Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 8

message: This falls between OR and NPOV but I'm a bit concerned by historical articles where an editor cites selected passages from a primary source in order to present a particular opinion as to the topic of the primary source and the concerns of the author.
Does anyone have any ideas about how this policy might address that problem? --SteveMcCluskey 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this policy already makes it crystal clear that one cannot use primary sources (or even secondary sources) to advance an editor's novel analysis or synthesis or interpretation or explanation.  I want to voice one concern about the phrase "selective citation:" since all Wikipedia articles are works in progress, it is inevitable that any given editor provides selective citations.  The solution is not to delete such citations but to seek out other sources and other views, i.e. for other editors to add.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the context it's hard to judge.  Selective quoting of sources is always a problem (I had a recent dispute with someone who quoted figures form a report which appeared to back a pressure group's claim that something was significant; the report itself made it clear that other things were much more significant - the solution was to cite all the things in order of significance).  So: generally, expand the quotes to give the full context. And if it's a matter of interpretation, show recognised experts stating that interpretation (and other recognised experts violently disagreeing).  Vroomfondel and Majikthise may both be cited as sources :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG  (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 July 2006  (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions.  I don't think adding additional quoatations would work in the case I have in mind, which already involves lengthy quotations from one aspect of the source and ignores the rest of it.  Adding similar quotations to give a balanced picture would lead to a lengthy and unreadable article.  Citing recognized experts from secondary sources seems to be a more promising approach. --SteveMcCluskey 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective citation to advance a position 

message: JA: Like any WP:Policy or Guideline whose fair and equal enforcement would depend on knowing the real-world identity and affiliations of each editor in question, the aspects of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:SPAM that deal with advancing particular purposes are simply null and void.  Just f'r'instance, nobody has any way of knowing for sure whether that editor or that cabal of evatars who are so insistent about imposing the POV of their favorite secondary source on an article is in fact the author or publisher of the work in question.  What will be the result of attempting to enforce a WikiProvision of this type — and I use the word "vision" blindly?  The editors who are honest enough to use their real names will be at the disadvantage of the editors, their agents, and their evatars who are not.  WikiPar for the course, of course.  Jon Awbrey 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, I don't think I get your point: none of the Wikipedia policies rely on knowing the true identity of the editors involved. The verifiability policy means that even if the original source of a particular article comes online and makes an unsourced change we won't accept it. As you say there is no way that someone is who they claim to be, so we never rely on that. Perhaps I'm missing yur point? Gwernol 18:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jon, if you read the policy as a whole, it says that no unpublished information may be added to Wikipedia, and no synthesis of published information if it serves to advance a position. Of course, a new synthesis of published material is allowed if it doesn't advance a position. All Wikipedia articles are new syntheses of published information. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jon, you've said you are leaving.  You've said all the above on WikiEN-l and it's been noted that your interpretation of the policy and its application is at odds with reality; that in fact it is you who are adding original research (in the form  of novel syntheses, precisely as stated). If you read the policies for comprehension instead of looking for support for your tendentious edits, then I'm sure you'll find less ambiguity.  It's also been pointed out that your pseudo-intellectual tone and your idiosyncratic formatting serve mainly to obscure what you are saying and make your edits less comprehensible.  Have you ever considered listening to other people when they reply to you?  As far as I can say the general summary of your "exit interview" thread on WikiEN-l was "goodbye, you'll not be missed". A wise man might conclude that there was at least a grain of truth in the criticisms levelled against you there. Just zis Guy you know? 16:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, every WP article is a new synthesis of published material, so clearly the NOR policy can't disallow that, or we'd be left only with plagiarism. What it prohibits is any new synthesis that appears to advance a position. It's not a question of authorial intention. It's a question of whether the material, or the way it's written up, appears to be trying to persuade the reader that A is right and B is wrong, even if the author didn't intend it to. Whether a text does this is not an objective thing. Sometimes it's very obvious and sometimes it's subtle; there are times when it's so subtle that even very good editors disagree about whether it's being done. You seem to be insisting that it be algorithmic, and that if we can't provide the algorithm, the policy is useless and unenforceable. But in fact all we seek to do here is give general rules for editors to follow as best they can, and we recognize that areas of disagreement will remain, which will be resolved only by editors applying common sense, editing experience, and research and writing skills. We can't dot every single i and cross every t. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a lot of stuff that's not widely understood in the trenches: NPOV, for example, and how to use sources, how to write grammatically, how to spell. That doesn't mean we should ditch our policies and advise everyone to get out there and starting writing in sentences that can't be parsed. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awbrey under doesn't stand you ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet Another Unenforceable Policy (YAUP)

message: Since the word "novel" has multiple definitions, I've added a clarifying statement. Wjhonson 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since my clarification has been reverted, it is now once again impossible to tell what the founder meant by "novel".  So I'll go ahead and use Webster's third definition "a work of fiction".  Thanks! Wjhonson 20:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "Novel" 

message: I'm not quite clear on what the difference is between Original Research and Rephrasing or Reasoning something. My example is slightly obscure, but is the best I can come up with at the moment. If say, no-one anywhere had published something saying that the District Line had the most number of stations on the London Underground (this 'factoid' has been published, but for the sake of argument let's say that only the number of stations on each line had been published). Would it then be Original Research to look at a list of the number of stations on each line and say "The District Line has the most number of stations". To me this is similar to the "deductive reasoning" section above (which concerned deducing people's nationality), but this is a clearer case of deductive reasoning. Other cases I can think of include saying things like "team Y is the first team to have won trophy X by this scoreline since 1860". This sort of thing is verifiable, but if it hasn't been published elsewhere, the only way to verify it is for the reader to go and check various lists and see if this is true. So where is the line drawn between rephrasing and representing a set of facts and maybe adding some obvious deductive reasoning, and this process becoming Original Research? A similar process would be seen for the process of rewriting and rephrasing things from a source. Where is the line drawn between summarising several sources (which is one of the prime purposes of a tertiary source like an encyclopedia), and synthesising those sources in such a way that (maybe accidentally) new connections and insights are revealed about the topic?  I've also raised this at the Village Pump (policy) section.  Carcharoth 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting you mention summarizing.  I was just now reading Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources which is a guideline, and says that we should summarize a treaty, don't include all the text.  The act of summarizing requires a fairly significant level of reasoning and deduction, this isn't a purely mechanical process.  So I'd say this page is another tool to use against those who would ask us to be robots copying quotes.  A trivial deduction seems safe, and as long as you're not pushing a point-of-view, I wouldn't expect much objection. Wjhonson 00:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carcharoth, it's fine to do that so long as it's straightforward and there are no ambiguities. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. No one is arguing that we need to become "robots copying quotes", but in articles whose subject is controversial, we ought to respect the request from editors to provide citations for material about which there is a dispute. I am sure no one will ask us to provide a reliable source to make the assertion that "The District Line has XXX stations, that compared with other London tube lines, has the most number of stations", because that is an easily verifiable fact. But if any of you has edited any articles about which there is controversy, you know that you may not not get away with making assertions of fact without having these supported by a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research, Rephrasing and Reasoning 

message: How does this policy affect sections of articles discussing interpretations of poems, novels, and the like? For example, would it be allowable to write something like "Others have countered that the second stanza alludes not to the German bombings of Exeter but instead to the actions of a serial killer active in the city at the time" and then cite a selection of sources advocating this position, even if those sources were self-published? As the article will only claims the existence of this alternative interpretation (and will not claim greater authority for it), would the use of self-published sources be appropriate - after all, the existence of several documents detailing an interpretation does seem to be reliable evidence for the existence of that interpretation? --Safalra 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpretations from non-reputable sources normally are not encylopedic. I could imagine situations where the mere existance of non-reputable interpretations might be worthy of mention (for example, a famous author-painter says "I got so tired of answering interview questions about silly interpretations of my first novel that I gave up writing and started painting") but I'd think situations where the non-reputable interpretations are worth mentioning would be rare. Gerry Ashton 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing interpretation of poems, novels, and the like 

message: Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. I rest my case. Precis 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what it says, it should be changed. According to that definition, anything not verifiable is automatically original research, and we shouldn't even have a verifability rule since the original research rule completely covers it. Ken Arromdee 04:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to propose a counterexample to this notion that violating V implies violating NOR. Suppose that the SF Giants organization published an article about Barry Bonds in their official program, distributed at a September 1, 1993 game in Candlestick Park.  A WP editor puts into an article a fact about Bonds that stuck in her mind, citing the official program.  Neither she nor anyone she knows can find a record of the program. Since she added material that was previously published by a reliable source, she cannot be accused of violating  WP:NOR.  But one can still say she violated WP:V. Precis 10:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Argueablely, the official program was distributed to a select, private audience which had purchased tickets.  Should a publisher then put together a book about the Giants and include a portion of that program, distributing it to the general public, it would become published. Terryeo 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess one can come up with special cases.  The fact remains that the spirit of WP:V and the spirit of WP:NOR are the same spirit.  What's the point in showing a case where something is not verifiable and yet not strictly original research?  If all we're trusting is some Wikipedians memory of a published source, it might as well be original research?  What's at stake here? -GTBacchus(talk) 10:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the right to give a counterexample to a statement (see second paragraph above) which I consider false.  I truly don't think I have to justify my point beyond that. I agree with your point about spirit. Precis 11:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What's at stake is the false accusation by one editor that another is doing WP:OR.  If I cite a source of a newspaper, that only exist on microfilm, it does pass WP:V which only states that a source must be verifiable not that that process must be easy.  The other editor might complain that my source is "for all intents" unverifiable, but regardless of the merit of that logic, it is still not WP:OR by the definition and WP:AGF that I'm not making it up. Wjhonson 18:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not like violating WP:OR is a crime or something shameful, or that saying that someone is violating WP:OR is in any way an accusation of bad faith.  A lot of my first edits to the Wikipedia violated WP:OR, because I didn't know any better, but that didn't make me a bad editor or anything.  A source on microfilm certainly is verifiable, and using it doesn't constitute original research.  A false accusation of violating original research probably isn't going to hurt anyone, though.  Is there a specific case we're talking about here, where someone's giving someone a hard time over some specific contribution, or what? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised how these things can snowball.  A few accusations, unsupported by anything except editors opinions, and a persons reputation is shot.  Then they have gnomes following their edit trail looking for anything to attack them with.  At any rate, I just wanted to make sure that what was WP:OR was clearly distinguished from the more controversial idea that its not WP:V. And your statement about newspapers is one of the issues that will be discussed. (The specific case is in mediation :)) Wjhonson 18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: NOR covers the case where a statement is advanced by an individual in a verifiable way, but where that statement is unreliable or utterly fringe.  If some kook believes he's developed a new Grand Unified Theory of physics and publishes it on his website, it is possible to verify through a variety of means that it is his theory, and that he did present it, and so forth.  However, it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to include his theory or present his work in any of our articles (unless we had one on the kook himself) because it is original research. Until the work was published by a third party (a scientific journal, in this case) Wikipedia would not be an appropriate venue to present the theory.   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point out where NOR says that kook statments aren't allowed?  The basis of WP:OR is that the statement has not been previously published, in a WP:RS and is WP:V.  Its unrelated to whether the statement is "unreliable" or "fringe". Wjhonson 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a pointer from WP:NOT, under the section Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing "kook statement" anywhere in there.  I think what you meant to say was "original statement".  However if a kook has been reported on in secondary published reliable sources, as a kook, that kooks statements, from those sources, is wikifiable. Wjhonson 06:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  violating V implies violating NOR? 

message: I think truth should be at least as important as verifiability.  Can someone please explain to me the purpose behind ignoring the truth.01001 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Donald has summarized the issue with clarity; "Truth" is often a function of belief; as an encyclopedic resource we should rely on verifiability. Note that most 'truths' are also verifiable; it's that when a 'truth' has not been verifiably reported by someone else (prefereably a reliable source) that we, as an encyclopedia, cannot report on it. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can there be truth if it cannot be verified?01001 04:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be amazed how many people just know that something is true, and then insist on inserting it into articles :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After giving the matter some thought, there cannot be truth that is not verified, but certainly that which is not true can be verified.01001 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel that "verifiability, not truth" mis-juxtaposes the two ideas.  The meat of the matter is, Wikipedia deals in and presents only one catagory of information.  That catagory of information is "published to the broad, general public" information and no other kind of information.  If and only if information has been previously published to the broad, general public, can it be included into Wikipedia.  Some people might 'get it' when reading the policy, verifiability, not truth, perhaps it is the best way to state it.  But I feel it could be stated more clearly. Terryeo 05:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, this is about the 11th time you have stated against the definition pevalent in common dictionarys  . "Published" means "distributed to the public" and not "distributed to selected individuals who are a member of an organization". Verifiability always works out that way.  A piece of information which isn't verifiable simply hasn't been published. Perhaps you might look up each of the terms? Terryeo 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth.

message: Hello, I'm looking for some help. Over on the Moscow Metro talk page we're trying to pick one of two tables for inclusion in the article listing the lines of the Moscow Metro. We currently have two proposals. One of the editors feels that the second proposal constitutes original research. Please let us know if this is the case.
I realize that this sounds ridiculous, but it's true. I asked him to back up his position, but he didn't really answer properly. It seems that he's simply using NOR as an excuse to prevent the inclusion of the second table. Let us know if he's correct in his accusations.—lensovet–talk – 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can say is that I do not understand the user's concern, as the dispute seems to be about whether the subway line name or number should be presented in the first column of the chart.  If that really is the entire dispute, I suggest that the chart layout is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss, but bringing WP:NOR into a conversation about the order of the columns is more confusing than helpful.  Jkelly 19:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, the user's concern is if the number or the name should go first. He believes that putting the line numbers first is a misrepresentation of sorts, and is therefore original research. I beg to differ. —lensovet–talk – 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless the second table inherently exhibits or strongly suggests facts that are not widely accepted, it is just an issue of presentation and not OR. Deco 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: hmm - I came to this page because I was going to make a simple edit to the Ballia page describing the statues in the roundabouts. I lived in Ballia.  It'd be easy to 'verify' that they're there, there's over 100,000 people living in the city. Anybody who goes outside sees them. They're not controversial. But as near as I can tell I shouldn't say anything about them since it'd be 'original research'??? The statues are pretty obvious. The article's a stub, and has the usual note pleading for people to expand it. So I guess I should make a web page somewhere, noting that Ballia has statues, then reference myself?  Anniepoo 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has ever written about them before?  They're not mentioned in any tourist brochures, in any local history pamphlet, on the local website?  Jkelly 22:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if anyone actually wanted to verify the existence of the statues, they'd probably find the statues themselves easier to locate than some random tourist brochure.  An online source, of course, would be the easiest of all to verify, but otherwise I'd go with TenOfAllTrades's advice below.  Mind you, there's a good chance there is a print source somewhere to be found that describes not only the statues themselves, but also their history: who made them, when and why were they put there, what do they represent?  Such information is precisely what an encyclopedia should provide, and for that we do need a source other than the statues themselves.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure there's a corollary to NOR, that is, "No original research, but don't be silly about it."  If they're real statues, mention them.  Don't include discussion about them beyond purely factual stuff ("There is a statue of a midget riding a horse" is fine, "The midget rider is the country's ugliest statue" is not) without references or citations ("The New York Times says that the midget rider is the country's uglist statue" would be acceptable.)  Unless someone is removing the info and demanding citation, don't worry about it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please let us know if this is OR... 

message: According to WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Are there any AfD precedents pertaining to this that would help in the interpretation of that policy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States health reform 1912-1920? Thanks! Medtopic 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just hate zebras.  You were probably biten by a zebra as a child and now continue to have hostile feelings toward them. Wjhonson 06:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol. Terryeo 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Precedents for AfDs regarding "no new analysis or synthesis"

message: Terryeo, what does published "to the general public" mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Terryeo wants it to mean it's published in large quantities and widely distributed, that would be a problematic definition. Wjhonson 06:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I paraphrased the meaning of the term "published" from dictionarys.  It means, simply, to anyone and everyone.
* To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale, its derivation meaning, act of making public  and public meaning, Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people, derived from adult population or people .
* Another dictionary gives To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale,  derived from, to make public where "public" means, The community or the people as a whole, derived from adult population, originating from people .  The issue being that publication is an issuance of information to, ideally, everyone, without regard to membership in a club, without regard to education or being part of a Church, Company, or any other qualification. Terryeo 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  In general it is not the number of copies which makes information published or not, but the intent of distribution which makes an information published or not.  On the other side of the fence would be "privately distributed information" (of any number of copies). Terryeo 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it you don't demand that a large number of copies be printed, what happens to your "broad, general public" ?  Is 100 copies "broad" ?  There are art prints, that are done in limited series, I'm sure you've seen "74/100" meaning its the 74th copy of 100 copies.  And yet, would you claim the work of art was not "published" ?  It's merely distributed to 100 people willing to pay for it.  Well that's published by your definition, since the item is sold to anyone willing to pay, so it  must be that publication doesn't have to be "broad".  Or by "broad" do you mean, "available for purchase by any member of the general public" ? Wjhonson 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original of published was the town crier, today web pages present a single copy and are published.  So the quantity of copies isn't a determining factor in publication, though it is possible the publishing industry has a standard.  I don't know what that standard is, but they might have a standard.  Yes the art print is published by the definitions of common dictionarys because they are distributed to anyone willing to purchase them.  Likewise a webpage is viewable by anyone willing to click to it and read it.  On occassion a publication doesn't actually cost anything. "available for procurement by any member of the general public" sounds right to me. Terryeo 13:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  There are 2 thresholds to meet before an information can be included.  First, it has to have been previously published.  Then it has to be verifiable.  I am attempting to reduce the amount of editor discussion necessary, the amount of time we spend with "is this piece of information verifiable ?".  I am attempting to reduce our workload by by stating that a piece of infomation must be published before it can be considered.  After that first threshold then would come the second threshold, "is the information verifiable?"  Terryeo 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To the general public

message: Hurts my eyes to read such a tortuous sentence. Wjhonson 06:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My assessment is that it is an excellent summary of the policy. Could you explain what does not work for you? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening policy nutshell

message: Reliable, reputable published sources must always be publicly accessible. I think most everyone here would agree. Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being published?  (There is disagreement here--some say that the concepts "published" and "accessible" are not that closely related.) Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being reliable?  (There is disagreement here too--some say that the concepts "reliable" and "accessible" are not that closely related.)  Are they publicly accessible by virtue of being both reliable and published in conjunction?  Here I'm guessing that the consensus is YES.  If so, it wouldn't hurt to make this holistic interpretation clear on the main pages. (Note: "publicly accessible" doesn't necessarily mean "easily accessible"). Precis 10:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, that is exactly right. Terryeo 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Accessible' and 'reliable' are orthogonal concepts.  There are lots of web sites that would qualify as 'accessible' but not 'reliable'.  Contrariwise, private communications between subject matter experts may be 'reliable' but not 'accessible'.  To answer the other part of your question—yes; once published in print or online, it's generally fair to say that a work is 'accessible'...but depending on the nature of the publication it may still constitute original research within the meaning of this policy.  If you have some specific circumstances in mind, we might be able to provide futher guidance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Published" is one thing, reliable another.  The first step is published and the second step, reliable.  Understand the first one and the second one might or might not become visible. Terryeo 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But accessibility is part of "published", not part of reliable. The Weekly World News is available at most kiosks in the English-speaking world; but I hope we are not citing it for anything - except, I suppose, itself. Septentrionalis 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is only me? But when I read the whole page on WP:V everything is crystal clear. There is no ambiguity there. IMO, the ambiguity is in editors minds.... ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   A personal website is published and verifiable, but is not reliable. So Jossi, what do you understand "published" to mean that it is not automatically "verifiable"? Terryeo 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, accessibility is prominently mentioned elsewhere on the page.  But do you have a good reason why it should be omitted from the synopsis? Including it there might end a lot of cognitive dissonance. Ambiguity may be in the editors' minds, but it is triggered by suboptimal writing. Precis 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We raise problems when we walk past a stated idea.  NPOV states All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one and the word "published" is walked right past.  A large number of editors simply don't understand that reliable published information IS verifiable information and that privately distributed information is not verifiable and that personal websites, while published and verifiable, are not reliable. Terryeo 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better  way to look at accessibility 

message: I am having a problem with not being able to source a common knowledge and widely accepted opinion, which a user wants to remove because there is no source, even though he agrees it is accurate and factual. It is related to the section Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#1911 Britannica in the 21st century - and talk discussion Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#Original research. User:John Kenney is saying that because there is no source for the errors in the EB1911, they should be removed from the article. The errors in EB1911 are self-evident and clear and factual and quoted. Do we really need a third party to "confirm" the errors before they can included in Wikipedia? How do we resolve this? Are we not allowed to say that EB1911 has problems as a 100 year old source? This seems so self-evident and supportable by quotes from EB1911. And I've looked, and have not been able to find a recent critical review of EB1911. -- Stbalbach 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section mentioned makes a number of factual statements, or implies that a number of "facts" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britiannica are false. While the section seems plausible, I wouldn't be easily able to find a reliable source for any of the statements. Indeed, some of the "facts" from may be tough to conclusively refute. While "a population mainly of good English blood and instincts" does not strike me as the most likely reason for the American revolution being successful, I'd be hard put to find a source that difinitively proves some other reason why the revolution was successful. Perhaps the section should be rewritten to point out aspects of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britiannica  that are proveably false. --Gerry Ashton 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, to make it clear, all the claims seem to be either statements like Gerry Ashton's example, which are not now consensus; or statements like the railroad connections of 1911, which are simply no longer true. This is not the extremely contentious claim that the EB was flawed as a statement of the best available knowledge as of 1911. Septentrionalis 00:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Gerry, we can't set out to prove EB1911 is false because that would be Original Research. No? Or is there some way to just list false statements and inaccuracies? -- Stbalbach 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The overall premis of the section is that EB1911 is out-of-date. I suppose that is a novel position, and collecting all kinds of little clues from primary and secondary sources to support that position would indeed be original research. So I would be much better to find a secondary source that says EB1911 is out of date. Once you find that secondary source, I suppose it would be OK to find additional information to bolster the position. ---Gerry Ashton 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No such source exists that I can find. A modern critical review of EB1911, but no one reviews 100-year old reference works. Therein lies the problem. We all know it is true, but there is no source that says it. -- Stbalbach 04:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common knowledge, but no source

message: Argueablely, the official program was distributed to a select, private audience which had purchased tickets. Should a publisher then put together a book about the Giants and include a portion of that program, distributing it to the general public, it would become published. Terryeo 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that if tickets were free that day, the baseball programs would be published, but since there was an admission charge, the programs are not published? Bizarre.  Precis 13:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Normally, people pay to attend a baseball game, so I used that illustration.  But the cost is not the significant factor I attempted to communicate.  The idea of information being distributed to a selected group of individuals does not constitute "published".  Instead, "published" means "to the public" and "the public" is not a specific group of persons, but everyone, anyone, without regard to whether they attend a baseball game or stay home or go to the beach. Terryeo 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder if Fahrenheit 451 would accept "publish means making available to that portion of the public who choose to take an interest in the information; if the distributor takes active measures to restrict who can receive the information, on any basis other than payment of the appropriate fee, the information is not published". --Gerry Ashton 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is one of the better definitions I have seen here.  I would strike the "choose to" as redundant.--Fahrenheit451 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without "choose to" and stated briefly it becomes: "Publish means making available to any public who take an interest in the information", but, "if the publisher makes any restrictive action about who can get the information, the information is not published" ?  Terryeo 00:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not quite Terryeo, you omitted "on any basis other than payment of the appropriate fee," Also, what purpose is served in a short definition being "stated briefly" when it greatly alters the defintion? Inquisitive minds question your motives.--Fahrenheit451 01:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "choose to" could indeed be dropped. Also the definition would still have to be interpreted with a little common sense. For example, because I belong to the IEEE, I can buy the (US) National Electrical Code for $55 instead of the $65 that non-members have to pay. I'd say it is still published, even though members get a discount. But if some hypothetical society sold a publication to members for $55, or nonmembers for $10,000, I'd say that isn't published. --Gerry Ashton 02:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of whether the information was technically "published" or not, it's clearly authoritative and verifiable, and I would accept it. Besides, many scientific journals are "restricted" to those willing and able to shell out the cash for them. Deco 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of information being distributed to a selected group of individuals does not constitute "published". ... Terryeo 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No prequalification is done, anyone may purchase entry and view the circus performance. The circus will sell a ticket to anyone.   Therefore, the circus is published.  With the Giants game, the game is likewise published (anyone may purchased a ticket).  But, when a phamplet is distributed to the people who have purchased a ticket and are sitting in seats, there has been a pre-qualification.  Those people who are sitting in seats are no longer "the public" in the broadest meaning of the word.  They have become a selected group of individuals.  Therefore, the phamplet which they receive has been targeted to a preselected and individual group of people who are no longer 'the public' but are attendees.  That phamplet is not published when it is distributed to them.  The phamplet might become published later, if a newspaper article carrys it.  The attendees of the Giant's baseball game are published to for only the information which they purchase tickets for.  They are not published to for additional information which they did not intend to purchase. Terryeo 08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this logic.  The live (unrecorded) ballgame is available to anyone who comes to the game.  The printed program is also available to anyone who comes to the game.  Both the program and the game itself have the same target audience.  The same degree of prequalification exists in both situations.  If you buy a ticket, you get the program and you get to watch the game.  If you don't have a ticket, you don't get a program and you don't get to watch the game. Precis 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The difference is intent.  Tickets are sold to the general public who purchase and have thereby made a legal contract, transfering ownership (I think) of the entertainment.  Assuming there is a stack of programs which anyone who comes to the game can pick up, but which has not been specified by the purchase of a ticket, the programs are not published.  They have not been contracted to, nor have they been purchased.  Their information is not part of the ticket price, in fact they might have advertisements within them or notes of human interest quite apart from the purchased entertainment.  They represent information which is distributed to a targeted audience. (I think) Terryeo 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The program still exists after the game, and could be transferred later to anyone interested in it.  It would be possible for an interested WP reader to locate somebody with a copy of the program and acquire it from them.  It isn't possible for such a reader to view the game, because there is no fixed copy of it.  Publication only refers to fixed copies, I think. JulesH 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are now entering the Terryeo zone... I'm afraid those of us who've edited the Scientology-related articles are familiar with his curious logic. :-) A program for an event is plainly published - not only that, it constitutes an important and well-established source of information (see ephemera). Admittedly, it isn't necessarily very easy to find, but in the case of the SF Giants I would bet that you would be able to access a copy at the SF Public Library and certainly in the Giants' own archives. This plainly differs from an unrecorded live performance. Terryeo's assertions that ownership of the entertainment in a live event is "transferred" is completely bizarre - ownership remains very firmly with the performers, as anyone who's tried to make a bootleg recording will find out. When you pay for admission to an event you're actually only paying for entry to a private area for a limited period of time. You're not guaranteed to see anything - the performers might get sick, there may be technical problems, etc. An unrecorded live performance cannot be a verifiable source but a recorded live performance can, as it's available in a "fixed" format. -- ChrisO 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally, in modern times, the purpose of publication is to make money.  This idea could be expanded to: "providing jobs for people, bettering people's lives" but isn't necessary.  What is necessary is some exchange, something valuable given (information / entertainement) for something valuable received (money).  The tickets get sold, the game is 'published' (by my arguement, though this is a specialized aspect of the term, 'publish').  It is made public in exchange for money.  The target is "the public" (anyone who buys a ticket).  But, when those persons arrive at the game then they are no longer the general public, but are a preselected group from the general public.  So, any distribution of information to them, which is exclusively to them, is privately distributed information to a selected audience.  The intent of the privately distributed information is not to reach the general public, but is to reach people who attend the baseball game.  This sounds a little weak to me, too, but I think the intent of publish is always and necessarily to the general un-preselected public, or it doesn't meet the definition of publish. Terryeo 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say But, when those persons arrive at the game then they are no longer the general public, but are a preselected group from the general public.  So, any distribution of information to them, which is exclusively to them, is privately distributed information to a selected audience.  Once the game starts, it is being presented to the very same group which you no longer consider the general public.  So why do you say the game itself is published? Precis 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say the game is published when the game is played.  The game is played because the public purchased tickets to see it.  Whereupon the publisher must then fulfill his end of the contract, he must act !  He must publish the entertainment to fulfill the contract(s) he has made.  The playgd game is the publication, while the sale of tickets is a promise to publish, a contract to publish.  Counterwise, to use that audience (which is a self selected portion of the public) as a target for a private distribution of information which they did not purchase tickets for, does not constitute "publication" (as I understand the word). Terryeo 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were printed on each ticket that the ticketholder is entitled to a free program, would that contractual obligation change your mind, i.e., would you then call the programs published? Precis 22:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SF Giants programs 

message: If I had a public key for Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, or Donald Trump that my bank signed, then I think I would be able to trust their material as verbatim. But perhaps the key should also bear their e-mail address or web site, just in case any kids bear those legal names.
And, I guess the verbatim and complete material might go in wikiquote, just in case you wanted to check the signature, yourself, to ensure that you were talking to the same Elvis.
 216.234.170.66 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Information collected in that manner would be {WP:NOR|original research]], and could not be used in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The process of finding and using a post probably would be original research. However, we use lots of material from the web. We usually use the domain name and the reputation of the organization that owns the domain name to establish reliability. A digital signature on a web page by a suitable person or organization could be an alternative to relying on the domain name for reliability. --Gerry Ashton 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signed Posts 

message: Hi.
I'm wondering about this "no original research" policy, specifically,
would the following scenario be against the policy?:
1. Person publishes their original research in a peer-reviewed journal.
2. Research passes 5 years of vigorous scrutiny.
3. Person writes an article here about their own research, BUT they ONLY 
include the ideas that were in the published, peer-reviewed journal,
and reference it.
If this is against the policy, then I think this needs to become an exception 
because the whole point has to do with peer review and verifiability. If it 
gets peer review and the peer-reviewed content is all that is mentioned in the 
article, it shouldn't matter if the research is technically "original" (ie
from the same person as the author of the article) or not. If it _doesn't_ 
go against the policy, perhaps this should be made clear.
--70.101.146.206 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy already says "If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. " --Gerry Ashton 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed: NOR means that the source should be a journal, and not Wikipedia. For the NOR policy it's irrelevant who authored it. As a matter of fact, experts are encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia; strong cases of self promotion yield of course unbalanced articles that are nevertheless easily detected and corrected. Harald88 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what, exactly, is the criteria which distinguishes an "expert"?  Is it "a published journal or better?"  How much recognition is required before an individual can be quoted from his own, personal website? Terryeo 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The policy should spell out the fact that this is inevitably a relative concept--does it?  In other words, the qualifications of a notable "expert," "researcher" or "critic" will vary from topic to topic--you would expect degrees, professorships and papers in scholarly journals from an expert in, say, thermodynamics or medieval miltary history.  But those would not be appropriate minimum expectations for an expert in some field where the bulk of discourse takes place outside of academia: Beanie babies, professional boxing, Disneyland.  BTfromLA 00:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My great uncle, who had only a high school education, was consulted by university professors for his knowledge of the habitat and ranges of varieties of the Apple snail in the Florida Everglades. Unfortunately, he never published, so I can't cite him as an expert. It all comes back to be varifiable from published, reputable sources. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiable and published are separate questions from what constitutes an expert. A "reputable source" in the world of Beanie Baby collecting would certainly not meet the standard for a reputable source about elections in Iraq, which in turn probably wouldn't meet the standard for a reputable source about blood coagulation.  The policy should be flexible enough to recognize that, seems to me.  BTfromLA 01:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Publication in an academic journal is never a requirement for a reputable source, although in many research areas almost all reputable sources are. In popular culture areas there are often authoritative or respected figures or works which take the place of this, such as the official Beanie Babies website. Deco 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All true, and all requiring the exercise of good editorial judgment. It does no good to get too precise about details in our policies. We want to avoid too many loopholes while allowing the needed flexibility. For an interesting take on what it means to be an expert, see this article in the current issue of Scientific American. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To me, an "expert" would indicate someone with a high level of "expertise", or knowledge in a specific subject, not necessarily having a degree. You could vigorously study lots of technical <insert field here> texts of every level and subject imaginable for 15 solid years on end and accumulate a high level of "expertise" in the field, but not a degree. Also, I believe peer review is the most important thing -- if one gets a goodargument it should pass peer review. Degrees shouldn't enter in, or even whether or not the journal is academic. Although the reviewer/journal publisher might require a degree. Anyway, that's just my 2c, feel free to disagree & debate. (BTW, I'm the original poster here, but my IP changes with the wind.) 67.138.199.173 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being well-read in a field does not make one an expert in that field.  Expertness appears to come primarily from hard and prolonged practice. Yes, one can become an expert without a degree, but in many fields the practice that is necessary to becoming an expert is available almost exclusively only to participants in the academic systems leading to a degree (physics, for example). On the other hand, there are fields where academic degrees have little or nothing to do with becoming an expert (writing fiction springs to mind, despite all of those Creative Writing programs). -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But hard practice also doesn't *require* a degree, or a FORMAL education. One can participate in those systems, but that doesn't mean one has to do a *formal degree program* (unless of course they just award the degree simply because of all the hard practice). Knowledge is from reading, expertise is from practice. 70.101.145.181 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if it's published in a journal first? 

message: The editors of the Bob Dylan article are arguing that their prose does not violate OR and some others have nominated it to FAR. This desparately needs some neutral, third-party eyes to step in here. Of interest too is the talk page for the article. I'm not sure I'm expert enough to step in myself. I'd always assumed "brilliant prose" still needed to be backed up by sources - I can't say something's the greatest thing since slice bread unless a reputable and verifiable source has made that claim, right? plange 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some opinion here 

message: Please comment on this:
"Publish: To make available in documented form (e.g. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (e.g. non-disclosure agreements), with the exception that non-free publishers may apply restrictions to ensure payment for a publication." --Fahrenheit451 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Interested public" narrows the field too much.  It is not the meaning of "published" that the information only reaches the "interested public".  It is the intent of "publications" that information reach the broad, general public with no restriction about interest, color of hair, location, language spoken or any other parameter. Terryeo 05:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo, no one stated that "interested public" was the meaning of published. Please identify those publications that intend to reach those who are not interested, live anywhere, or do not speak the language of the publication.  If you cannot document any such publications, then your argument is invalid.--Fahrenheit451 06:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good gosh.  That you say my statement is invalid does not make my statement invalid. I state that "Publish" derives from the word "public" and means, "publish to the public".  This is not rocket science.  I state that to constrain the distribution of published information in any manner whatsoever ("interested public" or any other constrainment) is counter to and specialized from the common use and understanding of the term, "publish".  The common understanding of the term is stated in common dictionarys.  Terryeo 07:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I suppose, although web pages aren't a fixed form, usually. john k 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess one could consider billboards to not be fixed form because they can be changed as well. However, a copy or image of the original can be saved, but I will revise by substituting documented for fixed.--Fahrenheit451 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used fixed as a synonym for recorded in any way, and in contrast to live performance or live radio or TV performance that was not recorded in any way. The audience of WP policies and guidelines might not think that is the definition of fixed so documented is probably a better word. --Gerry Ashton 16:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: When I wrote the first verision of this definition I should have used e.g. instead of i.e. because paper, CD, and web page are only examples of publication media, not an exhaustive list; similarly a non-disclosure agreement is only one of many ways a distributor could use to distribute a work and yet prevent it from being published. --Gerry Ashton 16:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I just amended it accordingly.--Fahrenheit451 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe there is no need to define this as a matter of policy - it should be left to editor discretion. If there's one "exception", I don't see why there might not be more. What if they only offer it, for example, to people who complete a brief survey? Deco 17:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if they offer it in exchange for completing a survey, and the survey includes questions that would facilitate identity theft? The whole point is to rule out any restriction that excludes groups of WP readers and editors for reasons that are not in keeping with a free and open exchange of ideas. Some restrictions might be in keeping with free and open exchange of ideas, for example, a library in a generally affluent country might require patrons to wear a shirt and shoes. Other restrictions are not in keeping with the free and open exchange of ideas, for example, a white supremacist organization might require a person to join the organization before receiving documents. --Gerry Ashton 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: O.K. Good point. I will amend by substituting exchange for payment.--Fahrenheit451 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I continue to oppose a narrow interpretation of "publish". This navel gazing does not reflect well on this project. I would ask editors to refrain from making comments such as "you are lying", "it is ridiculous", etc. These are uneeded, unacceptable and detracts from the debate. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid "to ensure exchange for a publication" does not make gramatical sense. Also, exchange is too general a term. Saying that an information distributor can require anything in exchange for a publication and still consider it to be published makes the entire definition pointless. --Gerry Ashton 19:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement of Gerry Ashton's proposed definition 

message: This lengthy discussion originated by Terryeo claiming that the word "published" means "published to the public" and "public" being some abstract generality as "everyone".  The edit cited by Terryeo I let go because this published material is of rather restricted distribution so as to be difficult at present to verify. That is the simplicity of it.  We don't need any further rumor-mongering from Terryeo about how this developed. I have no objection to ending this discussion. However, I think that we have not heard the last of this distorted POV definition. Dispute resolution process, here we come.--Fahrenheit451 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated many times, "broad, general public" and once used the word, 'everyone' as an illustration of 'anyone'.  The discussion begin because more than one unpublished document has been used in the Scientology articles.  In the most recent situation, editors (at last) agreed the document wasn't verifiable but it was never published.  To regard the unpublished status as a stop, rather than hammer through "can it be verified" would have vastly simplified the situation.  And, there is simply no need for the snipes which you take at me with "rumor - mongering" and "product of a culture", etc.  It is even against policy to make statements of that nature. Terryeo 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong, this discussion began because you promoted your very faulty, "published to the public" definition. The issue you have dredged up for your own purposes was settled on 25 July 2006.  Your generality of "editors agreed" is nonsense. I never sniped at you with "product of a culture". That is another rumor you are starting and I object to it. You are hereby advised to Knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this discussion started

message: In an effort to get to the finish line:  
RESOLVED: There is no need for a Wikipedia-specific definition of the word "published." 
* Endorse. --  BTfromLA 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of "published" — Resolved, we don't need another one, an informal poll

message: * Endorse. -- ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another informal poll: Editors to take their personal disputes elsewhere