Wikipedia talk:No original research

• Wikipedia:No original research (draft rewrite)
• Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)
• Wikipedia talk:No original research (archive 1) - January 16–December 13, 2004
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive2 - January 4–August 6, 2005
• Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive3 - April 17–August 30, 2005

IMPORTANT TEXT CHANGE THAT WOULD BRING IN A NEW POLICY ON WHAT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH

This page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Feel free to update the page as needed, but make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus, before you make them.

Original Text

Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Proposed text

Original research refers to theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any unpublished interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Original research is prohibited when produced by editors of Wikipedia if it has not been published elsewhere. (This prohibition does not refer to research that is published or available elsewhere, although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate.) In summary, if the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include have not been published already by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research.

Comment The proposed text is so very wide that 40% of wiki articles would have to be deleted.

• Vfd could and would placed on many many articles.--Poorman 05:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at, Poorman. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Good point, Slim. If you read the proposed text it, seems to say the same thing as the original text. Thus keeping the original text should not upset anyone. (Slim chance!) No pun intended --Poorman 06:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• I suppose I don't really see the substantive difference. Could you say what you see it as? (Puns about my name are strictly forbidden, BTW.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, you're in a lot of trouble, Poorman. I'd run for the hills if I were you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am in southern Thailand, so there are swamps but no hills. Looks like I can ril, but I can't hide!(not another pun) --Poorman 06:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Then start worrying. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any substantive difference between the old text and the new text. Could some one explain what they think the substantive difference is, if any? I do think however that the new text is more clearly worded. Who is proposing this change? Paul August ☎ 17:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

My greatest concern the five pillars of Wikipedia are slowly being changed to make it easier to delete by Vfd. This will allow "blocks of users" to delete and control.

--Poorman

I truly appreciate Poorman's concern which, in specific cases, I share. But I think with all due respect that Poorman's concern is based on an unacceptable premise. When we find articles that vi9olate our policies, the typical and ´´first´´ response is to try to improve the article. We propose deletion only if we believe that the article would not exist were it not for original research, i.e. the particular article in question necessarily violates this policy (excluding of course apple pie and current events-like examples). Otherwise, the point of identifying a violation of NOR is a call for people to do better research and cite verifiable sources, and prune the article of unsustainable elements ... not deletion. SR

I agree. The first response is to try to improve the article. I propose deletion only if we believe that the article would not exist were it not for original research. Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). Also kindness counts.--Poorman 11:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)