a long time. It's worth emphasizing to editors that our content policies apply to all material, not just text. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the rush to push this through undiscussed, Chris? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a substantive objection to the proposal, could we please hear it? As I've said above, there's nothing novel here. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "images must not be used in contexts that are not supported ..."? What is the difference between that and "out of context," and what do you mean by "out of context"? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you a hypothetical example by way of illustration. This image depicts the US Capitol Building. If it was added to Fascist architecture, it would be displayed out of context, as there's no conceivable reliable source that would describe it in that way. On the other hand, if it was added to List of buildings where people have been assassinated that might be an appropriate context, as it's conceivable that someone was indeed assassinated there (I have no idea if that's the case or not). However, if there's no reliable source to establish that context the image shouldn't be used. It's the difference between a patently inappropriate context and a context that might be appropriate but is lacking sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That kind of thing is already covered by this or V. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that this is covered already by the inclusion of "photographs" in the PSTS section. That section explains how primary sources, like photographs, should only be described, rather than interpreted. The section on original images, on the other hand, is about diagrams that users create for the express purpose of putting on WP. It isn't meant to cover existing photographs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The section on original images does actually specifically refer to photographs, including an entire paragraph about photomanipulation - something that usually affects photos of people or events. So it's plainly about more than just users' diagrams. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's about original images, rather than text. What you're talking about seems to be the interpretation of primary-source material, which is already covered. But in addition you want to add material that's very unclear -- out of context, and contexts not supported by sources. You'll have to say what you mean so we can judge the implications. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just explained it above. What do you consider unclear about it? Perhaps you can suggest an alternative form of words? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would end up being used as a stick to beat people with. (I'm not suggesting you intend this, of course, but I think it would be a byproduct.) For a start, no sources are going to be available to supply a context for many of the images taken by editors themselves, which won't have been published anywhere. We want to encourage original work with images, not discourage it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you're right it does mention photos. For example, if I write an article about a hiking trail, I am permitted to take a photo of the trail to use in the article, and the OR policy is not meant to prohibit that. But if I manipulate my image (say,to remove some trees to make the view look better), that would be discouraged. I am not claiming that this section is worded perfectly already - it seems that rewording it may help. But I also don't think your concerns, about interpreting images, belong in this particular section of the policy, about creating images specifically for WP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you did add a photograph of a hiking trail, according to the proposed addition, you might need to find a source that supported its use in that context.

The issue of original work and image use on Wikipedia is very complicated -- too complex for this page, I think. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. My entire understanding of the purpose of this section was to point out our practice that I do not generally need another source to add a picture I take of a hiking trail to the article about the hiking trail. There is still the issue of consensus, but not of verifiability. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As it's written now, yes. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the intention of my proposal (perhaps it needs modifying to clarify this?). The aim is to ensure that where the meanings of images are not immediately obvious, or are capable of being disputed, descriptions and interpretations should be based on reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say, if, for an article on William Shatner, I take a picture of William Shatner, I can say "This is a picture of William Shatner"Wjhonson (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: one would not need a third source to verify that the person on the photo is indeed William Shatner. If it's William Shatner dressed as a bear, we might need verification, however. I can see cases where there will be disagreements. If I submit a picture of a person who has a passing resemblance with Shatner apparently passed out in a ditch, we'd probably need verification. But I suggest we take this on a case by case basis, rather than try to see how many distinctions between "interpretation" and "description" we can fit on the head of a needle. --Leifern (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there's no need to cite a third source where the subject of an image is obvious - be it William Shatner or a hiking trail. But it's often the case that the subject of an image isn't obvious, particularly where it concerns an allegory or symbolism of some sort (which is why I mentioned those aspects specifically in the proposal). I'll give you two examples. Consider the painting of the Raft of the Medusa. It's a very well-known image, but it's not immediately obvious from the picture that it's a political allegory - the captain of the wrecked ship was a supporter of Napoleon Bonaparte, and it was painted the year after Waterloo. The image's context gives it a specific meaning, but documenting the context and meaning requires reliable sources that specifically relate to the picture. Reliable sourcing is particularly important where multiple interpretations have been advanced or there's some controversy over the meaning, as in the case of The Last Supper (Leonardo) (anyone who's read The Da Vinci Code will be aware that there are some crackpot theories about the painting!). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... I mean I do agree in principle with you Chris. I'm just not yet convinced there is a pressing need to state this. I am open to being more convinced. It would probably take an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem in dramatic relief. We do still have problems with people not understanding a lot of things, but so far I haven't encountered picture captions as being a subject of revert-warring. Wjhonson (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Raft of the Medusa is not an original work created for WP. Maybe that section needs to explain that it doesn't refer to digitalization of other works, but to works created specifically for use on WP, such as photographs taken by WP editors and diagrams created to illustrate articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to nitpick, Chris, but both the examples you mention are not original work, as CBM points out, and I think the caveat you want to include is pretty well covered in the clause that original work does "generally ... not propose unpublished ideas or arguments." So to the extent that the caption does assert something that is truly original ("an alien that has disguised itself to look just William Shatner," or "The US Capitol building, built at night by leprechauns enslaved by Mrs. Coulter," we have an issue. There's actually a recent example where I uploaded a photograph that I thought I took of Qiryat Shmona in Israel, which turned out to be somewhere else. An editor pointed out my mistake, and I'll correct it, but the presumption was that I wasn't lying about the caption. We generally assume that image descriptions include the plain meaning of the image. --Leifern (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I'll ask a few editors I know who're active in contentious areas of Wikipedia to see if they can furnish any examples of active ongoing disputes. CBM, I think the scope needs to go wider than that; most of the images on WP aren't in fact taken by WP editors. I was thinking more of images from external websites and sources such as Flickr. Leifern, if you don't mind me saying so, I think that's a bit of a fanciful example. :-) I had in mind something more mundane - such as a scenario where the meaning of an image is disputed by editors because it isn't reliably documented. That was essentially the problem in the article I first mentioned above, Vinča signs, until I and other editors were able to find reliable sources on the images on question. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Thanks Chris, I think it would be helpful to have concrete examples. Btw, are you certain we can even *use* images from Flickr? I was under the perhaps false impression that all images here, not taken/created by ourselves, had to be so old they were out-of-copyright. That otherwise we could not guarentee they were copy-free. Wjhonson (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can use Flickr images, provided that the copyright is compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL license - this basically means they have to be licensed under the Creative Commons. There's even a bot called FlickrLickr running on the Wikimedia Commons that identifies and automatically uploads compatible images. According to the FlickLickr page, there are about 2 million such images on Flickr. You can search through them yourself from this link - simply enter your search query and check "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos" and the two options below to find compatible images. I've found it to be a very useful resource for illustrating articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow any objection to Chris's proposal other than the same anti-elitist sentiment which desires for WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS to either be deleted or be as unclear, undetailed, and utterly confusing as possible. Several points:

• Response to SlimVirgin: "Why the rush to push this through undiscussed, Chris?" See WP:BOLD and WP:Assume Good Faith.
• Even if Chris's specific examples are incorrect, that's irrelevant. Images are forms of information, no different than text, and can still be used for original research and it should be clarified that it isn't allowed, to discourage people from saying, "WP:OR doesn't apply to images" in discussions.
• Response to Wjhonson: Wikipedia policy is developed in order to help Wikipedia run more effectively, not to protect it from total apocalyptic collapse from massive edit-warring or a mass exodus of good editors. If a proposal to clarify policy makes sense, why object to it? You acknowledge it makes sense, so why the obstruction? The precautionary principle? Or are you a fan of Edmund Burke, perhaps? It doesn't matter whether there are hordes of people already misunderstanding policy in that way, nor is there an inherent necessity to find concrete examples, because even addressing the potential existence of 3% of users who might use images for WP:OR (though we just might not have found them yet, considering Wikipedia's size) would help build consensus and make Wikipedia closer to being worthy of being called an "encyclopedia." If you acknowledge that's what following this policy would seem to do, it's not clear why it should be opposed. To summarize your argument, "This is a good idea, but until I see examples of where Wikipedia has failed in this way, I'm going to vote no." Imagine if you had made this same argument regarding vandalism of certain pages before Wikipedia developed a protection policy. Should we wait until we have large flame-wars and users getting blocked over unclear policy before clarifying it? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't care for hypotheticals whose end-result creates a change in our policy wording. I find that, in general, people use hypothetical cases to effectually argue for a pet project, and then turn and use the letter-of-the-policy to push for something which violates the spirit-of-the-policy. Which then leads to another battle and more instruction-creep to account for the new discrepancy. In general, I'm not opposed to instruction-creep to alleviate real issues, but I'm not a fan of it in the case of a presented hypothetical case. You're wrong Zen that I'm voting no. You, as a person named Zen, should be the ultimate arbiter that it's possible to vote "no answer yet, please come back tomorrow"Wjhonson (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly sympathetic to your concerns, Wj. As I said, I'll try to document at least one real-world examples of such a case so that we can discuss the proposal in that light. I would say, though, that one of the key functions of Wikipedia policy is not simply to fix problems when they arise but to prevent problems from arising in the first place. That's the reason why, for instance, I devised Wikipedia:Naming conflict, to provide a template for how to deal with disputed names and head off future disputes. But I'd also reiterate that my proposal isn't actually a new policy at all - it's merely a brief restatement of an existing requirement, clarifying a point of WP:NOR that I felt was ambiguous. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well one obvious case springs to mind. The Zombietime image you would like removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zombietime/Archive_1#Request_for_comment_-_No_Original_Research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_16#Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJCurrie#Disputed_images_and_Wikipedia:No_original_research

I think it's a very bad idea to attempt to alter policy as a means of winning a content dispute or WP:CANVASSing support for the change. Why don't you let the mediation on the subject go ahead, rather than trying to pre-empt the decision with this policy change? Perhaps you should add yourself to the list of involved parties. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)