Wikipedia talk:No original research

Archives

Verifiability (V) - clarification needed

Section Verifiability (V) needs clarification, who assesses the reliability of a source. I've experienced one such discussion, where one part claimed that X was an "disreputable" source, but I deemed that X was reputable, but that it contained less reliable information for cataloguing purposes. "Reputable publisher" is not a good criterion, the central point is whether a source can be used for citations, and what import such a citation has for the discourse of an article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OR Claim: 3 legs'o' WP derivable from usability

Original research here: User:Rursus/NPOV T. (Giggering evilly) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OR interpretation dispute

Before I go to an RfC, I thought I would try here first. I am having (another) disagreement with User:Gamaliel on the Jeff Gannon article. In the section on White House visitor logs, an assertion is made that the logs make it appear that Gannon spent the night at the White House. A published reliable source has since been provided that does not mention Gannon by name, but was published around the same time that Gannon started first visiting the White House. The source shows that at that time, there were known problems with the Secret Service's logging system, which resulted in visitors being logged out of the WH 12 hours after they entered if they failed to swipe their pass on the way out. The source is published here and here, and is referred to by a third party here. Gamaliel contends that using this source is original research, since it does not mention Gannon, and was published several days before he started visiting the WH (making it out of date info), and any linking of this to Gannon is a synthesis. It is my contention that this is "source-based" research, and that since the section it is being used in is on the topic of White House records, that this source is relevant to the discussion. It is not creating a link or synthesis to Gannon, it is commenting further on and providing context to the topic of the White House visitor logging system. If what Gamaliel is asserting is correct, then the larger implication is that any reliable source that is used in an article, and does not specifically mention that subject in the source, is to be considered OR and removed. Is that really what WP:OR means? - Crockspot 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Probably helpful to have a diff of the disputed text. Should also point out that all assertions are taken directly from the source, with no editorializing. I guess the basic question is, does a reliable source need to mention the subject overtly before it can be used in a Wiki article, regardless of any other relevant factors, or be considered OR? - Crockspot 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• See the Clarification paragraph above. Considering this is a recurring theme my suggestion is to have a general debate as to how to interpret and apply this policy, which might even reword the current text. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How to fix the problem?

It is quite obvious that the Wikipedia policy is broken. The issue is how to fix it. After lurking here and contributing for some time, I do not think it likely that this discussion page can solve the problem.01001 05:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. I just think there is a conflict between the ideal end result of Wiki'ing and the process of evolving articles. As people aspire to Wikipedia being a sound source, that falls more into conflict with those who just want enjoy telling the world about something that they think they know. The two can co-habit, but they can't with a Wiki-Laywering approach to OR. In the end, there are supposed to be no rules, we are supposed to be bold. I think it is similar to the idea that trivia is unencyclopaedic - I'm not a fan and most can be integrated into the article, but sometimes getting the nonsense out the way at the bottom can help the rest of the article. Clearly the public at large seem to enjoy it but the powers that be (who should not exist if I understand it) have determined that this unsatisfactory. Spenny 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What is being done to improve the policy of Wikipedia?

?01001 00:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

01001, you've been firing off criticisms of our no original research, verifiability, citing sources and attribution policy pages for months now. You started criticising policy only 8 days after you created your account. Since midway through 6 January, you have made 33 edits criticising policy, and only 16 edits to the encyclopedia! With only 90 edits to the encyclopedia in total, I feel that you don't yet have sufficient context and experience to contribute constructively to policy discussions. Why don't you go build your encyclopedia edits for a while, and come back when you have, say, 500 article edits? Hesperian 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And who are you may I ask?01001 04:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked this question because I would like to know if Wikipedia policy is fixed. Is there no hope for improvement? Or is there some road, some protocol, for improving policy?01001 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone can make a compelling case I'm sure things could be amended but the policies appear to be pretty static right now. I would recommend reading WP:NOT and going from there. If you have any good ideas to improve things I'm sure they would be addressed. Also, try going to the Village Pump. MrMurph101 04:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if we looked at the archives for this article, a compelling case for change has already been made. The fact that a verified source regarding height and intelligence (and basically going unrefuted) is still in the stature article proves at least to me that the wikipedia policy is broken. This is just one example of broken Wikipedia policy that I know has existed for some time. I could easily find many more problems in articles, although it would be harder to find their age.

There is another problem regarding research. Who in their right mind is going to do careful research for Wikipedia when someone else can come along and delete it?01001 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your edit history and you have previously addressed your issues so I basically see your contentions. I guess that means any archived discussion does not always hide in obscurity. You ask why there is no critique or analysis of the policy. Does every written law passed by Congress have an analysis or critique attached to it? It would be odd to do that. It would be wise to find an article that you believe is a perfect example of this flaw, work on it to make the situation better. If editors agree on what you are doing, whether without incident or with some discussion, then maybe you can do it with other articles. Just don't disrupt things to make a point. MrMurph101 01:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget my posts. A compelling case has been made without them. I have made one suggestion that I think is needed to let this process move forward. The critique of the policy needs to be included with the policy. This way as the critique is improved the policy will be improved.

And yes every written law passed by congress does have a critique attached to it.01001 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of that, but I'm not saying your wrong since those are voted on and someone voted against it might write something about why the bill should not have passed. Maybe I should have used "statute" since I have read those and never encountered any analytical content (about the law) written in those laws. The notion still seems odd. MrMurph101 02:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you suggest an annotated version of wikipedia policies? MrMurph101 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

a question about original research:

let's say for the sake of argument that I was a freelance reporter for various news outlets. I witnessed some news and turned in a story to the New York Times. They publish the story. is this the only way that it can then be offered to Wikipedia? Meaning, if for instance no outlets did pick up my story, then you guys would not accept my story on your site? How is a story published in the New York times NOT original research? I mean, presumably a person researched a story, and then th Times published it, right? Why does that next little step of something being published make it a "fact" in Wikipedia's eyes? Again I'm talking about hard news, not opinions or theories. For instance I see a major news event happen with my own eyes in person. Why is this not acceptable to Wikipedia? Just wanting some clarification on this, because it seems to me that every single line of text on this site is original research--or was at one point--so it seems odd that original research is listed as unapproved content. if by origignal research wikipedia is talking about opinions, then I totally get it. But if they are talking about facts, then I don't get it. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talk • contribs)

This policy seems to be the most complex of wikipedia's main policies, possibly least understood and most violated. It is written more techinically and not much in laymen's terms. The issue you address could be more of a case of notability. It may be more worthy to include something from an established newspaper than a freelance reporter. My interpretation of original research is, "don't do your own research, cite what others have researched," maybe that is a good way to describe it. If that's the case here, you could say that The New York Times cited you as the original source and therefore wikipedia citing their article is not OR. MrMurph101 03:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember also that all of Wikipedia's core polices fit together. "No original research" complements "Verifiability". There's no way of verifying original research. In the example given above if the editor wrote, "The mob was violent", based only on their own assessment then there's no way for other editors to verify that fact. If it was published in a newspaper then they can verify that what's written in the article is what was reported. A related issue is the presence of fact checking. If the Times published it they presumably did fact checking beforehand, and would publish a correction if there were an error. If it's just one person writing what they (think) they saw, then there's no fact checking or chance for correction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MrMurph, what I see as a clearer version of NOR can be found at WP:ATT, which was created as a summary of V and NOR. Some of us hoped to have it replace the two pages, but the community in its wisdom decided against. Nevertheless, you can use it to orient yourself if it helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicago manual of style

The following issue has been raised before, but I'm mentioning it again as I have never seen a satisfactory answer.

The "Smith/Jones" example says:

"this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

I don't think the Chicago Manual of Style contains any passage which says that it "requires citation of the source actually consulted""plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them", or anything that could be construed as that, and that the example is misleading. Can anyone provide a specific page reference to the Chicago manual of Style? If not, I think it is misleading to attribute this to the manual. Does anyone disagree and think the existing wording should stay, with specific reasons? Personally, I don't think it's OK to give a misleading reference to a source, even in an example (and especially not in an example on a policy page like this which is specifically about remaining true to sources). Enchanter 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Modified after rechecking source Enchanter 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's great if you like irony. SBHarris 02:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and also ironically I had screwed up and misremembered which statement attibuted to the CMS was causing the problems (another reason why checking up on sources is important, people do make mistakes!). I've now fixed my error in my comment above. Enchanter 22:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

After rechecking the source I'm pretty convinced that the example misattributes the definition of plagiarism to the CMS (if anyone wants to double check, you can sign up easily for a free trial at chicagomanualofstyle.org).

I proposed that the example is removed unless and until this problem is fixed. The example has a number of other problems too (it is unclear for the casual reader, and in my view does not hang together logically if you follow it through carefully). The example could be modified or replaced by another example, and suggestions would be welcome. But leaving it in its current unclear and misleading state, which it has been in for months, is in my view just not acceptable. For the moment having no example at all would be better than having one which is just embarassingly bad. Enchanter 12:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now removed the example, for the reasons given above. Enchanter 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been arguing against the example for a long time at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution. It's really a reference to Alan Dershowitz (see attribution talk page) and looks like one editor's attempt to win an argument on the Dershowitz page by writing his interpretation into policy. Ken Arromdee 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the example has been reverted by SlimVirgin, and I have now reverted it back.

Slimvirgin - please read the above, which I referred to in my edit comment. I asked very specifically for a cite to the definition of plagiarism that the policy page claims is contained in the Chicago Manual. This is a citation that you should be able to give, because you were the editor who originally wrote the example. You have not provide a direct page or section reference to the manual, even though you were the original editor who added the material, and even though the manual is easily available online, and easy to search.

If you cannot provide a citation, please give your reasons why you believe that it is not important that the source is used correctly in this instance (although see comments on "irony" above). I remind you that the example is supposed to be illustrating synthesis of "published material", not "hypothetical material" or "wildly misrepresented material". In my view, misrepresenting the CMS on a Wikipedia policy page is embarassing, and we should be ashamed of it and correct it.

I am frankly disappointed by your editing behaviour here - you have made very similar reverts before, and you did not respond when I asked for your reasons on the talk page and your user talk page. This is especially so because you are normally an editor who, in my experience, sticks closely to sources and is willing to debate issues. Further to Ken's comment above, I think you need to ask yourself honestly whether you have got too attached to this example because it was used to win an editing argument that you personally were involved with. Bringing editing arguments from controversial pages onto policy pages is, in my view, bad practice. In this instance, it led to this page being protected for weeks while a number of disruptive editors with no close interest in improving Wikipedia policy argued the issue. The outcome was an example that is incoherent, misleadingly sourced, and that hasn't been subject to enough reasoned scrutiny and debate. Enchanter 21:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't change policy without consensus, Enchanter. As for your question, I don't understand it. Could you repeat it more succinctly, please? Apologies if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the example which you wrote implies that the Chicago Manual of Style defines plagiarism as "using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.".

Please supply the page or section reference to the Chicago manual of style that gives this definition.

If you have any further difficulty understanding the above, I will be happy to provide further detail. Enchanter 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a real example from an article, Enchanter. We don't need a citation, because (a) this is not in the main namespace, and (b) it misses the point that we're using a real example, and that the point of the illustration is that this way of writing is bad, cited or not, accurate or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that misrepresenting sources is fine on Wikipedia policy pages? We are trying to convince people to stick closely to sources here - do you really think that the example is so wonderful that it is necessary to misquote a source in order to make your point? Again, I think you need to ask yourself if you have become too attached to the example .Enchanter 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to find another real example that is typical of the less-obvious kind of OR that we regularly see here, by all means propose it on this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, why does it need to be a real example? Half the trouble with this was that it was based on a real example, from a page vaguely related to Israel/Palestine amongst other things, which led to a bunch of disruptive and argumentative editors coming to this page. It then needed protection for a long time and a lot of work from other admins to calm down. But as I have argued before, the quote was never coherent in the first place, I've never been able to understand it, and I had no response when I asked people to explain it (including you, on your user talk page). After investigating more fully it's clear to me that the reason it doesn't make sense it that it was never based on a real, coherently argued case or based on real sources.

I'm quite happy to propose examples (for example, I have done so at the past at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/FAQ#Example(s)_of_unpublished_synthesis, and accept any comments, criticism or alternative suggestions.

What I don't accept is your argument that it's perfectly acceptable to have an example that misrepresents the source - quite apart from the other problems with it. I've also seen nothing here to take away the suspicion that you are attached to this example that you yourself wrote. I think this is an embarassment to Wikipedia, and should be removed unless and until the problems are fixed.

Do you have any specific reasons why you feel the example should stay in its current state? Stating that you think it is particularly clear or useful isn't very convincing to me - you wrote it, so it's unsurprising that you don't have trouble understanding it. Enchanter 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be real, because it's too easy to make one up, and the ones people have tried to make up in the past have always missed the point, because the people doing it haven't really understood what OR is. I didn't write the example: it is lifted from a real example of OR. As I said, if you can find another real example of this subtle form of OR, by all means suggest it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you put in the example, using text that you removed in an editing dispute. In fact, you have written pretty much the entire synthesis section and policy. This does not, in my view, qualify you as a particularly good judge of whether the policy is well explained and illustrated. I think it's unclear and misleading; I have asked you to explain it several times in the past; you have not responded.

The point of an example on a policy page is that it helps people to understand the policy. The current example does not achieve that. As well as being difficult to understand, it misattributes a definition to a source. I think this works against Wikipedia's efforts to be seen as scholarly and respectful of sources.

I have suggested alternative examples, which I think are better, and you are free to propose your own. But I don't think you have come up with a convincing argument for why the current example should stay in its current form. Enchanter 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Enchanter, please stay focused on the message, not the messenger, and let's not look for ulterior motives. The point is that there are a lot of cases where well meaning editors fall into WP:SYNT traps, by not realizing that providing sources is not a cure-all for OR. This real-life example is important, because it shows a real situation that real editors misunderstood. Whether the CMOS defines plagiarism one way or another is immaterial here - the point is that unless a source specifically mentions the subject in question, we cannot as editors create an argument as is being done here, sourced or not. You seem to be so hung up on the specific CMOS definition of plagiarism that you are missing the more general point that it doesn't matter how it defines it - it may not be used, period. Crum375 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Enchanter, if I'm a poor judge, don't ask for my opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum, to get to the the specific question - do you think it's OK to misrepresent sources on the Wikipedia policy page just to get a point across? The current example does this. It states it is a "real" example of synthesis based on "published sources". In my view it's crystal clear - it's meant to be illustrating the point that if "A" and "B" have been made by reliable sources, you shouldn't join them to make point "C". It is clearly implying that the definition of plagiarism is given by a reliable source, namely the CMS.

I don't like criticising SlimVirgin, because she is an excellent editor who has made a first class contribution to Wikipedia. But we must recognise that there are instances where particular editors get attached to particular things they wrote. In this instance, I think it was creating a real problem - an example staying unchanged and problems with it going unanswered. Changes to this section have been repeatedly reverted by one person, which is not healthy. Where there is a healthy consensus, there is no need for one editor to continually revert something back to a favoured version. Enchanter 23:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter, this is not an entry in article space, and we are not defining plagiarism for the general reader. The point of this example is to illustrate how typical well meaning users fall into a trap of thinking that by providing sources they may then advance arguments based on them. Specifically we are showing a real case where people felt that because CMOS defined plagiarism in a certain way, they could then advance an argument based on it, despite the fact that the CMOS does not mention the specific case. Again, the specific definition of plagiarism by CMOS does not matter at all here – the point is that it may not be used, regardless of how it's defined. This is a good example because it is real – the conjured up examples seem to miss the target. As SlimVirgin noted, if you can come up with another real-life example that illustrates this point, please propose it here and we can compare and discuss their relative merits. Crum375 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to someone finding a better real example. What confuses me is why you prefer to spend all this time arguing about the current example, rather than just looking for a better one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum, SlimVirgin, this is not a "real" example of synthesis. The real example this was based on was an incoherent mismash of badly sourced and unsourced ideas that had no serious support from anyone. Since then the structure of the argument has been changed, sources have been further confused, and the explanation given to the example bears only a passing resemblance to the original case, as well as not following logically. If you wanted to find examples of badly written, badly sourced junk, you could find it easily. But that doesn't make it a good example of the type of synthesis we are talking about here - i.e. putting together two good, well sourced ideas to come up with a novel conclusion. Enchanter 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter, I assume you agree that real-life examples are better than synthetic ones. If you can find a better example that meets your own criteria, please do so and we can evaluate it. Crum375 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that real life examples are better than synthetic ones. I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever to the reader who is trying to understand the policy. I do not understand why you are focussing on finding a "real" example, rather than finding an example that explains the policy clearly. This is particularly so as the current example is only loosely related to any real case. I have already proposed several synthetic examples, and other editors have done so too. Enchanter 00:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I believe that real life examples are better in this case, is that they show a situation where real live editors fell into a trap. By definition, nobody was ever misled by a synthetic example, so it will not have the same impact on the reader. Crum375 00:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a good example of a real case which illustrates the point well, I would of course support it. The situation which I believe is unacceptable is having the current example frozen in it's current misleading state indefinately while we try to come to some sort of consensus on a replacement. I would need a lot of convincing to demonstrate that there is a consensus to keep a misleading quote in a policy page. False claims are undermine the claim of Wikipedia to integrity - people judging the project from outside won't care at all what "namespace" the error is in. Again, I propose that the example is removed, and would appreciate any comments, thoughts, support or objections from other editors. Enchanter 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll risk sticking my head above the parapet, I simply don't get the point that is trying to be made on the main page, and the conversational style of the language used is out of step with the normal language. I do think I understand the concept, which makes the example doubly problematic. In terms of this argument here, I find Enchanter's logic clear and obvious as to the problem with the example (lots of different ways of trying to point out the example is not very good). The point of using a synthetic example is that it is impersonal and can be engineered to make the point clearly: people have been doing this for a good few thousand years (I'll avoid citing the bible and Aesop's fables), so I would not be so quick to devalue it as a poorer technique for getting a point across. Spenny 00:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Smith/Jones example again, as I do not think there has been a satisfactory argument why it should remain. To reiterate, the example falsely claims that the Chicago Manual Style contains a certain definition of plagiarism, whereas in reality it contains no such definition. In my view, misquoting or misattributing sources is to be vigorously discouraged on Wikipedia, and there is no excuse for doing it on a policy page.

The argument has been made by SlimVirgin that the example is a "real" example lifted from a Wikipedia policy page, and that the misquoting is irrelevant. I think this would be a weak argument even if the example was real. But in fact, the original example it is based on does not misquote the Chicago manual (although it is confusingly written and easy to misinterpret). The misquoting of the manual was introduced by SlimVirgin when she rewrote the example several months after she had added it. The argument that we need to misquote the CMS because it is a "real" example does not stand up to scrutiny. Enchanter 19:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter, if you believe there is an error in the example, why don't you fix it, or specify it here? As I noted above, I don't think the specific definition of plagiarism in CMOS is important for the example, unless the CMOS specifically mentions the Smith and Jones incident, but I support fixing an error if there is one. Crum375 20:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum: The error is that the example implies that the Chicago Manual of Style defines plagiarism as "defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them". The Chicago Manual of Style does not define plagiarism as this. As would be expected for a style manual, it does not "define" plagiarism at all. This error was introduced by the author of the example (SlimVirgin); from what I see, she misinterpreted the convoluted and unclear original example.

I fully support fixing the error - which I have done by removing it. I have not attempted to fix it by trying to summarise what the original case was about, because I do not understand the case (which was extremely convoluted). In my view, it is not a suitable basis for a clear example.

In the meantime, I think that continuing to have this example on the policy page reflects badly on Wikipedia. Enchanter 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the August 18, 2006 version. Is it better there, in your opinion? Again, the point is that any mention of a source that doesn't mention the case would be OR, so the specifics are less critical, but if you feel this version is better, I don't see why we can't use it. Crum375 21:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly better in that it does not misquote the CMS.

However, I think it is still an example that is hard to understand, and doesn't really reflect the original case.

For example, you have interpreted it as meaning that it is inappropriate to cite the definition of plagiarism, because it was an irrelevant source. However, this was not the point that was originally at stake. The original case said, broadly "...plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them _{Source: Harvard manual of style}. Smith says that copying quotations amounts to copying ideas_{Source: Smith accusing Jones of copying ideas, and specifically citing the definition of plagiarism in the Harvard manual}."

The definition of plagiarism was then removed by an editor who felt it was OR - but in my view this is far from a clear-cut case (There were lots of other things wrong with the article at the same time, further confusing the issue).

I write the above to illustrate that the case it is based on is rather subtle and convoluted, and that the conclusions that you, me, and other readers reading the example are rather different from the relevant considerations in the original case. In my view, sticking closely to the case would only confuse the issue even more, and I would prefer to replace the example with something much more clear and succinct.

In summary, replacing the current wording with the version you suggest would help to fix the egregious misquoting of sources. But if we want an example that clearly explains novel synthesis, it falls short of the mark.Enchanter 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in the edit-warring. I've been tinkering with coming up with an alternative example, and I have to say, the more I do, I think the less relevant synthesis is as a concept. It seems to me that it is a complicated word to give a special case of OR, the case being OR based on cited (or well known) material. This seems to me to be all about defending a concept that doesn't really need to exist, as it is simply a clarification that any (controversial) statement needs to be tested in its own right, not just by testing the underlying facts. I did come up with a list of criteria for an example beauty-contest, such as: don't have examples with concepts that the wider public might not be comfortable with; not all users are graduates, use simple language; and don't use examples discussing related issues at the same time (are we supposed to be understanding plagiarism or synthesis?), but the stumbling block I had was coming up with an example that differentiated in any worthwhile way between general OR and special case Synthesis. When I thought I had, I couldn't see what was to be gained from it. I think we are really dealing with Wiki-Jargon, but I'd be happy if someone can give me another clear example of why I should worry about synth over OR Spenny 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comment about Wiki-jargon. The no original research policy had got on fine for many years before the section on "synthesis" was introduced. Take two situations:

1) If someone takes a single idea A, and comes to a novel conclusion B based on A which goes beyond what that source says, then it's clearly original research. But it's not "synthesis", according to the policy page, which explains that synthesis comes from combining more than one idea.

2) On the other hand, if someone takes two reliable ideas A and B, and comes to a novel conclusion C based on the sources that is not supported by them, then it's "synthesis", and original research.

To me, there is no big difference between 1) and 2). I don't see why it was necessary to introduce the new concept of "synthesis" to cover original research based on more than one source. I don't see why we need separate rules for 1) and 2); for example, for 2) it appears you are meant to judge whether the edit is "advancing a position", whatever that might mean, whereas for 1) the "advancing a position" rule doesn't appear to apply. I've never seen this explained. Enchanter 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a history. I get the impression that at one time synthesis was possibly thought to be OK so was differentiated. It relates to the issue of obvious logical deduction, where if A and B are true, C can be allowed if it is an obvious deduction from those two facts, X is to the west of Y, Z is to the west of X therefore Z is to the west of Y. Although we do not have a citation for Z & Y, it is acceptable for a synthetic citation of the two other facts (although if you were in an argument about it, you would not be allowed to make that same deduction!). However, in the end that is still covered by the basic OR concept. I guess a good example would be on using birth and death dates to prove an assertion that two historical figures could not have met, for example. If two lifetimes do not overlap, then it must be reasonable to state that they did not meet. However, you would not be able to synthesise the comment that one did not influence the other as you do not know of whether the ideas of the former were passed onto the latter via writings or third parties. My goodness, an example popped out. (Still don't think it is needed!) Spenny 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's always been the case that we have always excluded original ideas, or "novel analysis or synthesis of published data", or words to that effect (this was, in my experience, widely accepted long before the no original research policy was even written). This policy was interpreted sensibly on a case by case basis, so that, for example, noting that two people who lived at different times couldn't have met would be fine, whereas drawing the novel conclusion that one did not influence the other would not be, just as you describe. I agree that this sort of example doesn't need spelling out in the policy.

The section on synthesis, which described synthesis as a specific, distinct, concept was added to the policy last year. It was claimed at the time that this was expanding on an long standing existing concept or consensus, although I've never seen any evidence of this (beyond the fact that the word "synthesis" existed in the policy page, and a short sentence expanding on synthesis had been added a few months before.) Enchanter 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I again propose that the example is deleted, because the issues detailed above (i.e. that it misrepresents sources, misrepresents the case that it is based on, that it is not properly explained, and that it is not logically sound). This is because these issues have still not been addressed. Does anyone have any comments or objections? If anyone thinks the example should stay, please address the points above and explain the logic of the example in detail, so that others can assess whether the explanation is valid. Enchanter 21:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Now done Enchanter 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And it was reverted again without explanation. Enchanter 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

To resummarise the above points as I see them:

• The example claims that the Chicago Manual of Style defines plagiarism as "using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them". In fact, the Chicago Manual of Style contains no such definition, or anything that resembles it. Noone has contested this.
• The example is based on a real case on Wikipedia. However, it misrepresents the original case, at which different issues were at stake. The original case it was based on is very convoluted and difficult to understand - however, there was no misquoting of the Chicago manual, which was added later. (If anyone thinks I am mistaken here, please explain).
• Quite apart from the way that the example misrepresents the source and the original case, it is unclear and does not follow logically. It frequently confuses new users, and I have asked for other users to explain it several times, with no satisfactory reply.
• The case it is based on is from a highly controversial dispute (vaguely related to Israel/Palestine). In essence, it is saying "here is an example of where an editor violated the policy". In this kind of situation, I think it is essential be careful not to misrepresent the editor who made the edits, not to misrepresent the sources used, and not to misrepresent the original dispute. Failure to do so risks damaging Wikipedia's efforts to be seen as impartial and objective. Honesty and objectivity are essential to Wikipedia, and bending the facts is not justified on the basis that this is "just an example".

I think the problems above are too fundamental to be fixed with modifications to the example, and in my view this complicated and controversial case is a bad case study to use. I would support exploring ways of improving the policy to explain it more clearly - perhaps including alternative examples. In the meantime, I again propose that the example is removed, as it was reverted without any of these issues being addressed. Again, if anyone thinks the example should stay, please give specific reasons. If I am right about the above, I think there is a compelling case for it to be removed - and if I am wrong, someone ought to be able to explain why. Enchanter 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know anything, but to me Enchanter's point seems fairly straightforward, and just because the example is on a page that most people would not see does not mean that it should not use a correct quote or attribute it to the correct source. To put it another way SlimVirgin/Crum375, if you break a law, but you don't do it in a public place or no one sees you do it, does that still make it acceptable? Perhaps, and I'm not sure if this is how it's done at wikipedia, SlimVirgin/Crum375 should not have authority over this piece/decision since if they wrote it, and as someone pointed out, are attached to it, it would seem to be a clear conflict of interest. 24.19.42.84 09:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the example with the Chigago manual of style is completely unfounded. Please delete it. --62.134.230.98 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Systematic removal in spite of extraordinary obviousness

Every encyclopedia article MUST contain some degree of original research and synthesis, otherwise it is not an encyclopedic article. The sources of these obvious arguments cannot be published because it is too specific and obvious to publish. However, these arguments are removed, despite its amazing obviousness. It just take one user who believe that it is original research to remove the argument. Even it is extremely obvious, that user that reverted think it is not obvious, since at least someone will disagree out of the billions of users in wikipedia.

Ironically, some more obvious WP:OR arguments are removed but less obvious WP:OR arguments are not being removed. These less obvious WP:OR arguments that are not removed are usually led by an emotional attachment such as a glittering generality. These statements are generally accepted by everyone, so the original research in the argument is also assumed true.

Also, intuitive WP:OR statements, whether true or not, are less likely to be removed than the more "paradoxical" WP:OR statements (even when the more paradoxical WP:OR statements are MUCH more obvious than the intuitive statements).

Even if a statement is a perfectly rational and magnificently obvious WP:OR statement, some less-intelligent user, out of billions wikipedia users, will view the statement as paradoxical and see it as original research and will remove it. It is unfair to the less obvious original research statement based on glittering generalities, etc..

Those that have low analytical skills will see some perfectly rational statements as original research.

These statements may be extremely obvious to experts in the field but the person with low analytical skills will consider it as original research.

Unfreeride 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the other way round. The less acute a person's analytic skills, the less likely they are to recognize the more subtle forms of original research, because they don't pick up on the key distinctions between summarizing source material and adding a spin to it, including a spin with citations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis isn't "adding spin." The results of the synthesis may favor one point of view over another but if the elements being synthesized are both well-sourced and true (the latter not being required by Wikipedia so I have to add it as an assumption) then the synthesis is valid - at least outside Wikipedia. If the truth favors one point of view over another that's perfectly OK, it would seem. The real question is (I'd hope and think) that of which one of the competing points of view best corresponds to the truth. If an advocate of a particular point of view is doing the advocacy in spite of the point of view being at odds with the truth why is Wikipedia so eager to put that advocate on an even footing with the advocate whose point of view aligns with the truth? It is perfectly possible for an advocate to favor something wrong, to be deceptive. If the conflict between the positions of opposed advocates is a basic conflict then you might expect that one of the advocates is closer to the truth than the other. It's a mystery as to why it would be desired to eliminate truth from an encyclopedia and instead favor the skilled creation and then citation of sources as being the highest level determiner. There is no spin to "all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is a mortal."

Minasbeede 14:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The rules are not supposed to cover every possible or hypothetical situation in detail. The question is, if an item of information is challenged, will that conflict result in a more accurate article? Each "edit conflict" takes place in the context of an article, and a talk-page, and editors' watchlists. That is where the balance has to be discovered. And who is going to argue against "Socrates being mortal" or "dogs have four legs" or "rain falls" - those are Common sense, if eighteen out of twenty people see no problem with such statements.Newbyguesses - Talk 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish. The rule is an absolute prohibition on synthesis. In practice the rule will mostly be invoked when a valid synthesis weakens a particular point of view and will be invoked by someone who is an advocate of that weakened point of view. Won't it? the use of the rule is not to strengthen Wikipedia by making it "more accurate," it is to strengthen the advocacy of a particular point of view by removing material, accurate or not, that conflicts with that point of view. It would seem to be far better to loosen the rule so that it only applies when fewer than 18 out of 20 can see the validity of the synthesis. That would take care of edits by physics kooks. The example cited as justification for the anti-synthesis rule is not that synthesis per se is bad but that in some cases it's too difficult to determine the validity of the synthesis. The rule is well-applied in those cases, not so well-applied when the synthesis can be seen to be valid. But the rule is absolute: no synthesis unless a source is given for it. Then, even if it's a rotten synthesis, it can be included. Far better would be a prohibition on synthesis that is so unclear as to make it impossible for most editors to figure out if it's valid or not. That would make sense, given the nature of Wikipedia (no credentials needed to edit.) - Minasbeede 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot describe and summarize conflicting POV's, without violating WP:SYN

The following quotes are taken from the WP:POV article, pointing out how they explicitly invite violation of WP:SYN and thus WP:NOR. Thus, somebody needs to point out that WP:NOR cannot be upheld at every level in an article, or else this encyclopedia would consist of nothing but direct quotations and nothing else (as has been pointed out, repeatedly by others, alas so no avail). And that, futhermore, WP:NPOV is meant to be a global, not a local policy, because obviously POV's need to be summarized FIRST in order to get to a global NPOV perspective in any article. WP:SYN admits this. Again, quoting from WP:SYN, with my comments afterward:

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.

• COMMENT: Sorry, but it's obviously not possible to do this without violating WP:SYN.

Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better.

• COMMENT: Excuse me? "Mutual evaluations of each viewpoint" is actually inviting editors to violate WP:SYN and thereby WP:NOR.

One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

• COMMENT: Excuse me? How are you possibly going to somehow create a "fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." without doing any synthesis toward a particular point of view, for each side of the debate? Again, clear violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYN is being solicited here.

SUMMARY COMMENT: The big problem here is that Wikipedia doesn't really know what it wants, or isn't really specific about saying it. It calls for local systhesis of various sources to come up with "fair analytical description" of various sides of a debate, assuming that NOPV will be upheld after all that is done. And so it will, globally. But one cannot do the local synthesis required to summarize any particlar POV in a debate, without doing sythetic work, as the above instructions themselves admit.

So, O Wikipedia: either admit that your instructions here are in violation of other WP polities, or else admit that the NPOV and NOR policies need to be re-written, because they are really meant only to be applied GLOBALLY in search of a global NPOV, while needing to be violated on the local level (subarticle level), in order to generate syntheses of the various POV "debate sides," which go into the making of an overall NPOV article. SBHarris 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sbh, an edit violates SYN only if it advances the POV of the editor without citing a reliable source for that POV. If you add A and B to come up with C, it's a violation of SYN if it advances an argument or position not advanced by a reliable source in relation to the topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not very clear in the policy if the POV being "advanced" needs to be that of the editor or not! Rather, it is assumed that this is the case, when mostly it is not. If I'm writing an article quite often I'm summarizing positions I don't agree with, or am agnostic about. Does this summary constitute "advancing a POV"?

No, it doesn't, so long as you can source the claims. That's the point of SYN: make sure that what you're synthesising isn't inadvertently advancing a position not expressed by a source in relation to the topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand SYN pretty well. What I understand does not seem to fit with the nature or purpose of an encyclopedia: thought and logic are excluded by SYN (other than by quoting the thought or logic of others.) That assumes stasis (but I really shouldn't say this unless I find, somewhere, a discussion of the editorial policy of some other encyclopedia where the same analysis is made. In addition to assuming stasis it appears the Wikipedia policy assumes that all thoughts and conclusions worth including in an encyclopedia can be found elsewhere. It is unclear how sources that are not intended to be encyclopedic in character will always have material for citation in an encyclopedic article - but I shouldn't say that, either. Only if I parrot someone else can I say it.) It doesn't take long reading the Encyclopedia Britannica (in particular the same article in different editions) to see that stasis does not exist for a large number of areas of interest.

If this is unclear my underlying message is that SYN, as it exists and enforced, seems to be a detriment to encyclopedic quality. Logic is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned (uh-oh, I have no source for that.) If I read in source A that "all men are mortal" and in source B that "Socrates is a mortal" I am not, in Wikipedia, permitted to conclude that if the messages from A and from B are both correct then "Socrates is a mortal."

Minasbeede 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can see, a POV is advanced every time you state it, followed by enumeration of reputable scholars who agree with it. That is "advancement by enumeration." It's impossible to avoid, but it violates SYN, and yet it is also expected, which means we're in a quandary. Here's a favorite quote of mine: from NOR: It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. <Laugh> Is the editor supposed to do that HIMSELF?? (HERSELF??). And just how are they supposed to do THAT, given the guidelines?? Tell me what I'm missing.

As for your other point, let me suggest to you that it's extraordinarly difficult to find appropriate "reputable source" (and just what that is, and why it should be what it is, is a separate argument), for various and all POVs. If you disagree, cite me 3 random Wikipedia "featured articles" and I will bet you I can find at least one NOR violation (i.e., POV synthesis without a "reputable" primary or secondary cite) in every one of them. Jimbo, for his part, seems to repeatedly confuse verifiable sources with reputable sources (he thinks newspapers are reputable, yuk, yuk). But a sub-issue is the fact that "obvious" and widely held POV's are often not to be found in secondary sources, which (I will observe) don't make their scholarly living by publishing opinion which is already widely held. Jimbo: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" ANSWER: sometimes, yes, but those very texts tend then to be tertiary sources (like encyclopedias), not secondary ones, and are the very sources derided by Wikipedia. If a viewpoint is indeed majority, secondary sources tend to assume it, not state it. SBHarris 23:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. But how is Wikipedia to fix its policy?01001 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion would seem to be that wikipedia accepts that its articles will inevitably be inferior to traditional ones, by virtue of these constraints. wikipedia seems to have accepted one form of quality reduction in amelioration of another, that due to the random quality of contributions. Sandpiper 23:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stating the obvious is not original research and there needs to be a grace period for hard-to-find references.

More and more of my contributions are being challenged or reverted for original research when they definitely DO NOT fall under the statements in the "What is excluded?" section of these guidelines. I wholeheartedly agree that original research, as defined in these guidelines, is to be avoided. However, sometimes, it is often difficult to find a source for patently obvious information that can easily be verified by anyone who wants to take a few moments to do it.

For example, while researching material for the article on place (United States Census Bureau), I noticed that the USGS always places the latitude and longitude of an unincorporated town or village at or near a major intersection. I also noticed that the Census Bureau places the latitude and longitude of the same places near the geometric center of the census designated place by the same name. However, after devoting considerable time to searching, I could not find a source on the Internet to cite. I put the information into the article and it was immediately challenged as original research and threatened with speedy reversion.

First of all, these edits did not meet any of the seven guidelines that define original research. They did not: introduce a theory or method of solution; introduce original ideas; define new terms; provide new definitions of preexisting terms; refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; build a particular case favored by me; or use or introduce and neologisms. I was simply stating the obvious. Secondly, I agree that sources needed to be found. However, as I assume most editors do, I happen to have a day job and I needed to leave that chore for later--or perhaps for one of the thousands of other editors who better knew how to find such information.

In the end, I sent e-mails to both organizations and got confirmation of my observations with web links to cite as references. The end result was good. However, unreferenced material, such as simply making an observation that anyone glance at a map and verify, should not be threatened with speedy deletion. Also, if you think material needs to be verified, don't forget that the editor probably has other obligations that take priority over Wikipedia. He or she may need a little time to do the research.

More recently, I put the story of two major fatal crashes of helicopters that were en route to or from Disneyland in the article on Incidents at Disney parks. I cited a posting on a discussion board that in-turn cited a book on aviation disasters. Within a couple of hours I has a message threating to revert my edit if I didn't state a proper reference. Okay, my bad, I directly cited the book. This morning I got a message from the same person saying--not good enough, no page number. Okay, next time I'm downtown and have some time on my hands, I'll duck into the library and find the bloody page number. In the meantime, I do have a life other than Wikipedia.

The bottom line is that we are all amateurs and should be helping each other, not just challenging each other's edits. I have added references to other editor's material but all I've ever gotten for my own material is reversions and threats of reversion.

The solution is that hard-to-verify material, when something obvious is stated or there is a preponderance of evidence that the story is true, should not be quickly deleted. Time should be given to find proper references. For example, the helicopter story. I remember when it happened. There are several sources on the Internet discussing the incident. There are bits of reliable information on the Internet that can be pieced together to confirm that it happened. However, I spent over an hour trying to find a single site that can be used as a proper reference and could not find a suitable site. After posting the story with the best references I could find another editor took only a moment to threaten to delete it (rather than take some time to help find a good reference). There needs to be a way to temporarily reference such material while proper references are sought. Also, more editors need to help out in finding references, not just delete unsourced material. In other words, we need more editors and fewer cops on Wikipedia. Rsduhamel 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your heading about stating the obvious does not apply to the examples you gave. It is never obvious that a particular helicopter crash occurred. (The idea that helicopter occasionally crash is obvious, but the purported fact that a certain helicopter crashed in a certain place is not.) Also, the idea that the NGS has a particular policy for assigning latitude and logitude to places that are spread over a considerable area is not obvious either; when you deduced a pattern, you were doing original research. Just because you were right does not mean it wasn't original research.

We expect that when a person adds a non-obvious statement to Wikipedia, the person will have recently checked the statement in the reliable source, and thus has ready access to all the bibliographic details. If the person does not provide those details, that suggest the statement is original research, a lie, a dim recollection of something looked up a long time ago, or that the person does not understand Wikipedia policies. It's good to jump on the problem right away, while there is still some hope that the person who made the edit still has the bibliographic details at hand. And if the information does get deleted, it can always be added back when a source is found. --Gerry Ashton 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is curious that Rsduhamel (talk · contribs) gives Place (United States Census Bureau) as an example. He claims he was "threatened with speedy reversion" for his edits on that page. I was involved in that incident, and I have no recollection of "threatening" Rsduhamel or his edits in any way, and I don't think the articles edit history [1] or the discussion that took place on Talk:Place (United States Census Bureau)#Citation needed tag in location criteria show any such threats. I did request citation for what seemed to me rather naively phrased observational-based deductions about the coordinates. After a period of discussion, some source were identified and what appeared to be mutually acceptable phrasing was incorporated into the article. In short, that in fact seems a very positive example of an article being improved by requesting citations for what might seem "obvious" to the original contributor. older ≠ wiser 18:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Citing sources page states, "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." This means that putting a "fact" or "cn" tag on a statement is a threat to delete it. I never accused any particular person of any particular threat.

I never said that a particular helicopter crash is "obvious". I was talking about such things as noting that the dots on a map that identify a named place usually fall on or near intersections. The helicopter crashes can be easily verified with a little sleuthing but nothing that can be cited. Does this mean they should not be included in the article while better sources are sought? I will get the page number. It may not happen this week or the next but when I find time to go to the library it will happen, if someone doesn't beat me to it. In the meantime there should be a way to include material that is supported by a preponderance of evidence while proper citations are sought. Rsduhamel 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Rsduhamel wrote "In the meantime there should be a way to include material that is supported by a preponderance of evidence while proper citations are sought." My first response is, what's the rush? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. My second response is, the only evidence that counts is citations from reliable sources, so how can there be a preponderance of evidence if there is no evidence? (In the case of the map coordinates example, there is some evidence to cite, and one could argue about whether the deduction is obvious or not.) --Gerry Ashton 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To Rsduhamel: Characterizing the placement of a citation needed tag as a threat seems a little over-reactive -- it is more a polite reminder that someone doesn't see that statement as self-evident. In the particular case of the census places, you were not asserting some specific location on specific maps (which I agree would be fairly trivial to verify). You were in fact making a generalization, or drawing a conclusion, based on you observations. I'd say that is a little bit on the far side of the line between OR and self-evident. older ≠ wiser 21:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I think we are headed for agreement here. However, like I've said, I have a life outside Wikipedia and I have to turn my attention elsewhere for the time being. I'll respond to this ASAP. Rsduhamel 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

... putting a "fact" or "cn" tag on a statement is a threat to delete it. Well, maybe; it can also be taken as a note that says "Hey, this is something that other editors might delete on sight, but I think it's important and has a reasonable chance of being correct - can someone help find a source so that the information will definitely stay in the article?"

Also, as a point of information: I've seen hundreds of articles where "Citation needed" tags stayed in place for months (and, since I'm not systematically tracking these, quite possibly years). I've also seen a number of postings to talk pages saying that the editor planned to deleted tagged information since no one has responded to it in quite a while. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The disinformation caused by the OR policy

There is an article titled Height and Intelligence. This section cites some sources. Of course, no one in their right mind would take the time to investigate the sources in a Wikipedia article. In this case it is not really necessary. Anyone that would write research purporting to advance the notion that increased height brought greater intelligence is clearly suffering from some form of ego and personality disorder. Logic can easily defeat this thesis.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow logic to defeat this strange crackpot idea purporting to be scholarly research. One must find a verified source. But this would require a source with similar psychological disorders. Unless of course this source happened to be reading Wikipedia.01001 01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the example is too confused for me. I would just observe that someone who is taller is probably 'scaled up' in all dimensions, so 10% more height would logically mean 33% more brain volume. 33% deeper thoughts? Sandpiper 02:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's actually a non-causitive correlation - healthier people are smarter, healthier people are taller. WilyD 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, WilyD you should be ashamed. If you guys cannot be bothered to read the wikipedia article, let alone drag yourselves to the library to investigate any of the scientific research on this topic (cited in the article in question) then what business do you have writing an encyclopedia? 01001 makes the case for WP:NOR here quite elegantly, once again (like his views on the evolutionary loss of body hair, see here) he persists in stating that his opinions *must* be true, despite the demonstrated fact that scientists have seriously considered, and then soundly rejected them. I cannot imagine a clearer example of ignorance, and there is absolutely no way that the whims of willfully ignorant bozos ought to decide what gets presented as scientific fact in an encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I actually write largely about what I actually do scientific research on, or from verifiable sources. This is just idle musing on a talk page, don't take it for anything more. WilyD 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, too much coffee on my part. Pete.Hurd 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of scientific papers concluding that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer and man does not cause climate change. There are countless scientific papers claiming that black people are inferior, Asian people are inferior, Jews are inferior etc. etc. The article Height and Intelligence may not be racist but it is its first cousin. It is insidious.

The science here or pseudo science as others have termed it is certainly not settled. It is not standard and it is not established. Wikipedia should not be denigrating the physical traits of different types of people. This particular article should be deleted, and the sooner the better.01001 01:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You suggested above that the notion that greater height brought greater intelligence could easily be disproved by logic. I presented a simple logical argument showing why, in fact, greater height might automatically bring greater intelligence. I'm not saying it is true, just that you are incorrect to argue that it is an illogical idea. It is not obvious to me why the simple argument I advanced would be false. Is it to you? In general, I beleive it happens to be true that larger brains (taken across species) tends to correlate with greater intelligence. I'm sure someone could make a paper out of that, and almost certainly they have. Sandpiper 13:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Greater brain size doesn't necessarily mean greater intelligence. Whales and elephants, for example, have much larger brains than humans, but we don't think they are more intelligent. Giant humans have larger brains, and midgets have smaller brains, but intelligence doesn't appear to vary accordingly. Men may have larger brains, on average, too, but it doesn't seem to be proven that men are more intelligent on average. StuRat 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, one should be able to have greater brain mass on a shorter base. Second, as stated above larger animals have larger brains but lesser intelligence. Thus larger bodies require greater brain size to match the intelligence of the smaller animal. Thus from just a physical and mechanical point of view, human intelligence should be inversely proportional with height. The real question here is why is this not in Wikipedia? This would not be an issue but apparently taller people have serious ego problems and are publishing all manner of things negative to people of shorter stature, all of it having much less basis than the above.

The physics of human height

torque = rotational inertia X angular acceleration. Rotational inertia = sum of the products of the mass of each particle by the square of its distance from the axis of rotation. [3]These equations mean that the shorter human can accelerate more quickly than the taller human. The taller human requires considerably more torque to gets its body moving. This also means that the taller human can generate considerably more torque. For similar reasons the shorter human can decelerate more quickly and change directions more quickly than the taller human. This gives the shorter human more agility and quickness than the taller human.

These equations of rotational dynamics also show that the shorter human is prone to be more coordinated than the taller human. When the taller human sets himself in motion his body gains more angular momentum than the shorter human and it requires considerably more torque for the taller human to control his body. The shorter human will tend to be more coordinated than the taller human.

When the taller human starts to lose his balance, again his body will gain more angular momentum which will require more torque to control. The shorter human will tend to have better balance than the taller human.

These effects can easily be understood if one tries to control a 12 inch (30 cm) ruler as opposed to a yardstick (1 m ruler). The shorter ruler will be much easier to accelerate, decelerate, change directions, control and balance, although the yardstick can generate more power.

In many sports such as baseball, the greater torques that the taller players can generate give them almost an overwhelming advantage over the shorter player. In other sports such as basketball, the greater reach of the taller players is an overwhelming advantage. In American football the taller bodies can carry much more mass than the shorter bodies and this gives the taller body an advantage. However, in the case of running backs in American football the shorter players are able to use the advantages of greater acceleration, agility, coordination and balance to compete successfully against the more massive taller players. Many running backs enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame measure 5 feet 10 inches (178cm) or less, significantly shorter than elite players at other positions.

Acceleration, agility, coordination and balance are at a great premium in indoor soccer and we find a large number of players in this sport of short stature. There is also a great abundance of players of short stature in outdoor soccer(International football).

and the effect of torque upon intelligence is?Sandpiper

---

The same with the above, why is this not in Wikipedia with all the negative crap in there about people with shorter stature?01001 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

01001, we do not allow original research in articles because we only publish material from that information which has been published by exterior reliable sources. To avoid wasting any more of your time, I suggest that if you want to balance the article, you find research contradicting that currently presented in the Height and intelligence article, and add information based on it.

I apologize if you feel offended by the page, but it isn't our job to be non-offensive. --tjstrf talk 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is your job to be balanced, and further all the stuff in that article and the heightism article is a synthesis to advance a point of view.01001 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is our job to maintain a neutral point of view, yes, but that is within context of the citeable sources that we have available to us. If all the information we can find supports one view, then that's going to be the view the article takes. If no other citeable information is present, then we can't go including original research or unreliable info just to meet some imaginary medium of balance.

We still have no explanation as how the material in the height and intelligence article is not a synthesis to advance a point of view.01001 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, I am certain contradictory research does exist in this case. You can help us by finding it and adding it to the article. --tjstrf talk 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

now there is a link, i read the article. As suggsted, there is no way of quickly checking that the sources are being referenced accurately. However, there are enough of them to suggest someone has had a serious attempt at presenting the debate accurately, and the article does not read as biased. If it is biased, then I would have to say it goes out of its way to suggest that the link between intelligence and height is not a causal one. This does seem to me logical: if you starve children I would not be surprised that both their height and intelligence were affected. Perhaps this is where the debate on the nutritional quality of junk food comes into play? From my answer you would correctly conclude that I have gained the impression from the article that there does exist a proven, undisputed correlation between height and intelligence. As suggested, if you think this is incorrect, then what is needed is sources claiming no such correlation exists. Sandpiper 07:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine

Please come to Osteopathic medicine. There seems to be a clearcut case of a WP:SYN violation which keeps getting reverted. There is discussion on this matter here. I would appreciate some third-party opinions. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Buy Why??

Wasn't all research original research at one point in time, just because someone writes a book about something or publishes a theory doesn't mean his opinion is any more valid than anyone elses, I mean, If I fly on a American Airlines jet and see that the seats are all cream colored, but some book says that all American Airlines seats are blue, doesn't that mean that my original research is completely valid?

I think this is where OR overlaps with notability. I could come up with some brilliant theory that would solve world hunger and be totally convincing but it would not be a worthy article to write in wikipedia because I am not notable. If a reputable journal published my theory than that can be used as a citation in a new wikipedia article describing my theory.

As for your American Airlines comparison, your observation that contradicts what a book says provides a good point. However, you can take into consideration when the book was published and maybe they changed the color of their seats since you boarded the plane so both cases could be right. MrMurph101 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I feel that wikipedia should be a place where people can share valid information, even if obtained through original experiments and that the notability of a person shouldn't impede them from providing the world with new and exciting technologies, and if they need a place to share their discoveries, I feel wikipedia should be a place that they can do so. Planes&mustangs510 03:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that Wikiversity allows, and even encourages, OR. StuRat 16:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the plane itself is a primary source. if you took a photograph, placed it on wiki as evidence of that source, then you would be entitled to mention it. Reporting what exists is not original research. Wikipedias meaning of original research is not the same as that used in real life: on wikipedia the act of collating information from diverse sources is not original research, whereas in real life it is. Sandpiper 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You could take a picture and put in on the article with an accurate description of the picture. But if you referred to the picture in the text and said it refuted what the reference said, that would be OR. Of course, with evidence that the source is wrong or outdated, you don't have to report what it said either. People can draw their own conclusions from primary sources, we don't need to do OR by stating the obvious. Dhaluza 09:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The difficult issue of contradictory sources, as being discussed below. If two sources are quite evidently contradictory then simply omitting one of them is in itself OR, because you have chosen which is correct. It seems to me essentially absurd and in itself a contradiction of policy to argue that the plane itself having different coloured seats could not be mentioned in the article. It would however be difficult to substantiate this without some proof, hence the need for the photograph. But you can't really argue that it would be incorrect to mention the colour of some particular plane's seats. Who knows how this has come about, perhaps a mixup at the drycleaners, but it is a demonstrable situation that there was at least one exception to the books information. But it would also be Or to argue that the books is dismissable as a source because of the existence of the plane. Sandpiper 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed alternative example of synthesis

I've noted a number of problems with the example on synthesis above in the "Chicago manual of style" section, which I think justify removing the example. I would suggest either having no example (we don't illustrate any other points in the policy with examples), or a simpler, more straightforward one that is more easily understood. Here's some suggested text based on a previous discussion at the now defunct WP:ATT/FAQ:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its constituent parts have been published by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources for the edits you want to make, be careful that you're not analysing the material in a way that produces a new idea or argument of your own. Just because A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, doesn't mean that A and B can be joined in order to advance position C.

Example:

"In 1950, average rainfall in Northland was 10 centimeters per year_{Reliable source 1}, whereas in 2005 the average rainfall was 9 centimeters per year_{Reliable source 2}. Therefore the climate in Northland is changing, and getting drier over time_{No source}."

Under the attribution policy, the conclusion that the climate in Northland is getting drier is not permitted, where it is not backed up by an appropriate source. This is because coming to a conclusion like this requires careful consideration of the source data, which Wikipedia is not in a position to verify. A climate researcher would consider how the measurements were made, and analyse the available data and relevant theories, before coming to a conclusion. Wikipedia is not in a position to verify this background research itself. Instead, a conclusion from combining other ideas must be attributed to a reliable published source, unless it is straightforward and uncontroversial.

On the other hand, a straightforward observation which draws no novel or controversial conclusions, such as "In 1950, Northland had 10 centimeters of rainfall^{reliable source 1}, but was considerably drier in 2005_{no source per se}, with only 2 cm_{reliable source2}", may be acceptable.

Lots of other examples would be possible. Any comments or suggestions for improvements, or alternative examples? Enchanter 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not an example for SYNT - it is an example for a missing source. A synthetic example for SYNT could be (in an article about Jones):

• (A) Jones says he attended school X between 1977 and 1980.[1] According to Department of Education records, school X closed down in 1976.[2] (Subtle SYNT by juxtaposition - we need a source to connect Jones to the school closing)
• (B) Jones says he attended school X between 1977 and 1980,[1] but according to Department of Education records, school X closed down in 1976,[2] raising doubts as to his actual attendance there. (Typical SYNT by combining sourced facts - we need a source to connect them for us)

But then, I personally think that a real life example, where editors actually misunderstood the concept of SYNT is best, which is what we have in the article. If you can find a better real life example, where people actually got confused, then we can evaluate it here. Crum375 20:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A real-life example brings in issues like "is this real-life case being accurately described" and "is the analysis of this real-life case really correct". It's also likely to contain other confusing parts. A made up example doesn't have these problems. Ken Arromdee 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

AgreedEnchanter 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I like those suggestions, especially (B) - it's giving a good example of a case where it's not Wikipedia's role to combine facts to get a conclusion, even if the facts and logic are not in doubt.

I'd like to reemphasise the points made in the discussion above, in particular that the current example is not based at all closely on a real case. In reality it is also a largely made-up example, and in my view a very confusing one - so much so that we don't seem to have a consensus on what points it is trying to make.

I would therefore support replacing the current example with example (B) that you have suggested, along with a bit more wording to explain and discuss it. Enchanter 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So how would you rephrase (B) to make it acceptable. I'm afraid I don't see that reporting the fact that someone claims to have attended a particular school, and the other fact that the particular school was closed at the particular time, as objectionable. Drawing a conclusion explaining the contradiction may be objectionable, but it is not reasonable to argue that the fact of the school being closed may not be mentioned after mentioning the claim that someone had been attending it. Failing to mention that the school was known to be closed at that time is essentially misrepresenting the information. More, deliberately leaving out the second piece of information is effectively carrying out a piece of OR that the first item is correct, and the second false. Sandpiper 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not wedded to any example as long as it works. I would observe that objectors to change need engage constructively in this discussion rather than continue the revert war - it seems that there is no point in gaining consensus here without the understanding that those fixated on the sanctity of the current example will work with it. The assertion that a real life example is a requirement is not really sustainable in my view.

The requirements are much more basic: simple, neutral, uncontroversial, understandable. It worries me that we still have no common ground that the current example is broken so perhaps the first step to gaining consensus is to come up with some basic tests of what will satisfy the requirements of an example from a reader's perspective not from an editor's. A concern of mine is that any example that is simple enough to make the point, may not fulfil the mystique of SYNTH. Any synth is ultimately an unsourced statement. There is only a point to be made if there is some misunderstanding that the citations appear to support the implication of the unsourced statement. Arguably the examples above are simply contradictory sources where the only statement that can be made safely is that the sources are contradictory - that is not OR, that is basic indivisible logic and I don't think it is a good synth example.

The formulation of the problem is that given A is true and B is true, can statement C be justified from those facts without relying on more than simple, basic and obvious logic. William Shatner is the star of Star Trek, Star Trek is a TV show, William Shatner is a TV star. Synth or logic? cf William Shatner is the star of Star Trek, Star Trek is a popular TV show, William Shatner is a popular TV star.Spenny 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. example B above is such an obvious contradiction that it is in fact permissable synthesis, or essentially that however neutrally you phrased it, it would be impossible for a reader to fail to conclude that both statements could not possibly be true. So it is not a helpfull example, unless exactly as an example of permissable synthesis? Sandpiper

I think we are talking about two types of original research here. For each type of original research, there are different reasons why we don't want it in Wikipedia.

1) The original idea for the no original research policy was to avoid having statements in Wikipedia that we couldn't judge the truth of. This is the original and most obvious form of original research. If someone cites some results of physics experiments and puts forward their own new theory to explain the results, we are not equipped to judge whether it is groundbreaking work or a crackpot theory. So unless the theory has been published in a reliable source first, we don't want it in Wikipedia.

2) But going beyond this original definition of OR, there are more areas where we don't want new ideas in Wikipedia, even if they are well sourced and obviously logically true. This is particularly the case where the new ideas are controversial, or make allegations against individuals. These are the kinds of cases that Crum's examples were getting at. To give another example:

• Suppose you were to give quotes from a politician saying "I did X" and then "I didn't do X", and use that to demonstrate or insinuate that the politician is a liar. We might all agree that those quotes are genuine, and that they show he is a liar. But it is not the job of encyclopedia writers to dig out evidence of politicians lying. We exclude it not because we are not sure whether it is true or not, but because it is not the role of an encyclopedia to investigate and judge the relevance of this sort of material.

Importantly, although we exclude the basic logical deduction for the politican lying, we don't need to exclude basic logical deductions for straightforward uncontroversial cases (converting miles to kilometers, etc). I think it is the possibility of overextending the rules on controversial cases, where we are avoiding "advancing a position", to uncontroversial cases that is causing Spenny's and Sandpiper's concerns above. They are right in that an outright ban on making logical inferences or mathematical deductions would be inappropriate for a scholarly encyclopedia - but noone has really been arguing for this.

I think the policy would be clearer if we identified more specifically the reasons why we need to stick particularly close to sources in certain circumstances, and where boundaries should lie. It's a good idea on policy pages to explain clearly why we have a particular policy - noone likes following a rule if the reason it was introduced is not made clear.

The above is an oversimplification as there are more issues to consider in judging the boundaries of OR, but I hope it makes sense as an attempt to summarise the current debate. Comments welcome. Enchanter 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a really useful analysis. I think what it does show is that the idea that SYNTH by simple example doesn't really work, and actually the argument for the SYNTH policy is potentially a paradox: if you cite facts from which you can make a simple logical deduction you may arrive at a position that should not be mentioned, therefore you shouldn't really introduce the facts in the first place. A good example is the Medical discussion that was raised, where there is a comparison of grades introduced into the article. There is no purpose to these grades in the article except to denigrate one branch of medicine - yet they are "facts" which no one is disputing (and to the innocent they would see this as censorship).

However, the argument is not really about a joining of facts, it is more fundamental: about introducing any citation that is used to advance a position that is not already stated by external sources - a single fact can be used to do that, and the joining of sources is a red herring. That is the paradox: to include an incontrovertible fact can be used to advance a position therefore the fact should not be included. A trivial example: tall people bang their heads on doorways(fact) should not be in an article on building regulations as it is advancing a position that the regulations need to be adjusted. If there is a study that there should be an increase in the height of doorways(fact) then this is allowed. However, it is not the synthesis of the (possibly implied) suggestion of an increase is needed, that causes the editing issue, it is the need to remove the fact in the first place because although it is indisputably a fact, its very presence in the context of the article, with or without supporting argument, causes the issue.

So having worked my way to an understanding of why there is the argument for a real world example, I think I have got closer to why it still does not work. For it to work, you need to establish in simple terms what is the controversy - which means that the example must have better background. The existing example does not work because it attempts to short cut the background and it also short cuts the explanation - I think in part because SYNTH is about a paradoxical position - it potentially goes against common sense from one point of view.

What are the elements of a good SYNTH example:

• • Can be seen to be logically correct.
  • Can be seen to be advancing a position in such a way that a reader can tell that there is something suspicious.
  • Needs to be uncontroversial in the sense of not pushing political or religious buttons.

The existing example does not work for me because I don't understand the context of the first sentence - what is "fine" about the uncited analysis before the extra information is there? The article is already broken and unless the example demonstrates how this initial controversial statement is valid and the extension is not, then it does not work.

Am I being dense,or are we simply supposed to be showing "Don't cite facts to advance a position" which is the core policy - don't introduce new arguments to advance a position - the example does not address this policy, the example given is a special case? Spenny 08:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of this difficulty is because wiki has a NOR policy, when it is not talking about OR in the normally accepted academic sense. I think when the policy started, the writers probably had exactly the same meaning in mind, but wiki OR is now an entirely different thing. I am sure a lot of people do not like the line "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.", but I presume it remains here, because unless editors carry out original research in the normal sense, no encyclopedia is possible. The difficulty here seems to me that the attempt to ban synthesis is in conflict with a normal expectation of collecting information.

As I commented above, to deliberately leave out reliable information that a school was closed at the time someone was attending it is in itself to make a choice about which version is correct. This is clearly not a good example for demonstrating rules about synthesis if it relies upon side issues of controversiality to justify its existence. With regard to politicians, this seems to me more an issue of whether a statement is libelous, not whether it is true or OR. It is not libelous to state sourced facts. It would be potentially libelous to draw a conclusion that the person had lied in claiming to have attended the school, but it might also be the case that the school records had been mistakenly recorded, that the person's attendance was correct. The more I consider this, the more I think this is a very bad example to choose. It is more an example of what to do when equally valid contradictory information exists. Explain both pieces of information giving them equal weight. I agree there is a conflict between an attempt to ban all possible synthesis and still making a neutral presentation of facts. But this cannot be resolved by arguing that synthesis trumps neutrality. It has to be resolved by accepting that inevitably situations exist in which there is contradictory information. This can only be resolved by explaining all the information, without further comment.

As to tall people and doorways, I am reminded of a local town which has a number of elizabethan houses with doorways 5 foot high. I dare say they were all built to code at that time. In this case, there is no obvious contradiction between the facts that people hit there heads, and that building regulations exist. Whether hitting ones head gets mentioned would depend upon whether someone though it worth mentioning. This is a much better example of synthesis, though it risks the problem again that trivially it is very probably true and a real encyclopedia would have no difficulty including it.

Returning to politicians lying. It would be unacceptable to claim that the politician did lie, but it would not be unacceptable to state that on one occasion he said x, and on another he said the contradictory Y. This is straight reporting of established facts. I can only imagine such an issue coming up in the context of reporting what a politicain had done about something, and it would then obviously be correct to state that on one occasion his view was x, but at another it was Y. Failing to report either is immediately to take a position on which is valid, and is unacceptable. It exactly is the role of people writing an encyclopedia to judge what is relevant for inclusion in an article, and in this example to dig out evidence for what the politician has done. Not because he is a politician, but because the role of an editor is to find, assess and neutrally present sourced information. Sandpiper 09:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pondering this some more, I think the issues around the example should flag up that there is a real problem with the policy. I think the issue is around "a real encyclopaedia would have no issue including it." An editor would not include an incomplete contentious issue, or it would only include it if it had a complete context. It is counter-intuitive to exclude facts, and to have a policy that suggests something like that would be so hard to justify, yet at the heart of it, that is the rule that is being sought - unless facts are used to support fully formed positions, it might be inappropriate to include them. I think SYNTH is a red-herring for this issue: it is quite possible, as has been discussed, to put well cited sources into an article and still come up with a collection of information that clearly implies a position. There may be no other discussion, the facts are impeccably sourced, yet without the qualification of a cited comparison, the effect can be inappropriate.

For example, an article London Football Clubs might simply list the average attendance of all the clubs without comment. A simplistic view would be that it was a neutral statement of a verifiable fact and complete in its own right, indeed, this sort of table is included in many articles and can rightly be viewed as encyclopaedic. However, there might have been an agenda by an editor to make the argument that one team was less popular by implication of its average attendance when all it may show is that the ground is constrained by capacity. Well versed in WikiLawyering, he knows better than to place this argument overtly, yet the other editors of the article know his agenda and would not be able to defend against this (worse, they might have individual articles showing the issues at different grounds from a club's point of view, but with no comparative article in the public domain, they could not use the synthesis as it would be OR to combine the comparison).

I don't think there is a specific rule that can deal with this, yet we understand that the underlying principles of the encyclopaedia are being subtly undermined: if there is no third party document readily to hand to put the statistical comparison in context, it is extremely difficult to deal with. I think SYNTH doesn't work as a policy - if the problem is straightforward, it is dealt with under advancing a novel argument; if it is complex then a rule to catch it relies on interpretation and potentially catches the acceptable as well. Spenny 08:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your example shows the difficulty of inventing a good one, or might just show a suggestion of the general solution to such cases? If it is a know fact that the ground has a limited capacity, then I don't see why such a table should not include a footnote to that effect. Fight facts with facts. You can't constrain the ability of an editor to make judgements on what is reasonable content, such as average attendances at grounds. On the other hand, if there is no information on exactly the ground's capacity, then it is only surmise that this is what is causing the low attendance and shouldn't be in the article anyway. If no one can produce a clear example, perhaps that is because there is in reality no difficulty? Sandpiper 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree, and that brings us back to take the original example out as it is confusing the basic principle which is no OR. Try and define the detail of what is a judgement call just leads to knots. Stick with it looks like OR, it smells like OR, it is OR. Anything else needs some other concept, and I think the idea of synthesis/analysis not already falling under the existing definitions undermines the original definitions. Spenny 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the "school" example given by Crum, I don't necessarily agree with the comments that this was "too obvious" (although it might be in some contexts). To give some more context and explanation for what the example is driving at, let's try:

Jones says he obtained a degree in physics at university X between 1977 and 1980_{reliable source 1}, but according to Department of Education records, university X closed down in 1976_{reliable source 2}, raising doubts as to whether he ever attended_{no source}.

This analysis, suggesting that Jones has lied about his qualifications, is not permitted on Wikipedia, even though it is backed up by reliable sources, and the logic is sound. This is because coming to a novel conclusion requires a careful analysis of the facts which Wikipedia is not in a position to provide. It is possible, for example, that one of the sources was wrong (reliable sources are not necessarily infallible sources), or that they had been interpreted incorrectly (for example, the names of two universities could have become mixed up).

A researcher coming to the conclusion that he had lied about his qualifications would carry out a careful analysis of the facts, and would need to stand ready to respond if Jones challenged the allegations. Wikipedia is not in a position to verify this analysis, or stand by the allegations if challenged, as this is not part of its mission to summarise existing published knowledge. Therefore the allegations can only be published in Wikipedia if they can be attributed to a reliable published source.

The above explanation is perhaps too long and should be edited down. However, do people agree with the general reasoning of the example set out above? Enchanter 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a really good shot. I don't think you should edit down the explanation as you will lose the sense of why there is a controversy over the obvious logical extension. There is a subtlety in the example that even if you remove raising doubts... the says... ...but is in fact an analysis. Perhaps we could further test this example by showing what could be safely written??? Spenny 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

the tail end of the example 'raising doubts...' is not justifiable from the facts stated, so is a good example. The more difficult question is, what is an acceptable way of presenting the two facts without drawing a conclusion. There does have to be an accepted way of neutrally presenting the conflicting information. Sandpiper

Just to be clear, had you picked up that Jones says he obtained a degree in physics at university X between 1977 and 1980_{reliable source 1}, but according to Department of Education records, university X closed down in 1976_{reliable source 2} has a fairly clear implication of criticism too - which potentially makes it a really good example? I can imagine that such a comment on certain well-known people with dubious degrees would claim libel in the UK with that simple juxtaposition. Spenny 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your concern here is that the rules will lead to some material being excluded from Wikipedia. I think this is a valid concern, but it's important to understand that there will be some instances - and I think this is one of them - where it is not appropriate to include the conflicting information in Wikipedia at all.

To give some context to why this is, it's important to realise how high profile Wikipedia has become. Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about people and organisations, many of them not very well known, and these articles very often show up high in the google rankings. Wikipedia volunteers have to deal with hundreds upon hundreds of complaints from people who are unhappy with articles about them, for whatever reason. Sometimes these complaints are not well founded, but often they are - it's not uncommon to find people with an agenda inserting denigrating information (sourced or unsourced) into articles about people and organisations.

Dealing with these problems is unrewarding and no fun. The Wikipedia volunteers manning the phones and responding to the email complaints have to deal with unhappy people, legal threats, and bad press on this sort of thing on a daily basis. Given the resources that Wikipedia has, we cannot expect these volunteers to investigate these issues in detail, combing through sources to decide if a particular allegation or combination of sources is appropriate or not. That's why for this kind of article, we need to insist - as a matter of policy - that any allegations are explicitly attributed to a reliable source. That way, if Wikipedia is making an allegation against someone, we can ask the person complaining to take up to complaint with the source, rather than with Wikipedia directly. This is so even if the allegation isn't made explicitly, but only implied (for example, by including information that implies but does not explicitly state that someone lied about their qualifications).

Does this mean that valid, sourced information will be excluded from Wikipedia? Yes. But we have to put up with that, because allowing this kind of information will lead to more bad press, legal threats, emotional hurt, and work for the foundation than it is worth. And ultimately, it is the people at the foundation who deal with these legal threats that we rely on to keep the whole project running - so we owe it to them to give their concerns priority when setting policy.

The above applies particularly for living people or organisations (which was the subject of the example), and there is a case that we can be more relaxed about including information for other types of article, particularly when the issues are uncontroversial. It may be worth being explicit about this, perhaps saying something like: "It is important that this policy is applied stricly for articles about living people or organisations. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.".

Does this make sense, and should we consider making some of these points directly in the policy page? Enchanter 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that there is no one size of policy that can fit all. The "lightweight" articles have a lower need of proof than the heavyweight - serious science or history that has the potential to be the reference of choice some time in the future, vs. the enjoyable fluff of the History of the Cornflake, vs. the real legal issue of repeating libellous statements (where in the UK the onus is on the teller to prove that they are true, with some fairly nasty caveats in there too, quite a high standard to defend). I think some of the conflict here is just that. You either stick with a vague undefined policy and hope people go with the spirit, or you spiral down into ever more detailed rules, as what Wiki does is not actually very easily defined. Spenny 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no one size fits all policy. Describing accurately what sources say requires judgement and a genuine understanding of the source, so it's not possible to provide a simple set of rules that will fit every case.

I think the case of biographical details of living people is a sufficiently big problem for Wikipedia that it's worth spelling out on the policy pages that anything relating to living people needs to be extremely well sourced. To an extent Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does that job already, although it may still be worth emphasising the point here.

Going back to the example we are discussing, do you think it is still on the right track? Enchanter 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is on the right track, and I think that context clarification of why this sort of juxtaposition of fact can indeed be inappropriate is necessary to make the section work. I've revised my position on SYNTH a bit with myself - I don't think it is an important concept, but it is not the intent that it is an important concept, it is simply the need to explain novel analysis where this might not be understood. I think the jargon and folklore of Wiki is in danger of making it into an important concept. So having said that, if the section is a light discussion then I think it would work better. I think the whole tone of the section is too technical and would be better written along the lines of deleting the existing section in its entirety, with a retitle to make it less jargony:

Creating a new analysis from reliable sources.

When considering whether an edit introduces a new concept, it is important to understand that it is not just the introduction of underlying facts that need to be considered, but the analysis of those facts too. In Wikipedia, the process of creating new ideas out of proven facts is often called synthesis. Whilst creating articles is about collating information and there is a low level of analysis that cannot be avoided in that process, it is assumed that there should be no need for significant new analysis. The acid test for what is reasonable is the concept of advancing a position. If the analysis required to present a concept is more than a simple summary, especially if it creates a contentious view point, then, however well grounded in fact it is, an objector would be entitled to request the citation of the analysis. If no justification is forthcoming, then the analysis should be removed. Further, in sensitive articles, such as living biographies, the simple arrangement of facts on a page might be enough to create an analysis. Although it might be considered to be censorship to remove proven facts about a topic, editors need to be sensitive to the feelings of individuals and be aware that even inadvertent libel can create legal issues that could threaten the viability of Wikipedia. To give an example of the problem,...

Do you think that helps the page as a whole? I know it is opening a can of worms, but I think that at the moment the presentation is the issue which is causing the most problem. Spenny 21:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Enchanter, I think that if the real concern is being sued, then there should be a rule specifically explaining what content may be excluded for legal reasons. It seems to me that an extraordinary complication is being introduced by attempting to squeeze the issue of legal difficulties into a section essentially dealing with a different issue, which only partially overlaps. Further up the page is another example, where someone is talking about the colour of airline seats, and having discovered a plane with seats in the 'wrong' colour. Perhaps people feel safer discussing source 1 which claims all seats are blue, and source 2 which is a photo of red seats. I am still inclined that the correct course is to report both sources and leave the issue of which is wrong to others to debate. I don't really see why this does not apply to the politician argument. Either a government source claims the school was closed, or it does not. Where is the legal issue? If what you are saying is that people may object to any article and someone has to deal with it, surely that is a consequence of having many articles. But I am now coming round in a circle: if wiki feels it needs to restrict content for resource reasons, then it should say that in the rule, not flounder about claiming it is an issue of reliability. There are lots of people on here arguing that rules are unreasonable, because in the way they are framed, they are.Sandpiper 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably time for re-summary and archive the above as this has spun off in various directions which will not allow consensus on the underlying simple issue of the example. Spenny 08:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Spenny's introduction is along the right general lines. However, in response to Sandpiper's comments, I think we need to emphasise reliability more.

Being sued is a genuine concern, but I don't think it's the core issue here - the issue is one of reliability. Going back to the "qualifications" example, I think the core issue is that when we quote the two sources together - one saying he claimed to have a qualification, one seeming to contradict him - we lead the reader to a conclusion that might be plain wrong. The government records we are quoting might be wrong. Or he may have been misquoted in the source. Or there might be a misunderstanding in the names of the qualifications. It's easy to underestimate the potential for confusion and different interpretations of even quite straightforward information.

For something like lying about qualifications, Wikipedia should never be seen as the source of the information - we just don't want the arguments about whether the sources are right or wrong or not, or whether they have been interpreted correctly, to take place at Wikipedia. Instead, we attribute the allegations to someone else, and say "Source X claims that Mr Jones lied about his qualifications, citing ...". That way, we are factually reporting on what someone else says, rather than trying to establish truth ourselves.

I agree that for more straightforward claims, we don't need to be so strict about applying the rule. And certainly, any rule that gave a blanket ban on quoting contradictory sources wouldn't make sense at all. I think the wording still needs a bit of work to make sure that it covers all cases reasonably sensibly. Enchanter 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Example of Synthesis - Restatement

The suggested example and supporting text from previous discussion is:

Jones says he obtained a degree in physics at university X between 1977 and 1980_{reliable source 1}, but according to Department of Education records, university X closed down in 1976_{reliable source 2}, raising doubts as to whether he ever attended_{no source}.

This analysis, suggesting that Jones has lied about his qualifications, is not permitted on Wikipedia, even though it is backed up by reliable sources, and the logic is sound. This is because coming to a novel conclusion requires a careful analysis of the facts which Wikipedia is not in a position to provide. It is possible, for example, that one of the sources was wrong (reliable sources are not necessarily infallible sources), or that they had been interpreted incorrectly (for example, the names of two universities could have become mixed up).

A researcher coming to the conclusion that he had lied about his qualifications would carry out a careful analysis of the facts, and would need to stand ready to respond if Jones challenged the allegations. Wikipedia is not in a position to verify this analysis, or stand by the allegations if challenged, as this is not part of its mission to summarise existing published knowledge. Therefore the allegations can only be published in Wikipedia if they can be attributed to a reliable published source. ''Italic text This is not intended to amend policy, simply to provide a more coherent example than the one in place at the moment. Spenny 08:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For anyone monitoring the page who has not picked up on this due to the noise, it is suggested that this replace the current synthesis example. Assuming there are no objections over say the next 24 hours, I will assume there is a consensus that this is an improvement. Thanks Spenny 13:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Although this is my own example, I don't necessarily accept that it is better than the one in the text right now, which is based on a real case of editor confusion. But let me add the missing part that was left out of my example: even if we exclude the final phrase "raising doubts as to whether he ever attended", it would still be (with or without the word 'but') 'synthesis by juxtaposition' (WP:JUXT?) and hence unacceptable - the point being that we need a reliable source making the connection for us between the school closing and Jones's attendance claim. So if this example is used, it must be used properly, by also demonstrating and explaining the JUXT part. Crum375 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree (see above, if you dare :) ). However, we are trying to get across the basic principle and examples do not have to be comprehensive. (FWIW, the existing text does not cover this issue at the moment). I don't think there is much mileage in tuning the example (except by contrived avoidance). Perhaps you have a few words to add to the clarification? Perhaps a simple In this example, we can see that using the word but or even leaving these facts placed together could create an implied criticism so editorial care is required in these situations. Spenny 14:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue of 'required care', we need to clarify that in this example, even without the word 'but' and without the final phrase, we may still not juxtapose those two independent sourced facts unless we have a reliable source making the connection for us. The problem (and possible advantage) with this example is that it highlights (and forces us to deal with) both basic OR by synthesis as well as synthesis by juxtaposition at the same time. We can't include it unless we are willing to address and clearly explain these issues, which of course slightly complicates it. OTOH, when properly explained, they do highlight the true (and typical) issues of synthesis and juxtaposition. Crum375 16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a terrible example of an analysis. The example appears to be one in which, for the purpose of the example, the two facts are to be accepted as facts. It's gratuitous and pursuing a position to claim that in this particular case maybe the facts aren't true, that a mistake was made in one or the other of them. The exact same arguments could be made for the exclusion of single statements (about single facts) - maybe they are untrue, making Wikipedia totally empty. The example dodges the real issue, which is that logic is excluded from Wikipedia unless the logic is included by quoting someone else who made the logical analysis. Note that in such a case the identical objection could be made: maybe the person being quoted didn't have the facts straight. In practice NOR is used by partisans to remove logical conclusions that expose weaknesses in the positions advanced by the partisans. The typical use of NOR isn't to improve Wikipedia, it is to foster particular beliefs by removing valid material (by any reasonable standard but not by Wikipedia's standards) from Wikipedia. I don't see a "basic principle" being communicated, I see ad hoc arguments used to justify a principle that really isn't compatible with the notion of an encyclopedia. Only in the specific case that A and B are combined to produce C is the rationale used that "well maybe either A or B is incorrect." A alone can be cited, B alone can be cited. Combining them does not make either of them less reliable.

Minasbeede 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise with the sentiment (and this is a circle I have been through making most of the same points). The synthesis section is not about a new complicated principle, is is just a special case of NOR policy where people might not realise they have done OR as they have some related citations. In the long term, the whole section needs work and these issues need bringing in with some clarity. However, the main issue is advancing a position, blind logic is allowed, so I think that you have actually argued in its favour, at a pinch.

Another user identified the existing example as being obscure and it seems a simple first step improving to getting that section to be helpful (how naïve!). SYNTH is interesting as it highlights the slightly paradoxical position that Wiki gets into with its policies. However, it is something that we can give a steer on if we remember the basics. So yes, it is simplistic and gratuitous, but hopefully it makes the simple point to a simple audience, not one immersed in Wikilosophy.

Can I ask you a slightly different question? Does that mean you think the existing example should remain in preference to this one; or are you saying delete the SYNTH section in entirety; or ??? Spenny 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The current (plagiarism-related) example is rather horrid in that it seems to hinge on a debate about the meaning of a word. I've already said the proposed example is bad. Perhaps either of the OR-tainted edits I made could be used in an example. In one I stated that Curveball (the informant) claimed to have been trained as a chemical engineer but that nothing in the intelligence he supplied appears to show a "glimmer" of engineering awareness. That was actually aimed at the apparent prohibition of original research in the press (to make the same connection and conclusion) and the apparently assumed similar prohibition within the CIA (which, of course, is entirely antithetical to the mission of the CIA.) That was particularly egregious OR since I basically assumed that an engineer's words would reflect the fact that he was an engineer without providing a citation.

The other was that the prohibition on retirees receiving any of their principal amount during their lifetimes, as was stated by President Bush on several occasions, was a means of prolonging the bubble that is inherent in the personal account scheme. Again, egregious. I cited no source for the cashing in of investments being the trigger for the bursting of a bubble when cashing in outweighs investing.

Both of these are worse than simple synthesis. But assuming I had sources for the uncited portions they'd still be forbidden since they both are synthesis.

So the simple thing to do would be to show, using either of these as an example, why they are incorrect in Wikipedia - other than by dogma. That is, illustrate why the dogma is useful in strengthening Wikipedia or preserving its useful characteristics.

But any simple example that shows the inherent flaw in synthesis would be fine. My objection to the proposed example is that it makes a special appeal to the possibility of error in citations that is not made for citations not part of a synthesis.

Minasbeede 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but :) If you have an example where the citations are demonstrably correct, then the analysis is simple OR and a similar problem exists that the example is so simple that it does not work - there is no dilemma to debate. The contrived example is seeking to show at a simple level that the logical inference is correct, but cannot be justified without further investigation. Real world examples are likely to be too obscure, though perhaps superficially more justifiable, but they require too much back story to hold the point - "you had to be there". Logical inference that does not require further investigation (by a reasonable person - weasel words, perhaps) is allowed. I think everyone would agree that it is a difficult policy to work with and from some POVs is "broken", but it is a pragmatic way to deal with a conflict until the powers that be one day determine a different approach (Wikipedia is not a democracy either). What that does make me think though is that it perhaps is inappropriate to remove the existing example, and placing this example in as well as a starting point will help tell the story. Spenny 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any response that doesn't belong in the town pump area. If the example must of necessity hinge on some flaw that is not inherent in synthesis itself then it would seem (to me) that the example is flawed because of that dependence on that flaw.

As I understand the rule logical inference is not allowed. Logical inference may indeed favor a POV, just as 2 + 2 = 4 might favor a POV. That the facts support a particular POV doesn't make reliance on the facts incorrect, does it? It sure seems strange that in an encyclopedia it is forbidden to cite facts that support a POV. Am I missing something?

Minasbeede 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are barking up the wrong tree. You seem to be criticizing the example, but in reality you are criticizing WP:NOR itself, since the example faithfully represents it. So forget the example and simply say that you disagree with NOR, which is a legitimate POV, and then try to get a consensus to overturn it. But attacking the example is like attacking the messenger. Crum375 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing both. I am committing the sin of OR by noticing that the example cited is a bad example and is cooked to support the policy - but inconsistent and illogical. It's OK to cite any one thing but if you cite two things and link them logically then you have committed an offense against Wikipedia policy because one or the other of the things cited could be in error. That's supposed to justify the policy but it's wildly inconsistent. Let's see an example in which the policy is not justified by claiming that possibly one of the citations is in error. Such an example (I feel) illustrates the problem with the policy: it's illogical.

The example does not "faithfully" represent the policy. The example only works by making an assumption about the possible fallibility of one or the other sources cited. If a cited source can be fallible then that's a blanket problem for everything in Wikipedia, is it not? Take away the assumed possible fallibility and the example is an absurdity: you cannot logically link two things to reach a conclusion. That is the problem with WP:NOR, which is often used by partisans to remove material they do not wish to have published. I go along with such removal because, currently, that is the policy. I even removed some of my own editing myself because of the policy.

The nature of the world and of reality is not such that every possible valid conclusion has been published, particularly when the majority of sources themselves explicitly avoid reaching conclusions. It is valid for an encyclopedia to synthesize information, it is disastrous for an encyclopedia to avoid synthesis. An encyclopedia is not a huge compendium of "he said - she said" type material.

Thanks for your response.

Minasbeede

Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. The main policy is WP:NPOV, please read it. WP:V is also crucial, please read this policy taking the other two into account. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Under the current policies Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia at all. I go along with that. If the desire is to have a non-encyclopedia then that's that. You can't have a real encyclopedia if you exclude logic and thought.

The example is a bad example, the policy is a bad policy - if the desire is to have a real encyclopedia.

I don't think I need to read the dogma, thank you very much.

By the way, in this discussion there is a violent violation of WP:NPOV. Anything that doesn't bolster or bow to the dogma is opposed: the dogma is given favored treatment, even to the extent of cooking fallacious examples.

Thanks for the response.

Minasbeede 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a much wider argument, but in a nutshell, the policies are designed not for logical correctness, but for a pragmatic approach, and these policy pages are, in my opinion, attempting to get across the spirit of the rules to allow the specific methodology of development to cope with a population of editors who are in general co-operative. Read around the policies and guidance such as "There are no rules" makes that abundantly clear. Attempting anything more is getting out of scope. I am quite content that the example is not perfect, and the explanation is not perfect. However, if we debate to perfection before implementing any change, then there will not be consensus. My aim when I accidentally arrived here was to make sense of a certain section did not express itself clearly. I think that is a useful contribution within the confines of current policy. Changing policy is for the Village pump in the first instance. Spenny 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You asked if there were objections. I object to the example. The example depends totally on the possibility that one of the cited sources might be incorrect in some manner. That's a potential defect in all citations. To rely on the potential incorrectness of a source only in this case is neither logical nor "pragmatic."

You could go ahead and use the example but I see it as creating greater future problems: the actual issue has been skirted in that example. The assumed flaw that arises from synthesis doesn't come form the synthesis, it comes from citing something that is incorrect. Duh. The flaw is the citation of something that is incorrect, isn't it? The flaw would be just as grievous even if there were no synthesis - if the subject matter (and Wikipedia) actually matter so that the flaw matters.

If Jones says something that is at variance with the facts then while it might be excessive to say Jones has lied it would seem entirely fair to say that what Jones says is at variance with the facts - even if that has not been published elsewhere. If you want to get really weasel-wordy you can say that Jones has made a statement that appears to be in conflict with the apparent facts.

Thanks for your response.

Minasbeede 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the example, and the policy. We are not saying that necessarily one of the two sourced facts must be wrong. There are several logical possibilities. For example, Jones (or the newspaper that interviewed or quoted him) could have misspelled the name of the school, or the year got mangled somewhere. Or the Dept. of Education could have a typo or mistake in its records. Or the school that closed was actually re-opened a year later, and so on. The point is that there are lots of possibilities, and the bottom line is that we can't act as detectives, and conclude that Jones is lying, or even imply that Jones is lying, unless we have a reliable source that implies or says it for us, that we can quote. That's what NOR, SYNT, and JUXT are all about. Crum375 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The justification for the policy given with that example seems to hinge on the possibility that one or the other of the citations could be in error. Fine, I can see that. But any citation could be in error. As I read the example the possibility of error is critical for edits that constitute synthesis but not really important for other edits. Obviously, that is not the Wikipedia policy - but the example makes a particularly weak case for the policy by specially relying on the possibility of error in the citations, apparently because they're part of a synthesis and not free-standing. I ask for an example in which there is no possibility of error in either citation but for which the synthesis attempted has not been published elsewhere. A trivial example would be 111111111 + 222222222 + 333333333 = 666666666. That's true. I could show it's true by elaborately showing the laws of addition and then showing how the laws lead to that sum - but that's forbidden. Unless I can show that addition leading to that sum to have been published Wikipedia forbids me to show it.

And if that sum had been published I'd still be forbidden to say, in Wikipedia, that 111111111.7 + 222222222 + 333333333 = 666666666.7. That's a synthesis.

My request is for an example of forbidden synthesis that does not have to look outside the synthesis for justification (either a dispute about the definition of a word or an error in one of the constituent citations or the like.)

I understand that the proper venue for the underlying issue is the town pump. The current example and the proposed example are bad. A better example is needed. I'll gladly drop the underlying issue here.

Thanks for your response.

Minasbeede 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would argue that simple logical deduction or arithmetic are disallowed, and it is in part dependent on context: is it contentious? Does it advance a position? in WikiJargon. Basically, every article is awash with these in its basic construction. An example of a problem would be one I saw recently where someone had published a table of average scores and cited mathematics as the basis. There was no argument that his source numbers were wrong, but he could not see that to go from simple sums to an average dragged in all sorts of assumptions, including the fact that his finger might have slipped on the keyboard and to verify it would require the same amount of effort. We assume that in most cases a source would be correct and be checked, (though we allow that mistakes can happen). Back to what I said early on: you have to be pragmatic. Spenny 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to the proposed example replacing the current example in the policy?

Crum375 makes the point that the example could specifically address the "juxtaposition" of sources to give an implied synthesis. I agree that there are situations in which this implied synthesis through juxtaposition of sources is inappropriate - and that the example is one of them. However, as the current policy does not specifically address this point I think we should set this aside as a separate issue to be addressed later. This is because proposed example is intended to explain existing policy, and not to change it or add to it.

Any comments? Enchanter 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, does anyone object to the replacement of the existing example, or have any further comments or suggestions? Enchanter 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is the proposed example exactly? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The one about qualifications, summarised at the top of this section, under: "Proposed Example of Synthesis - Restatement" Enchanter 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the benefit of that example over the current one. The other concern is that it's perhaps too obvious an example. People tend to get the really obvious ones without help. It's the more subtle ones they have problems with, and that's what the example on the page is for. Perhaps others could chime in with their thoughts. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have other concerns with it, which I discussed above. It is my own example which I have used previously, but it's missing an important part that relates to SYNT by juxtaposition, which is very important to understand, in my opinion. By leaving the JUXT part out, we'd be sending an implied message that JUXT may be acceptable, where it's simply not. OTOH, by including it, the example becomes more complicated, which may or may not be desirable. I also prefer real examples to synthetic ones. ;^) Crum375 12:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To address these points in turn:

• The proposed example does not address "synthesis by juxtaposition". This is the case - but neither does the current example, so it is not a reason to prefer one over the other. The point of the proposed example is to provide a clear explanation of current policy - not to change it, add to it, or explain it in more detail.
• Real examples preferred to synthetic. The current example is not real (although it is loosely based on a real case), as I've noted in previous discussions. Please explain if you think I am mistaken here. Again, it is not a reason to prefer the old example over the new one.
• The example is too obvious. An example needs to be reasonably obvious to be understood. The current example is more than subtle - it is ambiguous and illogical, and does not provide enough information for readers to understand it. When readers who have failed to understand it have asked for it to be explained on the talk page, noone has, in my experience, been able to give a coherent and consistent explaination of it. And investigating in more detail does not help, as it reveals that the example is based on outright misrepresentation of sources, rather than a subtle synthesis. Again, if you disagree, please could you try to explain the current example in more detail, to help those who don't understand it.

Enchanter 20:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe some of my own points have been addressed: if JUXT is not mentioned, it could be assumed to be acceptable by its omission, and if it is included, it makes the example more complex, which is OK, but we need to agree to it. Crum375 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern about addressing "JUXT" is that JUXT is not in the current policy (at least, not explicitly), and the proposed example was not intended to change policy.

I agree with you on the basic principle, but I think that this point needs wider debate to make sure that any change we introduce has consensus and is well thought through. I therefore suggest that we discuss this proposal later, after having addressed the example. Enchanter 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I respectfully disagree, then. I believe that JUXT (not under a specific name), as a type of SYNT, is very much part of the current policy. It is a situation where by putting two sources together we are advancing a position that is not directly advanced by any specific source. It is a typical situation where people fail to understand NOR and SYNT, and thus is important to illustrate and explain. If we are going to invest an effort and replace the current example, it makes a lot of sense to use an example that addresses JUXT. Crum375 22:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is to replace the current example, which has serious problems which have gone unadressed for too long. I agree with you that it might be better to have the example address "JUXT", but only once this has been debated widely so that we make sure that it has consensus and that the policy wording doesn't unintended consequences that you and me might not have thought of.

If you amend the example to address JUXT in a satisfactory way that gains consensus quickly, you would have my support. However, I see no reason to delay changing the example if obtaining consensus takes longer (which I suspect may be the case). Enchanter 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This example was my own example, and it originally included the JUXT part, which was truncated at some point. I added it back in, as you can see higher on this thread. I see no reason to exclude it if we use the example, which is built for it, but I am still unsure about using a synthetic example in the first place, even it's my own. ;^) Crum375 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting confused by the length of this thread - which piece of wording did you suggest adding back in? Could you resummarise how you think the example might look? Thanks, Enchanter 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Take the current example, which is OK for basic SYNT. Then remove the words from "raising doubts..." to the end - it would then become an example for JUXT. We are still clearly implying that Jones is lying (with or without the word 'but'), and thereby advancing a position not stated directly by any source, so that is SYNT by JUXT. In BLP cases, at least, we would need to have a source using the two pieces together for us - we cannot be the first to bring them together, even without the final editorial part. Crum375 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would much prefer explaining it without introducing the abbreviation "JUXT" to the policy page. How about:

Jones says he obtained a degree in physics at university X between 1977 and 1980_{reliable source 1}, but according to Department of Education records, university X closed down in 1976_{reliable source 2}, raising doubts as to whether he ever attended_{no source}.

This analysis, suggesting that Jones has lied about his qualifications, is not permitted on Wikipedia, even though it is backed up by reliable sources, and the logic is sound. This is because coming to a novel conclusion requires a careful analysis of the facts which Wikipedia is not in a position to provide. It is possible, for example, that one of the sources was wrong (reliable sources are not necessarily infallible sources), or that they had been interpreted incorrectly (for example, the names of two universities could have become mixed up).

A researcher coming to the conclusion that he had lied about his qualifications would carry out a careful analysis of the facts, and would need to stand ready to respond if Jones challenged the allegations. Wikipedia is not in a position to verify this analysis, or stand by the allegations if challenged, as this is not part of its mission to summarise existing published knowledge. Therefore the allegations can only be published in Wikipedia if they can be attributed to a reliable published source.

Where controversial claims are advanced, or in articles about living people or organisations, this policy should be applied strictly. In such cases, Wikipedia needs to be careful not to insinuate or imply new claims. For example, the above example would not be acceptable even without the final words "raising doubts as to whether he ever attended".

What do you think? Enchanter 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Two minor points

The policy read, "reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you." - sources can't write anything, as defined later, sources are books, journals or newspapers. Authors can however write about things. I have changed this to "reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." I hope this is OK.

Also the list that at present states:

1. It introduces a theory or method of solution;
2. It introduces original ideas;
3. It defines new terms;

Should either be:

1. It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
2. It introduces original ideas;
3. It defines new terms;

Or omitting the "new" and "original", if the word "introduces" is sufficient for the meaning:

1. It introduces a theory or method of solution;
2. It introduces ideas;
3. It defines new terms;

I tried to insert the word "new", but this change was reverted. Which option would people prefer? Tim Vickers 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need the "new" in "new theory" - this helps clarify that we are talking about new, unpublished theories here. Same for "original". Enchanter 08:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It needs a 'new', 'introduces' is probably meant to mean 'presents for the first time', but could be read as 'brings into wiki'. For variety you could try 'novel', but it might not be understood so well. Sandpiper 10:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Added "new", thank you. Tim Vickers 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Original images

I propose to clarify the section on original images by adding a sub-sentence at the very end, resulting in:

“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, or a diagram representing a business or engineering process from one particular viewpoint where there possibly are many competing viewpoints.”

In my opinion, the selection of one particular viewpoint among many constitutes original research. Iterator12n 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that would be right, Iterator. All images represent one point of view among competing ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How about adding the words not-broadly-accepted, as in:

“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, or a not-broadly-accepted diagram representing a business or engineering process from one particular viewpoint where there possibly are many competing viewpoints.”

Take for instance Agile software development. There is an opinion out there that the article needs improvement. Fair enough. For one thing, there isn't a clear consensus on what agile development actually IS, and the article as a whole reflects this lack of consensus. Editors have proposed to construct (for the purpose of the article) a diagram to clarify the ontology of agile software development. Trouble is that such a diagram, in all likelihood, will represent just one view of the process's essence. On the other hand, if there would be no objection to one view where there may be many competing views, I would be the first one to add my (let's assume not broadly accepted) diagram with my view of agile software development. Others could compete with their not-broadly-accepted diagrams. The threshold to edit warring with diagrams is lower than edit warring with words - a picture is worth a thousand words.

In sum, I still propose to clarify the policy on original images in a restrictive sense.

Iterator12n 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On a different tack, some images do "propose unpublished ideas or arguments". For example, I recall a photograph of an unusual animal carcass in the American Southwest that the uploader considered to be an example of animal sacrifice, though he could not point to any documented tradition of animal sacrifice in the area. Perhaps we should also have a guideline against "look at this strange thing I stumbled upon"-type photographs.--Pharos 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Objections to copy-edit

User:SlimVirgin has repeatedly objected to the copy-edits made in these edits as she feels that

"Your edit aren't clarifying things — they're either making no difference, or they're introducing problems — and most of the people who agree with you are people who themselves don't understand the policies (one or two of whom have caused real trouble around them in the past)."

The specific objections are:

1) Introduces a new theory is unnecessary; if it's introducing it, it's a new one;

The next line is

1. It introduces a theory or method of solution;
2. It introduces original ideas;

So the phrase "Introduces ideas" wasn't seen as enough and the word "original" was added, either you need such an additional clarifying word in both items, or in neither.

2) Sources are people or publications, so saying "who" of a source is fine The old wording was "a reliable published source who writes about", but all the reliable sources listed later were books, newspaper articles etc, nowhere is this policy are people referred to as "reliable sources". Indeed, people can never be reliable sources.

3) "A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports ..." But what if it isn't?

The old wording was "A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. " the edit was to "A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports and is a secondary source." - this does not change the meaning of the sentence.

4) Nothing wrong with his or her.

"His and her" or even worse "s/he" is clumsy English, "their" is clearer.

5) By a publisher, not in a source, because sources are sometimes people.

People are not reliable sources, people write reliable sources. Tim Vickers 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We often judge documents according to who wrote them, and not who published them, and in such cases we view the author as the source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding #3, it does change the meaning. Old wording meant: When you have 'A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports then you have something that is a secondary source. Your version means: When you have a A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident then you have something that is a based on eye-witness reports' and then you have something that is a secondary source. The problem with the change is that the whole point of saying analysis and commentary was a secondary source was solely because it was based on eye-witness reports and if instead the analysis and commentary were based on other things it may or may not be a secondary source. So your change ends up diluting the point of the example by changing the emphasis. Granted I think the entire section is horrible and inaccurate way to explain the whole issue of primary/secondary sources, but most people have heard me say that more than enough times.--BirgitteSB 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe alot of the misunderstanding here is because SV looking at how these edits effect sources used as primary sources and Tim is looking at how they effect sources used as secondary sources. The bar of reliably for sources used as primary sources is very low. You simply need to know sources are not fabricated to use them as primary sources and you probably can say you are using people as sources(but I do think that is stretching it a bit; more like you are using people's assertions or words or claims). When it comes to sources used as secondary sources; you cannot use people by any stretch and there are much higher standards of reliability in general. If I misunderstand you, SV, please help me understand where you see people being used as secondary sources--BirgitteSB 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Brigitte. If journalist X publishes a story about something he wasn't personally involved in, he's a secondary source. In most cases, we regard the newspaper as the source, but if he were to publish it on his personal website, whether it could be used or not would boil down to who he was, what his expertise was etc i.e. we would regard him as the source, and it would be his authority that would matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any real examples of this sort of thing? I am thinking that in practice we are only using personal website to source things like "X believes/claims/disputes Y". Which is really using it as a primary source. I could be wrong, but I not really seen people, in good practice, sourcing analysis from a personal website.--BirgitteSB 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All kinds of material can be sourced to personal websites; see WP:V for the provisions on self-published sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am having problems with your use of "people". When you source something to self-published material you judge the reliability of the material based on the author. However the source is the material not the person. The self-published "Reader's Guide" from the Kipling Society, may or may not be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, but the "Reader's Guide" is the source not the people who worked on. The reliability must judged based on those people, because of the lack of other benchmarks for reliability. However the people are not the source of the information, the eight volume book at the library is. I can see you sourcing a quote to person rather than to that person's material, but that would always be as a primary source.--BirgitteSB 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What about "If a journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports, then it is a secondary source." I think that is both clearer than the original and avoids any possible ambiguity. Where I reworded "a reliable published source who writes about" is specifically about "reliable sources". I'm puzzled as to when unpublished primary sources (which are when you use "people" as sources) are ever considered as reliable sources. In the journalist case, it is not "Him" who is the source, it is a website written by him. I think it is very unclear to conflate people and the sources they write. Indeed, that would contradict how we cite sources, If I cite a website written by Joe Bloggs, it would be simply wrong to put the citation as "Joe Bloggs", instead the citation is http:joebloggs.org "Stuff I did in my holidays" by Joe Bloggs Tim Vickers 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But what you say simply isn't true. Why do you believe a journalist's story must be based on eye-witness reports before it can be a secondary source? And unpublished material is never used as a source. Tim, I'm bewildered by where you're going with all this. You seem to be laboring under several fundamental misunderstandings of policy, but I can't even work out what they are. In the Joe Bloggs website case, you judge whether to use it according to who Bloggs is i.e. he is your source. Otherwise, how would you decide whether to use his site? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, neither version addresses that, what about - "If a journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is not based on personal experience, then it is a secondary source." As to "people", the problem is that in talking about reliable sources, people are never the source. Instead it is material published by people that may be considered reliable sources. The identity of the author may indeed be an factor in deciding if their writing is a reliable source, but this is not the same as the person being a source themselves. Although you might refer to an author as "a source" in colloquial English, when you in fact mean the material that they have produced and published, this is certainly not clear enough for policy. Tim Vickers 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Old version - "a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."

New version - "a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you."

FWIW, SV are you simply missing that Tim is simply trying to make some fairly basic corrections of grammar (which having looked at the diff may well seem irrelevant, but they are generally correct)? These are not intended to be policy changes. Spenny 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of copy-edit

The reversion of the edits we are currently discussing is not a positive action. SlimVirgin, you are the only person who has problems with the edits. Please do not act unilaterally. Tim Vickers 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I also have problems with the edits. I feel that a policy should remain as stable as possible, since the entire community relies on it on a daily basis. I think we should only make changes when there is an overriding reason for them, and a wide consensus. If you'd like to suggest changes, please do so here, and we can address them individually. Thanks, Crum375 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to what you think an editor should do when they see obvious grammatical errors. Tim edited these in good faith - reverted. He placed discussion on this page. No adverse comments, edits applied - reverted without discussion on the page. He then places edits one by one so it is very clear as to the purpose of each one - reverted. I was very clear in my message as to my purpose in reverting. This is not acting in good faith. Do you want Wikipedia to be the best it can be or are you satisfied with basic grammatical errors in important policy pages? Spenny 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you examine the diff you will see that the policy was not changed in any way. Instead the same policy was expressed in clearer terms and better grammar. To take one particularly bad example from the version you reverted to, why exactly do you feel the phrase "situate the research; that is, provide contextual information" is better than "provide context for this point of view"? Tim Vickers 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur, and this pedantic reversion is inappropriate. Spenny 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I don't know what's going on here, but a couple of days ago, you had no experience of writing policy or commenting on talk. Then you suddenly turned up and tried to change NPOV, RS, V, and NOR, introducing pointless changes along with changes that made no sense, and reverting when people objected, claiming you were only interested in grammar. It has the feel of almost WP:POINT about it. Please stop whatever it is. These policies need to be stable, above all else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for diffs - You claim I introduced "pointless changes along with changes that made no sense, and reverting when people objected," could you please provide a diff for any reversions I have made on these policy pages that restored my edits after their removal by other editors? Tim Vickers 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for the changes are listed above. Please could you explain, for example, why you prefer "situate the research; that is, provide contextual information" over the alternative of "provide context for this point of view"? Tim Vickers 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim, this is my own reversion. It restores some subtle and non-trivial changes to the policy. As one example of several issues there, newspapers can be both primary and secondary. "[N]ewspaper accounts which contain first-hand material" is effectively defined as primary, while it could be also secondary, depending for example on whether the journalist is describing what s/he personally saw. In general, it is best to change policies on a piecemeal basis, as larger changes invite problems. If this were just any article it would not be so critical, but by being a core policy such changes affect the entire project and can cause multiple problems. Crum375 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet that example you quote is altering what Tim wrote by omission, as the full alteration reads newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, rather than analysis or commentary of other material exactly to clarify the point you have made which did not exist in the version you prefer. SV refers to WP:POINT yet it seems to be that the reversions are just that, not the corrections. Spenny 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian, can you explain in your own words what the primary/secondary issue is, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think there are two different issues. Firstly, the vast majority of the edits that Tim has made are small but valid corrections which make the words mean what the author thinks they say, but actually they don't. Without meaning to be discourteous (and these discussions often read the wrong way) if you do not see that, then perhaps you are not as sensitive to correct grammar as some other people are (I am trying to be polite :) ). In other words, you suggest that you don't see that the changes have a point, but they do: correct English which better expresses the intended meaning of the article. Whilst I don't always write good English, I can recognise it and I would characterise the vast majority of the changes in that way. I do appreciate that you hold this page dear, but rather like the dreaded synth example, I get the feeling you are a little to attached to its foibles, for the best possible motives.

What I would agree with is that in the section on primary/secondary sources, Tim has gone further than simple grammar. Again, it is clear (to me) that he has read the prose and found it wanting. The changes here are not policy changes, but I can understand that you would want to stand back and consider them. I've looked at them and can understand why you are nervous, but I think you are actually working against policy if you do not see that Tim is very clearly working in good faith and if you looked at his changes, and the comments here on the talk page over the past few days, I don't think you should question it. I think the underlying issue is your statement that stability is more important than anything else. I would hope you might question whether you really believe that comment - have a think about it.

I am sure Tim could give you a little homily on why he has felt the need to correct the page, but I feel that it must be the same approach as I take - wandering aimlessly around Wiki and you see something that needs to be fixed. It then becomes a point of honour for the greater good if someone reverts the change, especially when the logic is not sound for the reversion. Spenny 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"wandering aimlessly around Wiki" and fixing things can be detrimental to policy pages, that are based on many compromises, where each word has significance. That is the problem we have here. It is best to leave changes to Talk page discussion, especially when someone has limited experience editing these topics. Crum375 23:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Play nice please - I am simply trying to lighten the tone. I feel you are WikiLawyering here: editing for proper meaning should be welcomed, not fought off, the skill of writing correct English is not something that requires re-learning for these pages, and it is a rare skill too. It does not create a good impression of the old guard. I'd be more sympathetic to your position (which I do understand) if what you were defending was properly written, but it isn't. Step back, you have someone here who has a skill that this page needs and you are alienating him - are you sure about your motives? Spenny 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian, once again, can you give me your understanding of the primary/secondary issue? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are querying the specific quote that Crum highlighted, then the issue is that the policy page as written does not offer clarity on primary vs secondary sources, in that some sources may be others. By adding the clearly worded example, the edit highlights that judgement needs to be taken in determining the mode that the source is working in, it is an uncontentious clarification of policy. I'm not sure what it is that you are getting at aside from that. Spenny 07:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is that I'm not sure you understand the issues you're arguing about, so I'd like to know whether you can explain the primary/secondary issue. What does "in that some sources may be others" mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue I am arguing about is that you are reverting good faith improvements. In terms of the primary secondary source issue, the dodgy English that made no sense that you highlight was simply a vague attempt at supporting Tim's useful clarification that a newspaper should not be considered exclusively to be a primary or secondary source: it is at one time an amalgam of different sources and qualities. It is a useful clarification. My understanding of those sources in that context are a red herring. The underlying point remains unanswered: why do you have an issue with minor grammatical corrections and why have you not engaged constructively with Tim's good faith attempts to improve the article? Spenny 12:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I'd rate it as impolite that I attempted to take this discussion offline to your talk page and it is simply archived (seems to mean deleted as there is no obvious link to an archive that I discern) without comment or response. I did a little reading around this morning and I am now a little less convinced of my belief that you are acting in good faith. Spenny 12:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you felt none of these changes here were improvements? Thank you. Tim Vickers 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Working towards a consensus wording

To focus the discussion a little and make it less personal, could people please indicate which of these edits they object to? That would allow us to replace the majority of the grammatical corrections and clarifications and concentrate on working towards a consensus wording on the disputed changes. Tim Vickers 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant edits are:

edit 1

• How you reworded this makes it much clearer. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• I agree this is much better. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 2

• This is more concise and clear with your change. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• I am neutral on this; this is grammatically better, the old might be clearer for all the repetition. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 3

• No problems with this minor change. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 4

This one could be better, how about: - "If a journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is not based on personal experience, then it is a secondary source." Tim Vickers 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It still relies on the negative, which I think is uncomfortable. I think a fresh start might help. The analysis and commentary of a journalist discussing the cause of a road traffic accident based upon the testimony of witnesses would be a secondary source, as opposed to a war correspondent giving his eye-witness account in the same paper, which would be a primary source. Too long perhaps, but I think it works towards understanding the definition of the terms. Spenny 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A journalist's article about a war, based upon interviews with soldiers, would be a secondary source: while a war correspondent giving an eye-witness account would be a primary source. Tim Vickers 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that. Gets rid of the stilted English and clarifies both concepts in a simple example that the average person should be able to grasp. (I would have used a semicolon though :) ) Spenny 21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 5

This change is constructive. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of 'they' in a singular fashion is poor. I don't know that else can be done, but I prefer the awkward, gendered singulars over using plurals for gender-free construction. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of singular their is preferable to the awkwardly gendered styles.Newbyguesses - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 6

The way it was worded before "published by a reputable publisher may be published" is awkward. Tim's change makes the wording much clearer and improved. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Best to avoid that repetition, especially since publication definition is awkward. Unsure if 'source' is best, but that sentence is awkward and should change. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How about simply inverting the sentence? The no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another by insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reputable reliable source may be used in Wikipedia. -- MarcoTolo 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Much better. Although say "reliable source", since this has a defined meaning. Tim Vickers 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Amended. -- MarcoTolo 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 7

Suggested alternative to both versions: "The prohibition against original research limits the possibility that editors may present their own points of view in articles." Enchanter 11:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Tim Vickers 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Enchanter's the best. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 8

I prefer "provide context", I think it's clearer to most people than "situate your research". DrKiernan 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• "situate the research" is awkward wording. Tim's change makes the wording much clearer. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'situate the research' is almost meaningless. This it the one edit I really want to see enacted. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit 9

• No problem with this change. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have stated below why I think this change is preferable. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is appropriate to suggest that silence is approval for these changes presented in this way. I would not like to see a revert justified on no consensus for change after a reasonable passage of time. Spenny 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that assuming silence is approval would be a good idea. Hopefully things will calm down a bit and there will be more comments. It is a shame that we have not been better able to separate valid concerns from the invalid ones so far. I see plenty of good faith as well as a middle ground in this and am beginning to think it would be best if everyone went into mediation. I don't think the "peanut gallery" effect of the open wiki is helping things.--BirgitteSB 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment and the comment is provocative by implication. Obviously, I am surprised that the changes that have caused sufficient concern for the page to be locked down, are not worthy of critical comment. However, I don't think it has got anywhere near needing mediation, it is a very small issue really, I am sure that this will now go forward sensibly and fairly. 'Nuff said. Spenny 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Have we reached consensus?

The page has now been unprotected. Are there any editors with strong objections to the consensus wordings that are outlined above? Tim Vickers 20:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put the agreed changes from above on the page. Thanks people. Tim Vickers 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Excluded or included?

One of the sections is titled "What is excluded?"; however, the contents of that sections suggest what is constituted as OR, rather than what is not considered OR, as the section title suggests. Should this be changed to a more appropriate title (i.e. "Examples," etc.)? Although I am an admin and can change this in an instant, I am loath to, given the current state of affairs and full protection of the page. —Kurykh 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"I do not think that means what you think it means."

A number of Tim's edits to the page were grammar issues that, while I saw the new ones as improved, they weren't vital to me. however, there were two things I needed to bring up:

It introduces a theory or method of solution;

In point, this is poor phrasing. Tim's was indeed, slightly better. You see, I introduce theories into Wikipedia pages all the time. They're not original research, though, because I have cites and pieces of info around. But the statement, as it stands, doesn't actually say that. Tim's edit was in my opinion, needed; SlimVirgin's changelog statement that "if it's old, it wouldn't be introducing it, would it?" shows she is working off a different inference in that sentence than I believe it means, and in *that* case, it definitely needs changing, but as SV rv'ed it with that comment because of genuine misunderstanding, it needs to be reworked. My suggestion would actually be It introduces a novel theory or method of solution;; that gets at what I believe Tim is looking for, without the misunderstanding that SV is having with the word 'new' there, which is a vague word with a half dozen meanings these days.

It is still possesses a slightly awkward form, It introduces a novel theory or novel method of solution; is uncomfortable but removes a hanging ambiguity. It introduces a novel concept is more embracing, but perhaps too vague at the same time, It introduces a novel concept such as a theory or method of solution. Spenny 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim's rewrite of it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view was absolutely better. So much so, though it used almost the exact same words, that it almost makes me believe SV is reverting Tim's stuff because it's Tim's.

On the other hand, the use of 'their' and 'they' for singular gender-free usage is actually still really atrocious. I hate 's/he' with a passion, but I really find the awkwardness of 'his or her' preferable.

And no, I'm not regularly around this place; but I'm nearing 1000 edits, and I have a good understanding of these policies that I've been using, and I'm a writer and sometime journalist who does tech manuals and usability design (so I spend a lot of time saying 'how is that going to be misunderstood?'), who would like to see much more clarity in policies.

(btw, on the other issue, 'may be deleted' is never a good phrasing, as, depending whether you're an editor or an admin, it can be read as a crapshoot (may be deleted....may not be...), and to an admin, it can be read as permission (you may (can) delete). 'Will be' is obviously incorrect, but 'may be' is never a good term to use when you don't want misinterpretations. --Thespian 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"May be" is fine. It means both that it might be deleted, and that it's allowed to be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not; it has two different possible meanings, that might mean the same and might not mean the same. 'May' is a modal verb, and also a defective verb, which means in combination that a lot of the possibilities for interpretation lie on the shoulders of the reader; and there are many reasons why that's a bad idea in policies and instructions. It is imprecise as it stands with two valid interpretations, and imprecision leads to problems. --Thespian 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's very clear in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To whom? To you, obviously. But someone else had a misunderstanding about it, regardless of whether it seems clear to you. At that point, it becomes obvious that they interpreted the language as 'the administrator has permission to delete it' without the inferred other meaning, and subsequently decided on the phrasing 'will be deleted' (a reasonable assumption from there, if trying for something more definitive) as a reasonable interpretation of that. The fact that an editor thought in good faith (and nothing about the editor says to me they'll intentionally do anything they don't believe is for the good of the project, even if they don't agree with you) that was how it was meant, and did not read 'both meanings' into it indicates that it doesn't have the clarity that you think it does. --Thespian 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammar is very important. An editor who knows what they mean but writes words that do not express that meaning clearly must listen with open ears when asked for clarification, and not simply revert to their favourite, unclear, wording for the sake of "stability" or "resistance to change". Especially when no policy change is made thereby, and in fact the policy is enhanced by being made clearer, in better english.

On the use of singular their - the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) ISBN 0 521 62181 X gives under the entry, they, them, their an extensive list of authoratative sources that all encourage the use of singular their etc. An example provided: "everyone has to consider their future".

The New Oxford (1998), Merriam-Webster (2000), Canadian Oxford (1998), Webster's English Usage (1989), and Style Manual (2002) of the Australian Government are all given as favouring the use of singular their — the final publication given here describes the use of singular their, they, etc. as a "standard idiom in most contexts". The particular advantage of this commonly accepted construction is that it avoids clumsy and pointless sexist he, or, she, or he/she. Such usage is standard, indeed superior to he/she or other formulations. The trend for its even more widespread use is "probably irreversible" (Burchfield (1996)), and according to the author of the Cambridge Guide, Pam Peters, Associate Professor of Linguistics at Macquarie University, (on page 538).Newbyguesses - Talk 14:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with just using "he," or if people find that objectionable, "she": both are better than "he or she," in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I think you're looking to support it, instead of looking at the actual usage. I suggest you go and read the oppinions and citations given in our very own article, Singular they, which, while not coming down on either side, definitely provides cites that very few experts in the field agree with the usage, regardless of the Australian Government's support (remember that governments have also tried to mandate the value of pi; while language is certainly more fluid than mathematics, I do not accept government support as actually meaning anything outside of their own in-house style guides). --Thespian 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well-put, User:Thespian, though, as I understand it, no competent government ever actually has tried to legislate "PI", that is an urban myth. What does/do "Strunk & White" say about it? I have a feeling that source would be supporting also (s)he rather than "they", (being an American source) but cant just check that at the moment. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 09:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a "competent government," it was the 1897 Indiana State legislature. Google it.

Minasbeede 12:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Here's the cite: The Indiana Pi Bill --Thespian 10:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

There is no agreement about the exact meaning of "primary source" versus "secondary source" as the terms relate to wikipedia. Further there is no consensus on their exact proper useage in wikipedia. There is some rough agreement, good enough so it is mostly not worth worrying about. But we've been over all this before, right slim? Historians and scientists dealing with quantitative objective data each use the term "primary source" to mean different things. Further, the source itself is not "primary" or "secondary" but how you use a claim from a source makes it so with respect to wikipedia's sourcing of that claim. If wikipedia quotes a reporter's article then that article is wikipedia's primary source on quotes from that article. Which can include an analysis which is original with the reporter. So the article is the primary source for that analysis. It can also include the reporter's quoting of some other source which then makes the article a secondary source for wikipedia's sourcing of information the reporter had a source for. The data the reporter used for his analysis was a source other than the reporter himself, but his original analysis is not sourced from that other source and so his article is a primary source for wikipedia's use of that analysis. Historians see documents as primary sources while often scientists refer to the actual experiments as their original source. Experts prefer primary sources but "wikipedia prefers secondary sources" is claimed by some leading to a dysfunctional relationship between experts and wikipedia causing an expert retention problem and wikiality where people who don't know a subject vote on how to write it based on newspaper misreports. All of this is too much for this policy and I think the less the policy talks about primary and secondary sources the better. WAS 4.250 08:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What counts as primary and secondary is relative to the position of the person using the source. A primary source is a person (or group, govt etc) very close to an event, probably directly involved, and we usually mean a document created by that person about the event. A person involved in or witnessing a car accident is a primary source; a newspaper article about that accident (and not only one containing analysis) is a secondary source for us, because the reporter wasn't there: he had to ask other people what happened. But in 50 years time, that same article will be a primary source on road conditions in location A at time T. Given the limited kind of research we do at WP, what's primary and secondary is usually pretty straightforward. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All of this is too much for this policy and I think the less the policy talks about primary and secondary sources the better. I could not agree more. For Wikipedia purposes, the only significant difference we need to deal with is documentary sources vs. reliable sources. When we are only using a sources to document something (X said Y; 1904 scientific consensus was Z) they must be handled differently than all other sources from which we present information from at face value.--BirgitteSB 13:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow, Birgitte. How are you differentiating documentary from reliable sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have used the word reliable because it's meaning so muddied already around here, but it is done so I will do my best to explain. Think of the past debates about out-of-date (discredited) sources. People would say they aren't reliable and shouldn't be used, but others would object to declaring them unacceptable because we need to be able to use them to document the history. At the same time, any source which isn't reliable is still allowed to be used in article about itself (basically to document self-professed claims). And here we are defining out "primary sources" in order to point out that editors need to be careful to only document what is said in such sources without adding their own interpretation. To make that point is the important part of the whole primary/secondary section.

In the end, I think many of these issues come together, for our purposes at Wikipedia, into two basic classes of sources. One class is the high-quality "reliable" sources that we want articles to be primarily based on. These sources are up-to-date, written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for, and published in a trustworthy manner. The other class consists of all other sources which should only be be used with extreme care, making sure they are only cited to document that such a source makes such a claim (direct quotes of the source, careful paraphrase of what the author of the source claims, facts and figures in infoboxes) Of course, there is a alot of detail that can be said about different issues that make something a second-class source, some are too questionable (notable conspiracy theory web-site), some are too old (Bede's History of England), some are too "raw" (transcripts of the Nixon tapes). But really the only thing matters is they do not qualify as a first-class source, they are not of good enough quality to base articles primarily on them.

Of course this really doesn't have a great deal to do with original research. Except that editors try to base articles on these second-class sources. And they can only do that by stretching them into saying more than they do. An editor reads in a 1914 encyclopedia that "[The Caucasian race] leads the other races in literature, commerce and all the arts of civilization." While that would make a great direct quote in some racial theory article, the editor wants to use it as a citation for "White racial superiority was a commonly held belief among educators in America at the beginning of the 20th century" Now that interpretation is original research; so the question of which sources we should base articles on shows up on the original research policy. And it leads us to trying to separate out different classes of sources to the purpose of giving a stronger warning about original research for one class. I have always found the primary/secondary/tertiary to be very problematic for our purposes here. Honestly we don't really need to care about the secondary/tertiary division. The only thing we really care about here is that editors have a tendency to violate the original research policy when using these raw, first-hand, or out-of-date (discredited) sources. So we sell the idea that raw and first-hand things are primary sources, and ignore out-of-date (discredited). Unless we see a problem in the mainspace with an out-of-date (discredited) source and then we tell people "Age can make a source become primary" and hope they don't pop over here and realize that the "Secondary Sources" section perfectly defines the source they are working with. Well most of people reading this understand these problems already

I am sure the way I have classified these sources above contains problems as well. It could even turn out to be far worse than the primary/secondary classification. However I just cannot stop myself from tinkering with ideas on how minimize or do away this primary/secondary mess. It is really terrible. I know most people reading this understand the primary/secondary issue and will say that the inaccurate oversimplification we promote works most of the time. And I cannot disagree. The problem is that when it doesn't work, there is no other guidance offered. The problem is that while most people reading this understand the issue, I think we can all remember when we did not understand and when we misunderstood. I don't mind relying on things that are difficult to understand, but I do hate to rely on something that is so easy to misunderstand if there is any other option.--BirgitteSB 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying, and I mostly agree with you — that the main issue is between good and bad sources, not primary and secondary, if I've understood you correctly. The problem is that anyone who handles source material (journalists, researchers, academics) understands the importance of distinguishing between primary and secondary sources, so it would be obtuse of us not to rely on it too — and even if it were removed with agreement, someone else would only come and add it again in a few weeks time, because it is a useful and widely recognized distinction. I've found it very helpful many times in explaining to people why certain sources are inappropriate; even if they've not heard of the primary/secondary distinction before, when it's explained, they usually get it instantly and go off to find a secondary source. It cuts through a lot of fluff. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It can be useful; up to a point. But past the point, we have nothing else to guide people. I wouldn't want to see anyone pull this out of the policy at this time. But I do hope that we are able to come to a better understanding of sources over time, and that eventually this crutch can be done away with. Because even though people believe us when we tell them "this is a primary source, and this is a secondary source", it is inaccurate and at times deceptive. On top of that, we are also mostly ignoring the problem with out-of-date sources which have been discredited over time.--BirgitteSB 22:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that all published sources are out-of-date, just to different degrees. Dhaluza 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you find that more accurate?--BirgitteSB 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting discussion. The other point to remembered about the primary/secondary/tertiary division is that what category you assign a source to depends on what you want to use it for. So, the Bible is a primary source, and a commentary on the Bible, secondary. But that is if the interest is the bible. If you are writing an article about commentaries as an intellectual endeavor, or the career of some biblical exegete, so-and-so's commentary becomes primary material for the article about so-and-so. Or, to choose another example, a report in a newspaper is a secondary source, but if you are writing an article about the politics of some reporter, his reports become primary for that purpose. Or, again, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. But if, say, some journalist wanted to write a column on "medical advice in wikipedia", our tertiary articles become primary material.

From the perspective of WP:NOR, I'm not sure that the distinction between primary/secondary is all that important, with the exception that we need to instruct users that it is possible to use primary sources in ways that result in original research. (This is best tackled through no-new-syntheses, imo.)

semper fictilis 13:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The examples you give illustrate the issue well. What's primary and secondary is relative to the context of the user: where they are in time, and what they're using the source for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The examples of primary and secondary sources given in the NOR article raise another question, when referring to articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Are such articles primary sources? They surely don't belong in the same category as e.g. census results, diaries, written lab notes etc. (given as examples of primary sources), since they could well have resulted from the analysis of such lab notes. And is an editorial which discusses such an article, (a) a secondary source and (b) per definition more authoritative than the original article? One could argue that the peer-review process creates an entity which is somewhere between primary and secondary in terms of reliability, since only articles which pass review get published. And since editorials (I assume) aren't subjected to peer review, are they as reliable as the original article, or simply opinion pieces with nothing other than the reputation of the editor as a guarantee for reliability? Any ideas? Thanks. --TraceyR 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are such articles [published in peer-reviewed journals] primary sources? Not primarily (and "no" for the way Wikipedia currently using these terms), however almost anything can also be used as primary source in the right circumstances. Same goes for the editorials. The terms primary and secondary sources are not really about reliability so much as proximity. What this section of the policy is really saying is "This kind of article show you the trees, rather than the forest. Be very careful on how you interpret this into an neutral encyclopedic (naturally a forest view) article".--BirgitteSB 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good explanation, Birgitte. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Inverviewing people

I'm new. I'm working on an article for a small commuter line/tourist railroad called Samtrak. There is a small amount of published material in our local newspaper that I can quote, but I'd like interview both the owner and engineer for the railroad to verify the newspaper articles and fill in missing information. Is that considered original research? Should I archive the interview online (recording and transcript) so it can be verified that I'm quoting it correctly. What's the Wikipedia way for doing this? PerlDreamer 18:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be "original research" and not allowed. If you just post the interview online on your own website, it would be covered under WP:NOR#Citing_oneself. Self-published websites are not considered reliable sources, since anyone can put up a website and there is no fact-checking required. (see WP:V) If you can get it published on a reliable source, which for your topic might be the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society website, then it may be permissible. That's the only way I can think of in your case that it might be okay. --Aude (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to approach this from the point of view of "how does the reader know you are not hoaxing them". Your interview claims must be sourceable to a published reliable source. WAS 4.250 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There are degrees of evidence. This would be considered weaker than a published third-party account, and it would not be strong enough to replace such a published account even if you knew it to be more "true". For a topic that is not likely to be controversial and that has at least some other published reference to confirm it is not a total fabrication, I would encourage you to do what you are describing. The opportunity to have useful material with accessible source outweighs the chance that it could be a hoax and we couldnt figure it out. alteripse 02:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia does not publish original research. It doesn't matter what the subject is, it is not what we are here to do. Tim Vickers 02:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, What PerlDreamer is proposing is not original research, but replicating someone else's results. My advice would be to do this, not for Wikipedia, but because it'll be interesting and worthwhile. Wikipedia may not, in the end, be the ultimate host, but he should be able to find some other home for it. And the exercise of doing this will surely make his contributions to this and other articles more subtle and nuanced. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. But that doesn't mean that original research is not worth doing. semper fictilis 03:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. For adding contect to Wikipedia, we'll stick to published facts, and look into another site, probably the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the National Railroad Historical Society. If we went to the Oregon Electric Railroad Historical Society Museum to take pictures of the Samtrak cars for the article, would that also be original content? - unsigned

Original research is allowed in images because so far it has not been a big problem and there is no good alternative. If anyone doubts the description of an image (no that is not a blald eagle, geoge bush, tom's bend bridge, whatever) then take it to talk and let the community reach a consensus on if to include the image in the article and if so what to label it. At factory farming there is a months old debate on whether an image is or is not appropriate for that article. WAS 4.250 05:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is verifiability - after all, anyone can contact the people he interviewed and ask them the same things for the purpose of fact-checking. The issue is more that the people being interviewed are primary sources (an NOR issue), and verifying them is more difficult than verifying widely-published printed material. Dcoetzee 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Okay, I've unlocked the article, I hope you can all work it out without edit warring again. Remember, one bold edit, one reversion, and then lots of discussion to consensus, and then the next bold edit, the next reversion, the next discussion and the next consensus, and then the next...

Good luck. Steve block Talk 12:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Open Source Software vs. Wikipedia

It is clear to me that Open Source Software brings a product of much higher quality than Wikipedia brings. Also Open Source Software not only allows OR, but thrives on it.01001 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a false analogy. Encyclopedias are not software. Dcoetzee 07:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How are encyclopedias different, and why does that matter? I think this is a very important issue because open source software has good policy.01001 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Software compiles and runs. Providing a reliable published source for all claims that are questioned is wikipedia's way of ensuring a similar level of quality. Allowing people to simply add stuff without backing it up would be like adding lines of code and releasing it without ever bothering to compile and run it. WAS 4.250 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Compiling and running the code is analogous to checking spelling and grammer. Crappy code will compile and run. This is not how open source software gets its excellent quality control.01001 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

None the less, quality control measures are needed and sourcing is an important one for wikipedia. It is needed because there are many different versions of "truth" and the best wikipedia can do in a contested case is to say well this reliable published source says this and that one says that. WAS 4.250 13:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you were to follow up on this analogy, I would say original research is analogous to the design of original algorithms and data structures. Our writing is original, just as a particular implementation may be, but we should leave it to the researchers to come up with - and thoroughly analyze - fundamentally new ideas. For example, there are countless amateur cryptography systems out there that have been broken, when they ought to have used a well-known published system. Dcoetzee 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Tiny minority" view

Hi.

I saw this: "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research." Does this mean that even if such a view has been published and documented in a reliable source, it still cannot be included simply because very few people believe it?! How exactly does few people believing something make it "original" research, anyway? mike4ty4 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point User:mike4ty4. However, the wording that you quote shouldn't cause a problem. If some information that is "published and documented in a reliable source" as you say is added to a WP article, it is unlikely to be challenged. The thing to look out for, especially if the information presented is likely to be contentious, is that, to conform to WP:NOR, no extra, or controversial, conclusion(s) should be drawn from the material from that source. And, that undue prominence (see WP:UNDUE) is not given to that source at the expense of other relevant sources included in the article. Undue prominence, for instance, could be mentioning a "minority view", while leaving unsaid the balancing or opposing or majority views.

All in all, I see no problem with that wording. Perhaps it needs a reference there to WP:UNDUE rather than WP:NOR, User:Newbyguesses - Talk 10:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Posters

If there is a poster of a sports event (specifically, one like boxing or wrestling), is it OR to state who is on the poster? Someone keeps reverting my edits on one article saying it's OR to state who is on the poster (even thought the poster is right in the infobox). - unsigned

No. Nor can I legitimately say your last sentence ended with a period. That's forbidden OR: someone else must say it outside Wikipedia. I'm not even sure if I can say you had a "last sentence." Perhaps its OR to respond to you: I didn't read that you'd posted your question or read your question outside Wikipedia. - Minasbeede 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is original research but we allow original research with regard to images as a special case so long as no one claims different. For example, I can take a picture of a moth and put it on the moth page with the caption "black moth". Then when some one objects that it is in fact the rare dark red fuzzy butterfly, I must remove it from the moth page. Or move and relabel it if I reseach it and find I agree. WAS 4.250 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: more slack for this guideline

I feel we should allow OR when something is bloody plain obvious. If an article were to say: in this video, "such and so" is said, wikipedia should be allowed to do so; even if no notable reliable source exists that says that the video says "such and so" provided that anyone can easily verify that the statement is true by simply watching the video.

In other words: things which are self-evident or almost trivial, should not have to pass the RS criterion. It is ludicrous to demand reliable sources for air is something we can breath or daylight originates from the Sun.

Rationale: the purpose of RS and OR is guaranteeing some level of reliablity. Slacking up as described does not compromise that. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

...air is something we can breath and daylight originates from the Sun. (Everyday Oxford Dictionary 1981 pp24,712) — This is not a case of OR — Newbyguesses - Talk 04:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about OR being trotted out in cases like this, usually to poke holes in pop-culture articles. But if someone is describing a video, the video is in itself a published source, so it's not OR. I do however think that, there should be somethinging in policy about "general knowledge" to take care of facts like "daylight originates from the Sun". Squidfryerchef 11:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When people disagree, citing is our mechanism to resolve. If you say "the sky is blue" and no one contests it then no problem. If someone says is is black or grey more often than blue and sometims much of it is white then you need to cite a reliable published source. For some people it is general knowledge that there is a God. WAS 4.250 13:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations need to be provided as per WP:V - "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" If something is general knowledge, nobody will challenge it and no source is needed. This isn't a question of OR. Tim Vickers 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In the example you give, Xiutwel, the video is a primary source, and using primary sources is allowed so long as you describe and don't interpret. So you could watch the video and report "Sammy kissed Lisa when they were sitting in the ice-cream parlor." But you could not say: "And this was evidence that Sammy isn't gay, which lots of viewers previously supposed he was, because he seemed very close to Greg." If you want to say the latter, you need a secondary source i.e. a published article about the video that says those things. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Detailed example of synthesis

Having established that editors required an example based on real life experience, I constructed this example from a real dispute that I was involved in. It has been reverted as unsuitable writing for a policy page. It was at a level of detail required to make a discussion of the problems of NOR work, in my opinion. I may not participate further as I have other commitments but leave this as my catalyst to a proper discussion on how rules can end up with inappropriate results . Spenny 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Spenny 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Start of addition

Synthesis is a complicated concept and so it is worth working though a more detailed example. In the context of Wikipedia, careless use of the rules can lead to some unusual statements being claimed based on referenced sources. Often this might come about due to the editing process itself, where people seek to find citations that back up writing.

Synthesis recognises that although information apparently can be carefully sourced, if the actual detail of a statement is not properly referenced, flawed logic can result in unsupportable claims. Whilst many of these simple logical deductions are harmless and need not be challenged, synthesis is not allowed where it is challenged and seeks to advance a position.

The following example made deliberately bizarre to emphasise the problem closely follows a real life example, though the concepts of the real problem might not be quite as obvious at first sight. To understand the example, we need to do some scene setting so we can understand how the subtle problems of synthesis arise. It is also helpful to understand that our editor is a fervent campaigner against tinted windshields on safety grounds.

In Nirvana, there was growing concern about road safety issues related to driving but tinted windshields and sunglasses were seen as essential to coping with this land of perpetual sunshine. There were a sudden spate of deaths on pedestrian crossings and eventually a public enquiry was held into these. The so-called Blindfold Inquiry dealt in some detail with the various causes and noted that although tinted windshields and sunglasses had been raised as concerns, the actual cause of all the accidents was found to be the craze of young drivers proving that they could drive around blindfolded. There were no accidents that fell outside this cause and the Inquiry was accepted as a sound review of various research. The Inquiry came to no conclusion on tinting windshields or using sunglasses whilst driving, but there was a general public consensus that these were a problem, no viable alternatives were accepted. The Inquiry was available as a public document on the web running to 100 pages of detailed summary and assessment of various opinions. Responding to increasing public concern the President of Nirvana called for the banning of tinted windscreens and scientists also were concerned and wanted to see all devices that impaired visibility removed.

A respected news agency in Nirvana published the following release which was accepted by all as a fair high level summary of the issues.

Tinted windshields blamed for road safety disasters

The President of Nirvana called for the banning of tinted windscreens saying, "Tinted windshields are a disaster in the making, they must be banned." Scientists involved in the famous crossing disasters inquiry also demanded changes, "The Blindfold Inquiry shows that impared visibility can cause disasters." Scientists went on to say, "Sunglasses are a timebomb, they must be banned."

The Wikipedia article was written as follows:

Tinted windshields, also known as sunglasses_{(citation to above news release)}, are a harmful form of decoration for cars. Scientists have blamed sunglasses as the cause of deaths on pedestrian crossings._{(citation to above news release)}

Editors had originally complained that sunglasses were not the same as windshields and the Inquiry did not blame sunglasses, but the author had looked for references and found the press release from the respected news agency.

The two key problems with this synthesis is that the release never actually says that sunglasses and windshields are the same thing, it relies on an assumption that the title of the release, the President and the scientists are talking about the same thing. The writing of the release in this loose fashion does allow the casual reader to be confused. Once read in this way, this synthesis using the article definition is used in circular fashion to confirm the article from the release. The fact that the statements come from the same source is not a barrier to a false analysis of the source.

The second issue is that scientists never actually said that tinted windshields were the problem in the release, and although it is common sense that poor visibility is a related issue, the scientists did not tie the sunglasses and the blindfolding together in the release, there is no quote that actually ties the two statements together. There is nothing incorrect or misleading in the press release, the quotes are accurate, but the summary loses the context of the statements.

The Inquiry had wording in it that clearly defined the problem yet policy is used to dismiss the high quality inquiry statement. The argument is that the press-release must be more appropriate to Wikipedia as from the perspective of the press-release the Inquiry is a primary source and does not apparently have the validity of a secondary source which has tested it. It shows the danger of assessing reliable sources incorrectly. We can also be critical of seeking to suggest that casual comments of scientists are suggested as scientific consensus. Regardless of these policy pages, editing requires that critical faculties remain engaged at all times.

End of addition

I don't see how this is an example of SYNT. Can you say what the real example is? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I copied it to Wikipedia:No original research/example 1. WAS 4.250 14:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again synthesis is painted black because of flaws in the A and/or B used in the synthesis. Minasbeede 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the merits of the example, I think the word count on this is way too high. I think the explanation of synthesis is taking up a disproportionate amount of the policy page as it is. We need to keep the policy page short and to the point, so that people will read and understand it. Enchanter 19:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research/example 1 userfied at User:IanMSpencer/example ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

An example to clarify

I am not suggesting adding anything to the policy but I want to make sure we all understand the same thing to be synthesis. So here is my example.

A 1914 encyclopedia article reads (Races of the World) that "[The Caucasian race] leads the other races in literature, commerce and all the arts of civilization." The encyclopedia is American and it is plainly designed to comply with the ideas of contemporary educators. (In its preparation we were able to secure the coöperation of specialists and educators whose standing will be recognized upon inspection of our list of editors and contributors. Advantage has been taken of suggestions which have come to us from many teachers during years of experience in the use of the former work, and it is believed that the present work will be found adequate and satisfactory.) It would be synthesis to put all this information together to say "White racial superiority was a commonly held belief among educators in America at the beginning of the 20th century".

The two points I want to make is that synthesis has just a good of chance coming up with the right answer as the the wrong answer. And secondly it can involve a single source. Synthesis is not disallowed because information found through synthesis is always wrong; it is disallowed because such information has a chance of being wrong. It much better practice (as well as policy) to find a source that directly addresses the issue rather than trying to make information that partially covers the issue fit by adding it together with other information. Synthesis goes hand and hand with lazy sourcing. If you take the time to find the best sources for the subject first, then you will have little to worry about regarding synthesis.--BirgitteSB 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with OR?

As long as the source is clear to the reader, what is wrong with OR in Wikipedia? I am ready to start slapping down some straw dogs, so please consider your response.01001 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You can never be clear of who the source is, so have no way of assessing the claims. Outside Wikipedia I approve of OR, but I only publish mine in journals, so my peers can assess the evidence. Wikipedia cannot do that, so it doesn't allow OR. Tim Vickers 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a considered response. The question assumed that the source must be clear to the reader.01001 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to explain it is to consider the sort of cases it was invented for: you have a crank who has published all over Usenet and personal websites their crank theories about how the moon is made of green cheese, the clear scientific evidence for it, and the government conspiracies suppressing it. They can source all their statements to this self-published material. Because nobody cares about this crank, nobody has bothered refuting them, and so there's no sourcable material that can be used to even balance out the article - and they'll viciously defend it. Wikipedia editors being composed primarily of university students, we don't have the resources or expertise to review sources and judge their accuracy - nor should we leave it up to the reader to evaluate the source of such clearly factually ridiculous information. By relying on review by other organizations, we avoid this whole mess. Dcoetzee 01:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So the problem is that a criteria is needed to determine that which belongs in Wikipedia and that which does not. For the sake of discussion, let's further assume that all entries into Wikipedia must be reasonable. Would this not handle the green cheese theory?01001 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the policy against OR doesn't work against the crank statements (they're sourced, and bad sources don't instantly appear to be such, in general.) This issue deserves more attention but I get too wordy and too repetitive so I'll not try. (I read the essay suggested below. My take was that if there were flawed OR the collaborative community would eliminate it, in time, in theory. That is, in general, how the collaboration works, isn't it? Good stuff tends to be polished and augmented, bad stuff tends to be removed or corrected. I'm aware of the problem implicit in "tends to be" - that's partly why I used the phrase.) Minasbeede 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

10001: Read the essay Wikipedia:The_role_of_policies_in_collaborative_anarchy, that may help you with your question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

01001, the problem with your OR campaign is that you consistently insist that your OR views are correct because you think they are obvious, even when they are manifestly contradicted by a great deal of published scientific research (e.g. here and here). We do not allow this sort of "OR" in wikipedia, it would be like letting the creationists insist that the articles on evolution by natural selection are wrong because they disagree with them. Encyclopedias are supposed to reflect the current state of the world's knowledge, not be a collection of uninformed opinions. What you are advocating is not even original research, it's the censorship of scholarly research in place of your POV. Pete.Hurd 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

conclusion / Proposal: more slack for this guideline

I^{&#151; Xiutwel (talk)} am copying from a previous section, since the discussion had become rather lengthy with the excellent tractise on the dangers of synthesis inserted.

In the example you give, Xiutwel, the video is a primary source, and using primary sources is allowed so long as you describe and don't interpret. So you could watch the video and report "Sammy kissed Lisa when they were sitting in the ice-cream parlor." But you could not say: "And this was evidence that Sammy isn't gay, which lots of viewers previously supposed he was, because he seemed very close to Greg." If you want to say the latter, you need a secondary source i.e. a published article about the video that says those things. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

question I want to check if this is a consensus viewpoint; I've also heard someone say it would be OR to watch a video when describing the video. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean for example saying that the world trade center collapsed at free-fall speed? Or drawing the reader's attention to puffs of smoke, or supposed 'molten metal'? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The OR comes in (for one of your examples) when it is claimed that falling at free-fall speed implies a controlled demolition (and nothing else.) It is quite often the case that assertions of that type depend on a specific interpretation that excludes all other interpretations. The conclusion reached is the result of excluding all interpretations other than the one that leads to the conclusion, which is the desired conclusion of the editor. That process is intensely not NPOV. Minasbeede 14:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Even leaving aside interpretation, I would be concerned about picking and choosing which bits to mention. The 'truth movement' is infamous for highlighting supposed anomalies to support their conspiracy theories, while ignoring other data. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean for example saying ... — No Tom, I do not mean that. I mean: "Bashar, according to Darryl Anka purportedly channeling Bashar, claims he actually represents an entire society of 230 million entities in constant telepathic connection with each other."^{[video of session]}
Or: "The lyre bird can mimic even chainsaw sounds^{[video of David Attenborough]}
I would agree with Minasbeede that drawing your own conclusions from a video does amount to OR, but literally citing a video is allowable, and to do so on wikipedia, no secondary sources are needed as RS &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User contributions Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments

We do allow things in wikipedia that are not "assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments" therefore the sentence had to be changed to accurately reflect what was meant but was not actually said. WAS 4.250 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

• Shouldn't primary sources be discouraged as strongly as possible? When using only primary sources, it is very difficult (if not nearly impossible) to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research.
• Isn't "[o]riginal research that creates primary sources" nonsense? Original research can only prouce a secondary source. Writing an allegedly inspired religious text would be creating a primary source, but would hardly be original research. Drawing upon such a text for reference material would be a conflict of interest and the result would probably be original research.
• Should we provide an encouragement to use primary sources with secondary sources?
• Legal cases? Seriously? Legal cases should be among the least desirable situations to use primary sources. Legal scholars very often debate for decades what a case is about, in what fashion and what exact conclusions were drawn. If secondary sources find it so easy to debate such "simple" facts extensively, how can those primary sources possibly be a good example for the no original research policy?
• The line between descriptive and analytic/interpretive claims is very thin, highly subjective and easily abused. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supported by reliable secondary sources. While many are prone to respond "that's silly", imagine it were an obscure religious group with whose beliefs you were not at all familiar. Now imagine it is a small obscure group that is often called a cult. The abuse potential is obvious.
• Also, notability and neutral point of view would seem at least to preclude a heavy use of, or dependence on, primary sources. The policies form a coherent unit, mutually supporting each other, not providing contrary encouragement or loopholes.

Just some thoughts. Your thoughts? Vassyana 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy this and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

There. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support these edits. In particular, I agree that the sentence "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed." is junk - how can someone "create primary sources" by editing Wikipedia? Enchanter 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the edits in the guideline. And I understand the preference for reliable, secondary sources, since these may be the result of more fact-checking than the primary source could or did. However, when secondary sources are not (freely) available, I have no problem with using a primary source provided the use thereof is clearly indicated in the article. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Unsigned articles may be less reliable"

I have a problem with this clause, since it is being used by persons to claim that an unsigned, collaboratively created Britannica-sourced article which reflects the consensus of experts is less "reliable" than the a signed article by a single self-styled expert out on the fringe of expert opinion. It directly conflicts with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Undue_weight#Undue_weight which says "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Clearly, the Undue Weight policy says that a "commonly accepted reference text" can be used as a trump in a case of battling sources. But the policy on this page says that not only can they not be used as a trump against "secondary sources", they can actually be classed as "less reliable" than "secondary sources"! Just because some quack is willing to sign their name to some absurd claim, that does not mean that it thereby more "reliable" by virtue of that signature alone. Finally, you are just opening the door to further "original research" when you imply that an unsigned Britannica article can be improved upon by "secondary sources". A Britannica article normally represents the consensus of expert opinion, so should be deferred to be those otherwise inclined to go hunt down all the unrepresentative, fringy "secondary sources" that they can find. I'd call that "original research" in that they are trying to being a new, hitherto unappreciated "truth" to humanity.Bdell555 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've never liked that sentence, and in fact I think it's wrong. In Britannica in particular, the signed articles tend to be more POV and idiosyncratic. I'd be quite happy for us to get rid of that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR and free images

Over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, User:Mosquera posits that WP:NOR forbids the use of many free images because they have never been published anywhere. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair Use Rationale: The Extended Mix. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

original research

Using search results (the number of results produced) to back claims of popularity, original research or not? There's an edit war stalemate regarding WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR at Stephanie (LazyTown)#Internet Phenomenon. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of OR-ish, because it's hard to judge popularity from the number of Google hits. But it's the kind of thing that's often allowed so long as it's not causing any harm. The best thing would be to find a published source that says she's popular, and stick to what the source says. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OR/Synthesis dispute

Is it correct to say that this section is full of OR/Synthesis of published material service to advance a position? Looks exactly like that to me... Dreadstar † 19:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone could check my logic? Thanks much! Dreadstar † 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a dispute about OR/Synthesis in an article on the "What the Bleep Do We Know" talk page. Any assistance in clearing the matter up would be greatly appreciated. Dreadstar † 01:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that section is OR. For the corrections to be included, we would need to find a source who had made those corrections in relation to the film i.e. a film review that said what that section is saying. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! My thoughts exactly! Thank you, SlimVirgin! Dreadstar † 02:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say I find this decision extremely confusing. The example at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position seems clearly to be OR to me, and at least the first, second, and last items at What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#Factual_errors seem clearly not to be OR. If they are OR, then I don't understand how it's possible to write Wikipedia articles at all. What are the boundaries? For example,

• If the movie claimed logical proposition P (e.g. 2+2=5) and some reliable source claimed ¬P (e.g. 2+2≠5), but didn't mention the movie, would quoting it constitute a prohibited synthesis?
• What if the claim is merely logically inconsistent with P (e.g. 2+2=4)?
• The article on Albert Einstein says that his contributions included special relativity, "which reconciled mechanics with electromagnetism". That claim is unsourced. If it were sourced, could the source simply claim that special relativity reconciles mechanics with electromagnetism, or would it need to include Einstein's name?

These are serious questions; I don't know the answers, and I don't understand the policy. -- BenRG 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The correction section isn't OR at all. There isn't any synthesis. The film makes bogus claims. Each of those claims is refuted by science. All that is needed is a verifiable reference for the refutation. If the film claimed (for example), "the moon is made of green cheese", a reference to NASA studies about the moon's composition would not be original research. Kww 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Best practice is to write wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page with each claim attributed to the source that makes the claim. Our "original reseach rule says you are not allowed to come up with your own claim that is not in a reliable published source and try to prove it with cited claims that do not make the claim you are trying to support. "to advance a position" is the wording I remember in the policy. Don't think "Well its obvious that if this says that and the other source says this other thing then this important conclution must be true and I should claim it is true in this article." If its trivial and unsourced, don't mention it. If it nontrivial and there is no source anywhere that says it, then maybe you are mistaken. Lots of people don't see how something could not be true if so and so is true ... and are wrong. WAS 4.250 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The relevant section is Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Some of the OR in the "Bleep" article is clearly synthesis because it takes a source unrelated to the movie, and joins it together with a statement from the movie - that is the very definition of synthesis. The resulting statement, that it is a a 'factual error,' whether it's right or wrong, is clearly a comment and conclusion being made by a Wikipedia Editor and not by a third party, reliable source. It is very clearly Original Resarch and a Synthesis of sources. Dreadstar † 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But they aren't synthesizing. If they took the next step: "Since BLEEP can't get facts straight, none of it's conclusions can be trusted", they would be synthesising. They don't do that. They simply list claims that contradict scientific consensus, and cite factual references supporting the fact that the movie contradicts scientific consensus. Kww 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely original research. Remember that OR is "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Taking inaccurate claims from the movie and comparing them to other published material (unrelated to the movie) to advance the position that the movie uses incorrect/inaccurate science is very clearly original research. It is certainly an "unpublished analysis" of the claims made in the movie. The movie has been widely reviewed and discussed. Many of the distinct claims and persons in the movie have been extensively written about. If you wish to advance the position the science in the movie is inaccurate, there are plenty of reliable sources available for such a point of view. Just be cautious to ensure that the article is balanced in proportion to the references.

Is this OR? Translation of ancient manuscript

An interesting discussion has come up at Talk:Rylands Library Papyrus P52#So what does it say?. This article is about the earliest NT manuscript, which is a credit card size piece of papyrus that contains roughly 25 words on both sides, with many of the words cut off. I looked at the Greek text found on a website, and I used Bible translation software to come up with a rough approximation of a translation of the fragment. But I used some artistic licensing on the lacuna. Another user took a known English translation of the whole verses in question, arranged the words to correspond to the Greek word order, and again, comparing it to the Greek, made a rough approximation of what words are included, and what words are partially cut off by bolding certain corresponding English words.

The issue is, we have been unable to find a source that gives a direct translation of just what is just on the fragment (we have sources that have reconstructed translations of the fragment and surrounding missing text, but not of just the fragmented text). One user suggested moving his work from the talk page to a website and citing that website, and that's obviously original research.

But now I think we've been thinking about this too hard, because isn't this just a simple matter of translation? Is it really original research if we translate text? Or even use a known English translation and note approximate word cut off points based on the original Greek? -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want a translation of just the surviving words? I think there is a clear reason for the existing sources to have chosen to reconstruct the surrounding text and you should follow their lead. This fragment was not designed to only show 25 or so words and determining what was handwritten in an ancient version of a foreign language you do not read is something that is best gotten from reliable sources. A simple translation is when you translate something you clearly understand to a second language that you also understand. This is far from being a simple translation.--BirgitteSB 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we do have a source that says what is there in Greek. We aren't trying to determine what was handwritten. The issue with saying "the fragment says..." and copying a "reconstruction" is that 80% of the "reconstructed" text isn't on the fragment itself. But I understand what you are saying regarding a simple translation. Thanks for your input._Andrew c ^[talk] 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess one of my issues is regarding what you intend on doing with the information. If you want to make a mock-up of the fragment in English as an illustration, then I don't have a huge problem. However it can be near impossible to translate many words accurately out of context. (i.e. "fly" how would you translate this word without know if it is a noun or a verb from surrounding text) This difficulty is why I imagine all sources in translation reconstruct the whole document. It is just as much of a guess about the meaning of 20% without the context of the rest as it to guess what the 80% is. In fact the only way to translate that 20% with any hope of accuracy is to first reconstruct the whole document from other versions. When you just transcribe the Greek you do not have to decide on the meaning of any ambiguous words, when you translate you do. But as I said I don't have huge problem if this is for an illustration. On the other hand if want to use this translation and discuss it in the prose of the article. I do have a problem. Any discussion of this translation you have come up with will be original research with 100% certainty.--BirgitteSB 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)