Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 26

message: Firstly please excuse my temerity at adding another strand here, but allow me to add to the above just this: not in my experience it doesn't, but it should, as and when verifiable. In that regard I still hold to my suggested solution to all these article problems, visible at discussion for Vatican Bank.Now, I haven't reappraised the WP guidelines on the above, which seemed eminently clear when I read them, but I wonder - as I am now again allowed to wonder- at what point does NOR displace 'Explanation' ( the WP/jimbo written concept thereof) on discussion pages? I imagine that both guidelines referred to the mainspace articles, not to discussion pages. It is simple to understand NOR within mainspace, and that it is undesirable, but having been 'busted' and punished for it, and since I never entered it into mainspace, I have to think that I was busted for 'explanation' and NOR on discussion pages. Any research I presented there was in any case verifiably attested and linked, and was provided in support of discussion necessities rather that with a view to altering mainspace articles to include it per se. It was presented by way of explaing why mainspace articles could not be properly edited, rather than for inclusion in any way, and generally in rebuttal of another editor's unsubstantiated claims. To keep it simple, can someone tell me if NOR also applies to discussion pages, and how, and how such application would not destroy the project if denying it hinders even discussion 'explanation', let alone article 'explanation'? ~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EffK (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably not this policy that was intended. Instead, it was probably WP:NOT (specifically WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP). While discussion of the topic is essential on talk pages, the further we move away from discussing the article in relation to its sources in the context of policy, the closer we come to violating that policy. If the discussions revolve around improving the article and its content, within the bounds of policy, there should be no problem. If the discussion is intended, or perceived, as an attempt to justify original research, prove an unpublished point, advocate for a particular point of view, et al, then it will likely be considered unacceptable (and potentially disruptive). One should remain on the former end of the spectrum. Vassyana 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOR, discussion pages, and 'Explanation' 

message: Taking into account the three evolutions of this proposed additon, and the various comments following each one, does this finally take into account each person's interpretation?
If this is the correct and final interpreation of the various comments above, do we have consensus to add this to the article? wbfergus  Talk 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please explain how this statement would weaken the policy. This is not really a "poll" or a "vote". Unless you have reasonable explanation behind what you are saying, it doesn't count much for purposes of determining whether the above language is consensus language. COGDEN 19:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Is your concern that the proposal is too wordy? If it's just a style issue, I don't think that's much of an issue. We can always implement the language and tweak the style later. What we want to know here is if there is any fundamental disagreement with how the policy is described above. If not, I don't think stylistic issues are impediment to obtaining consensus. COGDEN 19:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not so sure we can edit it later based on the edit and protection history here. Some misguided editors are liable to say that this exact text is the consensus, and you need to show a new consensus to change it. In addition to wordiness, it's too complicated. It needs to be something someone can get a basic understanding from immediately on the first pass. Most readers will not take the time to parse this out. Dhaluza 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's usually much easier to get consensus on stylistic and readability changes that don't alter the fundamental meaning. I'd just like to get something in place. COGDEN 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you consider yourself above the house rules on civility? Spenny 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *PS, this is just stoopit: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed." •Jim62sch• 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've noted in my "agree" above, I think it would fit nicely as an intro to the sources section. SamBC(talk) 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, well it doesn't really speak to sources (not that I am going native, you understand!), it is more of a nutshell for the policy. Spenny 17:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with this version too. I don't care how tersely or baroquely we express it. I'm on board with anything that says roughly the above, if it will make progress toward consensus. COGDEN 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice, neat and clean. I would also like to see the "...this is source based research..." statement too. Dhaluza 00:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopefully, Final version of this proposed addition 

message: Here is a shortened version that will hopefully address some of the concerns above. Thoughts? Vassyana 16:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, well it doesn't really speak to sources (not that I am going native, you understand!), it is more of a nutshell for the policy. Spenny 17:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with this version too. I don't care how tersely or baroquely we express it. I'm on board with anything that says roughly the above, if it will make progress toward consensus. COGDEN 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice, neat and clean. I would also like to see the "...this is source based research..." statement too. Dhaluza 00:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Short version

message: Could some administrator include a (interwiki) link to Swedish Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Ingen egen forskning". Add sv:Wikipedia:Ingen egen forskning. Best regards, Pierreback 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please include link to Swedish Wikipedia 

message: I took the liberty of archiving the slightly older discussions to archive 25, the talk page was 325kb pre-archiving, it's now 177kb.  Please restore any still relevant discussions as needed.  Dreadstar † 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Could two spelling mistakes be corrected:
Secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analysies, syntheses or original conclusions that are not already present in the sources. In short, the policy of "No original research" requres that wikipedia users stick to the sources.
to:
Secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not already present in the sources. In short, the policy of "No original research" requires that wikipedia users stick to the sources.
Only small things really but it doesn't look very professional on such an important project page. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. ... Kenosis 20:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Dreadstar † 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot --Lo2u (T • C) 21:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit 

message: I think Wikipedia would benefit a lot from attenuating WP:SYN.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.146.109 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SYN 

message: We need to decide what the focus of PSTS, or any replacement, will be set upon. Are we concerned about "raw facts" or "purely factual" sources? Are we concerned about sources close to the subject? Are we concerned about both? There seem to be two parallel trains of thought being expressed in regards to this. 
I feel that PSTS, or any replacement since it will be built upon its legacy, needs to take into account the differing accounts of the P/S distinctions and their purpose as a framework for original research. We are trying to create unified definitions for a policy that discourages original research. This apparent dissonance to the original purpose of the terms/concepts and the variety of definitions needs to be consciously taken into account and addressed in the section.
We need to additionally bear in mind the context of the other policies, which put a strong preference on independent references that have solid editorial oversight. Ancient histories, diaries and similar sources are often considered "primary sources" and lack the editorial oversight that is expect of reliable sources. On the other hand, some typically "primary" sources (such as the U.S. census or EU economic statistics) are generally considered very reliable, but also "very raw".
Thoughts? Vassyana 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vassyana I agree with your position and assessments.  Perhaps it would be helpful if we were all using the same definition for Primary and secondary sources.  From where I stand and where I understand policy to be is that use of PS beyond description has to be original research because primary sources are "materials on a topic upon which subsequent interpretations or studies are based." this definition is held in The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers (1996, p. 547), it's a fact that I've lived with as an academic for years since it's the mainstream scholarly standard.  IMHO PSTS should explain how to use primary sources while avoiding OR--Cailil  talk 00:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need to primarily focus on explaining what NOR is and is not, and all other considerations here are secondary. Yes we need to integrate this with other policies within tne existing framework, but we should not be overly concerned with what happens to things that may be useful, but are not useful in the context of NOR. Dhaluza 01:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Improvements in explaining what NOR is and is not will be welcome, but we also need to be fully concerned with the overall effect of any changes on all Wikipedia policies taken together, and with the need to ensure continuity in editors' understanding of the terminology of policies. Improved explanations can be added without deleting useful and well tested aspects of the policy. .. dave souza, talk 08:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful in what context? If it is useful in the NOR context, then it belongs here. If it useful in another context, then it belongs somewhere else, because it detracts from this page's purpose. If the contexts are related in some direct way, then we can have cross links to improve understanding. Yes the polices must work together, but if someone added useful content to this page in error, its usefulness is not a valid reason to perpetuate the error. Dhaluza 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you want the "well tested aspects of the policy" evident in the first sentence of Factory farming to be made manifest at evolution? Leave this policy as it is and there is then precedent for changing evolution to say what newspapers say about evolution. Is that what you want? WAS 4.250 09:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just that, a big problem I see is that the non-consensus policy would actually favor an evangelical creationist's published interpretation of a scientific article on a topic such as the second law of thermodynamics, above the peer-reviewed article itself. What kind of crazy policy would give a blanket precedence to what some crackpot says about new published research, above the raw research itself? COGDEN 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, Vassyana. That's a helpful way to look at it. We really need to focus on the fundamentals of the OR policy. Let's jettison all this secondary baggage that has grown up around the particular PSTS expression of that policy, and get back to the basics of what the OR policy is about, and not try to revolutionize the world here. COGDEN 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems to me that the issue of whether primary or secondary sources is used must be orthogonal to the issue of whether a given article is "original research" or not ... so I'm one more person agreeing with Vassyana.  These distinctions make sense for historical research, but not for harder sciences (and technology) where "primary" sources are strongly preferred and "secondary" sources are at best imperfect filters which can introduce errors.  If the source is verifiable and reliable (and, for secondary sources, reputable), why should the distinction between primary and secondary matter at all?  It's not like biases are are only introduced by primary sources, and never by secondary sources; or that only primary sources can be misused/twisted.  Especially nowadays, where "traditional media" have largely abandoned the processes which earned their reputations, but are still often (and wrongly!!) treated as "reliable" sources, it's very important to be able to use primary sources to separate the chaff. --69.226.208.120 06:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus and awareness 

message: *The above is just antisemitism pure and simple. Nevertheless, some editors have taken it upon themselves to try to explain why Jews were, or were not, Bolsheviks.
**I find the Template,  insufficient because it does not Flag that kind of improper editorial policy or behavior. I certainly am aware that no reputable scholar has found a need to explain why Jews (some or many) were, or were not, Bolsheviks. To do so tains the article in question not only with a POV violation, but also suggests to our readers that Jews have a need to explain their "misbehavior."
***Accordingly, we need to have this template say that Wikipedians are not to bring in explanations which scholars themselves have not done. --Ludvikus 10:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cleaned up some dubious material that was unsourced. The article now seems to be well sourced and neutral, presenting facts and attribution opinions as it should. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The article should be merged with General Jewish Labor Union, to provide the necessary context for NPOV. Proposals for merge placed on these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jewish Bolshevism]] 

message: Taking into account the comments above... I have slightly reworded the proposed text:
Thoughts? Blueboar 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I have problems with "Wikipedia is not a primary source. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed."  I still prefer something along the lines of "Original research consisting of novel synthesis, or new interpretations, of reliable sources is not permitted."  Can't support this in its present form but this is my only major objection, I would change a few words but those are minor concerns. On the whole I prefer this version to the other two above--Cailil  talk 14:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence is straight from WP:NOT#OR, so I don't think that should change. I wouldn't object to the other change though. wbfergus  Talk 14:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same objection as I made above. Vassyana 16:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three points. (1) in response to Calil: I see nothing wrong with keeping this sentence "Wikipedia is not a primary source. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed."  I also agree with you that something like this sentence - "Original research consisting of novel synthesis, or new interpretations, of reliable sources is not permitted" is also needed, in other words, it doesn't have to be one or the other, it can (and should) be both.  (2) I agree with Vassyana that the more accurate statement would be to say that we encourage research based on reliable sources.  In this particular context, it is meaningless to say "primary and secondary sources" because (and in this I think I echo a point WAS has made) in this context it just doesn't matter whether something is a primary or secondary source.  (3) Vassyana's prefered statement is really just a recapitulation in a highly abbreviated form of V and RS.  I have no objection to including such a recapitulation in this context because NOR is related to V and RS.  But Vassyana's prefered phrasing, which is prescriptive, does not get at the heart of NOR which is proscriptive.  The reason the distinction between primary and secondary sources is important is because using the standard for appropriate use is different for each of them.  To complete the NOR policy we need to explain what uses of primary sources are not allowed, and what uses of secondary sources is not allowed.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure whether to respond to this suggestion or the one above, but I would say that there's no need to quote WP:NOT#OR, or to specify that wikipedia isn't a primary source in this passage, but on the other hand it doesn't necessarily do any harm. I see no problem with having it in this passage, but not defining "primary source" until a little later, especially if we use a link within the page, with something like (see below), "below" being linked. "Wikipedia does not bear witness to facts" is quite ugly language, and subject to considerable misunderstandings - wikipedia makes statements of facts, that could be taken as "bearing witness". There may be another suitable phrase distinct from either of these, like "wikipedia does (should?) not contain statements of fact not taken from a reliable, published source". "Original research consisting of novel synthesis…" is good, and should be used as well. NOR must stay proscriptive, as it doesn't actually make sense as a prescriptive policy. Prescriptive statements and examples of what is allowed, however, do tend to aid understanding. I disagree with SLR, though, that it is necessary to seperately list what you're not allowed to do with each of primary sources and secondary sources, as the additional problems with primary sources are more to do with cautions than extra proscriptions to my mind; that is, you may never go beyond what sources say, at all. In the case of primary sources, this usually means that interpretive statements must be given prose attributions ("source Y claims that…") and suchlike, which is more of a clarification/caution than an extra pro/prescription. SamBC(talk) 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the above, I guess that I will pull my objection to the "Per WP:NOT#OR" pert, though I still really like the rest of the first sentence "Wikipedia is not a primary source". If this policy goes on to define primary, etc. sources, then at least a sentence similar to this should be present, it succintly sums up exactly what the whole policy is all about. wbfergus  Talk 17:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Re Wikipedia does not bear witness to facts ... doesn't that phrasing rub anyone else the wrong way?  The only people I've ever heard talking about "bearing witness" like that are Evangelical christians (note that capitalization, reflecting the priorities I've observed).  I'm glad to know that Wikipedia is not Conservapedia, but framing policies in those terms lends support to a worldview that's destructive of most things for which WP stands. Let's quickly remove that "bear witness" phrase.  --69.226.208.120 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A slight rewording of the proposal 

message: WP:SYN says that "A and B, therefore C" is unacceptable if not published by a reliable source. What if they leave the C up to the reader, so they synthesize information so a conclusion is obvious but don't state the conclusion? As an example (real cases would probably not involve something so uncontroversial and mundane), in an article about Weatherman Jim, someone creates a subsection "Criticisms of Weatherman Jim" and says something along the lines of "On 9/30/07, Jim said that the temperature was 30 degrees Celsius. The temperature was actually 35 degrees Celsius" and have that cited to temperature data, NOT an RS detailing Jim's speech and the actual data. Would this be a violation of WP:SYN? They have left off the conclusion "Jim is an unreliable source for temperature data" but it is an implicit in the way it is stated. - Jarn 03:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be first concerned about it being an issue of undue weight.  I wouldn't argue that such a case violates SYN.  I'd also be concerned that it might be used to violate WP:BLP depending on the context. --Ronz 03:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was really just an example. It's more the thing of "A and B" organized in a way that C is not stated but is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. That was just an example and, yes, that example specifically is probably void under some of those other things, but think of the ways that it could be expanded. In political articles, for example. "President XYZ of country ABC said this(1). The truth is (2)" with (1) being a cite to the president saying that and (2) being a cite to something else (such as historical data). They're leaving out the implicit assumption that "President XYZ of country ABC was either wrong or lying" but it is intuitively obvious in the way it is phrased. Pretend, for the example, that it does not violate any of the other rules. Just consider how it would affect WP:SYN. - Jarn 03:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The SYN rule helps other editors distinguish one editor's implicit interpretation from the sources' explicit interpretations, and disentangle the sources if the interpretation is flawed. Putting two claims next to each other doesn't pose nearly as much of a problem as merging two claims and their references. But that's just my understanding of it. Jacob Haller 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c)Synthesis can be implied, but putting anything in the policy about it would not be a good idea unless there is a concrete way to determine that it is implied synthesis. Without assuming bad faith, we can't know if a user tried to create an implied synthesis or not (unless they said so). There is also the problem of defining implied; what might be implied synthesis to one person may not be to others. If one goes looking for an implied sythesis or has a preconceived notion that something is synthesis, one is bound to find it somewhere. Sometimes it is close to impossible to avoid it too. Take your second example (about a president) as an example: Could that be worded in a way that avoids implied synthesis while still making sense and not being overly wordy? Mr.Z-man 04:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the example you give violates WP:SYN and would most definitely be OR. Badgerpatrol 04:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you elaborate? I reread the section and it looks perfectly clear that such cases don't violate SYN. I'd advise caution, but the SYN policy doesn't require it. It looks to me like the first Smith-Jones example, the one without SYN. Jacob Haller 05:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the SYN section is that it elaborates on an element of OR in a specific way. This is probably a good example of why people should not read the letter of the law. The principle is clear: don't let an article say what hasn't already been said. To me that includes reasonable inferences. It is examples like this where I think the SYN section is actually damaging to policy, that someone can read policy and say a bad edit fits with policy. Real editing would not go down this path. Spenny 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure why I need to elaborate...the obvious inference in the above case that would be drawn and is intended (obviously extending disbelief for this simplified, hyper-realised example) is that Weatherman Jim is not a very good weatherman- otherwise, why parse the data? Why quote the temperature at all? Here the editor is taking two primary sources- a TV broadcast and a temperature record - and juxtaposing them to proffer a new interpretation (= that Weatherman Jim is not a good weatherman) that is not drawn from any secondary source - e.g. forming a new synthesis from primary sources. In the Smith-Jones example, the editor is simply quoting the contrasting interpretations already given in two secondary sources- thus there is no new synthesis. Badgerpatrol 11:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Badgerpatrol, I had a similar discussion (above... perhaps in the archives) on this issue concerning the George Washington and religion article... where primary sources are quoted extensively to imply that Washington was or was not a deist... without supplying any reliable source that draws the information together and acutally claims he was (or was not) a deist.  I felt that this was SYN ... "A + B" being stated (but "= C" being implied).  I was told that this wasn't SYN.  Now I am confused.  Do me a favor and check out that article ... I would like to know whether to leave the OR tag or remove it. Blueboar 11:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I explained my understanding of the role of WP:SYN above. As long as everything's in the open and properly cited, and NPOV, it's fine with me. But if it's hidden away, it's OR, if not outright deception.
Here's my interpretation of SYN and its intent. Suppose source 1 says A, source 2 says B, and A+B probably imply C. If an editor states A and cites 1, and states B and cites 2, the editor may imply C but does not commit SYN. If an editor states C and cites 1+2 the editor commits SYN. Why do I draw the line there?
* It is possible that the original editor made a mistake.
* It is possible that another source will state ~C, in which case we may need to cover the dispute.
* It is possible that another source will contradict one of the underlying claims (A or B).
* Other stuff might happen.
If any of these things happen, and an editor has merged the claims, other editors will find them harder to untangle; but if an editor has just set the claims alongside each other, other editors should have no trouble. Of course, NPOV may apply. Jacob Haller 18:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Placing two related but apparently contradictory facts in juxtaposition is not OR. It is all we can do when we find conflicting information without engaging in OR. In your example, the statement of the temperature would have to be important. If the person reported the temperature every day, and an editor just picked one particular spurious data point, that would be undue weight. This case is rather contrived, so let me repeat an example I gave before that has been lost in the archives. I added a statement that a company received X complaints from customers on their new product, and cited a newspaper story that backed that number up. Another editor modified this to say that the company reportedly received X complaints from customers, but they had not sold X copies of the product at the time, and cited a company report that backed that up. This was contradicting a secondary source using a primary source (and a close source as well), but I thought it was a perfectly appropriate way to address the apparent contradiction. Dhaluza 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's a case where it appears they received more complaints than products sold? --Ronz 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source was not specific about the inclusion criteria. The company could have received complaints from customers who bought its other products as well, or the count could have included complaints from non-customers, or they may have counted multiple complaints from individual customers multiple times. So there is no way to tell if the source is right or wrong, but the clarification puts the statement in perspective. Dhaluza 01:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'd say putting two different statements about the number of customer complaints is SYN if they are presented in such a way where the reader would tend to think that the numbers are the same measure. --Ronz 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by that. The point is if you have conflicting facts, trying to resolve the conflict is OR--simply juxtaposing the conflicting facts is not. Cherry picking one over the other (assuming both are reliable) is NPOV (and possibly OR too if you are trying to make a point). Dhaluza 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If information that appears to be comparable (X number of complaints...Y number of complaints) is placed together without indication that it may or may not actually be comparable, then it's SYN. --Ronz 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, WP:SYN is for synthesis to advance a position. If the only point being made is that there is a difference of opinion, or some doubt about the specifics, that is not synthesis, it's maintaining NPOV. Dhaluza 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The position that concerns me is that it invites comparison.  Yes, it's more an NPOV issue than OR, but I've found that looking and dealing at such situations in light of SYN is appropriate and helpful. --Ronz 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree strongly that inviting comparison is OR. When we have conflicting facts and no overall consensus of accepted truth, inviting comparison is necessary. Ignoring the conflict would be OR. Dhaluza 12:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about [[WP:SYN]] 

message: Based on the above discussion, I would like to propose changing the sentence:
:For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.
to:
:For that reason, any reasonable educated person without specialized training who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia content is consistent with that source (understanding a foreign language is not considered specialized training in this case).
-- Dhaluza 13:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be limited only to primary sources. Secondary sources must be verifiable as well. Otherwise, it looks good, but this is a bit untested. I'm always worried that there is some counter-example that shows this language is either restrictive or not restrictive enough. Provisionally, however, I'd support such a change, if it's applied to all sources, not just "primary" ones. COGDEN 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to specialist knowledge

message: Can somebody take a look-see at:  and weigh in as to whether the disputed passage being mentioned actually constitutes OR? If this is the wrong forum to ask, please just point me to the right place, and thank you.--Ramdrake 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody weigh on a case of possible OR 

message: I left and said I'd not be back.  I see, though, that there still is not an agreement on source typing, that the proponents are unable to find wording that is satisfactory.  If the proponents can't agree how on earth can it be part of an official policy?  That the proponents don't agree shows that the concept is too vague (or flawed in some way) to be understood or expressed.  Blueboar tried to redirect attention and focus but the discussion is back on what "primary" means, and that is still unclear.  Whether I had made this comment or not the history of this talk page will be one that shows not only a lack of consensus on having source typing as part of the NOR policy but a lack of consensus on what "primary" really means - even among those who are for such typing.  And even then all that the policy says is "be careful," but unless "be careless" is an implicit principle that's entirely superfluous - when is being careless ever proper when editing Wikipedia? ("Be careless" is not the same as "be bold.)  
There's also a strong anti-wiki flavor to source typing: editors can't really be trusted to edit, they have to be told in meticulous (but unclear) language what to do.  --Minasbeede 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so you still have strong feelings, but how would you suggest we address them? Dhaluza 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But there isn't even that.  --Minasbeede 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus even among the proponents 

message: Any opinions on adding "(sic)" to a quote? So far common sense seems to prevail, which is good; but is it original research to tell the reader what is wrong rather than presenting evidence and letting the reader decide? This relates to using "[]" to add or replace text in a quote. I think editorial discretion is called for in all good editing. NOR is not to be applied blindly making the edit-copy worse when no one is arguing that a representation is false. It is designed to be helpful in sorting out disputes. In other words, write it as accurately and truthfully as you can; but the minute there is a dispute, accurate sourcing takes precedence over "yeah but this is what is really true" What is "really" true takes precedence when no one is arguing that it is not true. Hence if everyone agree "not" was left out of a quote, then its ok to add "[not]"  or "(sic)"; but the minute it is is an element of dispute, then it is not obviously true and we must fall back on verifiability and sticking to the sources and neutrality. Any opinions? WAS 4.250 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the quote doesn't say what it was meant to say, and you consider (sic) or [explanation] necessary, then it is not a good quote and you should not use it.  Instead, summarise the source in your own words and reference precisely.  This will also keep you clear of infringing WP:NOR through the creation (modification) of a quote that has not been used before.  --SmokeyJoe 00:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using [sic] to point out that a spelling or grammatical error is transcribed literally from the original does not mean the original is not a good quote, and using [brackets] to change the parts of speech to make the quote fit in a sentence is not a problem either. Adding things to quotes, or otherwise "fixing" them is problematic, and it is probably best to leave it alone and let the reader decide. Rephrasing it in your own words can actually be a bigger problem, if the original meaning was ambiguous, and I would rather see the original and decide for myself. One way to do this is to put the literal quote in the citation so it appears in the references section. Dhaluza 00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of (sic) and [] in a quote 

message: Several of the distinctions drawn above are too fine for me to attempt to undertand them. I just wonder if this International Herald Tribune article is in any way related to the primary/secondary source discussion.  At first glance it seems to play down the value of secondary sources and of consensus among such sources. Lima 12:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure either about its relevance here but it's a great article and certainly worth citing! - maybe we should add this to the NPOV tutorial WP:NPOV ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald88 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering 

message: In the beginning, when original research is defined, a link to the Original research article should be given. Banaticus 10:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Wikipedia makes clear to 13 year olds how to write an encyclopedia by redefining the term "original research" in terms of the redefined term "primary source" in order to convey the idea one should stick to the original meaning. Ironic? No? WAS 4.250 12:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Original Research page 

message: I propose to improve option 2, in accordance with my remarks above about option 2.  
Perhaps something like this:
===Source-usage proposal 2b: yes primary/secondary source distinction===
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to go beyond the sources or use them in novel ways.
One useful way to ensure that a Wikipedia passage does not "go beyond" the sources is to consider the difference between what are often called primary and secondary sources. A primary source is a document or person with original factual data. Primary sources are usually close to the topic at hand, and present information that is not interpreted by a another party. A secondary source is a document or person that obtains the relevant information from primary sources and provides an interpretation. Secondary sources may repeat or comment on primary sources, but do not provide first-hand information. Factual information should be backed up by reliable references, which in general implies citing either primary or secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources should be used for an interpretative synthesis. Wikipedia is itself a tertiary source. See WP:Source Tutorial for some examples.
Wikipedia may never be the original source of information. Wikipedia may repeat and quote sources, but may not present undocumented information or theories concerning those sources. To the extent Wikipedia comments on a source or analyzes it, such commentary or analysis must not be original, and must be verifiable. Conducting background research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from reliable published sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, in presenting such information in a Wikipedia article, great care should be taken not to take the information contained in the sources out of context or present it in a manner that violates the provisions of this policy.
Sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not already present in the sources. In short, the policy of "No Original Research" requires that Wikipedia users stick to the sources.
Harald88 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor change above. Struckout a redundant sentence previously used in opening paragraph. wbfergus  Talk 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This version works for me... it places the distinction between primary and secondary sources in the context of how and when to use them appropriately.  I have added the fact that purely factual information can come from either primary or secondary sources (in bold above to show the addition). Blueboar 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This pretty good.  I'd just point out that a source can be an object (i.e the painting, Guernica in the Picasso article).  I would also find a better wording rather than "people" - this looks like it's inviting people to go out & do interviews but WP:NOR doesn't allow that - "authors" might be a better word.  While in real life people can be sources, for WP's purposes only documents or objects can be (because people have to be interviewed & the interview has to be published by a reliable source and then it's teh interview that's the source).  Otherwise this is fine--Cailil  talk 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So something like changing "A primary source is a document or person with original factual data." to something along the lines of "A primary source is a document, object, or person (author, eyewitness, researcher, etc.) with original factual data."? wbfergus  Talk 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as long as we make it clear that the views/accounts of persons must be verifiable (ie published in an WP:RS).  Something along the lines of "Please note that all sources used in wikipedia articles must comply with the policies of WP:RS and WP:V."  This could go in around about the final line that says "stick to the sources"--Cailil  talk 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 2b 

message: Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to go beyond the sources or use them in novel ways.
One useful way to ensure that a Wikipedia passage does not "go beyond" the sources is to consider the difference between what are often called primary and secondary sources. A primary source is a document or person with original factual data. Primary sources are usually close to the topic at hand, and present information that is not interpreted by a another party. A secondary source is a document or person that obtains the relevant information from primary sources and provides an interpretation. Secondary sources may repeat or comment on primary sources, but do not provide first-hand information. Factual information should be backed up by reliable references, which in general implies citing either primary or secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources should be used for an interpretative synthesis. Wikipedia is itself a tertiary source. See WP:Source Tutorial for some examples.
Wikipedia may never be the original source of information. Wikipedia may repeat and quote sources, but may not present undocumented information or theories concerning those sources. To the extent Wikipedia comments on a source or analyzes it, such commentary or analysis must not be original, and must be verifiable. Conducting background research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from reliable published sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, in presenting such information in a Wikipedia article, great care should be taken not to take the information contained in the sources out of context or present it in a manner that violates the provisions of this policy.
Sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not already present in the sources. In short, the policy of "No Original Research" requires that Wikipedia users stick to the sources.
Harald88 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor change above. Struckout a redundant sentence previously used in opening paragraph. wbfergus  Talk 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This version works for me... it places the distinction between primary and secondary sources in the context of how and when to use them appropriately.  I have added the fact that purely factual information can come from either primary or secondary sources (in bold above to show the addition). Blueboar 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This pretty good.  I'd just point out that a source can be an object (i.e the painting, Guernica in the Picasso article).  I would also find a better wording rather than "people" - this looks like it's inviting people to go out & do interviews but WP:NOR doesn't allow that - "authors" might be a better word.  While in real life people can be sources, for WP's purposes only documents or objects can be (because people have to be interviewed & the interview has to be published by a reliable source and then it's teh interview that's the source).  Otherwise this is fine--Cailil  talk 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So something like changing "A primary source is a document or person with original factual data." to something along the lines of "A primary source is a document, object, or person (author, eyewitness, researcher, etc.) with original factual data."? wbfergus  Talk 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as long as we make it clear that the views/accounts of persons must be verifiable (ie published in an WP:RS).  Something along the lines of "Please note that all sources used in wikipedia articles must comply with the policies of WP:RS and WP:V."  This could go in around about the final line that says "stick to the sources"--Cailil  talk 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source-usage proposal 2b: yes primary/secondary source distinction

message: I encourage Wikipedians who watch this page to comment about a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks ScienceApologist 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about particular attribution 

message: Lately, a new line of logic has cropped up on WP:SPOILER. The guideline basically says that any section titled "Plot", "Plot summery", "Synopsis" or similar is assumed to contain spoilers and therefore needs no spoiler disclaimer. However, a small group of editors are now using the logic that because section titles are not "verifiable" through reliable source and are immune from said policy, they constitute original research and editors cannot makes assumptions on them (see WT:SPOILER#Removal of "spoilers implied by section title"). This has resulted in an edit war over that particular section of the WP:SPOILER guideline. --Farix (Talk) 15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section titles can contain OR.  Take for example, a section entitled: "Evidence the X is true", followed by a discussion based upon primary sources.  In this case, the title could well constitute a synthetic conclusion.  However, I think that in your case NOR is being misapplied. Blueboar 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the example of "Evidence the X is true", it appears that the whole section, and not the section title, would fall afoul of the NOR policy. --Farix (Talk) 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A 'small group of editors'? There's just one.--Nydas(Talk) 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is querrelous rules-lawyering at its worst. Of course we can make assumptions about section headers. We can't write an encyclopedia without making certain assumptions about what people will expect to find in a given section. It is not original research to suggest that words have meaning, and will convey their meaning to their audience. Christ. Don't be stupid. Phil Sandifer 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way an editor can prove they are not performing original research is to provide a citation. To suggest that unsourced headings are reliable completely ignores the policy on verifiability. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Editors do not count as reliable sources, so headings that do not provide a citation that are written by editors also do not count as a reliable source. You can assume anything you want on Wikipedia, but it's wrong to recommend that readers should assume unsourced material is reliable. User:Phil Sandifer, please be civil. I could edit ==Section Titles are Original Research?== to say ==Phil Sandifer assumes unsourced material is true== and that would be true, but unsourced. The mere presence of equal signs before and after text is not an indication of accuracy. --Pixelface 03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Section headings can be OR, and they should not be OR, but they almost never are, and it's hard to make them so. If a heading is OR, then that probably means the whole section is OR, and should be deleted. Controversies like these are one reason why we need a more coherent statement of the policy. It is permissible to make obvious or non-controversial inferences from the sources. That isn't OR, and it's permissible in headings. COGDEN 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No amount of clarifying policies will stop a rules lawyer hell-bent on getting his or her way, which is what this argument stems from. Phil Sandifer 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think certain content on Wikipedia is exempt from the policy on verifiability, that's your right. But recommending to users that headings are inherently reliable is baseless. --Pixelface 03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a specific example might help explain how it can be possible: Bans on ritual slaughter#Trends. I didn't see any sources for the proposition that the set of events and arguments described constitute a trend or trends. --Shirahadasha 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True... and I have changed the section titling.  It wasn't a case of OR, however, just a bad choice of words. Blueboar 12:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Titles are Original Research? 

message: Wikipedia:When to cite says that "it is not necessary to cite a source in describing events or other details" when writing about the plot of a movie or book because "it should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information." What if, for example, a movie is adapted from a book and the book's story takes place during the 1950's and the movie takes place during the 1990's. Would it be ok to state in a "differences between the book and its film adaptation" section that the two don't take place during the same time period? Or would there need to be a source explictly mentioning that difference? Ospinad 17:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first instance, use common sense: if it is obvious and uncontroversial then it should not be a problem simply to record the settings. Many book and film adaptations have this and I wouldn't rate it as "research" to make an obvious observation. What you should not do is draw inferences from that, e.g. don't say "The film was refreshed by the use of an anachronistic setting." just observe that they were set in different periods. Spenny 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response. I only ask this because of a discussion I am having here about a section in the The Last Mimzy article about the differences between the film and the short story that it is based on. The person that I am debating with says that any comparison between the two would qualify as WP:SYN and I'm saying that it doesn't unless you are drawing conclusions or making assumptions that you aren't getting directly from the plots. Am I overreacting or is he not understanding the policy correctly? I wish I didn't have to be the only person arguing against him. Ospinad 14:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another example

message: I think that in practice there can be no absolute (not relative) definition of a primary source, since the term "primary source" is used of accounts that are not those of eyewitnesses.  Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War is considered a primary source for information on that war, though he was not an eyewitness of most of the events he describes and obviously drew on sources for what he wrote.  His account is primary only in relation to accounts that are based on his.
In that case, Wikipedia rules on the use of sources should, I think, be exactly the same whether the sources are primary (in relation to one or more others) or secondary (in relation to one or more others).
The only distinction might be that the secondary character of a source should be noted whenever its primary source or sources can be consulted.
If these remarks are found irrelevant to the above discussion, please treat them as an aside.  Perhaps indeed they have already been made in more appropriate form.  Lima 04:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had also put here a reference to an interesting International Herald Tribune article about the way secondary sources sometimes copy each other without checking the facts. I cannot find it now.  Lima 09:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're exactly right. However, some editors here feel very strongly that we should use the terms "primary" and "secondary" in the policy description, and they want to say something different about each. So we're trying to work out some kind of compromise. COGDEN 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary/secondary distinction 

message: I don't mean to butt in to what is obviously a long and very detailed discussion, and I did read nearly the entire discussion, but... where is the consensus? The one thing I do like about Wikipedia is that a consensus among editors is like a steering column of a car, but in this entire discussion about sources what seems to be missing is any mention of consensus among sources. Just a thought. Metrax 06:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the problem... there isn't a consensus.  There is no consenus among editors, and no consensus among sources (or to be more accurate, although there will be consensus among sources in a given field of study, there is no consensus between fields of study.) Blueboar 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the consensus? 

message: The recent discussion about drafts 1-6 has been productive, in that new ideas have been introduced, and there have been some efforts to compromise. However, I don't think we can adopt any of these choices at this point as a whole. But maybe we can move forward incrementally. We don't have to explain the whole policy in one big bite. We can start with a general introduction, then add more detail as it finds consensus. From the discussion above, I'm pretty sure that at least the following language represents a consensus:
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources or use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source.
In short, the policy of "No original research" requires that Wikipedia users stick to the sources.
This language has been included in all the proposals, and I don't see anybody disputing this language. If anyone finds any fault with it, let me know; otherwise, I'll plan to put it into the policy and we can concentrate on the next steps for adding incrementally more detail. COGDEN 21:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the language... and think it should be in the policy... but I would want to know how and where it will go before I fully agree.  Are you thinking that it would replace something currently in the policy (in which case, what should it replace?), are you thinking that it would be added on to a paragraph currently in the policy (in which case, where do you think it should be added?), or are you thinking that it should go in its own little sub-section?  The devil is often in the details :>).  Blueboar 21:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't. Before you make any such changes, please explain where this would go and if it replaces or dilutes anything in the current formulation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This will go in place of the old "PSTS" section. Then we'll build from there. COGDEN 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In view of the likelihood that certain people will insist on reverting anything, even consensus language, and replace it with non-consensus language, I just thought of another alternative: we can divide the PSTS section into two parts: a consensus part, and a non-consensus part. The consensus part would include the above language. The non-consensus part would material such as the what is currently on the page   (with a tag noting that the language has not achieved consensus). Gradually, we could shrink the non-consensus section, and grow the consensus section. COGDEN 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your persistent enthusiasm for "shrinking" the present consensus version is noted, but any replacement for PSTS has to be clearly demonstrated to be fully equivalent in effect, and a translation kept in place for users returning to this policy who find it changed from what they're using properly and effectively. ... dave souza, talk 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no "shrinking" involved here. I'm trying to expand the consensus language. Currently, there is no consensus language in the policy page concerning the use of sources. We need at least some. I don't quite understand why you think that the language in the current draft (as revised added in September, I believe, after an edit war) represents a Wikipedia consensus. You've been following this page close enough to know better than that. What I'm proposing is to start with some consensus language, then we can build on that. COGDEN 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good. I don't think anybody disputes anything in this paragraph. We can go in a number of directions based on this language, including toward a primary-secondary-type historiographic model (if we can reach consensus on something), or something simpler, or whatever. Everybody should be happy with this, even though it doesn't include all the bells and whistles yet. COGDEN 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the largest source-related statement for which there is a consensus? 

message: In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals, magazines, and mainstream newspapers; published by university presses or known publishing houses.
It looks to me like somewhere along the line someone shoe-horned in mainstream newspapers - that sentence does not run properly and confuses magazines in general with something which I think was meant to be far more specific: The Beano after all is from a known publishing house.
Although this is really the subject for reliable sources, as it is written here, it does not describe reliable sources. My only problem is how to fix, as I don't want another essay on RS and also we need to demonstrate context: the press as a reliable source for gossip and scandal but not for science. Spenny 19:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that mainstream magazines and newspapers are reliable sources for the fact that something happened and that it was news worthy.  To use your example... the NY Times is reliable for news about a scientific discovery, but not for the science itself (ie the science behind the discovery). In this context, citeing the press is not OR. Blueboar 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sun, the Mirror, and the Mail are mainstream British newspapers - the wording is meaningless as a test when you consider their deliberate biases and venom expressed in their pages. As we have debated before, there are different types of writing within them. I suppose as a test of OR, any source is proof of lack of originality but that is not what the paragraph is talking about, it is talking about reliability. Spenny 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press as a reliable source wording needs fixing