Wikipedia talk:No original research

Talk pages

I was under the impression that OR wasn't allowed on talk pages, but I seem to be wrong. I'm sure I've seen references to it being not allowed though. I don't understand why we would allow OR on talk pages - this quickly becomes a forum style discussion, with editors doing things such as trying to recruit help for their OR or heaping tons of text on talk pages. It can be very confusing and misleading to our readers at times also, as it can be hard for them to distinguish between nonsense and reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that WP:NOTFORUM should already address the problem of discussions going on about the subject. As for confusing our "readers", I must say that I don't understand. The purpose of a talk page is to help editors, not readers. Technically speaking, someone "reading" the article generally won't even look at the talk page; I'm sure that if they do they'll find all sorts of things confusing, like all of the policies, essays, and arguments we bandy about. Furthermore, it isn't even possible not to discuss OR on the talk page, as part of what we have to do is to debate whether various contents are or are not OR and what constitutes a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course we have to discuss what is OR, I should have been more careful, I meant editors should not be adding their own OR to talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on how the OR is discussed. There is nothing wrong with having a civil discussion on an article talk page that ventures into OR ... but pushing one's OR on talk pages can be disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'd rather stick with WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. My thinking here is that those (alongside, sometimes, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) are enough to prevent disruptive presences on the talk page. But I figure that if someone starts venturing into OR on a talk page (presumably a new editor), that's a great place to steer the conversation back to WP's policies on NOR, verifiability, NPOV, etc., etc. Even though it's rare, I always hope that the person who jumps on to WP to start spouting their own theories might be "brought into the fold," so to speak. Or we might be able to pull actually usable, verifiable information out of the rant. As long as the OR isn't taking over the talk page (in size or frequency), it seems like it could be useful. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"advance a position"

In this policy, what is the meaning of the phrase "advance a position"? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It generally is interpreted as meaning "asserting a fact or opinion not directly asserted by the source". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. The wording in the policy is a bit frustratingly opaque on that. I equate "advancing a position" with "making an assertion." I also think of WP:NPOV because neutrality would be compromised if an unsupported position were "advanced." Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's say I added a sentence to Barn that stated that most barns are typically painted red because red paint is the cheapest paint available, and sourced it with a reliable source. I am advancing the position that most barns are painted red and that it is because red is the cheapest paint. But if that source only strongly supports that most barns are painted red and only hints or suggests that it is because of the cost of red paint, then I am advancing a position not strongly supported by the source.   Thorncrag  04:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And to further the analogy, a better example might be to use that same source, but also state in the article that the cost of red paint is so low because so much red paint is produced because barns are always painted red... :-)   Thorncrag  04:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that distinct from a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS? Bus stop (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes because synthesis requires making up a conclusion in the article that wasn't explicit in either one of two sources. Synthesis by definition is combining two things to form something else and in this case, taking two facts from two sources to make up a conclusion based on those two facts and insert it into the article.   Thorncrag  05:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sythensis is taking one source that says "red paint is cheap" and another source that says "most barns are painted red" and coming to the conclusion that "most barns are painted red because red paint is cheap".陣内_Jinnai 16:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In that example, the combined sources don't even support the conclusion (barns may be painted red for an entirely different reason). Consider the following subtler example of synthesis, where the conclusion follows logically from the combined sources although it is not explicit in either one of the two sources: "most barns are painted with cheap paint". Precis (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Presently in the lead is the sentence, "It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources."

Please consider adding "or conclusion" so that the sentence would be, "It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position or conclusion not advanced by the sources."

The word "position" tends to mean a side in an issue. Often an editor's OR does not involve taking a side in an issue but is rather an unsourced conclusion that the editor makes. Thus, adding "conclusion" would seem worthwhile. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the addition, but is it really needed? After all... can you state a conclusion about something without taking a position on it? Aren't they the same thing? Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Did the definitions below help? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not enthusiastic about this idea. You can't even rephrase a sentence without drawing a new conclusion that is not explicitly present in the sources, and I have already seen occasional attempts to paint everything other than a straight copyright violation as original research. Like all policies this one must strike the right balance.

Is there an actual problem? In my experience Wikipedia is quite good at defending itself against original research, whereas intelligent editors who can work with a number of sources and turn them into a long, coherent text are a very rare commodity. Maybe if you give a specific example I can understand where you are coming from. Hans Adler 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I was somewhat surprised by your comments since they suggest that WP:NOR presently does not prohibit unpublished conclusions. Please note this excerpt from the WP:NOR section Using sources, "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source", and this excerpt from the WP:NOR section WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of fundamentalists who want to interpret all policies in the strongest way possible. If you interpret the prohibition of original research in the strongest way possible, then the only way you can write an article is by literal copying. E.g. if you replace a pronoun in the original text by a noun which describes it more precisely, then technically you go beyond the source by assuming that "it" in the second sentence has a specific referent in the first sentence, and by making an assumption about which one it is. I have too often seen claims that we can't replace a word used in a source by an obvious synonym that solves an editorial problem. These claims are not taken particularly seriously, but they come up often enough that people no longer laugh at them. Hans Adler 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the change. "Position" implies that several plausible positions exist, and the editor is advancing one of them. "Conclusion" applies equally when there are several plausible positions, and when there is only one, inescapable, trivial conclusion. Drawing trivial conclusions is allowed (e.g. every time a converted amount for a quantity is provided, when the conversion is not present in one of the cited sources, one is synthesizing the cited source with a table of conversion factors to reach a new, trivial, conclusion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Did the definitions below help? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if we reviewed the definitions of position and conclusion.

Here's some definitions of "position" that can be found from googling: position definition.

position

side: an opinion that is held in opposition to another in an argument or dispute [1]

6. A point of view or attitude on a certain question: the mayor's position on taxes.
6. mental attitude; point of view; stand what's your position on this issue? [2]

2 : a point of view adopted and held to <made my position on the issue clear> [3]

4. one's attitude toward or opinion on a subject; stand: his position on foreign aid [4]

7. view: a policy, view, or opinion, especially an official one What's your position on the proposed highway? [5]

And here's some definitions of "conclusion" that can be found by googling: conclusion definition.

conclusion

decision: a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration
the proposition arrived at by logical reasoning (such as the proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises of a syllogism) [6]

6. Logic a. The proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises in a syllogism. b. The proposition concluded from one or more premises; a deduction. [7]

1 a : a reasoned judgment : inference

b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism [8]

5. a reasoned deduction or inference.
6. Logic . a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument. [9]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

NOR is actually quite simple... The ultimate nutshell is: "Don't go beyond the source"... whether we are talking about advancing a position not found in the sources, or drawing a conclusion not reached in the sources, the error is that it goes beyond the source. Applying this concept... a good article should neutrally lay out what the sources say the positions are, and neutrally present those conclusion that the sources have reached. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see for yourself, the present lead doesn't mention conclusions but the policy makes significant statements regarding conclusions, as I mentioned previously. The lead is thus deficient in that regard and hence "or conclusion" should be added as indicated in the opening message of this Talk section. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this page has fallen silent since I posted my responses a day ago. Regarding the addition of "or conclusion" as suggested at the top of this section, perhaps editors could give a simple support or oppose, for my own information, so that can I see what the present feeling is here regarding the addition. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Neither... I don't object to the addition, but I also don't think it is really needed. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for a change. The phrase is clear enough as it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an editor in the previous section "advance a position" summarized the situation well with the comments,

"The wording in the policy is a bit frustratingly opaque on that. I equate 'advancing a position' with 'making an assertion.' I also think of WP:NPOV because neutrality would be compromised if an unsupported position were 'advanced.' "

Although a reader could make a connection between "position" and "conclusion" it isn't comfortable reading because the word "position" doesn't quite have that definition. I think we have to be sensitive to the general reader of this policy who may not be familiar with the terminology and use of words in Wikipedia, such as "position", that aren't clearly defined in Wikipedia and have somewhat different meanings than what is common outside of Wikipedia. (Please see the definitions of position and conclusion above.)

I suppose one might argue that "conclusion" is a type of "position" but from the definitions above, "position" implies a side in an issue. A conclusion may not involve an issue. It may simply be something that an editor has reasoned to be correct but may or may not be, especially since it hasn't been published in a reliable source. That's why I suggested adding "or conclusion" so that the sentence would be,

"It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position or conclusion not advanced by the sources."

Not trying to change policy, just trying in a small way to have a less "opaque" policy page, i.e. as the editor put it in referring to the meaning of "advance a position",

"The wording in the policy is a bit frustratingly opaque on that."

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are trying to define things that should not be defined because there is no definition that fits all situations. And anyway, if there is a specific problem with the policy it's really time to give an example now. Hans Adler 18:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans, There seems to be some miscommunication between us.[10]

Re "And anyway, if there is a specific problem with the policy it's really time to give an example now." - AFAICT, I'm not raising an issue regarding a problem with policy.

So let me ask you, would adding the phrase "or conclusion" be a policy change in your opinion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in continuing to ask the same question, Bob. Position encompasses conclusion, just as flower encompasses rose. Please give a real example that shows "advancing a position" is causing confusion, or leave it be. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Since it's not a policy change but only an improvement in clarity, I don't think that's an appropriate request for something that is only an improvement in the writing of WP:NOR, not a change in policy. And please be careful not to suppress useful changes with requests for real examples and consider whether you can give real examples to justify all your attempts at improving the writing of WP:NOR that aren't changes in policy.

When I read "advance a position" there is a question in my mind as to what it means because the dictionary definitions seem to be different than what you think the definition is. Please review my previous comments here and here regarding the meanings of "position" and "conclusion". --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Clarity is required on a core policy. And this is certainly not clear as it stands. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I tried to add it[11] but it was reverted,[12] so unless there is more support I won't pursue it. Thanks again. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Explicitism and Implicitism in debates on SYNTH/OR

Over at WP:NOR/N there was a discussion of SYNTH/OR in a topical article; where the sub-topics were reliably sourced as existing in themselves, but not reliably sourced as part of a literature of the topical article. Another editor's post got me thinking about two irreconcilable editorial views on this topic, unrelated to content, as irreconcilable as deletionism and inclusionism.

As an example "Disagreements between Dogs and Cats" could be reliably sourced from Garfield (passim.). One topic which Garfield doesn't cover, are the issues that dogs tend to hump your legs, cats don't. We can reliably source both of these points, but should they be included in the topical article?

Explicitism says that sub-topics may only be included where RS whose subject is the topic associate the sub-topic directly to the topic. No dogs humping legs in "Disagreements…" no cats not humping legs in "Disagreements…" Implicitism says that sub-topics which are reliably sourced in themselves may be included in a topical article regardless of RS specifically associating them to the topic. In this version "Disagreement…" contains dogs humping, and cats not.

Explicitist editors view an implicitist article as SYNTH/OR, and would seek to have the sub-topics not associated in RS with the topic removed. Implicitist editors view an explicitist article as an incomplete coverage of the topic. As an explicitist, I view Judaism and violence as needing to be blanked and rewritten from Firestone (2004), the only article appearing to explicitly discuss the article's topic in a scholarly manner. As an explicitist, I view the first four and eighth section of Mass killings under communist regimes as reliably sourced for the link to the subject (explicit scholarly and popular comparisons of alleged mass killings in states self-describing as communist); I view sections five through seven as SYNTH/OR, as while each point is reliably sourced, they are not reliably sourced as part of comparisons of mass killing.

I view these editorial positions as currently irreconcilable within the policy matrix of wikipedia. Can someone advise me on any policy directing an editorial position in this matter?

I'd like to acknowledge editor Nuujinn and the editors I've interacted with on Mass killings under communist regimes for inspiring me to think this thought. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As you define it, I've been preaching explicitism for 1.5 years at longevity traditions and related articles. A published self-proclaimed expert wants certain bullet points, which documentedly arise from himself, to be article subheads, even though no source whatsoever (except WP:SELFPUB) uses either his categories or his terms for the categories. Further, even the alternate title ("longevity myths") appears in only one throwaway source, which is why I'm arguing (in mediation cabal) for the "traditions" title, which is explicit in several on-point sources (cf. WP:RNPOV). Without looking at your articles, I'd argue for just a little leeway from legalist explicitism, in that an otherwise reliable source need not be excluded simply because not "scholarly", nor because it fails to take a comparative view, and I'd also doubt Firestone 2004 is the only scholarly source; but your general principle is right on. A number of sources under those two heads would not be excluded under OR, because they probably do relate to the titles as given ("and" is typically a wide-open compromise title word), but they might be excluded under WP:UNDUE instead because the topics lend themselves to biased writing (such bias can be attributed as "A notable fictional cat says" etc.). But if the topic explicitly uses the words "Judaism" and "violence" in close context, that's my explicitism. In the other example, if it were titled "Differences" instead of "Disagreements", there is no OR in citing different cat and dog behaviors as a difference; but for it to rise to the level of disagreement (or, say, controversy) would require sourcing saying somehow that people had disagreed or controverted. Nonexplicit sources can be spun out into titles that they explicitly relate to.

I am all for language making explicitism explicit, but I will not write it. JJB 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is quite confusing for me... I am not at all sure what the issue is. Would someone simplify the issue? Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis can be a difficult problem. This arises primarily in the area of comparative articles, such as "A and B". Ought sub-topics in the article "A and B" be produced from a bunch of sources talking only about A, and a bunch of sources talking only about B; or must sub-topics be produced exclusively from sources talking about "A and B"? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, WP:Article titles strongly discourages articles with "and" in the title (such as Judaism and violence. This is because such titles are so often a red flag that the article has WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues. Thus, as a first step... I would suggest a discussion on how to re-title Judaism and violence ... I suspect that such a discussion will help highlight where any POV and OR exists. Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem being referred to arises when an article is initiated on a topic that is not satisfactorily sourced. Sources should be present describing and even defining a topic. Editors should not be taking it upon themselves to create subjects for articles if those subjects cannot be demonstrated to preexist. Sources should be telling us what that topic is. Sources may indicate how the term representing the topic is generally used. Sources should probably be available indicating common components of that topic. A well-sourced topic can be expected to be spoken about in an introductory way. That introduction serves as an outline to guide editors. It serves as a reference. It indicates what may be included and what may generally be excluded from the area that is the topic of the article. All sources need not be in complete agreement on all points, but a general "ballpark" picture should emerge from the general commentary that sources provide on a topic. Bus stop (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear! And if a topic is agreeably titled "A and B" on unequally yoked topics, why, main sources should absolutely be about the relationship between A and B! JJB 04:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another example is Mass killings under communist regimes; which I am not trying to discuss here, but merely use as an example of my concern. Incidents like the Ukrainian famine, or the GuLag, or Pol Pot's policies are firmly documented. There are even a very small handful of reliable sources which say that Communist regimes engaged in mass killing for reasons specifically and only bound up with their communist nature (there are many sources which say, for example, "Totalitarian reasons for mass killing, for example Germany, Soviet Union".) But the article doesn't need a section on GuLag (a single incident, non-comparative) when the article's topic is the comparison of mass killings. We have a whole article for GuLag for its significance in and of itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

See, but with this one you're getting into content where theory becomes much fuzzier. "Comparison" is not in the article title. A source about gulag is a source about the titled topic. Whether it gets its own section would depend on its place in sourcing, and on first glance, I'd favor continuing to enfold gulag cites into the chrono Soviet history, AND/OR move them to gulag. If someone insists that "gulag" needs its own section, I'd agree when sufficient sourcing materialized. Explicitism is valid but doesn't apply to exclude that. JJB 04:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Content is the key issue, I think, relating to OR. Fifelfoo asked 'Ought sub-topics in the article "A and B" be produced from a bunch of sources talking only about A, and a bunch of sources talking only about B; or must sub-topics be produced exclusively from sources talking about "A and B"?' I think the answer to that would be generally yes, but it's not so simple. Using a current fav of mine, United States presidents with facial hair, the A and B are US Presidents and facial hair. Let us say for the sake of discussion that the newly elected president Fraknickle has a bread, and someone cites a source that discussed this beard and the public's reaction to is, but does not treat the issue of US Presidents and Facial in general at all. In that circumstance, are we allowed to make the link between between Fraknickle and US Presidents (based on common knowledge, similar to paris is in france) and thus treat Franknickle as a A₁, or is Fraknickle an X? I would argue the former is premissable, although I know some editors would likely disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the Fraknickle example (I'm assuming there's a literature of Presidential Beards of course :). This seems like a trivial implication. Consider another example Anarchism and Marxism is a good subject topical article, they've been in a 150 year shit fight, and are widely compared. Using Jones on "Anarchism and Marxism on the State" to write a section on "the State" would be fine. Using Lief on "Anarchism and War" and using Susanson on "Marxism and War" to write a section "on War" wouldn't be, in my explicitist opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - this needs to be clearly stated and is, in of course my h'opinion, a basic part of our NOR policy. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur generally, since in the last example Lief would be an A, and Susanson would be a B, and to combine them directly to produce a C(onclusion) would be SYNTH. But if Jones makes the connection, would it not be permissible to include Lief and Susanson in that section, so long as the latter two are not combined to reach a conclusion, and esp. if the points they make illuminate some aspect touched upon in Jones? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You are conceptualizing this in much too complicated a way. Any premise that serves as a foundation for an article has to have a reasonable preexistence outside of Wikipedia. Certain points need to be made about that topic. It is not going to be the same in different cases. But sources have to substantially establish that the topic is recognized outside of Wikipedia. This might be accomplished by some sorts of statements about the topic. Those statements might say that the topic was first articulated by some individual. Or that the topic in question emerged from some debates in some time and place. (These are just examples.) It is by means of talking about the subject that sources acknowledge its existence as not just a few words in passing but rather a concept that assumes a standard that can be referred to time and again, with the reasonable expectation that its meaning remains somewhat constant. Adequate sourcing is essential to article creation. Article creation in the absence of sources sufficiently supporting and even defining the topic is really not what this project is about. We should always be asking ourselves: are the sources available going to be genuinely helpful to me in writing this article? Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And there is the fundamental disagreement. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a disagreement. I can only state my position, and I'm trying to do so succinctly, despite my sometimes long-windedness. My position is that articles should be generally sourced relating to their overall scope. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the disagreement as being much. If Jones sufficiently demonstrates (one source is not always sufficient) that "A & M on the State" is a sufficient academic topic, and Lief writes on "A on War", he can be mentioned under the State subhead on his portions that relate to the State, IF it doesn't imbalance the article. In my example (which is also a real one and thus shows my bias), I hold that the topic "longevity myths" and several subheads like "village elder myths" should be demonstrated to be real topics in sufficient sources (which I don't believe has materialized) and that one should be shown a subtopic of the other. If I find that more sources use the title "longevity traditions" and more of them name as a subcategory "politically motivated claims", then I can talk about some things that use the insufficiently established subtopic "village elder myths" if sources classify them as politically motivated claims, but I would not talk about others if there is no demonstration that "village elder myths" and "longevity myths" are sufficiently deletion-proof and in topic-subtopic relation. But I think I hear sufficient agreement that explicitism per se includes enough wiggle room to be promoted to policy. JJB 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you think it's inappropriate to talk about the Red Terror or the Great Leap Forward in an article titled Mass killings under Communist regimes? john k (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Red Terror (1917-1923) was a society specific incident. The scholarly literature discussing it assigns Russian Bolshevik, rather than -Communist par Communist- causes. The Great Leap Forward was a society specific incident. The scholarly literature discussing it assigns Chinese Communist Party, rather than -Communist par Communist- causes. The literature of Communist causes of mass killings discusses a number of examples, but is a political science literature dedicated to determining underlying causes, and discusses things like this, "Communist causes for mass killing lie in class factors, for example, rural dispossession and class change was actualised by mass killings, for example the GLF, Ukrainian Famine, Pol Pot." Such an article shouldn't have a raw section discussing the GLF: the GLF should be discussed in the section "Mass killing to cause class dispossession and class change" to the extent the GLF is used as an example in the literature of theories of communist causes of mass killing. The current article contains a short theory section and then a sequence of incidents presented in a manner not present in the literature on "Communist mass killings", but rather as a compilation of the literature of History of China, History of the Soviet Union, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how the title of the article implies that it can only discuss killings that are a result of "Communist par Communist" causes. In fact, the title of the article says nothing about causes, whatever. Articles like this are always worth keeping a close eye on, because they are great vehicles for partisan propaganda. But I don't think the solution is mass removal of relevant material on dubious OR grounds. Maybe it's just because I'm a historian rather than a political scientist, so when I see an article titled that, my expectation is that it would include brief summaries of the major incidents of mass killings under communist regimes. But I think that's kind of common sense. And I absolutely do not think it is OR. Presumably the political science literature on "killings under communist regimes" does talk about things like the Red Terror and the Great Leap Forward as examples of mass killings by communist regimes. So it's not OR to have neutral summaries of those incidents in this article - that is synthesis, but not synthesis to advance a novel argument, so long as we are careful, at least. john k (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion makes me uneasy because it strikes me as a symptom of fundamentalism that has lost sight of the original reason for our prohibition of "original research". Original research in the non-technical sense (and I can't use it in a technical sense because this debate is precisely about what that should be) is absolutely necessary for writing a good encyclopedia. We have thousands of articles full of original research in this loose sense, which could only be "fixed" by deletion or extreme pruning that makes them incomplete. If I give concrete examples here I probably risk attacks by fundamentalists on the articles in question, so I will give you an example from the past:

• Bavarian Pigeon Corps, 12 June 2009.
• Pigeons in Aerial Photography, 16 July 2009.
• Pigeon photographer, today.

The first link is to an article that appeared in DYK, and which was widely discussed especially in its AfD, to which several editors of relatively high profile contributed. The issue was not OR or SYN. In this respect the article was perfectly fine. The issue was a suspicion that the subject of the article was a hoax. It turned out that it wasn't so much a hoax as a kind of urban myth in the aerial photography community. The photos are authentic, but to the best of my knowledge (and I have become one of the few experts on the subject) the term "Bavarian Pigeon Corps" came up through a huge telephone game that probably went like this: Aerial photography by pigeon was invented by Julius Neubronner from Kronberg im Taunus. (Correct) -> It was invented by a Bavarian. (False – Kronberg (Lower Bavaria) is not related.) Aerial photography by pigeon was tried out by the [Prussian] German military during World War I. (Correct) -> The Bavarian army tried it out (nope), so it must have had a pigeon corps (nope), i.e. the "Bavarian Pigeon Corps" (nonsense). One "reliable" source even claims that this happened in "the Bavarian War" – a war unknown to historians.

The second link is what I first turned the article into: A huge piece of OR and SYN, but essentially correct and informative. As I did not have any post-1920 sources about the topic that gave an overview, the article would have been extremely vulnerable to anti-SYN fundamentalists at the time.

The third link is to the article as it is today. I now have an original copy of the inventor's autobiography and most importantly I have an in-depth article by the one scholar of history of photography who has researched the topic. (Based on this I had to correct a few minor details, but found that the earlier version was fundamentally correct.) She didn't find every detail though, or maybe suppressed some, so our article is more complete. The most extreme example of original research currently in the article is the first two paragraphs of the section on World War II. I had to piece this together from various sources, because so far nobody has written about the fate of pigeon photographers in World War II, presumably because they didn't really play a role. Yet the idea was still in people's minds, and that's a crucial piece of this article.

That we can have articles such as this one is one of the strengths of Wikipedia. Contrary to what you could think when you only look at the noticeboards, Wikipedia is not primarily a place for battles between political viewpoints, various nationalists, or between crackpots and reasonable people. An article such as my example would be very hard to write in a contentious topic area. That does not mean that it should not be allowed to write such articles in those areas where it is possible.

For the moment this article is safe, since nobody disagrees with anything it says. But a lot of Wikipedians are very young Americans, and therefore prone to fundamentalism. If we ever get a silly ideological split similar to that between "inclusionists" and "deletionists", then not just this article will be in danger but a large part of our accurate content in mathematics and other completely non-contentious areas.

To get back to the point: Prohibitions of OR/SYN are tools for getting rid of crackpots and deciding disputes. They are not part of Wikipedias goals, and should not be. Every discussion of OR and SYN needs to keep this in mind. Hans Adler 15:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the part of WP:NOR that applies here is,

"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

In the case of the article Judaism and violence, a source should contain discussion of both Judaism and violence, otherwise the source is not directly related to the topic of the article. Looking at the list of references for the article, there appears to be enough sources available on the topic of the article, i.e. there appears to be enough sources that each discuss both Judaism and violence. Here are some examples from that list that probably includes many others that are on the topic of the article,

"Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity"

"Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam"

"The destructive power of religion: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam"

"Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam"

"The just war and jihad: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam"

If a source doesn't contain a discussion of both Judaism and violence, then it could be used if there was a good reason according to WP:IAR,

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Synth - "true"

Here's the the beginning of WP:V,

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

The discussion of the first example in the SYNTH section of WP:NOR says,

"Although no conclusion is drawn and both parts of the sentence are true, it implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace."

This seems to miss the point that WP:SYNTH is about combining material from reliable sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it to refer to sources rather than truth. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)