Wikipedia talk:No original research

Editors, please note:

After four months of discussion at Wikipedia:Attribution, editors at Wikipedia talk:Attribution have agreed on a means of merging Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:No original research, while also streamlining Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ.

There are no policy innovations suggested: WP:ATT is intended be a more cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Wikipedia community is already familiar.

Archives

removing {{historical}} from talk page

It would appear that the policy page has been returned from Historical to active status or at least that there is a movement afoot to do so, so I have taken the liberty of commenting out the historical tag here. If this movement carries on it may be appropriate to unprotect the page as well in accordance with common practice. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Protect

I have protected this page to maintain stability while the WP:ATT situation is being sorted out. Crum375 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How on earth do you have power to do this?01001 05:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT: Join the discussion at

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An inquiry on the synthesis policy

The current policy currently states that if A and B are both reliable sources, they still cannot be used together to advance opinion C. Specifically, "In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."

But I have question on basis of logical reasoning. In philosophy, we call the idea hypothetical syllogism. The argument goes as follows: If Q, then R. If P, then Q. Therefore, if P, then R. This is a deductively valid argument. If P and Q are both true, then R is logically true as well. For example, consider the following argument: All cats are mammals. All mammals are warmblooded. Therefore, all cats are warmblooded. If we provide a reference for the first premise (all cats are mammals) and different reference for the second premise (all mammals are warmblooded), would we be be allowed to use that as justification for writing within an article "all cats are warmblooded"? ~ UBeR 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Answering on Wikipedia talk:Attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whereabouts? ~ UBeR 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

here. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ UBeR 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is really the exact thing that the synthesis part of NOR is prohibiting. We want to avoid making these new connections (or, to put it another way, if someone wants to publish such connections, this is the wrong place to do so). Jkelly 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I quarrel with that idea, however, if this what the policy is actually stating. If we, Wikipedia, treat both the former premises as fact, quite logically the conclusion based on the previous premises is true. The mathematical equivalence could be as follows:

1 + 1 = 2

2 + 1 = 3

Therefore, (1 + 1) + 1 = 3

Now assume we have independent references that confirm 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 1 = 3, but we do not have a source saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. CLEARLY, based on the previous two equations Wikipedia treats as truths, the third equation can only be true. ~ UBeR 01:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that one would encounter little resistance to that in an article on math or the sciences, although I would still hesitate to draw our own conclusions. If we've come up with a conclusion no one else has, it may not be as obvious as it appears. In an article on the humanities it works especially poorly. For instance, if we have a source saying "Jkelly says that all basket weaving is a deeply creative process" [ref] and "Jkelly says that creativity in basket weaving should be rewarded with cash prizes" [ref], we cannot then say "Jkelly thinks that all basket weaving should be rewarded with cash prizes" [ref][ref]. Jkelly 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a lousy rule then, I must confess. It's the simple idea of substitution. "J says A is B. J says B warrants C. Thus, J says A warrants C." Saying otherwise seems to be self-contradictory. Admittedly, the current dispute I am is a little more complex. Arghhh. ~ UBeR 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: There is a proposal to merge this page into WP:ATT.

Resolved

 – Merge tag installed.

There should be a prominent merge tag posted on this page, directing people to the discussion, which is supposed to be trying to attract as many people as possible. This is the very problem that led to the current dispute: that there had been no merge tag on this and similar pages while discussions about possibly merging were going on. Would someone please correct this and put up the merge tags? --Coppertwig 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The project page needs {{Mergeto|Attribution}} (see Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll - merge has been proposed). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}. There is an enormous amount of discussion going on about these pages. There are many users with sysop rights who are actively involved, and I trust them to add appropriate templates when/if they are appropriate. There is no need to request assistance from uninvolved administrators using the editprotected tag.CMummert · talk 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read all of the WP:AN discussion you seem to be responding to. That users with sysop rights have been partisan, obstructionist and wheelwarring (i.e. not being trustable to add the appropriate templates) was the entire issue. I don't see anyone here suggesting that the text of this page should be modified, simply the proper merge tag installed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following template is added along with {{protected2}}:

A discussion regarding merging Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a single page at Wikipedia:Attribution is in progress. Pending long-term resolution of this situation, the page has been protected from editing. This is not an endorsement of the current version.

You may have seen something similar on your watchlists. Would anyone object if I added this or something similar? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag

Resolved

 – Merge tag installed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability/Header. I was asked by an admin from WP:RFPP to come up with a combination of the merge header from WP:RS and the protection header from WP:ATT, to be used on both WP:V and WP:RS, and propose it here. My take at this is located at the link above (it has code in it so it can be used on both pages). By belief is that this version will satisfy everyone. It has the text (with twiddles that make it apply to these pages instead of ATT) from ATT's tag, including the protection discussion, with the merge tag formatting of the one at RS. So, it would replace the {{Protected}} on this page, and obviate the need to continue editprotecting about the need for a merge tag. I think it also absorbs all the ideas of the template in the topic above, too. Any objections? It looks like this:

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming insane.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, substantively I mean? And did you have any sort of understandable reason for attacking someone who is trying to get consensus on a simple notification-header issue, at the request of others? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Page rename?

This should absolutely be renamed to Wikipedia:No original thought because of the problem in wikilawyering where ANY research, including organizing information logically or seeking out citations, is seen as "original research". Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The title you suggest is no better at avoiding misuse. "You're not allowed to think about if that is a reliable source!" -Amarkov moo! 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see

Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:

Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration

To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow down, slow down! I thought you'd give me time to talk with people? --Kim Bruning 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I wouldn't mind, but I don't know if there is overall concensus. Jimbo was online when I posted to his talk page last night; he almost certainly saw my message. - Denny 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Resolved

 – 'Speedy keep' result.

Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Thank you. - Denny 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The result of the MfD was a Speedy Keep - Let's get back to work on the Poll folks... New voices are needed to break the current deadlock over language. Please help out. Blueboar 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Refrencing a T.V

Is referencing a T.V show original research?--Lucy-marie 10:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to fact or fiction?

With facts, you can reference anything that somebody said or claimed in a documentary or a news show just like you would reference them if they wrote what they said in a book.

With fiction, it's a little more complex. You can directly cites something as written in a show's script or shown on screen. For example "Doctor Drake showed a more sensitive side in episode X of Y when he.....". However, you can't take it any further than that by attributing something to a character if it isn't directly stated. For example you can't say "Doctor Drake's emotional breakdown in episode X of Y was possibly a sign that he was abused as a child" unless abuse during his childhood was specifically raised in the show.

perfectblue 09:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Making your own sources/citations

What are the views of making a page/site or having someone else make a site just to use said site to have a source for wikipedia? I want to point out the fact that if this happened i am speaking as if the information posted in said sight really was true and legitimate. Would That be original research >:]? Just trying to point out the fact that you can't go and mark out someones information they post on here just because they don't have a source, yes sources are very nice and you should have one none the less. --NekoD 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The questions are :

• If you or a person you know has a paper/book published at a JOurnal and you cite him..would it be 'Original research'

• If someone in 'Science' publish he/seh has discovered martians in Saturn..is he/she serious to be included the resarch into Wikipedia even though is supported (his/her job by a journal like Science or Physical Review )

• Arxiv.org or similar..count as a verifiable or reliable sources?

• If someone cites a source of a not-widely-known journal at the web or of a small country (let's say someone publishes a math result in the LItuanian journal of math) could it be considered as original research

• FOr me a 'peer-reviewed' just no means verifiable/exact since at last editor publishes whatever he wants, i could be the son of the editor of Physical review and have my papers published for example, of course it doesn't mean i'm a hoaxer of that they're wrong.

?

I get the idea of no original research because the information must be verifiable. However, how can any "new" research be done without it being (somewhat) original? Think about it.--Sportman2 15:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question! When people on wikipedia say "No original research" they don't quite mean what it seems. The idea is that you (as a Wikipedian) shouldn't post your own conclusions, ideas or theories on Wikipedia. Here's how it does beyond verifiability: you shouldn't put sources together in a way that advances a position that is no longer attributable to the original sources. Some editors prefer the term "No personal research" and that's much better, because you can indeed rephrase the material and draw from a variety of sources to give a "new" presentation, as long as the sources are fairly represented, and are not used to advance a position that can't be explicitly and directly attributed to the given sources. I hope this makes more sense. --Merzul 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

importance-s template

I just recently ran across the {{importance-s}} warning, and am a bit confused by it given WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article-content. Isn't importance of sections more an issue of original research, sources, and undue weight than notability? --Ronz 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, isn't it interesting that WP:N starts off saying it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". --Merzul 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So why does the warning refer to WP:N? Shouldn't it refer to NOR, SOURCE, and WEIGHT? --Ronz 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it used to point at Wikipedia:Importance, which was redirected to Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes much more sense why it's in such a state. Not so sure what to do about it though. --Ronz 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of WP:WEIGHT being the relevant policy for importance related issues, but again, I don't know what to do about it. If I was king of Wikipedia, I would deprecate these importance templates, and create undue weight template "This section or article lacks reliable sources justifying the weight given to it." or something like that. --Merzul 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC) --Merzul 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! I've copied your comment to Template talk:Importance-s. Hope you don't mind. --Ronz 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Novelty in Synthesis

Wales' quote specifically mentions novel deductions, and my recollection is that this policy used to say the same - but it doesn't seem to now. Anyone know what's going on? I ask because I'm currently involved in a dispute where I'm accused of original research by synthesizing a reliable source and a thesaurus, essentially, as I'm using a synonym of the topic in the source, rather than the topic itself. I can't imagine, for example, that sources that talk about HD 39060 but not Beta Pictoris can't be used at the later, but a strict reading of this policy could be seen to say that. WilyD 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the key idea is still that we don't want to publish original thought, so I'm often opposed to articles that string together an entirely new narrative without following at least a few sources that are explicitly about the subject at hand. When at least a few sources are available about the general idea expressed by the article, I see no problem in adding detail using sources that are more specific or don't even mention the exact same topic. However, synthesis is the most difficult policy, and replying like this without looking at the case in point is very difficult. I often accuse articles of synthesizing material, but whether something really is an improper synthesis depends on the consensus reached at the talk page. I don't think I know exactly where to draw the line between source-based and improperly synthesized research. (The "serves to advance a position" isn't very helpful, everything we do advances some position, the question is I suppose when it advances a position other Wikipedians object to.) --Merzul 17:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We should defiantly keep the words "novel synthesis" and not "synthesis" on its own, because without the word "novel" many articles would have sections reduced to quotes, as editors who dislike a POV inevitably insist on no words but those from sources, as they will argue (correctly) any others are a synthesis of the source(s) and breach OR.--Philip Baird Shearer 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be specific. I used a dictionary to conclude that racism is Discrimination or unequal treatment based on ethnicity or race. I then concluded it was appropriate to use sources which talk about discrimination based on ethnicity without explicitly using the word racism were appropriate for Racism by country because discrimination based on ethnicity is a kind of racism, per my reliable dictionary. This is being accused of being OR because I'm synthesising a dictionary and a UN high commision on human rights report. WilyD 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "serves to advance a position" clause ought to be bolded if not printed in big block letters. The purpose of SYNT is to keep people from doing "term paper" style of writing in the articles, and that's it. Squidfryerchef 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This remains a problem. I'm unwilling to change this because I'm involved in a relevent dispute, but right now the policy as read literally strictly forbids the use of multiple sources in an article, and implies it forbids anything but straight copying. Using a thesaurus to reword a statement is synthesis, it's just not original research, nor is it novel synthesis, which is what used to be prohibited. Is there a consensus to make this clear? Will someone fix it? WilyD 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The key surely is "acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article". If the UN is clear that they mean discrimination based on ethnicity, then using another form of words to say the same thing is surely acceptable. If the UN's not clear, but another source has provided that clarification in relation to the topic, then that other source can be cited in addition to the UN. If the UN is unclear and the only other source is the dictionary which of course isn't related to the topic, then you shouldn't try to clarify it for them, but should represent their statement as accurately as possible. Multiple sources are fine as long as they're attributed, putting things into other words is fine as long as it represents the source accurately. Does that help, or do you think my interpretation is wrong? ... dave souza, talk 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think in a very strictly literal sense, if I use my desktop dictionary to conclude racism is discrimination based on race or ethnicity and the UN report to conclude ethnic minorities may be discriminated against in Iran, I am engaging in synthesis to conclude ethnic minorities may face racism in Iran. This policy is clearly not designed to prevent that kind of synthesis. For instance Every featured article in Wikipedia engages in this kind of synthesis. Furthermore, this article used to include the idea that any synthesis had to result in a novel idea or conclusion, but somewhere that's been lost. The issue is that what I'm doing here clearly isn't original research, it's just speaking english. In a very literal way, everything that isn't a straight copy of something has some synthesis in it. If we look at this version of the page (which is older), we see 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". Here's the word novel.

For instance, suppose that I have a reliable source that says the Germans lost 300 000 men at the Battle of Verdun, and a second reliable source that the French lost 150 000 men. It would be synthesis for me to write The Germans lost more troops than the French - but there's nothing novel about concluding that, and it would be downright silly to forbid writing that - but as written, this policy does forbid that. I'm fairly sure it's not supposed to. WilyD 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment is that we have to be sure that the source is using the same dictionary definition, but regarding the second example it's clear that 300 is more than 150, and the source can be attributed with the detailed numbers in a footnote. Whether rephrasing the guidance would help is another question which I've not fully considered. .. dave souza, talk 22:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dave. I think some people are using "synthesis" too broadly. Synthesis does not just mean using two sources; it means using two sources in a very particular way. Rewording something without changing its meaning is not a synthesis - it is good editing. According to Kant, synthetic judgments are those which are not analytic, meaning that the terms alone are insufficient to determine the truth of the proposition, and this gets to the heart of what we are talking about. If a source says "x is afraid" and (thanks to Roget) we write "x is fearful" we are not synthesizing. A synthetic statement is more like this: The ICC defines genocide as doing x; according to Joe Smith the United States did x, therefore the US is guilty of genocide. To comply with this policy, we need a different source that says the US is guilty of genocide. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, that's a very good example of the kind of inference SYNT is meant for. I like it a lot better than the controversial "plagiarism" example that's in the policy now. People keep trying to remove the plagiarism example because they either find it confusing, or, IMHO, that it's not a cut and dried example of OR and banning everything like it promotes a deletionist viewpoint. Perhaps yours should be the new WP:SYNT example. Squidfryerchef 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't "synthesis" to say the Germans lost more troops than the French. The new "attribution" policy specifically allows simple deductions. But we do need to do something about the overuse of SYNT in wikilawyering. I've heard all kinds of bizarre interpretations of SYNT, that instead of saying they don't agree with something in an article, they will mention SYNT and think they have the last word. I'd suggest bringing up these situations on the Attribution talk page as an "Is this OR?" question. I don't know if the main editors of these policies are aware of how much they are being misused, but if we bring it up they may add some counterexamples of what is not SYNT to the policy. Squidfryerchef 15:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my point. That SYNT (and I think this is the generic problem with ATT, though I haven't been watching the whole mess) is that it's so vague it can appear to mean whatever you like, and requires you to be intellectually honest in applying it. The problem is that it's very straightforward for anyone to use the policies to dispute anything at all because they're so unclear. WilyD 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In a line of thought that I've been working on recently, I tend to see the prohibition on synthesis as a corollary of neutral point of view. Synthesis is about producing a new point of view, which is contrary to NPOV because our objective is to present existing points of view. Naturally there will be many Wikipedia articles which present information in a form that it hasn't been presented in before, but as long as it's merely putting things alongside each other that's ok. So the question to be asked is, am I using these sources to produce a new point of view? --bainer (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that a neutral point of view covers this. There is a short example on a NPOV in Allied war crimes:

• Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: In 1963 these were the subject of a judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State. (source given 1) The District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found that "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war."(source given 2) Nevertheless, the prevalent international legal opinion is that these bombings were not a war crime. (Source given 3)

If the last source (3) had not been given, then the last sentence would have been original research, but it would still have given a balanced POV. I agree with others here that "novel" in front of synthesis. But in the case given on racism I am not at all sure that it is correct and that it is not OR. I think before it is used, something like the judgements on the Race Relations Act 1976 need to be consulted, because it is an old parlour trick to chase a word through a dictionary, (one which most good English teachers warn their pupils about). --Philip Baird Shearer 19:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You really think using dictionary definitions of words is original research? The implication is that we can never paraphrase any source, or adjust its wording to fit the article flow. Under this kind of interpretation, every article can be nothing but quotes - that certainly isn't the standard, and I think it'd be even more contraversial a proposal than WP:ATT WilyD 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If (3) wasn't sourced, it might be OR, but not by SYNT. PS. what is "chasing" a word through a dictionary? 141.154.24.225 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

SYNT is not what I was talking about I was making an example of NPOV for Thebainer's "Synthesis is about producing a new point of view".

Camouflet->cavern-> lage cave-> "A storage cellar, especially for wine". So chasing wordsmeanings thorough dictionaries can lead to this: "The Tallboy bomb was designed to create a storage cellar, especially for wine.", instead of "The Tallboy bomb was designed to create a camouflet." --Philip Baird Shearer 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not synthesis, that's stupidity. --bainer (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• For instance, would it be appropriate to include some information on Apples that come from a source that doesn't mention that apples are Fruit in the Fruit article, by synthesising that first source with a dictionary that defines apples as a kind of fruit (or for that matter, any reliable source that defines apples as fruit). It's clearly synthesis, but this sort of thing does go on all the time. WilyD 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, the trivial replacement of definitions, if that action does not violate logic nor advance a ideological cause is certainly acceptable. "Apples are good" cannot be replaced by "Fruits are good", but *may* be replaced by "Some fruits are good". To my mind that is not synthesis, it's a trivial action of "like-definition replacement" or "category replacement". An apple is a fruit, a fruit is a type of food, food is organic matter... These sorts of category replacement do not constitute synthesis to my mind. Similarly replacing "Marilyn Monroe had platinum blonde hair" with "Marilyn Monroe had blonde hair" is not synthesis even though it's not a direct quote. Wjhonson 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the policy page doesn't. Apples are red + apples are fruit => some fruit are red is a textbook example of synthesis. It just isn't novel, because no real thinking is involved. The point isn't whether we think it's appropriate or not, but what the policies say - I've already entered an agreement to go into mediation over two issues, one of which is whether combining a dictionary definition with a source is original research. I'd like it if the policy was clear one way or the other before I got into it. WilyD 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that your example is "synthesis", rather it is deduction. Synthesis would take two disparent ideas and merge them into one structure. Such as "Liza Minelli was born in New York" and "Liza Minella was born on Tuesday" to form the sentence "Liza Minella was born in New York on Tuesday". It's trivial, but it's synthesis. Wjhonson 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To your specific point of whether we can use a dictionary definition, I would say "Yes but". There are quite a lot of examples of dictionary abuse. For example "George Bush has directly caused the deaths of over ten thousand Iraqis" and "Genocide is the act of causing the deaths of a large number of people of one race or peoples" to match the sentence "George Bush has committed genocide." I'm sure you can follow why such a construction is problematic from our wikiview. Now if someone is debating whether "Apples are red" and "fire engines are red" can be used to make the sentences "fire engines are the same color as apples" then they are spending too much time on silliness. I'm sure you can see why these examples are disparent. One quite clearly "advances a cause" the other does not, at least not clearly. Wjhonson 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Genocide is more narrowly focused than that, and I'm not even sure anyone who'd say point blank George Bush has directly caused the deaths of over ten thousand Iraqis would not end up say George Bush is guilty of genocide. For what it's worth, Genocide gives the definition: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." I'm fairly sure George Bush hasn't done that, which is why we're uncomfortable calling him a Genocide. I can try to devise a more "politically charged" example. WilyD 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WilyD is providing a virtually textbook example of a synthetic statement, it is virtually right out of Kant. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• So I then ask: Is that kind of synthesis allowable? If it is, shouldn't this page reflect that? WilyD 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is forbidden. But see also my comment about rapid transit, below. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The issue, then, is that essentially every source article on Wikipedia does this (excluding, obviously, copyvios & public domain texts). As a test, I examined the first reference of today's featured article and found it used dictionary/thesaurus type interpretation of the source. I'm fairly sure we could find it in every featured article if we had the free time to search. WilyD 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am confused. I am talking about this "Apples are red + apples are fruit => some fruit are red" - I do not see this as an example of the dictionary/thesaurus type interpretation, which I believe the policy fully allows. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, okay maybe I'm confused. What appears to be the case to me is that historical versions of this policy allowed that kind of synthesis, but that the policy doesn't anymore. Is this a deliberate change? I haven't seen yet, but I don't want to do a thousand diffs to find who changed it. WilyD 17:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to help us word the policy more carefully. What is essential is that editors cannot forward their own argument that involves drawing on two different sources, neither of which make the actual argument at issue. If source A says "X was a terrible person" and source B says "X was a horrible person" and a thesaurus says "horrible" is a synonym for "terrible" and an editor makes an edit "Several people have claimed that X is a horrible person, including A,B, C, and D" the edit does NOT violate our policy. If source A says "men are horrible" and source B says "X is a man" and an editor writes "According to A, X is horrible" the edit DOES violate the policy. Is this clear? Does it make sense? If the answer to both questions is yes, and you feel the policy can explain this more clearly, go ahead (I am about to go off-line) Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invitation Slrubenstein, but I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to make any edits of this sort while I'm actively involved in a dispute on this issue. Specifically, I used this definition of racial discrimination: 1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to conclude that material which talks about discrimination based on ethnicity would be appropriate as references for an article about racism, and this is actively being disputed by a couple of editors as OR/Synthesis. It certainly wasn't when I was getting a grip on policies, but it may be now, which is why I'm looking for clarification - and a clearer policy to help avoid this kind of thing in the future. Before this ends up in mediation (which may be soon - the article's been locked for over a month), it'd be nice if policy was clear one way or the other. WilyD 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty and sense of propriety. As to your case, I have a comment: the question is, who is authorized to apply/execute/enforce the convention? My understanding is, not individuals. Perhaps states or international bodies like the UN or the ICC. In this case, it is a violation of our policy for you to use this Convention to decide who has committed racial discrimination. Someone else has to do it. Let me give an analogy: rape is a crime in most states (all?). If X believes s/he was raped by Y, according to the statute, that is just not enough for someone to add to the article on X or Y (if either of them are famous enough to have an article here). Only if X actually accuses Y of rape, and this accusation is recorded in some public document - for example, if the police arrest Y or the DA indicts - can the article report that "X accused Y of rape" - even now, we still wouldn't write, Y raped X. If there is a trial and Y is found guilty, we can write "Y was found guilty of rape." Do you see my point? We are reporting on what an appropriate authority does, we are not actually making the decision as to whether rape occured. Same goes for genocide. No matter how we read the conventions on genocide, wikipedia editors cannot say "Genocide = X" and "X happened to Armenians" therefore "The Armenians were victims of genocie." All we can do is report "The UN (or the ICC or whomever) concluded that the Armenians were victims of genocide." Lacking that, we can also say "historians x, y, and z have concluded that the Armenians were victims of genocide." But we cannot make this conclusion. Does this help? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• In the specific case I'm talking about Racism in Iran (see Racism by country) and Iran is a signatory to the convention. In terms of the section I proposed, I follow the word usage pretty closely, and just say basically "Iran says there's no racism in Iran, but there hasn't been a good study. Other organisations alledge that ethnic minorities face persection (such as AI, US Department of State, UNPO), and reported events include some stuff. All of it's very well sourced, although there's also a bit of a dispute about whether the US Department of State and Amnesty International are reliable sources and so on. WilyD 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The question remains, who, according to the convention, has the authority to enforce or apply the convention? Whatever the convention says, our policy is this: it is not for a Wikipedia editor to make these judgements. This is also an NPOV issue, by the way. If any Iranian institution, state, international organization, real (meaning, not consisting of one or two people who just call themselves this) NGO - or if a journalist, historian, or social or political organization, accuses Iran of having violated the convention, we can report this accusation. And if the international body empowered by the convention to enforce the convention decides that Iran has indeed violated the convention, then we can report that too. But an editor cannot add to an article his/her own views on this matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WilyD, given what you just added, you may be doing yourself a disservice if you are quoting the convention - it means you are adding your own argument, and that violates our policy. What is important is that the US DOS and AI and UNPO have alleged that ethnic minorities face persecution. It doesn't matter whether they are biased, you are talking about a major NGO, a superpower, and an international organization - NPOV does not prevent us from adding sources that are biased, indeed, we assume ALL sources are biased; NPOV insists we correctly identify the POV and provide multiple and if they exist opposing views. So the thing to do is to make clear that these entities have accused Iran of persecuting ethnic minorities - this is a verifiable fact and must be included in the article, no one can remove it. Have any of these entities explicitly cited the convention? If so, you can say so and provide the source - what is important is that a verifiable source is quoting the convention, not you. If none of these entities quote the convention, then you cannot introduce it, that violates policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, this is kind of unclear to me. In any event, my only agenda is finding a paragraph about Racism in Iran that all the editors of Racism by country will find acceptable so we can get the article unlocked and begin working on it again.

That said, this is not a particularly peculier definition of racism, it's fairly generic. The sources below talk about persecution of ethnic minorities, but they never explicitly label it racism. The section also never explicitly labels it racism, but it's in an article titled racism by country, so the claim of the opposed editors is that any source needs to explicitly use the word racism before it can be used. The use of the convention is a bit of a seperate thought. I only mean that I use a definition of racism in order to judge what is or isn't a relevent fact for the article. I can cite that Babe Ruth hit 60 homeruns in 1927, but as far as I can see, that doesn't belong in Racism by country. So to write the article, I need to know what the word racism means.... WilyD 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For instance, I use this sentence The Iranian regime continues to repress its minority ethnic and religious groups, including Azeris, Kurds, Bahai, ethnic Arabs and others. from a US State Department Report to talk about persecution of ethnic minorities - nowhere does the word racism appear. WilyD 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh here, since I don't seem to be making myself clear, here's the section I proposed. The objection is basically talking about ethnic discrimination in an article about racism at all.

The following section appears to me to be compliant with all of our policies. I do not think that you need to find a source that uses racism since you are not claiming racism - This sentence - "The 1993 review of Iran's compliance with the treaty by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that although the government of Iran condemned racial discrimination in public statements, insufficient information was provided by Iran to properly assess how the convention was being implimented in Iran, and whether Iran was fufilling its obligations under the treaty" - justifies inclusion in the "racism by country" article, and the sentences on persecution of minorities are appropriate. I would not change the wording to add the word "racism" I would just say that the issue of persecution of minorities is relevant enough to merit inclusion as long as you do not change the wording. That is my view. What you need to do is take a break, use our discussion to gather and clarify your thoughts, and file a "request for comment" in which you provide the most concise summary of what is going on and what the key points of contention are. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay thanks - I think I basically agree with you here - maybe more what I was looking for is a way to justify by policy that including the stuff about persecution of minorities was not original research, or a sanity check telling me I was crazy and it was. I already filed a request for comment, with - ambigious - results, and have an agreement to enter into formal mediation with the other editor who was involved the in "edit war" - although we haven't filed a request. Anyways, thanks for the help. WilyD 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sample Potentially Problematic Section

According to article 19 of the Iranian constitution:

the people of Iran belonging to whatever ethnic or tribal group shall enjoy equal rights and colour of skin, race, language and the like shall not be considered as a privilege

Iran is a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The 1993 review of Iran's compliance with the treaty by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that although the government of Iran condemned racial discrimination in public statements, insufficient information was provided by Iran to properly assess how the convention was being implimented in Iran, and whether Iran was fufilling its obligations under the treaty. The Iranian representative respond to the committee saying that there has not been a census of racial demographics in Iran, that the government of Iran does not collect or use racial information in hiring government employees or university admissions and that Iran is not a multiracial society.

Other agencies have alledged that ethnic minorites such as Azeris, Kurds and ethnic Arabs face persecution. Reported issues include Arab land being purchased at low prices or confiscated and the violent repression of Kurds. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad blamed unspecified "enemies" for increasing ethnic tensions in Iran, while interior minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi claimed the United States plans to increase ethnic violence in Iran.

Synthesis example

I've proposed (at WP:ATT) that the plagiarism example about synthesis is removed, and propose that it is removed from this page also. I've also proposed a replacement example at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ#Example(s) of unpublished synthesis and at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Concerning "Unpublished synthesis of published material", and have had no objections since. There is also some earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 13#Synthesis section. The change was put on hold a bit because of the merge debate on the attribution policy, I'm raising the issue here again.

To summarise a few of the reasons why I think the current example should be removed:

• The whole background to the case is complicated and not explained. What does "copying references" mean? The reader is left guessing as to what the case is about.
• The claim that "The whole point of this paragraph is the conclusion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it." does not follow from the text quoted in the example. The paragraph cites a definition of plagiarism, and makes no comment on whether or not Jones committed it or not.
• The example is supposed to be illustrating synthesis, i.e. putting together two sourced ideas A and B to come up with an unsourced conclusion, C. None of the conclusions in this passage appear to rely on more than one source.
• As well as being misleading to the casual reader, it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny either. Where the source is used, it is totally misquoted. The example claims that the CMS defines plagiarism as "using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them", and implies that this is a properly sourced statement used to build the unsourced conclusion. However, if you check the CMS, there is no such definition there at all, or any that resembles it.

For our policy pages to do their job, they need to be clearly understood by the reader, and clear, unambigous examples help with this. But this example is unclear and ambiguous, and has fundamental problems that mean that it can't be fixed just by changing a few words. I propose that it is removed from here and WP:ATT (and perhaps replaced by an alternative example at WP:ATT/FAQ).

Does anyone have any comments, objections or alternative suggestions before making the change? Enchanter 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be repaced with a clear example. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I liked Slrubenstein's "genocide" example in the "Novelty in Synthesis" discussion section ( it's about a page down from the top of section; I bolded the word "very" in my rejoinder ). I also liked the reference to Kant. Now I don't go particularly deep in philosophy, but if "synthesis" in policy is based on Kant, it would be awesome if policy could link to the article on Kant which might give a good explanation. Squidfryerchef 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the genocide example too. As it's an emotive subject, I suggest it refers to a fictional country rather than the US. Here's some suggested fuller wording:

"The ICC defines genocide as doing x_{Reliable source 1}. Northland did x_{Reliable source 2}, therefore the Northland is guilty of genocide_{No source}.

This unsourced conclusion that Northland was guilty of genocide is not appropriate for Wikipedia, because it is not the role of an encyclopedia to judge controversial issues such as whether or not a country committed genocide - even if the two sources are good and the logic is sound. Instead, Wikipedia describes what other reliable sources say in a neutral manner. Therefore, to comply with this policy, we need a different source that says the Northland is guilty of genocide, and attribute the conclusion to that source."

I had proposed another example at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ#Example(s) of unpublished synthesis. That was addressing a different sort of example - interpreting scientific data. I think different types of synthesis means that more than one example might be useful, and I suggest that we put all the examples in WP:ATT/FAQ, with a note on this page saying something like "For examples of this policy, see the attribution FAQ".

Any comments? Enchanter 21:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested clarification: No original research rule applies to the article

As far as I have understood, it is perfectly all right to use a bit of original research in the discussion pages as an argument for a point (unless the point is that original research should be included in the article itself). For instance, when I wrote this, I looked at a few discussion pages and found that most of the discussion was actually more or less original research. Let me give you a fictional example:

On a discussion page reagarding a show that takes place in medieval times A says: "Do you really think we need a 'historical inaccuracies section'?" and B replies: "Well I showed it to three people who watched the show and they thought it was interesting."

B's reply is of course original research. It is perfectly all right for B to write this on the discussion page. It is only when he tries to include his little (three-person) inquiry to the article itself that he commits an error.

This may seem obvious but I have had people complain that an argument on the discussion page was original research and I think this clarification is needed.

Sensemaker

I agree that NOR applies strictly to the article. Sometimes it can be very useful for people to bat around their own ideas on the talk-page, and we shouldn't ban people from doing this. But there is a serious risk of people using talk pages as soap-boxes, which is wrong. Talk pages are for improving articles and since OR cannot go into articles if people spend too much time batting about their own explanations and sytnthetic judgements, it can and often does reach a counter-productive point as talk is being generated that cannot go into the article, and thus is not helping improve the article. So your distinction is correct but people need to use good judgement. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen someone using talk pages as a soap-box for some personal issue that has nothing to do with an article. However, judging from your self description you have more wiki-experience than I have so I presume you know what you are talking about. I shall take your word for it. Since you say this is a problem, I shall gladly make sure to point out that original research is OK on a talk page as long as (1) you are not arguing for including the original research in the article itself and (2) follows other wikipedia guidelines for talk pages, particularly the guideline of sticking to the subject (how to improve the article) -wikipedia is not your personal soap box. Would this be OK with you? -Sensemaker

WP:OR and images of non-existant things

I've got a small problem with a user who keeps insisting on deleting 2 user generated images because they think that they violate WP:OR. Their argument is that because the pictures are "artists renderings" based on witness statements they violate WP:OR, my standpoint is that because the creature that the pictures are depicting doesn't actually (it's a paranormal creature) there is no way that you can possibly have a real photograph.

An outside opinion on this would be useful.

The page in question is Shadow people.

perfectblue 14:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In those cases, aren't the "artists renderings" based on things the artists claim to have seen themselves, and not "witness statements" taken from a reliable source? And one of the images has text, which is subject to OR and a bad thing in an image since the text can't be edited by other wikipedia editors. It also has some OR in the text of the image page. --Minderbinder 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about the second picture, but the first picture is of good quality, is an represent of shadow people as commonly described, and we have permission to publish it.

What would you consider to be a non WP:OR picture? Honestly? If you're holding out for a real photograph, you're simply not going to get one. Shadow people are basically fictional so an artists impression is permissible. They are the result of an overactive imagination and people's eyes playing tricks on them, and you can't photograph something that doesn't exist.

I can fake a picture of my own based on the description on the page, would you RV that too?

perfectblue 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See the Original Images section on [[WP:OR} Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, WilyD 17:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It also says "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed" which is what applies in this case. The images in question are based on the personal experiences of those who created them, as said on the image pages. This page certainly doesn't declare all original images to not be OR, it just says they are allowed as long as they don't violate OR otherwise - these pictures do violate it. The intention of NOR isn't to allow using images as a loophole, is it? --Minderbinder 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The question specifically says witness statements - if the statements are verifiable, then I believe the art should be fine. Take a look at all the art in Category:Sexual acts, for instance. From a practical perspective, there's a recognised need to allow some latitude in the production of public domain or GDFL images for articles - every photo I take, for instance, isn't really verifiable. I just say it's an image of X, and then in it goes. For instance, I took this photograph of Highway IIa in Toronto - there's no way any user can verify that without going to the highway themselves, but we allow it anyways, otherwise we'd be hard pressed to add most images. WilyD 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case the "witness statements" are from the people who did the art. Just as text of an anecdotal story of the experience of a wikipedia editor isn't verifiable, a drawn picture of an anecdotal of the experience of a wikipedia editor isn't verifiable either. I don't take issue with pictures of overpasses, since they can be verified, the problem is drawings of "this is what I saw" when the subject is something generally considered not to exist. --Minderbinder 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please cease twisting things. I'm referring to the first picture, not the second one. The first one is based on outside descriptions. perfectblue 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I was talking about the second picture. If you only think the first picture meets OR, why did you keep trying to add both back to the article? --Minderbinder 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting to the previous version, the same as you. Did you think that I typed all that code in by hand? The second image is completely superfluous as far as I'm concerned. Especially since the page now has an infobox which leaves room (sensibly speaking) for only one image.

Seriously, though "generally considered not to exist", what am I supposed to make of this? We're talking about "shadow people" (scare quotes intentional). There's no general about it. There is no room for shadow people in parapsychology, ghost hunting or even pseudoscience. They are an extension of the bogeyman left over from when people feared the dark.

perfectblue 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why you should only revert the content you're concerned about and not do blanket reverts. If there's no room for it, then why are you putting in personal accounts of people describing "I saw this!"? --Minderbinder 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is using a definition original research?

According to many reliable sources ([1][2][3] and others), rapid transit is "rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way". Is it original research to say that since AirTrain JFK meets this definition, it is rapid transit? Does [4], which says that automated light rail (which AirTrain JFK is [5]) is a type of rapid transit, help? --NE2 07:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a bad example because you do have the press release so your bases are covered. But let's say you didn't have the press release. I think here is a case where we need to use common sense. The more controversial the example, the more strict we need to be about compying with the policy. The less controversial, the less strict. What happens if two people disagree over the level of controversy? well, if two people disagree, I would say that is proof enough that it is controvesial. So what would I do? I would call the Airtrain rapid transit even though this is a synthetic statement. I bet no one will object. If someone objects and they refuse to consider this so obvious and uncontroversial a case that we can let it slide, then I would try to find a compromise. But my guess is no one will object. Now, look at it the other way - I am sure you can imagine all sorts of synthetic claims that would be very controversial (and that will be challenged by many other editors). That's when we need to follow the policy strictly. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the only press release is a Canadian one that says that a new Vancouver ALR line is rapid transit; it doesn't say that AirTrain JFK, a line in New York City, is. There have been related issues with light rail, essentially a marketing term for some tram systems. --NE2 11:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I misread it. Well, my appeal to common sense stands. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

is this original research?

On Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#remove_OR disagreement over whether a certain paragraph is Original Research. Urthogie 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Most scientists

Regarding this addition of Pmanderson's, [6] is this something we want to include? Sometimes it really is obvious to specialists that "most" of them believe X, even if there's no reliable source that says this explictly. For example, it seems obvious to me that most scientists agree with the man-made global warming hypothesis, although I suspect the ones who don't would say it's not true that most scientists agree with it. I feel we should leave this issue to the actual editors, rather than issuing mandatory advice here out of context. We already have some advice about it in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, this example has nothing to do with our concept of 'synthesis'. In this example the topic appears to be how to determine consensus among published sources about a given issue. This has to do with NPOV, not with synthesis or NOR. Crum375 22:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-hypothetical query

This is moot now as one of my sources has disappeared, but:

If I have a primary source statement that says "If A then B", and I have another source that states "A", then is it acceptable to state these, and then say that "B" is likely? Another editor opined that this might be original research, but it seems that logically I'm creating no new information. scot 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This was regarding an article we were both involved in, but I might as well reply (even though it's now out of date) - see WP:SYN. -Halo 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The original research there is introducing the idea that B is likely. The non original research way to present this would be simply "A is so, according to Z. Y says that if A then B." and nothing further. --bainer (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right--and Halo has provided me with an even more explicit source for "A", and I have "If A then B" from a primary source. I'm still not certain that "B" follows, based on potential ambiguity in the definition of "A" used by both sources (hence my desire to state that "B" was likely) but I suppose that can be left for readers to deal with--since there are other sources which state "not B" (sources I obviously question in light of "A") then perhaps those sources should be repeated in the same paragraph. scot 13:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, now the "not B" sources appear to have disappeared, and someone else did as Thebainer suggested and just stated "A" and "If A then B", so I guess I leave it at that. scot 13:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

Vision thing just wanted to add this from RS:

Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:RS doesn't talk about tertiary sources at all anymore, I think it's important to have some more detailed explanation, specially when it comes to other encyclopedias. As it now stands, this issue is completely neglected. -- Vision Thing -- 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, was just going to ask this, because the article as it stands now doesn't even say tertiary sources are allowed. And if it did, it has to be made clear that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source (this used to be here, didn't it - why was it removed?) - Merzbow 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't see any harm in re-adding it. -- Vision Thing -- 20:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I trust Britannica any more than I trust wikipedia. They're both encyclopedias, right? --Kim Bruning 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia, Britannica has editorial oversight. -- Vision Thing -- 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is probably the most reliable scholarly source in existence. - Merzbow 03:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is important to add for the reasons stated above. If no objections, I'm going to add it tonight and see if it sticks. - Merzbow 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing Oneself

I think this section needs to be worded to more strongly discourage against citing oneself. As it reads, if one does not follow the link to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, it sounds like citing oneself is not a problem. I propose replacing this:

If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

With something like this (the bold does not go in, I've just put it here to emphasise change):

If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. However this is discouraged - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

How does that sound? Rocksong 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an improvement, but is it necessary to use bold text? -Sensemaker

May I suggest this tweaked version? "Editors who have had their material published by reliable publications may cite themselves as sources, while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy, but doing so is not encouraged. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• This seems a bit better - legimately using your own reliable sources shouldn't be discouraged - this just isn't a license to self-promote. As long as editors disclose that they're citing themselves, I don't see why this is a problem. Maybe it's better is they offer it on the talk page and get someone else to do it. (Okay, definitely). WilyD 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has a specific paragraph Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself which puts it fairly well. (Doesn't actually discourage it, but suggests using the Talk page like WilyD says). Perhaps we could just add one of those "See also" templates to point specifically to that paragraph, i.e.:

See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Citing oneself

Rocksong 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Article with a LOT of Synthesis

Could someone please check out List of United States Presidential religious affiliations. It seems to me that significant sections of this article amount to an original Synthesis ... drawing conclusions about the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Presidents based upon primary sources. This isn't a POV issue. My sole concern is with such a massive WP:SYNT violation. Unfortunately, based upon my discussions about similar issues at related articles, I am not sure if the principal editor understands this, or sees what is wrong with the article. I am not sure how to fix this... If we cut the synth, we would basically gut the article (which is definitely noteworthy and should not be deleted). I could use some help trying to explain things and figuring out how to fix them. Thanks Blueboar 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Original images - Need an admin to assist

I need an admin to take a look at Shadow people and to rule whether the original images that were included there (see history) violate WP:OR.

I've tried to explain to another user how images are mostly exempt so long as they represent a something that has previous been established, but they won't listen.

perfectblue 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:ADMIN - but Admins don't really do this. Try WP:RFC as your first step in dispute resolution. WilyD 19:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that there is leeway with respect to images is so that someone can go take a photo of, say, a galah, and give it the caption "this is a galah", or draw a diagram of a spark plug and give it the caption "this is what a spark plug looks like". It's not a free licence for speculation. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When there are clear descriptions, it's not speculation.

perfectblue 13:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute regarding publication of original research in article

Please see here. Thanks, --Sagie 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution_controversy article (clarification and guidance sought)

Regarding On using primary sources, I contend that by taking the side of scientists (or creationists) in a socio-political article regarding a controversy involving scientists (and creationists), it is POV--while taking the side of the scientists on a pseudo-scientific article is NPOV. Please either comment here or at the Creation-evolution_controversy talk page. This is an important issue requiring the guidance of disinterested wikipedians as the article attracts a lot of well meaning partisans. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 07:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Taking the side" of either side is, by definition, POV in any article. However, pointing out facts, such as that creationism has very little standing in the scientific community and hardly qualifies as a scientific theory, is NPOV in any article. However, verifiable sources for the facts should always be added to the article. -Sensemaker

There is no rule in Wikipedia that an editor can not "take sides" on an issue. What we have is a rule that says we should write from a Neutral point of view. Please see WP:NPOV. And wouldn't this be more appropriate to ask at that policy's talk page?... it really doesn't have anything to do with original research. Blueboar 17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove two words?

There is a sentence in this policy that reads "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible." What are people's thoughts about removing the words "wherever possible?" Isn't it precisely the csaes where reliance on secondary sources is NOT possible that are most important to avoid in WP, in order to follow the NOR policy? Note that the sentence would still have the word "should" and not an alternative like "must." Thoughts? UnitedStatesian 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To give an example to illustrate this issue: suppose there is a major current news event. A Wikipedia article might be started that relied mainly on news reports of eyewitness accounts - i.e. primary sources. This is not original research provided that the article is not interpreting the primary sources and drawing novel conclusions from them. Months or years later, historians and experts would write secondary accounts of what happened, and as and when these good secondary sources become available, the Wikipedia article should rely on them. I think the "where possible" wording is emphasising that where good quality secondary sources exist, we should use them, but that when they don't, it could still be possible to write an article based on good quality, relevant, primary sources.

I think it's also important that we don't elevate secondary sources to being automatically "better" than primary sources. Sometimes the reverse is true. A common example is when a scientist publishes a scholarly paper (primary source), and lots of clueless journalists write headline grabbing stories that misrepresent the findings (secondarly sources). Often, the best articles use a combination of primary and secondary sources.

That said, I have no strong objection to removing the "wherever possible", provided that we retain the "should" rather than "must" wording. Enchanter 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate to quibble when you've agreed with me, but I have a different understanding of primary and secondary: I would call the unedited interviews (in the case of the news event) or the scientist's data (in the case of the paper) the primary source - neither of which should ever be used in the WP article. This makes the news report and the scientific paper both secondary sources, and yes, later there may well be other secondary sources that may be better (in the case of the news event) or worse (in the case of the scientific paper), and the WP article should always contain the best in either case, but they are all secondary sources. UnitedStatesian 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a grey area on whether you call a newspaper report that is very close to the original story (such as, for example, a TV news story that is mostly interviews) a primary or a secondary source; the same goes for some scientific papers which give the results of experiments without necessarily interpreting them. However, I think your more narrow interpretation of what a primary source means is more natural and more common (particularly outside Wikipedia!). Enchanter 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

These policies aint worth a crap without critique

The problem with the Wikipedia policy is that there is no critique included with it. The policy is badly flawed, but stating the reasons here is a complete waste of time as these words will soon be archived and forgotten, included with all the rest of the drivel written here.

Any policy to have any validity must include its critique or it is just mindless nonsense. Once the critique of the policy is sharpened the policy itself will finally begin to approach validity.

Original research is a red herring. Some of the problems with Wikipedia are:

1.) Quality work being degraded with later edits.

2.) Controversial subjects Being treated very poorly because of the OR policy.

3.) Quality work being erased due to the OR policy.

...etc...

But this article is complete nonsense without discussion. And this means discussion in the article itself so its critique can be refined. The discussion on the discussion page is basically worthless in this article because important ideas just get lost. For example there was a very important thread regarding verifed falehoods. This thread was relegated to the archives, but it really belongs in the main article.01001 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

By definition, a policy can not also include critiques of itself. Policies are not just vague opinions, they codify what is supposed to happen. Including a bunch of opinions that it isn't supposed to happen only serves to make people treat it as "Oh, well, I can ignore this because there's no consensus on it." -Amarkov moo! 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting your definition of policy? Your statement is just plain wrong.01001 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. A policy can not include a statement that contradicts it. The page which it is listed on can, although I don't think that should happen either, but unless I'm mistaken, you want the critiques to be part of the policy, not just on the same page. -Amarkov moo! 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask again, where are you getting your definition of policy?01001 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see

"Quality work being degraded with later edits." - That's the risk with an open model, regardless of WP:OR policy

"Controversial subjects Being treated very poorly because of the OR policy." - If there is no work out there that an editor can cite, then the topic can't be that controversial. Controversial topics are among the easiest to avoid WP:OR with as there is plenty of argument from both sides.

"Quality work being erased due to the OR policy." - If it's the quality work of an editor, not a third party, then that is precisely what WP:OR is supposed to do.

perfectblue 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikis that accept OR - perhaps you're in the wrong place? WilyD 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well no one responded to my main point as to why there is no analysis or critique on the policy articles. Wikipedia has serious fundamental flaws in policy but these can only be corrected with some serious analysis. I can know that there are serious flaws in policy because so many of the articles are seriously flawed. It is not worth discussing the flaws in policy here because any discussion here will go nowhere as I have seen important discussion go to archive along with most of the rest of the discussion on this page, which is predominately trivial nonsense.01001 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking for Category:Wikipedia essays? For what it's worth, the main cause of poorly written articles is well understood, and it has nothing to do with policy. It's straightforwardly that Wikipedia isn't finished, or even near it's "equilibrium finished" state. For what it's worth, your main problem seems to be with the no original research policy, which is not set in stone, but not going to change in purpose. If you want to include any kind of your own thought in articles, you're at the wrong wiki.WilyD

01001 I think your basic premise is flawed. If there is something you feel is badly stated in the policy, it can be changed. Policies are not set in stone, you just need consensus to make a change. It's possible. Wjhonson 03:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What about articles that are regressing? For example, the article that compares Linux to Windows has been completely eviscerated. But I could name many other articles. I truly dont understand why there is no substantive discussion of the problems with Wikipedia policy01001 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

01001 if you could specify the exact nature of the conflict, maybe we could take a look at the particulars. There are quite a few Wikipedians, including admins who do not clearly understand what original research is and isn't. Wjhonson 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, or perhaps not suprisingly, noone has yet responded to the main point, why is there no analyis are critique in this article are any of the policy articles?01001 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the analysis and critique are contained within the historical talk pages, which you can see above in the archives of this page. We have had long arguments in the past about some very arcane points of the policy. You're welcome to start a new argument here about some particular detail with which you disagree. So far your argument is a bit vague. Why don't you propose some language that you'd like to see on the page? The more specific you make it, the more likely you'll get some kind of resolution here. Wjhonson 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

These talk pages are basically worthless for discussion that will advance interests of Wikipedia. The important points get lost. The critique and analysis needs to be in the article itself where it can be refined01001 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)The historical talk pages are twice as useless.01001 02:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel this is an incorrect statement. Many discussions on these pages get translated onto the article space. In fact that is the main reason for these pages. So, if you have specific changes you'd like to see, if you could be excruciatingly exact that would help. In other words, quote the section you want to change, then state how you'd rather it read, so we can discuss the specific requested change. Again it would help if you were more specific about what exact quoted language you'd like to change and to what. Wjhonson 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To be exact there should be a section entitled ==Criticism and analysis== in this article. In this section there should be a critical analysis of this policy.01001 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles have that because they're intended to be neutral, and not presenting the criticism would make them one-sided. Policies don't need to be neutral, and in fact, they make little sense if they are. If people have an issue with part of the policy, there is no reason it can't be brought up on the talk page, and then if there's a consensus that there is a problem, it can be fixed. Why keep a list of failed attempts at changing the policy and the arguments behind them? -Amarkov moo! 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to talk at a meta-level 01001 isn't helpful. If you had a section with that title, please specify some exact language you'd like to see *in* it. It's pointless to simply ask for a title without any language. Wjhonson 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To have a policy document and a commentary on how that document was put together is a reasonable idea and one which often exists for international agreements. Perhaps I can help 01001 with an example from the Geneva conventions. If one looks at the Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Which is the article that prohibits the use of children in combat. The wording is "The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. ...". Now at first reading this would seem to be clear. But is is not until one reads the ICRC commentary on Protocol I and reads that during the negotiations over the clause "take a part in hostilities" the word "direct" was added to it, this opens up the possibility that child volunteers could be involved indirectly in hostilities, gathering and transmitting military information, helping in the transportation of arms and munitions, provision of supplies etc. and that the ICRC had suggested that the Parties to the conflict should "take all necessary measures", which became in the final text, "take all feasible measures" ... I'll leave you to look up what the difference is on those two phrases (See Child_soldiers#International humanitarian law, wikisource:Geneva Convention/Protocol I, ICRC Commentary on Protocol I: Article 77). The commentary helps the reader to understand the thinking of the negotiators who put the treaty together and how they intended the phrases to be interpreted. FAQs (e.g. the proposed WP:ATT/FAQ) is another way of doing something similar, and one which the internet community is more familiar with. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Where can we put original research?

Can we put original research into a sister project and link to it like we do Wikiquote? - Peregrine Fisher 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's still original research. The idea of the policy is to make sure everything in Wikipedia has reliable sources, and is not self-published or original research. Notinasnaid 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What about wikiversity? - Peregrine Fisher 07:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

--Kylohk 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a "STFU, this isn't the article itself" tag?

There are several things wrong with the Original Research policy, but the thing that really drives me nuts is how it's affected talk pages. If you dare to say anything other than simple declarative sentences, someone will *always* jump in with a WP:OR. It's gone past annoyance, I think, and has become a real communication hindrance. Instead of actually replying your posts, people just accuse you of original research and ignore you. Hell, I just had someone hit me with a terse "WP:OR" accusation/reply after I replied to a mediation page regarding a contested redirection! Even if we needed citations for page redirection decisions (and in the name of everything that's holy, I sincerely hope we don't), does every single sentence I post to a talk page need to be sourced? Can we please just talk, discuss and debate the issue rationally and worry about the citation only when people start talking about making specific changes?

I would like to see a note somewhere in the No Original Research policy that says people aren't required to be borg drones on the talk pages ("That doesn't quite make sense to me." ... "Sorry! That's original research! You lose!"), and that WP:OR tags should only be brought out when someone is referring to a specific change in the article itself. It's becoming downright anti-intellectual, because you can't question ANY argument anymore using your own logic. I'm not saying that I should be able to insert my own logic into the article, I'm saying that my own logic does have a place in discussing the article.

Regardless of the sources involved/needed, the article should not say stupid, or factually incorrect, or logically inconsistent things and I shouldn't be forced to slog through Google for an hour to be able to point out that such things are, in fact, stupid/incorrect/inconsistent. If you have that kind of time and patience, good for you, but I don't think my input should be impeached simply because I didn't regurgitate someone else's rhetoric (and again, this is just the TALK PAGE, not the article itself.)

I shouldn't need a source to refute someone else's unsourced argument on a talk page. I shouldn't need a source to suggest that we remove an *unsourced* claim (in the article) that appears, via my own "synthesis", to be incorrect. I shouldn't need a source to suggest that we reword something. I shouldn't need a source to debate an article redirection.

I already know what wikipedia *is* and what it *isn't*, thank you very much, and I'm tired of getting beat over the head by rule lawyers who are NOT contributing anything useful to the discussion. --Lode Runner 06:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. --NE2 07:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. Obviously, the other place this applies is to discusions at WP:Village Pump or any places where new wikipedia policy is in the process of being made. Somebody needs to be creative to make new wikipedia policy! Who's that going to be, if not the editors? And all of that is OR, folks, like it or not. NOR was originally meant for Wiki articles and encyclopedia content, not all encylopedia spaces. Indeed, it cannot possibly apply there, if they are to function as they were intended (no, I don't have a cite for this, except the process of deductive logic plus standard definitions).

BTW, while I'm at it, I may as well save space and point out that everything I just said about making new policy in the appropriate TALK pages of policy articles, cannot possibly be subject to WP:NPOV, either. A new proposed policy has to be SOMEBODY'S opinion, does it not? By definition. Jimbo doesn't make all new policy, and if nobody else is to do so, that pretty much ends wikipedia's growth. How then will we decide how many links are too many, and other weighty issues, in the manual of style? This is not an academic matter, as I actually just had somebody accuse one of my proposals in the manual of style as being to much "opinion". Yeah, well, so what of it? It's ALL opinion there! Some of it older than others, is all.

And finally, of course every time a matter is opened for debate in Wikipedia, from ArbCom to RfD, it's people's opinions (points of view) that are being solicited. NPOV does not, cannot, apply there. The guts and making of Wikipedia are full of OR and POV. It's the mainspace articles where we try to minimize it. Some people have not "gotten" this, and it needs to be made more clear in the LEAD of both of these policy pages. And WP:ATT as well. All these are, or should be, and in some cases MUST be, mainspace policies ONLY. That's my OPINION, and I'm stickin to it! SBHarris 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that people would actually use the WP:OR policy on discussion. After all, when you discuss things, you are just conversing like in real life. No one's free of bias, and have their own perceptions about things, so just because what they said isn't published, you really can't use the policy to make them stop.

Agree with Sbharris. Yes that's right I agree. It's shocking. The policies were never intended to be applied to Talk, they are policies about articles. Wjhonson 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim that the "policies were never intended to be applied to Talk" or please retract it. Thanks. SanchiTachi 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to the Policy

My previous post (above) was more of a rant, but since people seem to have responded favorably to it, I would like to propose that we add a new section to the WP:NOR policy.

<begin>

Original research should not be included in new articles or additions to existing Wikpedia articles. However:

• This does not apply to talk pages or to any other page that is not a Wikipedia article (including, but not limited to, the village pump, mediation pages, and user pages.) When editors suggest an addition to an article, they should endeavor to find sources for their claims but sources are not required to discuss an issue. On the contrary, synthesis is often a vital part of the decision making process even though it isn't allowed in the article itself. In other words, original research may be used as an argument for the inclusion of reputably sourced material, but the fruits of that research must not be included in the article itself.

• This does not apply to the proposed removal or alteration of unsourced material from the article.

• This does not apply to proposed formatting, rewording (so long as the reworded version does not contradict any applicable sources), page redirection, or any other sort of action that does not add new content to the article or remove/alter content that is properly sourced.

• If doubt exists over whether something is original research, consider the overall necessity to the article. If there is a consensus that the article suffers significantly without it, put it in (see WP:IAR.)

These exceptions exist to facilitate intelligent debate, not shoehorn your own personal opinion into an article. Original research does not imply bias--editors are still expected to present a neutral point of view. </end>

Given the growing number of sniveling rule-lawyers who use WPs (and especially this WP:) to shout down opposition, I really think that this all needs to be spelled out. Not every post on a talk page is advocating an addition to the article, and I don't see how WP:NOR can be sanely applied to changes other than addition. The concept of "original research" applies to verifiable facts, not to word choice and page redirects. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't give anyone the right to start pulling stuff out of their ass--changes still need to be justified, but original research (especially synthesis) can and should be a part of that justification.

If I can get this section added, I'll push for similar additions to other WPs. Many of the WPs are applicable only to proposed article changes, but that isn't stopping some people from using them to shout down and drown out anyone who dares try to analyze an issue with their own rational mind, even if they aren't proposing a specific change just yet. --Lode Runner 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Second your thought, obviously. The making of new policy obviously has to be a matter of community concensus opinion, and obviously if it's NEW, it has to be original in some sense. Thus, NPOV and NOR can't apply to TALK pages, or even the main text of wiki-policy pages. If they did, nothing new would ever happen (so obviously they've been widely violated already in the making what Wikipedia policy is, outside of Jimbo's initial dictates and guidelines). I'm a little shocked that this isn't spelled out already someplace, but maybe it's your fate to be the one who does it.

  I also have to second your idea that NOR and NPOV are impossible to follow with absolute strictness, even in the mainspace, because if you did no sythesis at all, but merely pasted blocks of print from other sources one after the other, the quality of writing would suck. And you'd still violate NPOV in deciding what material to use and how much emphasis to give it. So in the end, in the spirit of WP:IAR I think what is meant by no original synthesis or research or overriding POV, is that you shouldn't have enough of these to draw attention to themselves. The reader should never say: "Woah, THAT'S loaded language!" or "Woah, THAT'S an agenda!" So long as you avoid that, you're usually okay. That's (after all) how most of the best articles in Wikipedia have been written. Thay all do some synthesis, and some POV-pushing (i.e., some kind of reasonable POV synthesis, rather than sythnesis of the many nutty ones). SBHarris 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is very much needed. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but the language of WP:NOR (such as saying "Wikipedia is not the place" instead of "Wikipedia articles are not the place") has given the rules lawyers ammunition to destroy all dissenting thought. I can't think of any reasonable reason why we should interpret WP:NOR in this manner--it's extremely counterproductive and thus violates WP:IAR. An addition to a talk page is not the same as an addition to an article. A justification for including a sourced statement in the article is not the same as the statement itself. If anyone has any rational objections to any of this, I'm all ears. In the meantime, I don't see any point in waiting--I've added the (somewhat altered) section. Feel free to reword for clarity, but if you see fit to remove all or part of it, I'd appreciate a decent explanation. --Lode Runner 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Such an addition would contradict WP:TALK: "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research." Jakew 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the WP:TALK policy should change. It violates WP:IAR by enforcing an anti-intellectual policy. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, except the policies on verification/deletion tell use that content that it not verified can (or even should in some cases) be moved to the talk page to await sourcing etc. There are also pleanty of situations where it is acceptable to discuss or use unsourced content. For example, placing a section from a journal on the talk page and then asking users for help in finding the exact issue number, or even the original source. - perfectblue 11:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your addition. You need to get consensus for major policy changes before making them. Jakew 10:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As Jake said above, you directly contradicted material already agreed among the rules and tried to make a policy change without a consensus. Please don't play WikiRulesGod and think and pass judgment on which rules are good and which rules are not. Its for a consensus, not one man, to decide. SanchiTachi 14:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave everyone three days to respond and got nothing. It's a very simple matter to revert, and indeed it has already been done. As far as my contradiction goes, I contend that WP:TALK is the one that's contradicting the spirit of WP:IAR. IAR tells us that if something is really getting in the way, we should ignore it. It should be painfully obvious that not being able to even use synthesis on the talk pages renders all discussion moot except for quoting the sources. This isn't helpful, nor is this what encyclopedias should be. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. In order to discuss things properly we need to be able to include original research on talk pages. Our guidelines say that such original research should be moved to talk pages until it can be sourced and we use original research for many different reasons when creating articles. To apply the strict interpretation of WP:OR to talk pages is absurd. What about on user talk pages? We are supposed to be able to discuss pretty much anything there, but if we follow these policies/guidelines to the letter then we can't do that. Maybe common sense can be called into play and each situation should be looked at on its own but we will always have users who simply start deleting things on talk pages as original reasearch regardless of whether or not it is a valid argument that could help improve an article if it is followed up on.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree: I agree with the sentiment of the original poster, talk must except from WP:OR regs so as to allow the free flow of ideas outside of the page itself. Besides, how can we decide what is and isn't WP:OR if we can't even discuss the material. We've got to leave open channels through which to explore new avenues.

perfectblue 15:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: First, I see no need to spell out that OR is allowed on Talk here. It's already verboten to remove user comments from Talk in all but the most extreme cases (i.e. off-topic ranting, personal attacks). I know WP:TALK says otherwise, but nobody enforces that, and I would support loosening those restrictions, but on that page; it's absurd to expect people talking on Talk to talk like they're writing an article.

Second, the proposed addition includes other stuff I oppose as well. For one, I am against spelling out that WP:IAR allows addition of OR to articles in some cases. IAR already allows anything, by definition — spelling out stuff like this will just give ammunition to the legions of disruptive editors who will prop up that paragraph as justification for their own OR ("well, it improves the article, so it must be OK"). - Merzbow 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If "no one enforces that" then it should be removed, period, because in my experience plenty of people attempt to enforce it. The IAR exception I specifically stated was only to be applied if it was UNDECIDED whether or not something was OR. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The IAR only allows the breaking of rules like 3R and other such things that are broken in order to stop vandalism or the like. You are miscontruing the policy greatly by not even spelling out what it says. "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." Claiming things as true without any verifiable sources is not improving or maintaining. There is no argument that can be made that OR ever improves Wikipedia. OR is harmful. In talk, it is harmful. Talk is not a chatroom. Talk is to get a consensus on how to organize, write something, or discuss a source. It is not for opinions, or anything like that. SanchiTachi 16:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis is most certainly not harmful to the talk pages. Using basic logical deduction is not the same as "novel theories" and it does not reduce a talk page to a chat room. OR is not even the same thing as opinions--not at ALL. OR is only reasoning or information that does not currently have a source. It shouldn't be included in the article, but it is the death of reason to say that synthesis cannot be used on the talk pages. You could not show me a single decently-sized talk page (say, of a featured article) that does not feature prominent use of synthesis.--Lode Runner 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC "With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." and Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)." Please respect that and cease and desist. Just because people do it does not make it right. SanchiTachi 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are being manipulative and dishonest. My proposed addition did NOT contradict any one of the three "sacred" policies. It contradicted only WP:TALK, which is NOT one of the three. --Lode Runner 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You tried to edit the page! That is a violation of the rule! What more can anyone see that you went against what Wikipedia is and voided the Census guideline. You had no right to do what you do, and it doesn't matter if you get 50 people agreeing with you, it will not override what the rule was.SanchiTachi 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent]Fine, let's say I violated a guideline which does not appear anywhere on the WP:NOR or its talk page. It took Jake 2 seconds to fix it. This does not make me a bad person or invalidate my arguments. The fact remains that this was only a clarification. I did not contradict anything in WP:NOR (with the arguable exception of the IAR comment, but that applied only to cases where it was *unclear* as to whether something should be treated as original research.) --Lode Runner 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Localzuk. There are many talk pages which require original research to properly discuss the article. A talk page is obviously going to contain opinions because its about peoples' opinions on how to improve an article. --LtWinters 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "opinions" and "original research." According to the definition of "synthesis" presented here, extremely basic logical deductions are deemed original research. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In the context of article talk pages, it occurs to me that there are two kinds of OR.

The first kind includes the interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies, discussion of ideal phrasing, etc. In general, the "original" aspect is about the article, not about the subject matter.

The second includes or are based upon novel theories or interpretations about the subject matter. This is the 'problem' kind.

It seems to me that declaring OR welcome on talk pages only invites crank theories, USENET-type discussions, and other material that is not helpful for writing encyclopaedia articles. Jakew 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. Novel theories themselves shouldn't be included in the article, but in (for example) our recent FGC-related debates, I used original research (and arguably novel theories insomuch as they aren't drawn from any particular source) to justify rephrasing a line that was not specifically supported by the sources given. Intelligent reasoning MUST be preserved--it is only the inclusion of suspect information that must be fought. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But those so-called crack pot theories are sometimes a good springboard to finding actual content for the article.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal. Wjhonson 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that many of the above posters do not understand rule IAR or "What Wikipedia is Not." IAR is in the spirit of doing what is best for Wikipedia. i.e. if a rule interfers with doing what is Wikipedia, then the rule is in the way and should be ignored, such as the 3R Rule when reverting vandalism. What the IAR is not is allowing people to negate the verifiability rule.

WP:NOT#OR"Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" "Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them."

WP:TALK"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research."

As you can see, that rule follows directly in the spirit of What Wikipedia is Not. Thus, if you negate that rule, you are negating what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not here for you to change it or use original research. There are plenty of other places for that. That rule will never change now matter how many people come in here to protest about it. If talk pages are filled with OR and thats allowed, thats the fault of not enforcing the rule and an admin should be made aware of it and/or bring it to the attention of mediation. Just like people already stabbing each other is not a valid excuse to get rid of anti-stabbing laws, people abusing talk pages is not an excuse to get rid of No Original Research rules. You should know about it before getting into Wikipedia. If you do not like it, why did you bother coming here? SanchiTachi 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I direct you to WP:BITE. Implying that I should leave it not productive. There are TONS of people here and agree with me, and the fact remains that Wikipedia policy can be changed. --Lode Runner 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"There are TONS of people here and agree with me, and the fact remains that Wikipedia policy can be changed." So if there was a "consensus" that Wikipedia pays people to post messages, that would come true? Or that there was a "consensus" for Wikipedia to charge, that would come true? Obviously, not. Your premise is wrong, as with your ideas about Wikipedia. What Wikipedia Is has already spelt out that what you are attempting to do is not Wikipedia. If you want to create your own pedia that allows for Original Research, please do. There are rules against it here for a reason. Please respect the rules. There are thousands of people who are able to without coming here and abusing the talk page. This is not your chatroom. This is not here for you to say whatever opinion. Wikipedia is not your soap box. A talk page is here only to discuss organization and major changes that can be verified. The fact that you edited the page without even going to one of the appropriate ask pages to get opinion from respected posters and admin shows that you didn't follow proper procedure or ettiquette. SanchiTachi 00:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not using this as a chatroom, but there is a gray area in-between chat room and self-congratulatory circle jerk. The rules against OR were made for a good reason, yes, and my proposed clarification of the rules has also been made for good reason. There is every indication that WP policies were designed to admit such future clarifications. The fact that you edited the page without even going to one of the appropriate ask pages to get opinion from respected posters and admin shows that you didn't follow proper procedure or ettiquette. Oh look, you're a liar now too! Check above. I gave you three days to respond, then made the edit knowing that it would probably easily be reversed, and no, I will not escalate this into an edit war. I am willing to discuss this civilly as long as you acknowledge my right to discuss it here. If you continue to insist that I am not allowed to discuss policy clarifications here, I will ask that you be banned from this talk page. --Lode Runner 00:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." WP:RFC Furthermore, you do not give people anything. You ask for a consensus. If you want a consensus, you go to RFC for a matter like this. But once you arrive there, you will see that NOR is not negotiable. Thus, you are violating what Wikipedia is Not. You are not here for policy clarification. You edited the policy to suit you. If you wanted clarification, you would have asked an Admin or requested it on the approriate policy page. Instead, you claimed what you could not and have started this against what the standards of Wikipedia are. Also, you have ruined any "good faith" by accusing any of saying NOR and holding to traditional policy as "rules lawyers" with added vulgarity. SanchiTachi 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If they aren't negotiable, how come we can still edit the pages? Did the owners (or chairmen or whatever) of Wikipedia themselves personally write every single detail in all three policies? My clarification IS just a clarification. Notice that WP:TALK is not one of those "non-negotiable" policies, and *that* is the only policy that directly contradicts my proposed addition. It was never said anywhere on the WP:NOR page that it was meant to be applied absolutely to the talk pages as well--indeed, there are numerous article-centric hints that suggest otherwise. --Lode Runner 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing the page does not mean making changes to the rules. People edit only to clarify. As was pointed out, you made a major policy change without going to the village pump or RFC. SanchiTachi 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

REPLY to SanchiTachi: I dunno. Is your last question:

Just like people already stabbing each other is not a valid excuse to get rid of anti-stabbing laws, people abusing talk pages is not an excuse to get rid of No Original Research rules. You should know about it before getting into Wikipedia. If you do not like it, why did you bother coming here? SanchiTachi 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

a personal request for education, or is it an ironic use of rhetorical question in the service of a POV? In either case it's somewhat original. Which is hilariously ironic because you're arguing for NOR. If you find it impossible not to violate the cannons of NOR and NPOV even in your own single one-paragraph defense of them, you've got a real problem. Consider it. And that's my original opinion regarding your comment. SBHarris 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A talk page is not a chatroom. A talk page is to put forth suggestions for what the article needs or to ask people's opinion based on new information before including it. That is all. Furthermore, Sbharris, I did not violate NOR, nor did I violate any other rules. I cited the rules and I put forth exactly what they said. SanchiTachi

• Answer: Did not. I refer you to the above quote. Try again. You'll never win a debate by saying you didn't say it, where your exact words remain on the page.SBHarris 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me who made that quote up there about talk pages not being allowed to have original research. I don't get the purpose of a talk page if its not to discuss the friggen page. I don't think it matters any way because can't people easily make up a source saying that's where they got there information from? And when you block them they just make a new username? Seems pretty pointless to me not to allow people to express there opinions on a discussion page.--LtWinters 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it." Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice

"Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal.)"Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice

Thus, this conversation is violating the above rule on what talk pages are for. Please respect Wikipedia. Also, Sbharris, you have misrepresented me when you claimed that I did not include any outside sources in what I have said, or anything like that. I have constantly cited the other Wiki pages when I have discussed this issue. I would like an apology or for you to strike out your inaccurate statement about me. SanchiTachi 00:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A talk page is to put forth suggestions for what the article needs or to ask people's opinion based on new information before including it.

Well then, you contradict yourself right there. "people's opinions" are by definition original research. It's also ludicrous that you are using wikipedia policy in an attempt to forbid us from talking about Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is obviously meant to be malleable (otherwise at the very least it would be locked), and there are no sources we can draw upon here execpt our own reasoning, so what would you have us use this page for?--Lode Runner 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. People's opinions are allowed in straw polls, but can be discredited/not used when approving/disapproving certain measures by admin when they do not have legitimate research/evidence/proof/etc to back them up. That has always been the case. Furthermore, asking for additional information or asking for a reorgnization of the article does not deal with content but with style. It is not research of any kind. SanchiTachi 00:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to stress this line again: A justification for including a sourced statement in the article is not the same as the statement itself. Read that repeatedly until it sinks in. The justification should be sound, but it should not be held to the same standards as the article addition itself. If someone argues that we include a statement as sourced from the Weekly World News, and we say "No, they're not reputable", are we violating wikipedia policy? Do we actually have to sit and track down sources that say WWN isn't reliable? Haven't checked myself, but it might be hard to find such a source because it's so freaking OBVIOUS that the WWN is utter fantasy. The justification for NOT including the proposed addition, then, is based on our "original research" of knowing that it's pretty unlikely that a source which says a 1,000' tall chicken attacked Paris yesterday can be trusted. --Lode Runner 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have no respect for the guidelines? Please, if you want this issue to be resolved, take it to mediation. You seem more concerned with arguing whatever point on a soapbox. I suggest an WP:RFC, as that is the only way to gain a consensus to change such an important rule. SanchiTachi 00:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the WP:NOR page. If there are other pages more oriented towards debate, there should be a link at the top of this page. My addition, though apparently contradicting a line from WP:TALK, but this line also (apparently, according to perfectblue) contradicts other statements that tell us original research should be moved to the talk page to await sourcing. If this is true (I will attempt to hunt down the quote on my own later), then what I am proposing here is merely the resolution of a contradiction in the sanest, most productive manner. --Lode Runner 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, at the time of my first posting (after waiting for three days for *anyone* to voice opposition) there was no dispute at all. Now there is, and we can escalate this in whatever fashion you'd like. --Lode Runner 01:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions"There are a few exceptions that have superseded consensus decisions on a page.

• Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, are usually held to have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines).
• Wikipedia:Office Actions on a specific article (such as stubbing or protecting it) are normally considered to be outside the policies of the english wikipedia.
• Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research).
• Foundation Issues lay out the basic principles for all wikimedia projects. These represent a consensus on a very wide scale indeed, among all wikimedia projects. This means they evolve very slowly."

WP:RFC"With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." SanchiTachi 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that. The offending statement directly contradicts what we've already established on the policy pages. That the policies are *not* applicable to Talk pages. On that note, I've started a new discussion on the Talk page *guideline* that will hopefully remove the claim that the policies do apply to Talk. Guidelines cannot contradict policy and the fact that this statement is there on the Talk guideline page, doesn't prevent someone from reading the policies and seeing the contradiction. Wjhonson 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions says "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)." They are now trying to cite IAR as a reason to get rid of a major rule, even though the WP:RFC page says "With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." Those are the two rules. Those five pillars are not suggestions. Those three parts are not to be changed. Those are implace by the creators of Wikipedia and the maintainers. There is no contradiction in the policy, only one person putting in what they had no right to include. It is policy that Talk pages have no OR. SanchiTachi 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Kindly please stop spreading this lie (unless there is a line I missed in one of the three policies.) We are contradicting only WP:TALK; nothing more. There is no indication on WP:NOR that it was meant to be applied to talk pages. --Lode Runner 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you will note that all of the five pillar policies have been edited constantly since creation, by ordinary users. They are not static policies but fluid, constantly changing depending on the current needs of the site. To state that they are set in stone is nonsense.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they have, but only to clarify, not to include clauses that directly contradict all previous policy, as this suggestion does. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. This is simply a clarification to clear up the inconsistencies between various guidelines. It isn't something new.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm right; it's an attempt to change policy, because someone couldn't get some OR into an article, and was criticized for using the Talk: page for further OR. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You edited this policy to contradict something else. That goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, the Soapbox rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and the rest. You have also tried to invalidate the NOR rule as used in other pages. the NOR rule extends to all of Wikipedia. The talk page only includes what applies to everything. WP:POINT By editing the NOR rule in order to spite the Talk guidelines, you are going against the spirit of don't disrupt to make a point. SanchiTachi 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'm sorry for whatever protocols I violated with the edit. Call me a bad boy if you must--I care only about the proposal, not about your opinion of myself. Unlike you, I am not a rules lawyer so I do not have every single policy memorized--I was not aware of any contradiction. But none of this is applicable to the proposal. You are dodging the issues, refusing to admit your misrepresentations of the truth, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of debate let alone actually participate. Stop. My proposal doesn't contradict any of the three primes, and your interpretation of NOR doesn't trump our interpretation. --Lode Runner 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we are trying to clear up inconsistencies between policies and guidelines to bring them in line with actual practice. To actually enforce this policy on talk pages would seriously damage the site.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense; WP:NOR needs no revision, and its application does not damage Wikipedia. People shouldn't be trying to put new unsourced stuff into articles, it's bad enough that most of them are filled with unsourced stuff already. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the reason *why* it was proposed, the proposal makes sense and is clarification of current practice. Applying this policy to talk pages would damage the site. I can go out and find you hundreds of examples of where original research has lead to improvements to articles and policies.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true, and it's about much more than just Talk: pages. The Talk: page is for discussing potential changes to articles, not for original research. And I can find you hundreds of examples where original research is found in articles, but policy violations don't define policy, they merely point to poor enforcement of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point! ElinorD (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg is exactly correct. I suggest people see the Warhammer Wiki Page Discussion to see where Pak and Localzuk wanted to not have to apply the OR rule to the Talk page in order to invalidate actual research used to define how the game defines a term and instead substitute their own definition for said term. Localzuk only wants to redefine the rule so he can win an argument, which means that he is not here for Wikipedia, but only to "win." SanchiTachi 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is inevitably what happens; people want to get around the policies so they can insert their own original research into articles. If they aren't initially able to force it into the article, then they try to re-write the WP:NOR policy so their policy violations become "legal". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I am against that sort of thing as much as you are. I'll say it again: The justification for the inclusion of an idea is not the same thing as the idea itself. The idea itself requires sourcing. The justification doesn't necessarily require a source (though they certainly shouldn't be discouraged.) If you want a counter-example, you can take a look at the Genital modification and mutilation talk pages to see how I used my own original research (mostly synthesis) to argue for a rewording of a line that was only *partially* supported by the given sources. Good justifications nearly always require a degree of synthesis. --Lode Runner 02:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Which section? I looked and only saw you arguing for egregious violations of WP:NOR based on the argument "nearly everyone I've talked to feels this way". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I mistakenly posted by explanation of the change (involving the line "When performed on female minors, the latter two procedures can be highly controversial.") to the female genital cutting page. The crux of my argument was that, although the sources sometimes used umbrella terms that might apply to "hoodectomies" as well, they could also apply to commonplace western medical procedures and most of the stated objections to "female genital mutilation" strongly implied that the loss of sexual function and unhygenic conditions were the reasons why it was so controversial, and if either of these objections are valid against hoodectomies, then they are also valid against male circumcision. Since no one specifically singled out hoodectomies (nor even mentioned them specifically as I practice to be damned, as I recall) and plenty of valid, non-controversial medical procedures could fall under the same hazey umbrella term, I rephrased the line to avoid implying that hoodectomies were controversial.

Perhaps a convoluted example, but I think it holds. I used my own synthetic reasoning (coupled with uncited, yet easily-verified facts for those who wanted to verify them) to show that a fragment was unsourced and justified its removal. And my justification could have been quashed by a single reputable source that said otherwise. --Lode Runner 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your example is a clear example of what needs a proper source. Without said source, no one can confirm if you are right or not. By stating what you did, you improperly put forth yourself as an appropriate source of information, which is not what Wikipedia is about. SanchiTachi 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But the previous writeup was much more misleading than the current one. There were serious logical problems in interpreting those sources as supporting the widespread (on par with clitoridectomies) condemnation of hoodectomies. I agree, a source would've been preferable--a source is ALWAYS preferable! (Maybe I should have added that to my proposal.)

Look at it THIS way--I could have simply changed it without explanation, and put my foot down that the sources did not explicitly mention hoodectomies. That wouldn't have involved any OR at all--but it also would have been fascist and inflamitory. To avoid this sort of unreasonable, hostile type of edit--my justification for the change needed to be mentioned. And for that, I needed either synthethis or a source. A source wasn't handy, but my brain was. --Lode Runner 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lode Runner, you have already removed any credibility you had by assuming a consensus and then introducing the topic as you did. You cannot change the rule no matter how many people you get on the talk page to agree with you. There is a means and a way, which I already brought up. You have failed to follow those. There is no legitimate reason to get rid of NOR, and POINT shows that breaking the rule or pointing out breakings of the rule do not justify getting rid of the rule or change. What you do not matter to this page or the topic. Claiming of your own actions or history as an example of a needed exception is an admittance of a POINT violation. Why can't you conform to the policy instead of thinking that the policy is broken? IF you want to discuss the rule, talk to an admin. This is not the place for agreeing or disagreeing with the rule. Talk pages are only here to discuss the article style and what should be added (i.e. requests for things that are missing based on verifiable sources). The latter does not apply here, unless its a call for clarifying minor wording or other "m edits." SanchiTachi 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your opinion does not equal consensus. Just becase SanchiTachi says it, it doesn't not magically become so. You are the *only* one here violating WP:SOAP. My clarification does not get rid of NOR; it merely clarifies it (already I would argue it's implied that we're talking about articles only.) Put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALA!" if you must--but your interpretation of NOR (and its malleability inasmuchas clarification and addition) is not the only valid one. You are using ad hominem attacks in an attempt to shut me up, and I am CERTAIN that this violates some sort of WPs, but again unlike you, I'm not a rules laywer. --Lode Runner 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Defending the rule by citing other rules is not SOAP. It never has been and never will be. You, however, are being vulgar and uncivil. SanchiTachi 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the rules is not the only one that counts. Several people here other than myself have already supported the notion that NOR does not apply to talk pages, it never did (other than WP:TALK, which is not sacred and can be changed), and my clarifications do not contradict it. At this stage we are asking permission not to make the addition, but to discuss it. You are telling us we don't have the right to discuss it, that under no circumstances could it ever be considered for a moment because of your own subjective interpretation. Vulgarity I will leave for others to judge. --Lode Runner 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The policies apply to article pages. They have never applied to Talk pages. Which is why the policies specifically state "article... article...article".Wjhonson 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, SanchiTachi, here is your argument: "You editted the article itself [though I waited three days]! This automatically renders your proposal null and void, even if you weren't aware of any contradiction at the time, even if you weren't aware that the talk page was not the place to bring it up, even if you say you'll never do it again! Too, late, you fucked up, game over, your proposal is dismissed [because he is apparently the arbiter of wikipedia "credibility"] feel free to leave Wikipedia now." Now, if that just about sums it up, I'll point out that it violates WP:BITE and WP:DICK (normally I wouldn't do this, but it seems as though WP links are the only form of discourse you view as valid) and I'll let everyone else come to their own conclusions.

Feel free to spam my userpage with this nonsense--go right ahead, really, I don't mind. However, it is completely offtopic personal attack and does not belong here. --Lode Runner 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not violated any such rules, and you owe me an apology for such blatantly false accusations. Your proposal failed because you did not follow the proper guidelines. The talk page is not the page to ask about major changes for the rules. RFC or the Village Pump are the places. Consensus either here or there will not guarentee a change in the rules. The pages I cite show that already. You think that you can come in and take over. I have only stated what is truthful without putting anything subjective up behind it. I have not put in a Point of View. However, you are. You are also spamming right now. This is not a chatroom. I already put up the appropriate rules and pages dealing with this. I have also put up suggestions about mediation and the like, which have gone ignored by you. You are borderline trolling right now. SanchiTachi 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I owe you nothing. I am not "taking over" anything. I am using the talk page to talk, and I'm sure I'll start an RFC or whatever shortly. You are the one spamming, because you are the one saying that yours is the only valid interpretation. I have not said that. I have not lied by saying that it is against wikipedia policy to discuss proposed clarifications that do not contradict any of the three sacreds. I will not be responding to any more of your personal attacks, but if they continue I will report them as off-topic abuse. --Lode Runner 02:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You have accused me of things which is obvious that I have not done. Point of View is any argument in which you are defending your own view point and are biased. Your User page shows what your view point is and your bias, which proves that you are violating Point of View here. The talk page is not a chatroom, and its not used to "talk" in the way you think it is. Report my "attacks" as much as you want, because I have not made any personal attacks. However, you have clearly violated Point with your original editing, you have violated the Consensus rules, the What Wikipedia is Rules, the Ettiquette Rules, the NOR Rules by editing them, and many more. I have not said anything about my interpretation. I have put forth the rules which are quite clear on the matter. Your actions are wrong and your introduction to this entry plus your previous entry show that you are not here for Goodfaith. SanchiTachi 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you a formal member of the wikipedia/media foundation? The rest I will not respond to, but I'm genuinely curious as to why you think you are the sole arbiter of what does and does not break wikipedia rules. I count three others that do not believe this proposal has broken any rules. Why should *anyone* believe your interpretation of the rules over theirs? --Lode Runner 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies." WP:RFC SanchiTachi 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi your attacks are out-of-line. You offend everyone by attempting to beat someone else into accepting your interpretation, instead of convincing them in a rational manner. The rules are not here to pummel and coerce but to instruct. Your approach is not conducive. Wjhonson 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You have accused me of something without proof. Please apologize now, especially for your "everyone" comment which cannot ever be proven. I have not bullied anyone. I have only cited proper rules. You, however, are demonstrating bullying, especially when you use such curt accusatory language without any proof behind it. SanchiTachi 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the need add so much verbiage to this policy. Policy pages need to be kept simple and to the point. And the way the discussion is being conducted is not encouraging either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Second. Reason - "Given the growing number of sniveling rule-lawyers who use WPs (and especially this WP:) to shout down opposition, I really think that this all needs to be spelled out" by Lode Runner (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&oldid=128602969#Proposed_Addition_to_the_Policy)SanchiTachi 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the dispute is framed incorrectly. The discussion should not be framed around "do we allow OR in talk pages?", as that presuposes that talk pages are what they are not. Talk pages are there 'to discuss the article and not the subject, and to engage other editors in improving the article so that it is better sourced, better worded, and more compliant with the aims of the project. A talk page is not a discussion forum, a place to share our brilliant ideas and opinions on the subject of the article, or to do any other activities unrelated to furthering the aims of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So is it possible to post an RFC without subject (since there is no "Wikipedia policy" subject, only science, politics, religion, etc.) ? Or is there a better place to put this? I don't mind a venue change, in fact I would prefer it so that we can get away from this off-topic stuff, but I could use a little help figuring it out. --Lode Runner 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read your User:Lode_Runner#The War Against Rules-Lawyers. If yout are set to engage in such "war" please note that you will find considerable and unrelentless opposition, not to fight that "war" against you, but rather to not allow you to start one, neither here, not in another page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking figuratively.... oh well, doesn't matter. Enough people here agree with me. And you don't even have to agree with a tenth of my opinion on the matter to see how stupid (perhaps impossible) it is to forbid synthesis on the talk pages.

I think it is not-so-hard to differentiate between justification for an addition and the addition itself. And I think it is not so hard to understand how original research is useful to one and dangerous to the other. But enough of this, shall you help me figure out the proper venue or will the debate be continued here? --Lode Runner 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New debate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Original_research_in_talk_pages. Personal attacks (this includes alleged rules violations that are already over, fixed, appologized for and done with) will not be tolerated. --Lode Runner 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lode Runner, there's too much in this section to read, so I apologize if this is repetitive, but OR isn't allowed on talk pages because talk pages are there to discuss the article, not the issue. Of course, people can discuss their opinion of the sources and so on, but they're not supposed to use talk pages to give forth about their own ideas. Also, the edit you wanted to make to the policy wasn't only about talk pages, and would have basically turned the policy upside down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Talk pages can get very clogged up when people start arguing about the subject itself. And (like this particular section!) it then becomes difficult for anyone to comment meaningfully, other than those who are sufficiently passionately interested in the article or subject to keep reading every single post. And those who are very passionate about something are not always the most neutral contributors! ElinorD (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is behind all this discussions? Are editors engagging in OR in talk pages? If so, where? If so, why? Talk pages are provided to discuss the article, its sources, and its wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

NOR is a red herring

The important issue is not whether original research lands in the article. The important issue is whether the reader can determine that which is original research and that which isnt. The problem being that once original research is excluded, logic prevents the article from being written. This is because the very first sentence of any article whatsoever must advance a position, and so forth for each sentence thereafter, and for each word of each sentence and so on. This logic must be addressed in this article or the article lacks any logical validity.

I was writing to the article on stature which has oscillated between a strong negative bias against short stature and a milder negative bias against short stature. I had written a section to the article that arguably is OR, but it certainly balanced the article. After, having this section tagged and deleted for being OR it occured to me that NOR is a very dangerous policy.

This is because people read Wikipedia and Wikipedia should not have a negative bias towards short stature. And certainly, in this article the truth is more important than NOR. The argument for the advantages of short stature should be stated in this article, or all bias should be removed. The present policy is dangerous as it serves to reinforce stereotypes.

Further, for some time now there has been reference to height and intelligence suggesting that taller people are smarter. This is backed up by some kind of verified source.

It might be alright to have this illogical OR policy if noone read Wikipedia, but millions do read it. Wikipedia should not maintain this illogical policy that leads to false and unbalanced articles.01001 00:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But there is no policy which mandates "balance". If there are no published resources that say being tall is good, and many that say being short is good, our articles should reflect that. WP:NPOV includes an "undue weight" clause, which makes it clear that both sides do not have to be given equal weight if they don't truly have equal weight. -Amarkov moo! 00:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, note that if OR is allowed then there's nothing to prevent massive article bloat and inclusion opinions on many topics such as philosophy will become highly subjective. How would we go about deciding which OR to include? We have similar problems in some of the sciences which many cranks wanting to essentially publish their stuff here. JoshuaZ 01:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I assert that a little OR is sometimes good, and is in the spirit of WP:Ignore all rules. Example: the page on Chess used to assert that 285 million people play chess on the Internet, and the claim was sourced[7]. I wrote on the Talk page:

Some more numbers: Internet Chess Club has 30000 members, about 2500 online at any one time. FICS has a membership of 150000. Playchess.com (part of Chessbase) claims to be the largest, with 5000 members online at any one time, so maybe they've slightly over the 150000 at FICS, if they are it's not by much. The other sites appear to be smaller. I think the total number of online players would struggle to reach 1 million. Yes I know this is WP:Original Research, but the 285 million number is so obviously wrong that sometimes you have to WP:Ignore all rules.

Thankfully common sense prevailed, and my OR overrode the reference. The moral: a little OR is sometimes better than a poor reference. Peter Ballard 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue wasn't with the WP:NOR policy, but with the failure to properly apply WP:V. Andrzej Turowsk's personal website is obviously not a reliable source for such an absurd claim; or, indeed, practically any claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. But if rubbish like this appeared in the mainstream press - as occasionally happens - I would have applied the same reasoning. Peter Ballard 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hence the need for multiple reliable sources, especially for contreversial, or important stuff :) . —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If a source is bad you find a better source. You don't replace it with original research. --bainer (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proving sources to be bad usually requires original research. --tjstrf talk 08:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? The example was of a personal website being used as a source for the number of online chess players; the source is "bad" in terms of not being reliable for the purpose it was being used for. --bainer (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why you can't change it (crossposted)

Everytime you edit you are told "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". WP:NOR is one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia. It is a hardline policy. WP:IAR is not policy, it is a guideline, a very controversial one at that, and never intended to bypass consensus. Lode Runner, your crusade against the "rules lawyers" is borderline disruptive, especially given your non-consensus edits to WP:NOR to reflect that. This is not in the best interest of the project, and it's not what Jimbo would want, bottom line. If you want to add OR and synthesis, establish your credentials at Citizendium, or take it to an internet forum. Encyclopedias are for SOURCED information, not original research: not in brittanica, not here. Wikipedia is not primary source, and without verification of credentials, it's not a place for publication of new material. Since we don't know who the editors are, it's no different than a bunch of guys meeting at a pub, or a conspiracy theorist in a 'zine or webforum. Once again, WP:NOR prevents all of that. That is why it is one of the fundamental, inviolate pillars of the project. Can you see that the entire concept of wikipedia having ANY credibility hinges upon it? Your crusade against the "rules lawyers" is misguided: you're really crusading against the concept of wikipedia itself, and it's disruptive and dangerous. The blanket accusations such as "the accusers", "rules lawyers", allegations of WP:BITE, etc are disruptive and the resultant unilateral changes to, again, a fundamental policy, border on WP:POINT. You need to chill out and look at this objectively: On the SOLE basis of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR (neither of which are policy), you want to change at least FOUR policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:TALK, WP:RS and a fifth if you include WP:ATT. Does that make ANY sense to you whatsoever? Because to the rest of us, it is ridiculous.

I can sum it up in one sentence: You can't use a single controversial guideline that is not accepted by many people on this project, to overrule no less than FIVE fundamental policies that constitute the very essence of what makes Wikipedia what it is.

I can sum up the remedy in one sentence: Start your own wiki, or go to Citizendium, or publish a blog; all of which places where original research is welcomed -- not here.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, IAR is a policy, and a very fundamental one at that, but the problem is most people don't understand it. You many ignore a rule, but only if the rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The prohibition on original research (like the other content policies) of itself does not prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, indeed quite the opposite. --bainer (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I'll be damned, when did it change to a policy? Last I visited the page, it was a guideline. When you look at the five pillars, what's the very first thing you see: "No original research". See the policy trifecta page: all other policies, including IAR are a corollary of that. The concept of wikipedia is neither inherently disabled or enabled by WP:IAR, it's only facilitated. But the concept of wikipedia is completely disabled by allowing OR, as it ceases to become an encyclopedia at that point, and instead becomes something lesser.

And, taking the direct wording of the IAR page, it says if the rules PREVENT you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. OR does not IMPROVE the encyclopedia, and not allowing OR does not PREVENT you from improving it. All that OR does, is lowers the quality of the encyclopedia into that of a webforum, blog, or chatroom, and that's clearly unacceptable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Doh, that's exactly what you just said Bainer. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are circumstances under which OR improves the encyclopedia. That's why we have IAR in the first place--no rule works well all the time. IAR allows the NOR rule to be ignored in such cases. Ken Arromdee 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't, and NOR always overrules IAR, because OR never improves the encyclopedia. Give an example if you think it does.Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that claim is "original research", so what's the point? This whole discussion presumes that we are experts on encyclopedia writing who do not need citations. If we are to take this "no OR in talk" seriously, every single statement in this exchange would need a citation. Since even the "no OR in talk" proponents aren't bothering to do so, the message is that the demand need not be taken seriously. Indeed, it seems blinkin' obvious that discussion is going to have rely heavily on ordinary reasoning and evaluation. Mangoe 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An Admin's opinion on a rule does not count as original research, as they have met the Wiki standard for expert in their field and did this through a peer review process. Thus, Jayjg is basing his information on what the admin above have said. Jay is not using original research. SanchiTachi 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you produce a citation for that? It seems to me that this could be continued indefinitely.Really, the problem here is that the talk pages are research. Perhaps within some framework we ought to expect proper citation and the like, but rigorous application of this is simply going to result in paralysis. People will as a rule ingore this demand, except when it's convenient to tie the discussion in a knot. Then they will pop up and say "WP:NOR!", and the fight over that will consume the talk page. And yeah, this is OR, but we have to have somewhere to talk about writing an encyclopedia. Mangoe 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A citation? Thats not needed. Why? Because if you looked at the process to becoming an admin, you would know that its peer reviewed. Furthermore, if you looked at the main page of this, experts that are verified are allowed in. You don't need to "cite" that, as its already cited for you. Please stop being purposely rude and trying to make such blatantly false claims. SanchiTachi 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you will probably claim that you have to literally cite it, even though its obvious where to find it. Here: WP:RfA proof that Admins are peer reviewed. Only opinions on potential admin with references to their actual actions are allowed (See the actual requests), which shows that the process does not use OR. The process was created by the creator of Wikipedia, which makes him an expert source on Wiki Rules and thus, not OR in the way you claim. SanchiTachi 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An Admin's opinion on a rule does not count as original research, as they have met the Wiki standard for expert in their field and did this through a peer review process. But can you show us that admins were 'voted' in with the understanding that they have an excellent knowledge of wikirules? I have seen many a comment on RfA's which go along the lines 'is a nice guy, can't see him misusing the tools, has made many good edits' etc... There doesn't seem to be anything on the RfA page which states that admins are put in place because they have an expert knowledge of wikirules. Can you not see what we are saying? Throughout the site people express their opinions on various facts, figures, and other opinions. They do this in article talk space, in wikipedia talk space and in user talk space. To stop this under WP:OR would lead to a work to rule situation where nothing would get done.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so according to Localzuk, Admin have no right to make any claims or to judge on certain matters, which would then negate the WP:Admin page. So says Localzuk, so says God, right? Admin are experts by definition. That is how Wikipedia functions.SanchiTachi 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the page you linked to doesn't mention admins being experts in any way. It says they are 'familiar with and respect wikipedia policy' and 'have gained the trust of the community' but nothing defining them as experts.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a strange understanding of "familiar" and "trust" if you do not see them as having expertise in rules or the ability to enforce rules via block and other methods. SanchiTachi 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent] Indeed, what guarantees an admin is any kind of "expert"? And what would it matter in this discussion, if they were? Do you think individual expertise per se carries weight on wikipedia? Wrong. Or that an admin's opinions carry more weight than anybody else's, here? Wrong. Please note that WP:ATT generally allows experts to use their own expertise only by quoting from their own works if they have been published in OTHER journals. Admins giving pop-off ex cathedra opinions here for the first time, certainly would violate WP:ATT if it applied universally. Here's an explicit violation from the NOR section of WP:ATT: "Original research" is anything that

introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

Which is what we have here, since admins are not reliable sources who have published this stuff outside Wikipedia. You think they are? SBHarris 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they published anything outside of Wikipedia, because, by definition, they are given the title of Experts on Rules and are given the ability to block people and other privledged information. If you cannot understand the review process or the like, please, find another place, because Wikipedia is not the place for you. SanchiTachi 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you want to cite that? At the very least, the arbcom process indicates that this is not so, and even then there is continuing argument over how much authority arbcom has in this wise. Mangoe 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I struck this comment as I provided information for Mangoe on his user talk page. I felt that taking it to such a place would be more appropriate than leaving comments here. SanchiTachi 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I am not an administrator, I do not know what the admin tools look like. Nonetheless, it is a widely held view that administrators are only to execute certain risky functions, and are not to determine or provide final interpretation of policy. Attempts by admins to do so are widely held to be an abuse of power. Calling me a dick is widely viewed as a personal attack, disclaimers on your user page to the contrary. And as you are not an admin, even by your own standards it would be necessary for you to cite evidence as to my intent. All of this comes down to your need to be able to denounce my position without having to live up to the standard you are demanding. And the point is that it is not really possible to operate as you are demanding. Mangoe 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I struck this comment as I provided information for Mangoe on his user talk page. I felt that taking it to such a place would be more appropriate than leaving comments here. SanchiTachi 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are we talking about admins? What does that have anything to do with OR or not? Admin functions have nothing to do with editing, which is what OR/NOR is involving. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We all know this. We are waiting for SanchiTachi to get it. SBHarris 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, did you just purposely lie about what I said? I clearly defending Admins having the right to say or act without them violating OR. That is obvious and people like you keep trying to claim that Admins are violating OR. SanchiTachi 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Original images and 'artist's impressions'

A discussion is going on here about whether it would be justifiable for a non-specialist Wikipedian to create an 'artist's impression' of an object that is so far invisible (the object in question is the distant planet Gliese 581 c), or whether the only acceptable 'impression' would be something produced by a noted scientist, or at least produced under the aegis of a scientific organization, such as NASA. Some users believe that the policy on images means that the non-specialist Wikipedian is welcome to go ahead. Others (including moi) think this would open the floodgates to rubbishy images with no scientific backup. Does anyone here hae any views on this? Cop 633 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean a picture/image? If so, see above: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#WP:OR_and_images_of_non-existant_things. There is a reference made to Wikipedia:OR#Original_images. "This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." "If they are noted as manipulated, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." So, if it fits what the article says, then it seems to be allowed. See if that helps. SanchiTachi 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another word change

The secondary source paragraph has a sentence that reads "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources." The presence of the word "verifiable," as an adjective modfying "sources," is confusing and I believe in error. This is going to get semantic, but: WP:V applies to the content of WP articles, not to the sources for that content. The WP article has to be reliably sourced, of course, but that is enough; we don't have to in turn be able to verify the source (to do so for a newspaper article, for example, I think we would need access to the reporter's notes, or the article editing process). I propose removing that one word. Comments? UnitedStatesian 05:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki

I think there would be a wiki to publish original research and ideas. I imagine the wiki was once upon a time... ;) an original idea. If it would be refussed, I (and you ) couldn´t be reading and/or writting these lines--62.87.96.65 13:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)