Enric you present an impoverished idea of what Wikipedia editors can and should do We do not report demonstrably false information as fact just because a reliable source says it unless we balance it We can and should balance secondary source error with primary source fact The requirement is that the primary source facts reported should be directly verifiable without synthesis by any ordinary person with ordinary skill applying reasonable effort First of all its worth reading WPOR over carefully Then look at the essay linked from the WPOR page WPNOTOR See specifically this exampleA book short story film or other work of fiction is a primary source for any article or topic regarding that work Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself without interpretation is not original research but is reliance upon a primary source This would include direct quotes or non interpretative summaries publication dates and any other patent information that can be observed from the work For example if there are multiple versions of a particular story and one version does not have a particular character or has extra characters that is clear simply by reading or watching the work The fact that one would have to read or watch the whole thing does not make the matter original research The work is verifiable even if it takes more time than flipping to a single pageNotice that the example is quite on point here After reporting what the DoE report says is claimed in the review document about the sixteen samples blah blah we could say The Hagelstein paper which was the review document does not contain a report of blah blah However it does contain bleep bleep And there is probably more than we can say there is some criticism of the 2004 report in reliable source if Im correct This tidbit however requires no source other than the 2004 DoE materialNotice also that we probably cannot report for example that The 2004 DoE report contradicted itself unless we have secondary source on that What we properly do is to present the elements of the alleged contradiction without claiming contradiction reliably sourced and let the reader form his or her own conclusion The elements are directly verifiable The conclusion isnt   

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
Enric you present an impoverished idea of what Wikipedia editors can and should do We do not report demonstrably false information as fact just because a reliable source says it unless we balance it We can and should balance secondary source error with primary source fact The requirement is that the primary source facts reported should be directly verifiable without synthesis by any ordinary person with ordinary skill applying reasonable effort First of all its worth reading WPOR over carefully Then look at the essay linked from the WPOR page WPNOTOR See specifically this exampleA book short story film or other work of fiction is a primary source for any article or topic regarding that work Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself without interpretation is not original research but is reliance upon a primary source This would include direct quotes or non interpretative summaries publication dates and any other patent information that can be observed from the work For example if there are multiple versions of a particular story and one version does not have a particular character or has extra characters that is clear simply by reading or watching the work The fact that one would have to read or watch the whole thing does not make the matter original research The work is verifiable even if it takes more time than flipping to a single pageNotice that the example is quite on point here After reporting what the DoE report says is claimed in the review document about the sixteen samples blah blah we could say The Hagelstein paper which was the review document does not contain a report of blah blah However it does contain bleep bleep And there is probably more than we can say there is some criticism of the 2004 report in reliable source if Im correct This tidbit however requires no source other than the 2004 DoE materialNotice also that we probably cannot report for example that The 2004 DoE report contradicted itself unless we have secondary source on that What we properly do is to present the elements of the alleged contradiction without claiming contradiction reliably sourced and let the reader form his or her own conclusion The elements are directly verifiable The conclusion isnt   

