Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 34

message: I was thinking of a great way to make something clear about primary source usage: "It is okay for Wikipedia to use primary sources; it is not okay for Wikipedia to be a primary source."  And so I'll just leave that up to the community to debate over, whether it can be added and where.  I just don't want to go to bed forgetting that.  KV(Talk) 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has already been asked and answered in-policy.  Are you sure you read through verifiability as well? Wjhonson (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Sources 

message: I ran into an article today that is rife with OR, and even tagged one section of the article, but it would be better if someone who is more experienced with with the NOR policy than me looked at that article.  Is there a place NOR-interested Wikipedians hang out where I should request others to take a look?  Or is here a good place? N2e (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good if there was a project to post to for help with them. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good places for questions of this sort are the  Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard  and the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I would not really support adding yet another.DGG (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think an NOR board is an excellent idea, so I've gone ahead and set it up. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  I think it's a good idea too.  What do we call it, WP:IgNOR...?  (I-get-NOR).. :D  Dreadstar † 03:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do NOR-interested Wikipedians hang out? 

message: Following a suggestion from Professor marginalia (thank you), we now have a new NOR noticeboard, where people can ask questions about particular examples, if they've either been accused of OR but disagree, or if they think they've found OR but they're not sure, or they're being resisted. Shortcut is WP:NORN, and the talk page is at WT:NORN. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Norn... norn.  It's got a sort of woody quality about it.  Norn.  Norn.  Much better than `newspaper' or `litterbin'.  Dreadful tinny sort of words.--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticeboard is not an English word. Should be two words. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Words are not words until they become words.  Some words are useful to treat as words until such time as they become words -- this is the process by which they become words.--Father Goose (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Norn, a weird, yet apt fate for deciding future original research....  Dreadstar † 03:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! The "Weird Sisters," some of whom caused all the tragic events in the world. :-D  That's totally appropriate given the view a few people have of this policy. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That is a very decent idea.  I've grown tired of the extreme interpretations of "original research" that get trotted out like some sort of shibboleth during deletion reviews, despite there being no unsourced or deduced facts, when they really mean WP:RELEVANCE or WP:COAT.  It would be nice to have a central place to bring such issues. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard]] 

message: Let us resolve to be polite and non-confrontational in our edit summaries. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has that been a problem here? Torc2 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, I guess it has been getting a little snippy in for the main article edits.  Torc2 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: Many of maps used on Wikipedia cite no sources and can be seen as original research, in extreme cases used to push some POV. How to deal with that? See my post at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Unreferenced_maps_a_major_problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the map (or graphic) appears reasonable, based on related information, and is uncontentious, then I would lean towards keeping it, pending a better version. But if there is any dispute about it, and no reliable source, it should be removed as OR. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems like you should be able to tag the caption if you needed to.  Torc2 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think tagging is a bad idea, in general, and in this case specifically. If someone disputes the map, they can remove it as unsourced OR. If they think it could be correct, but would like to have sources for it, they can leave a brief query on the article's or user's talk page. And if they are extra nice and helpful, they can either find sources or a better map elsewhere. But just leaving ugly disfiguring templates around is counterproductive. Crum375 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose to say they're correct in their assertion that it's OR though?  For better or worse, templates are the way things work here. Torc2 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OR is easy to determine for a map: either the map comes from a reliable source or not. The reliability of the source, if that's an issue, can be determined by talk page consensus. As far as templates being "the way things work here," there are lots of bad things happening here. If we never tried to fix what's broken, we won't get far. Crum375 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider template use to be "broken".  I also disagree that it's always going to be easy to determine whether a map is OR.  Remember, for a map to violate Wikipedia's OR policy requires the synthesis designed specifically to promote a POV; not every created map does that.  If you remove a map because you believe that it was made simply to promote the editors personal viewpoint, you're not assuming good faith. Torc2 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: To me, maps are like any image... the key is to determine if the image is an original creation representing non-original research, or if it constitutes original research itself.  if an image accurately represents statements that are backed by reliable sources, then the image (map) is not Original Research ... even though it is an original creation.  But... if the image (map) drifts from accurately representing what is stated in the reliable sources, or if it improperly synthesises material from several sources to make a novel (pictorial) conclusion, then the image itself becomes original research. Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Torc, let's leave the template issue aside for now, because it's not related to this page. The OR issue, however, is easy -- the burden of inclusion of any challenged material is on the editor who want it in, per WP:V — this is not an WP:AGF issue at all. I assume in good faith that we all want to improve WP (well, most of us), yet not all editors fully understand the content policies. So, if you see any material that you feel is controversial (i.e. disputed) and is improperly sourced, you should remove it, perhaps moving it to the talk page (if there is no easy way for you yourself to find such source). You should then post a talk page message discussing the issue, and if either an appropriate source is found, or consensus develops that the source already there is reliable and sufficient, then the material can go back in. Crum375 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the OR issue is always going to be an easy call.  I've seen far too much uncontroversial information challenged or wrongly labeled OR.  Tagging is the better solution for borderline material or maps that might be OR. Torc2 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be borderline cases, certainly, but tagging is virtually always the wrong move. What tagging does is create two classes of Wikipedians — the hard workers, who toil to find good material and good sources, and the "managers" — editors who can't bother to do the hard work themselves, so they go around assigning work to others, by slapping ugly notices on their pages. This is not a good way to collaborate, and not a good way to achieve results. The correct way is to either fix the problem yourself, or else discuss and consult with others in a friendly and collaborative manner on the talk page. Crum375 (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Outright unilateral deletion is almost always the wrong move.  Tagging is relatively innocuous, unless it's some moron who just wants to scatter tags so they feel productive, which isn't the fault of the tags themselves.  Besides, I thought you wanted to set this aside? Torc2 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did want to set tagging aside, but you again said "tagging is the better solution." I think tagging is far from innocuous, and will generally only annoy people, because it is like saying: "I think your work is flawed, but my time is too valuable to do it for you, or to even discuss it. So I am just going to disfigure your page." Only admins can do deletion, so that's not an option. The correct way to handle contentious improperly sourced material, for which there is no readily available source, is to remove it from the article (though it remains in the history), possibly move it to the talk page, and discuss what needs to be done, in a collaborative fashion. That is what a good Wikipedian would do, and that is most likely to achieve constructive results. Crum375 (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's truly contentious that's one thing (though I disagree; removing material is more likely than tagging to result in an edit war and a hardening of positions).  But if the only concern is whether it's OR or not, that's not really contentious.Wikidemo (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toleration of OR maps 

message: If a reliable source says, for example, that the boiling point of some substance is a constant times the pressure involved, are we allowed to use standard pressure to derive a numeric boiling point, provided that we state the figure is "at standard pressure"?    
In general, can we use formulae from reliable sources to derive specific figures? Noob321 (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided that the formula can be verified in a reliable source and cited, then simply plugging numbers into the formula and deriving a specific figure is not OR.  If there is a question as to how the final number was derived, a discussion of the formula can be included in the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Like Blueboar said, it's not a black and white issue. If everything is simple, like the pressure/temperature equation, and you state the pressure used in the calculation, nobody can complain (it's freshman-level chemistry). If you were trying to use some extremely subtle calculation that requires 50 pages of calculations, people would be justified in complaining. The article talk page is the right place to hash out the in-between cases. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instantiating a mathematical formula 

message: These are real questions with a real examples behind them, but I don't want to get bias from the specific example, so I'm asking these from a new alternate account, as abstract questions.
Let's say that Smith publishes a paper in a peer-reviewed journal saying that a substance X is safe to eat, based on calculations using figures from other reports of studies on mice that only considered one kind of cancer.  Are we allowed to say that Smith's study did not take into account other issues?  In particular, there is another peer-reviewed paper by Jones that says that X may cause liver disease.  Are we allowed to say that Smith reached her conclusions without considering liver disease?
2nd question:  Smith's calculations from studies of the effect of substance X on mice didn't take into account the fact that mice have shorter lifespans than people do.  Are we allowed to say that? Little Lambs Eat Ivy (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer is no to all three questions.  We need to find published sources to back up the omissions, i.e. some non-WP source needs to point out the omission first (which WP can then quote. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't saying what something is not is within the realm of legitimate neutral summarization? Surely we can say that Warriors (TV series) is in fact not about warriors without a source that says it. SBPrakash (talk) 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends which definition of "Warriors" you use.  Somebody could always claim the title is meant metaphorically; "these people are dealing with their daily lives, therefore they are 'warriors'" type of thinking.  But to answer the question, it's not OR to state that Smith's paper dealt specifically with one type of cancer. (One would assume that the scope of a scientific study would be stated in the introductory section.)  I'd also question whether the phrase "safe to eat" was actually used rather than "did not cause cancer".  Drinking a gallon of paint thinner does not cause cancer, but does that make it safe?  Going out of your way to criticize the test (rather that citing a reliable source that criticized the test) is probably a WP:NPOV issue, since at that point, you're arguing with the source.  It would be fair to state something like "However, a study by Jones concluded...blah blah blah".  2nd Question: If you can find a reliable source that argues that, you can put it in.  Otherwise making the statement involves analysis and interpretation of the source, and is clearly WP:OR. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stating omissions 

message: Is the Reference desk exempt from WP:NOR? Dforest (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Reference Desks are discussion-style pages, limited amouts of OR is allowed per WP:TALK.  Trying to drive it home, by, e.g., asking WP:POINTed questions to advance a crackpot theory, is of course abuse.  However a single instance asking about some OR, even if it's the questioner's own, I would think is a legitimate use of the Reference Desk, along the lines of asking whether similar ideas do or do not exist. SBPrakash (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference desk 

message: I wonder if someone could add a section explaining some of the legal implications regarding why OR is bad on Wikipedia. I remember seeing some talk page discussion over things like copyrights and patents, etc. and how publishing OR in Wikipedia could cause problems in those areas, but I think it would make this policy statement stronger if it also included a variant of "besides the philosophical reasons stated here, Wikipedia doesn't want to get sued by some patent attorney". 23skidoo (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have the wrong policy in mind...  By definition, if something is original to an editor of Wikipedia it has not been published elsewhere... which means OR could not be grounds for a copywrite lawsuit.  Thus, our objections to OR are based on the reasons stated in this policy, and are not based upon any legal implications. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the text of patents is publicly avaliable. Patents may be discussed as much as one pleases. It is only making patented things, using patented processes, using patented software, or importing things that a patent applies to that is restricted. There is no restriction on writing about them. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if in the process of writing about a patent you include your own original thoughts about it... then you would be violating this policy.  Essentially, however, we are talking apples and oranges. This policy does not discuss legal implications, because there aren't any legal implications to OR for us to discuss. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the legal concern lies in the unapproved disclosure of trade secrets. However, I see no reason to detail this in the policy. Another potential implication is the establishment of prior art by editors engaging in OR, diminishing the value of a few potential patents and some logical derivatives of existing patents. However, there are no legal punishments for distributing non-trade secret processes and claims that are not currently under patent. Just some thoughts. Vassyana (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, if A is supposed to keep a secret, and instead, A puts the information in Wikipedia, A may be in trouble. Assuming that Wikipedia didn't know in advance that A was supposed to keep the secret, it isn't Wikipedia's problem, it's A's problem. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In many areas, with regard to legal implications, the situation is the other way round.  To produce content based upon a single source risks violating copyright through the production of a derivative work.  This risk is reduced by mixing original research (eg editorial commentary) into the content.  Similarly, you are not producing a derivative work if you are using some degree of synthesis to mix information from multiple sources.  So, for legal reasons, a degree of original research and original synthesis is necessary.  We cannot blindly copy.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "Secret"s are by definition unpublished and therefore unverifiable. With that they are covered by WP:V policy. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal implications 

message: An RfC was opened that is grounded in the WP:OR issue. It is located here Talk:Race_Differences_in_Intelligence#RfC. A summary that I will attempt to make as neutral as possible is, some editors want to include an accusation made against the books publisher, in order to show potential bias the book may have. Another group of editors has argued that accusations of bias against a publisher should not be included in each books article, and further that attempting to show "potential bias" without having a source making this claim directly against the book, is a violation of WP:OR. I would appreciate any voices and comments for or against either position. Please feel free to post here or on the RfC in question. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, OR issues with specific articles can be posted at the original research noticeboard. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I was unaware of such a location. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance and voices 

message: I could use a hand on an issue that came up in Birthright citizenship in the United States of America.
In the Supreme Court case UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, (cited here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259), the court stated, those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 .
In the articles on Plyler v. Doe and on Birthright citizenship in the United States of America (in reference to Plyler v. Doe), I have added this statement from UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ pointing out that it clarifies PLYLER v. DOE
One editor has argued that the court transcript of UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ is a primary source and, so, shouldn't be added without secondary sources to back it up.
Another editor has argued that, because UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ was about an alien in the U.S. who had not established substantial connections with the country, what the Supreme Court in that case said about Plyler v Doe (which was about aliens in the U.S. who had established substantial connections with the country) has no merit.
Because all sides of this issue believe that all other sides of this issue are breaking the 'no original research' policy, I felt it best to bring the issue here to be discussed in a neutral environment.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The contention is that this is a WP:SYNT violation... and I have to agree.  While US v Verdugo does reference Plyler v. Doe... it does so in a particular context.  It does not do so in the context of "Birthright citizenship" (the topic of the article).  Verdugo deals with the rights of aliens who have been extradicted into the US and does not include anything about "Birthright citizenship".  Thus, Mentioning it in an article on "Birthright citizenship" forms an improper synthesis, and the contention that Verdugo clarifies Plyler, in this context, is a stretch.  Including a discussion of Verdugo in the Plyler v. Doe article is a bit more acceptable.  But again it is important to note the context. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm understanding you correctly, what you are contending is that, while the Supreme Court said those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 . that is not, in fact, what they meant.  Sans a source, doesn't your contention, itself, fall into the area of original research?-198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Supreme Court cases can be very nuanced, no matter how plainly stated they may seem to be. Scholars with doctoral degrees in the subject and decades of experience fiercely debate even the basic substance and thrust of US Supreme Court decisions. For example, whether US v. Miller approves of extensive gun control or reiterates a right to bear arms (appropriate for the purposes of the unorganized militia), or something in-between, greatly depends on the person giving the analysis. The United States is a common law country, meaning that no matter how plain a law or court case may appear to be, it is influenced, restricted and/or reinforced by the apparent intent of the lawgivers/judges, previous laws and court decisions, traditional Anglo-American common law, and so forth. I would advise extreme caution in quoting Supreme Court cases, being sure to stay exactly to the source and avoiding even the appearance of drawing a conclusion or leading the reader. I would suggest that the decisions themselves be avoided (as direct sources), except when used to provide an illustrative quote that supports the conclusions of independent sources. Vassyana (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting position you are taking.  Am I correct in my reading of your statement that you do not believe Supreme Court rulings should be used as source documents in Wikipedia articles unless they are used only to provide an illustrative quote that supports the conclusions of independent sources?  I ask because there are a large number of articles (including the ones in which this issue has been raised) that are already using Supreme Court rulings for more than that.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vassyana correctly describes the general appraoch to primary and secondary sources. Court documents, including decisions, are primary documents and should not be used in ways that require any interpretation by editors. We should rely on secondary sources, such as newspaper and journal articles, for interpretations and use quotations as illustrations, not as proof to support an iunterpretation.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a neutral opinion on NOR 

message: Hi. I've created a new policy proposal/discussion here:
Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games
Based on confusion over the WP:SYN policy. Discussion is still early. But a few editors seem to agree that WP:SYN isn't meant to exclude summaries or compilations of research (e.g.: 10 scholars have all said this, several games have been called "trading games"). Rather, WP:SYN seems to be directed at reaching a novel opinionated conclusion. But I would appreciate clarification, and if there is a consensus I'd like to see the WP:SYN policy re-worded slightly. Policywonker (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification or Amendment of WP:SYN 

message: I've just been hit with NOR over an edit I made to the article Hebrides.
The thing is, I wasn't editing the content of the article, only the presentation.
The opening sentence in the article describes the Hebrides as an archipelago, which is not a commonly used word (at least in UK English). I had changed the article to say "group of islands" instead, as this will be acceptable to all, and I felt that "archipelago" qualified as jargon.
The "original research" in question was something I posted on the talk page to back up the edit where I took out "archipelago" as jargon. I did a search on the National Corpus to demonstrate how uncommon the word is. (Its only appearance in the spoken corpus is as part of an academic lecture.)
Does this really qualify as original research? It's a publically published dataset, and it has been academically selected as representative -- all I did was type one word in the box and hit search!
Even if this does count as original research, surely the NOR rule is only applicable to factual content, and not a change of presentation such as wording.
Thanks for your time,
Prof Wrong (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing you post on a talk page can violate the OR policy; it would only be an issue if you wanted (for some reason) to put your research into the actual article. Replacing the term "archipelago" with "group of islands" would not violate the OR policy. It's up to the editors participating on that page to decide how to phrase it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOR: Content vs Presentation 

message: There is a recurring issue on "Persecution of..." articles. I propose that wikipedia should only consider and act or a statement as "persecution" if a reliable source has called it "persecution". The following are my reasons:
In some dictionaries, the definition of "persecution" is quite vague. Oxford dictionary defines to persecute as "1. subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment. 2 persistently harass or annoy." What exactly is "harassment" or "annoying" or "hostility", will be answered differently by different wikipedians. But if a reliable source calls it "persecution", then it is definitely an example of "hostility" etc.
Sometimes wikipedians claim that arresting a person of a particular ethnic/religious group, or destroying his/her property constitutes as persecution. While, this is more specific, there is still a problem with that. If the state destroys a particular ethnic group's houses, it may be that the houses are illegal, or maybe the state is destroying the houses of other ethnic groups as well. Thus the only way of ensuring that actions and statements are not taken out of context is to use reliable sources that call the relevant action or statement as an example of "persecution".
Do you guys agree?Bless sins (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use common sense for general synonyms. However, when it comes to contentious terms and information, the best course of action is to stick closely to the sources. If no reliable source calls something a "persecution", we should avoid doing so as well. Vassyana (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep, just as Bless sins also notes ""persecution" [should only be called that] if a reliable source has called it "persecution"." Its a lot more tricky when a tradition calls it "persecution", and this tradition is uncritically regurgitated by several sources, but—as has been repeatedly noted in academic studies—it would be a far stretch to actually suppose that there was anything that might qualify as systematic "persecution." *Sigh* -- Fullstop (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The larger issue here is that a NPOV presentation of information is always going to have a non-transparent relationship to the information itself. That is, to organize information about Zoroastrians into a NPOV presentation one is going to have to draw on principles that come from outside of the explicit text of the sources. Distinguishing between this process and original research is tricky, and we need to do a better job of it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is I think accepted that though we cannot do OR in articles, we can do it to a certain extent on talk pages orin WP space to determine the reliability of sources. DGG (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution 

message: Is taking measurements from maps, aerial photographs and satellite images considered original research? For example, measuring the distance between two cities, or the length or area of an island or of a lake? Or determining the exact coordinates of a location with Wikimapia? Many facts determined this way appear in Wikipedia. I don't think this is research (just as it is not research measuring the length of a building), although those facts don't seem to be published elsewhere.--Ratzer (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For very simple calculations and deductions, it should not be a problem (as long as you cite the source from which it was derived). The source of the data should also be from a reliable source (which Wikimapia is not, just like other wiki projects like WikiNews). Vassyana (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about Wikimapia, I did not mean using the place markers and descriptions that anyone can add anonymously, I just meant it as an interface to the underlying satellite imagery (which is a reliable source) for determining exact coordinates. I guess other interfaces like Google maps could also be used, instead.--Ratzer (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurements from maps 

message: Because of your interest in the issue of original research at Wikipedia, I wanted to draw this to your attention.
Another editor has listed a number of annotated bibliographies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, arguing that they should be deleted as original research. My reaction is that  the articles aren't original research in the sense of someone's new theory, the information in the articles ought to be salvaged by being incorporated into an existing article, since the bibliographies seem to be predominantly made up of reliable sources. Whether you agree with my position or that of the nominator, you are welcome to participate in the following discussions:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The effectiveness of neurofeedback as a treatment for Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder : An annotated bibliography
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High school dropouts: an annotated bibliography
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental Impact on Human Health: An Annotated Bibliography
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divorce and Children: An Annotated Bibliography
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxation of Carried Interest: An Annotated Bibliography  --Eastmain (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annotated bibliographies at AfD 

message: We are (once again) debating whether WP:Attribution should be marked as "historical".  The page states that it is not a policy itself, but is a summary of two policy pages (WP:NOR and WP:V).  The question has been raised as to whether it accurately does this.  Please pop over to WT:ATT and share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[WP:ATT]] be marked as "historical"?