Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 17

message: It would appear that the policy page has been returned from Historical to active status or at least that there is a movement afoot to do so, so I have taken the liberty of commenting out the historical tag here. If this movement carries on it may be appropriate to unprotect the page as well in accordance with common practice.  ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing {{tl|historical}} from talk page 

message: I have protected this page to maintain stability while the WP:ATT situation is being sorted out. Crum375 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How on earth do you have power to do this?01001 05:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect 

message: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion 
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ATT]]: Join the discussion at 

message: There should be a prominent merge tag posted on this page, directing people to the discussion, which is supposed to be trying to attract as many people as possible.  This is the very problem that led to the current dispute:  that there had been no merge tag on this and similar pages while discussions about possibly merging were going on.  Would someone please correct this and put up the merge tags?  --Coppertwig 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . There is an enormous amount of discussion going on about these pages. There are many users with sysop rights who are actively involved, and I trust them to add appropriate templates when/if they are appropriate. There is no need to request assistance from uninvolved administrators using the editprotected tag.CMummert · talk 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you read all of the WP:AN discussion you seem to be responding to.  That users with sysop rights have been partisan, obstructionist and wheelwarring (i.e. not being trustable to add the appropriate templates) was the entire issue.  I don't see anyone here suggesting that the text of this page should be modified, simply the proper merge tag installed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTE: There is a proposal to merge this page into WP:ATT. 

message: Wikipedia:Verifiability/Header.
I was asked by an admin from WP:RFPP to come up with a combination of the merge header from WP:RS and the protection header from WP:ATT, to be used on both WP:V and WP:RS, and propose it here.  My take at this is located at the link above (it has code in it so it can be used on both pages).  By belief is that this version will satisfy everyone.  It has the text (with twiddles that make it apply to these pages instead of ATT) from ATT's tag, including the protection discussion, with the merge tag formatting of the one at RS.  So, it would replace the  on this page, and obviate the need to continue editprotecting about the need for a merge tag. I think it also absorbs all the ideas of the template in the topic above, too.  Any objections?  It looks like this:
 Wikipedia:Attribution was created to serve as a combination of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It was believed that consensus for such a merger was reached, but that has been called into question. For the time being, Wikipedia:Attribution remains the canonical policy page, but Wikipedia: retains its applicability.  Pending long-term resolution of this dispute (presently under discussion), this page has been protected from editing.  This is not an endorsement of the current version.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is becoming insane.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate, substantively I mean? And did you have any sort of understandable reason for attacking someone who is trying to get consensus on a simple notification-header issue, at the request of others? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag

message: This should absolutely be renamed to Wikipedia:No original thought because of the problem in wikilawyering where ANY research, including organizing information logically or seeking out citations, is seen as "original research". Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title you suggest is no better at avoiding misuse. "You're not allowed to think about if that is a reliable source!" -Amarkov moo! 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page rename?

message: Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:
Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration
To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, I wouldn't mind, but I don't know if there is overall concensus. Jimbo was online when I posted to his talk page last night; he almost certainly saw my message. - Denny 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see 

message: Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll
Thank you. - Denny 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the MfD was a Speedy Keep - Let's get back to work on the Poll folks... New voices are needed to break the current deadlock over language.  Please help out. Blueboar 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll]] 

message: Is referencing a T.V show original research?--Lucy-marie 10:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrencing a T.V 

message: What are the views of making a page/site or having someone else make a site just to use said site to have a source for wikipedia? I want to point out the fact that if this happened i am speaking as if the information posted in said sight really was true and legitimate. Would That be original research >:]? Just trying to point out the fact that you can't go and mark out someones information they post on here just because they don't have a source, yes sources are very nice and you should have one none the less. --NekoD 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making your own sources/citations 

message: I get the idea of no original research because the information must be verifiable. However, how can any "new" research be done without it being (somewhat) original? Think about it.--Sportman2 15:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent question! When people on wikipedia say "No original research" they don't quite mean what it seems. The idea is that you (as a Wikipedian) shouldn't post your own conclusions, ideas or theories on Wikipedia. Here's how it does beyond verifiability: you shouldn't put sources together in a way that advances a position that is no longer attributable to the original sources. Some editors prefer the term "No personal research" and that's much better, because you can indeed rephrase the material and draw from a variety of sources to give a "new" presentation, as long as the sources are fairly represented, and are not used to advance a position that can't be explicitly and directly attributed to the given sources. I hope this makes more sense. --Merzul 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: I just recently ran across the  warning, and am a bit confused by it given WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article-content. Isn't importance of sections more an issue of original research, sources, and undue weight than notability? --Ronz 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, isn't it interesting that WP:N starts off saying it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". --Merzul 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  So why does the warning refer to WP:N?  Shouldn't it refer to NOR, SOURCE, and WEIGHT? --Ronz 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it used to point at Wikipedia:Importance, which was redirected to Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Makes much more sense why it's in such a state.  Not so sure what to do about it though. --Ronz 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the idea of WP:WEIGHT being the relevant policy for importance related issues, but again, I don't know what to do about it. If I was king of Wikipedia, I would deprecate these importance templates, and create undue weight template "This section or article lacks reliable sources justifying the weight given to it." or something like that. --Merzul 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea!  I've copied your comment to Template talk:Importance-s.  Hope you don't mind. --Ronz 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  importance-s template 

message: I've got a small problem with a user who keeps insisting on deleting 2 user generated images because they think that they violate WP:OR. Their argument is that because the pictures are "artists renderings" based on witness statements they violate WP:OR, my standpoint is that because the creature that the pictures are depicting doesn't actually (it's a paranormal creature) there is no way that you can possibly have a real photograph.
An outside opinion on this would be useful.
The page in question is Shadow people.
perfectblue 14:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In those cases, aren't the "artists renderings" based on things the artists claim to have seen themselves, and not "witness statements" taken from a reliable source?  And one of the images has text, which is subject to OR and a bad thing in an image since the text can't be edited by other wikipedia editors.  It also has some OR in the text of the image page.  --Minderbinder 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It also says "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed" which is what applies in this case.  The images in question are based on the personal experiences of those who created them, as said on the image pages.  This page certainly doesn't declare all original images to not be OR, it just says they are allowed as long as they don't violate OR otherwise - these pictures do violate it.  The intention of NOR isn't to allow using images as a loophole, is it?  --Minderbinder 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question specifically says witness statements - if the statements are verifiable, then I believe the art should be fine.  Take a look at all the art in :Category:Sexual acts, for instance.  From a practical perspective, there's a recognised need to allow some latitude in the production of public domain or GDFL images for articles - every photo I take, for instance, isn't really verifiable.  I just say it's an image of X, and then in it goes.  For instance, I took this photograph of Highway IIa in Toronto - there's no way any user can verify that without going to the highway themselves, but we allow it anyways, otherwise we'd be hard pressed to add most images. WilyD 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case the "witness statements" are from the people who did the art.  Just as text of an anecdotal story of the experience of a wikipedia editor isn't verifiable, a drawn picture of an anecdotal of the experience of a wikipedia editor isn't verifiable either.  I don't take issue with pictures of overpasses, since they can be verified, the problem is drawings of "this is what I saw" when the subject is something generally considered not to exist.  --Minderbinder 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cease twisting things. I'm referring to the first picture, not the second one. The first one is based on outside descriptions. perfectblue 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:AGF.  I was talking about the second picture.  If you only think the first picture meets OR, why did you keep trying to add both back to the article?  --Minderbinder 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Which is why you should only revert the content you're concerned about and not do blanket reverts.  If there's no room for it, then why are you putting in personal accounts of people describing "I saw this!"?  --Minderbinder 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:OR and images of non-existant things 

message: According to many reliable sources ( and others), rapid transit is "rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way". Is it original research to say that since AirTrain JFK meets this definition, it is rapid transit? Does , which says that automated light rail (which AirTrain JFK is ) is a type of rapid transit, help? --NE2 07:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a bad example because you do have the press release so your bases are covered.  But let's say you didn't have the press release.  I think here is a case where we need to use common sense.  The more controversial the example, the more strict we need to be about compying with the policy.  The less controversial, the less strict.  What happens if two people disagree over the level of controversy?  well, if two people disagree, I would say that is proof enough that it is controvesial.  So what would I do?  I would call the Airtrain rapid transit even though this is a synthetic statement.  I bet no one will object.  If someone objects and they refuse to consider this so obvious and uncontroversial a case that we can let it slide, then I would try to find a compromise.  But my guess is no one will object.  Now, look at it the other way - I am sure you can imagine all sorts of synthetic claims that would be very controversial (and that will be challenged by many other editors).  That's when we need to follow the policy strictly. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the only press release is a Canadian one that says that a new Vancouver ALR line is rapid transit; it doesn't say that AirTrain JFK, a line in New York City, is. There have been related issues with light rail, essentially a marketing term for some tram systems. --NE2 11:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry I misread it.  Well, my appeal to common sense stands. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is using a definition original research?

message: On Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#remove_OR disagreement over whether a certain paragraph is Original Research. Urthogie 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this original research? 

message: Regarding this addition of Pmanderson's,  is this something we want to include? Sometimes it really is obvious to specialists that "most" of them believe X, even if there's no reliable source that says this explictly. For example, it seems obvious to me that most scientists agree with the man-made global warming hypothesis, although I suspect the ones who don't would say it's not true that most scientists agree with it. I feel we should leave this issue to the actual editors, rather than issuing mandatory advice here out of context. We already have some advice about it in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I am missing something, this example has nothing to do with our concept of 'synthesis'. In this example the topic appears to be how to determine consensus among published sources about a given issue. This has to do with NPOV, not with synthesis or NOR. Crum375 22:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most scientists

message: This is moot now as one of my sources has disappeared, but:
If I have a primary source statement that says "If A then B", and I have another source that states "A", then is it acceptable to state these, and then say that "B" is likely?  Another editor opined that this might be original research, but it seems that logically I'm creating no new information.  scot 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was regarding an article we were both involved in, but I might as well reply (even though it's now out of date) - see WP:SYN. -Halo 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The original research there is introducing the idea that B is likely. The non original research way to present this would be simply "A is so, according to Z. Y says that if A then B." and nothing further. --bainer (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right--and Halo has provided me with an even more explicit source for "A", and I have "If A then B" from a primary source.  I'm still not certain that "B" follows, based on potential ambiguity in the definition of "A" used by both sources (hence my desire to state that "B" was likely) but I suppose that can be left for readers to deal with--since there are other sources which state "not B" (sources I obviously question in light of "A") then perhaps those sources should be repeated in the same paragraph.  scot 13:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now the "not B" sources appear to have disappeared, and someone else did as Thebainer suggested and just stated "A" and "If A then B", so I guess I leave it at that.  scot 13:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-hypothetical query

message: I think this section needs to be worded to more strongly discourage against citing oneself. As it reads, if one does not follow the link to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, it sounds like citing oneself is not a problem. I propose replacing this:
If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.
With something like this (the bold does not go in, I've just put it here to emphasise change):
If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. However this is discouraged - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
How does that sound? Rocksong 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an improvement, but is it necessary to use bold text? -Sensemaker
May I suggest this tweaked version? "Editors who have had their material published by reliable publications may cite themselves as sources, while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy, but doing so is not encouraged. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Oneself 

message: Could someone please check out List of United States Presidential religious affiliations.  It seems to me that significant sections of this article amount to an original Synthesis ... drawing conclusions about the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Presidents based upon primary sources.  This isn't a POV issue.  My sole concern is with such a massive WP:SYNT violation.  Unfortunately, based upon my discussions about similar issues at related articles, I am not sure if the principal editor understands this, or sees what is wrong with the article.  I am not sure how to fix this... If we cut the synth, we would basically gut the article (which is definitely noteworthy and should not be deleted).  I could use some help trying to explain things and figuring out how to fix them.  Thanks Blueboar 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article with a LOT of Synthesis 

message: Please see here.
Thanks, --Sagie 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute regarding publication of original research in article