Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 16

message: Does anyone know / can recommend similar sites like Wikipedia where OR is allowed (and yes I know all about uncyclopedia thanks). Magic Pickle 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Wikiversity: :v: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Codex Sinaiticus (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other avenues

message: Isn't this policy redundant? What's covered here that's not covered by WP:V? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Material can be sourced and yet still be OR, so this page explains what OR is. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as you only make descriptive claims, and don't use them to form unpublished arguments, including verifiable descriptions like that is not OR.  But you have to ask whether trivia like that is notable enough to be included in the article. For example, I could list the first 20 bytes of a Mozilla Firefox binary, but there is no reason to put it in the article. CMummert · talk 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I don't know if it is notable or not I have to check other computers but I found that on at least my pc one of the DWord Names for crystal reports 11 is THX1138 like the movie.SleepyDan 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I am the author of an article on Lipotes Vexillifer which has been published in a well-known scientific journal. Does the OC rule prevent me using material from that article in the Lipotes Vexillifer Wikipedia article even though no-one else would have such a restriction in using said material? Knight of Ashitaka 22:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypothetical Situation

message: K, so i get what is original research but what does one do if one comes across it?  like in Examination of Holocaust denial, which is up for deletion, most of the people agree that it is Original research but the high quality of that research could further benefit wikipedia.  What should oyu do in this situation?/??Xlegiofalco 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is an encyclopedia, which means it is a collection of summaries from other reputable and verifiable published sources. If WP had its own research, or improperly sourced information, it would cease being an encyclopedia, contrary to its charter. In the article you mention I see large stretches that have no inline citations. Whenever there is a contentious issue, sources must be cited inline to prove that each item is properly sourced to a casual reader. Crum375 02:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy on Original Research 

message: At one point the article contained the paragraph "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
I gather that the first sentence was removed deliberately, but what about the rest? Was it removed by mistake? I can't find any discussion of it in the archives. User:Ben Standeven as 70.246.221.36 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I can see not to use that paragraph is that the term "source-based research" may be misinterpreted to allow some kind of synthesis, or using sources in a selective fashion to advance a position. I guess it's better to stay away altogether from the word "research", as it has negative connotations in an encylopedia, which should be purely a tertiary source. It may be better to say that we "collect and summarize relevant and acceptable published sources", without calling it "research". Comments? Crum375 02:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't just summarize because an article with just summaries would be unreadable.  There has to also be some kind of synthesis of the summaries so they flow from one to the next, in one article, with joining phrases of some kind. Wjhonson 02:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, some minimal synthesis for "smooth flow" is always needed, but it must be a neutral presentation of the sources found. Crum375 02:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is an important point, so let's make in the article? --Michael C. Price talk 07:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thinking about it some more, I think a "summary of existing sources" by itself implies some logical arrangement and smooth flow (and certainly does not exclude it), so the additional 'synthesis', which has a connotation of WP:OR, is not really needed. It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think we need to stay away from words that could imply or connote OR, like 'research' and/or 'synthesis', because once we open the door it could invite abuse. Crum375 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your caution but it is specifically "original research" that is banned, not "research" in general.  Summarising existing sources is a form of research; trying to call it something else just makes it harder to see what is allowed and what isn't.--Michael C. Price talk 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it boils down to definitions and words. I can see it both ways. The problem that I highlighted is that perhaps you and I know exactly what kind of research and synthesis is acceptable, as just 'smoothing the flow of words'. But it's quite possible that if we actually use these words in the policy as permissible with some cautionary qualification, they will be abused or misinterpreted by some party during a future content or wording dispute. I think our goal in drafting a policy is to make it as clear-cut and as unabmiguous as possible, to minimize the potential haggling over meanings. It seems to me that if we just totally avoid the words 'synthesis' and 'research' as permissible, under any circumstances, and use 'collect and summarize acceptable sources', by proper anti-Murphy's Law engineering we eliminate this potential pitfall. Crum375 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to find out what OR means and I'm still not clear (witness my attempt at clarification that was immediately reverted).  The term "original research" strongly implies that there are forms of research that are permitted.  We need to be clear that this sort research is permitted and that sort is not; I don't think this policy document is clear-cut and it needs to be.  Avoiding usage of the term "research" or "synthesis" is making the whole matter worse. It needs to be faced head-on.  --Michael C. Price talk 22:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Paragraph 

message: :::::Michael, please don't make edits that change the content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
Surely it is less confusing to clarify exactly which part of the paragraph is OR?  It was not a change of policy. --Michael C. Price talk 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Michael, the entire paragraph is OR. That is why it's listed here, as an example. No source discussed the Chicago Manual of Style in relation to the dispute the article was about; therefore, to include it is OR. Please read the example. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Altered paragraph

message: This material has been around for a very long time, and presumably reflects a wide consensus:
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.
Somehow they got lost this autumn.  I feel they provide an important safety valve for WP:NOR, because without them there is no positive statement about what is allowed, only what is excluded.  This can lead to editors invoking NOR for almost any summary they don't agree with.
For instance, if somebody is summarizing, I don't know, a cartoon or sitcom episode, and it has a very obvious Shakespeare reference, say Juliet on the balcony, then an editor ought to be able to make that connection and have it be left alone.  But without those paragraphs, another editor could argue that the mention of Shakespeare was a "thesis" and therefore OR.
So, I'm reinserting those long-standing policies.  Cool? Squidfryerchef 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one agree.  I'm all for the NOR policy but insisting on citations of scholarship when describing aspects of popular culture is problematic.--Father Goose 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the restoration; we need to be positive about what is permissible and encouraged, as well as what is excluded, for the reasons you mention.  I'm not sure what the first sentence means, though: how could you create a primary source in Wikipedia?  I suggest we lose this (or clarify) along with the leading "However" from the next sentence. --Michael C. Price talk 12:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that "creating" a primary source would be if you published your own study on Wikipedia.  And we all agree that that is OR.  I think that was used as an example to contrast with "source-based research". Squidfryerchef 14:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring "source-based research" and "apple pie" paragraphs 

message: Please could someone (or somemany) take a look at the discussion on Talk:Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars and the edits on the corresponding article. The article has been tagged as containing original research for as long as I've known so I went on a cull, removing anything that was obviously original research. Another user has now decided that my edits are too extreme and has reverted parts of it - and just added more original research tags. Can anyone provide some insight into what should be done? I am pretty sure that we aren't supposed to have sentences saying things like It is as of yet unknown if the race has also been officially designated as "the Scrin", or indeed if they effectively even are the Scrin. Thanks in advance! -Localzuk(talk) 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some advice please 

message: It's been a very interesting discussion.  Im wondering how these guidelines would be received:
- Just because the facts "A is a B" and "B is a C" are each asserted in reliable sources, does not by itself allow us to claim that "A is a C" ( this is a paraphrase of the "synthesis" paragraph ).
- Logical inferences that are made to advance a thesis are not allowed.  For example, a literature term paper is OR just as a science experiment or a journalistic interview is OR.  It is acceptable, however, to compare and contrast several points of view provided the other guidelines are met.
- Sources used in logical inferences are held to a higher standard than simply being reliable.  They must also be an authority on the subject.  This doesn't mean they have to be an authority on the main subject of the article, but to use a source for "A is a B", it must be an authoritative source on A or B.
- If there are several conflicting authoritative sources on the subject, the editor should not cherry-pick one that best supports an inference.
- There is an exemption for "general knowledge" inferences.  Otherwise, ( here's a tip of the pen ) saying "city A is west of city B" would be original research when the source says "city B is east of city A".  The only facts required to make that inference would be a lexicon that west is the opposite of east.
- I was told once that general knowledge, in a research paper, encompasses anything you might find in an encyclopedia.  Obviously this definition wouldn't do for us.  General knowledge for our purposes might be material included in a children's dictionary, encyclopedia, atlas, etc.
- It is permissible, but by no means necessary, to include a reference for a general-knowledge inference.
- The flip side of the "general knowledge" guideline is that if a source asserts that "A is a B", but uses an unconventional definition of what a B is, that is, one that contradicts the popular definition of what a B entails, then the editor is encouraged to compare and explain this usage of B.
- What constitutes "advancing a thesis" depends in part on whether opinion is involved, if there is a chain of inferences involved, or simply on the length of the synthesized material.
- Adding items to categories, "See also" lists of internal links, and deciding which sources to cite do not count as "advancing a thesis".  Otherwise we could get into meta-meta situations where you need a source just to cite a source.  This does not mean to enourage "listcruft"; what belongs in a list is subject to consensus, and some things do and don't belong.  However, WP:NOR is not the right policy to settle such discussions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Squidfryerchef (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible guidelines about when synthesis is and isn't OR? 

message: Every now and then I see someone respond to a talk page comment by saying the WP:NOR applies as much to talk pages as it does articles.  However, that does not appear to be the case, and there is occasionally good reason to post original research on the talk page of an article for feedback as a means of later improving the article.
For example, let's say you uncover additional information for an article, or an error in the article, through your own original research.  It would not be appropriate to simply edit the article using what you found.  However, it would be appropriate to post your information on the article's talk page and ask if any other editors are aware of a published reference duplicating what you found.  If a verifiable reference can be found by another editor for your original research, then it could be included in the actual article.
Thus WP:NOR does not fully apply to talk pages as it does actual article pages.  Original research on a talk page can be ok provided it's done in the proper context of attempting to solicit additional verifiable cited information for the article itself. Dugwiki 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOR doesn't apply to talk pages, Dug, unless you're dealing with a living person, in which case WP:BLP kicks in and applies to articles and talk pages equally. Bear in mind, too, that talk pages are for discussing the article, not individual editors' theories. Although it's okay to outline some ideas in the hope that references can be found for them, it should be done briefly and sparingly. Wikipedia can't be used as a platform. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on all counts. The talk pages aren't supposed to be an open forum, they're intended to be discussion meant to improve the article. So original research on a talk page is ok provided it is done in that context.  And you are correct that biographies are handled slightly differently than other subjects for various reasons, so as to avoid spreading possible false slander, etc. My post above is aimed mainly at the editors who simply blanket reply to any OR on talk pages that OR isn't allowed at all, even when the OR appears to be in proper context on the talk page. Dugwiki 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Pages 

message: There seems to be some disagreement about our model verifier and some confusion over the import of phrasing.  The concept seems to owe something to the Common Law notion of a "reasonable man," sometimes now called a "reasonable person."  This fictitious person possesses the knowledge and discretion that we commonly expect of a capable adult.  
Similarly, Wikipedia policies such as Verifiability and NOR are based on the concept of a reasonable editor.  This fictitious person possesses a reasonable level of knowledge, an accurate concept of logic, and is comparatively free of bias.  It is therefore appropriate to term this a "reasonable adult,"  since Wikilawyers are typically less skilled than actual lawyers, and may not otherwise understand that a modicum of education is being assumed.  
Despite what at least one editor has expressed, so phrasing things implies neither that all adults are reasonable nor that all children are not.  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is our model verifier? 

message: I would like some clarification for what constitutes primary and secondary sources. Sometimes a primary source is a great deal more informative than a secondary source; especially when the secondary source seems to be promoting an opinion. Specifically, would it be alright to use The Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The United States of America, Defendants; Docket No. 226 to cite facts in an Oklahoma historical article in reference to how and why Caddos, Witchitas, etc., ended up on reservations in Oklahoma. Most secondary sources in this area are kind of opinionated, and quite a few have the facts wrong. DeepFork 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to tell with such documents whether they represent the final word on the matter, or whether later proceedings have overturned the conclusions, or whether historical research has uncovered new information. A recent secondary source would be better. However, if a later source refers to the decision, but misrepresents the information in the decision, that would be reason to exclude information from the later source from the article. --Gerry Ashton 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, primary sources may *always* be directly quoted.  With quote marks, and a ref-type citation to the exact section quoted.  This allows readers to check that you have indeed exactly quoted the primary source.  Sometimes editors use selective quoting to push a pov and that should be avoided. Wjhonson 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, selective citation can be done with secondary sources as well.  The distinction IMO is not whether the source is pushing an opinion (in a sense, nearly all sources are), but whether we have perspective on the biasses and limitations of the source, and whether an expert is needed to intepret the source for us.  When citing a court case, we normally assume the judge unbiassed, but it may require a legal technician to disentangle ratio decidendi from obiter dictum.  In other instances, sources were secondary when written, but should now be treated as primary because the sources on which they depended are no longer extant, and because the biasses of the author are no longer obvious.   Rather than parsing a fine technical distinction, I think Wikipedia would be improved if editors concentrated on the intent.  Which is the most authoritative source for this information?  Which explains it most clearly?  Do any of the sources need another source to critique or explain them?  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be very careful with "always". I would not quote the prosecution testimony in the Salem witch trials without a warning (readily sourceable from almost any secondary source). I would not quote Soviet production figures or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except in articles directly on the subject, with the consensus opinion of them made perfectly clear. Most other primary sources require less buffering, but this depends on how strong the consensus is that they are  mistaken or lying. Secondary literature is often, not always, a good guide on where any individual pprimary source falls.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary vs. Secondary sources

message: In my opinion this policy can and does limited the usefulness of Wikipedia. I understand how Wikipedia is strictly an encylopedia however how is it not benefical to everyone if you include information that has not previously been documentated or recorded. An example of this is a small village school. Living in the UK in a small rural community, our local school does not have a website and there are certainly no books avalible on the subject. Is it therefore wrong for me to post information regarding the school when Wikipedia seems like the ideal place to do it? 
Previously, the history of the school has remained a mystery. The structure of Wikipedia is so that such an article would be perfect for people to contribute their knowledge of the school to and while the factuality of the information may be doubtful, i'm sure there is some kind of disclaimer or tag that can be put over this. If not then how about a new one. "There is no documented evidence to support this". The infomation would be in the best interst to everyone, isn't it better that there is some disputable information there than none at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
*No. We're working on a quality encyclopedia, not an assortment of random data. >Radiant< 13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOR limiting the usefulness of WP 

message: I'm caught on this, as I can see a few others are (adding information about a school is not "random data" btw). This policy was brought to my attention when the use of an 'unreliable' website as a source was disputed in Talk:Inheritance. The website in question is , which I admit is a fan-site (or, I should say, hate-site) and not some published journal or recognized organization. Although I agree with some of the points given against posting it as a source, a quick glance at the site is all one needs (even for those who haven't read the books) to confirm that it is indeed a reliable one; it uses common sense and arguments made are backed with facts. Just because it isn't formally published doesn't make this any less true. Just because it was written by a couple of average joes doesn't mean that they're stupid and can't say anything that's correct or, in this case, 'reliable'.
At what point should published works win out over original research, so long as it contains common sense and undeniable truths? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.253.231 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the test of a RS vs a non-RS is not so much apparent common-sense or intelligence of the authors, as the existing independent layers of objective validation as well as corporate responsibility. If it's a scientific issue, other criteria would also apply, like peer review, multiple citations by others etc. If you have a couple of apparent well meaning average joes posting info on their web site, they have no independent layers of review, and no corporate oversight and/or liability. Hence they would normally not be considered as RS by WP. A typical newpaper or magazine would normally have those mechanisms in place, hence it would generally be acceptable unless known to be extremist or one-sided. Crum375 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Aha, this problem again, please understand, wikipedia is not about the truth -- WP:NOTRUTH -- reliability is really all we have!  --Merzul 02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a quick glance at the site, and didn't notice any citations to other sources. As far as I'm concerned I won't even begin to consider a fact to be a fact unless I've obeserved it myself or it's been published by a reputable source (which two average joes are not). Even then, no fact is undeniable. Now, if the site gave citations to reliable sources, you could look up those sources and use them in a Wikipedia article, but apparently the site didn't. --Gerry Ashton 02:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The page in question is Talk:Inheritance Trilogy? (Inheritance also lack sources) --Merzul 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is reliable? 

message: Can we add "religious scriptures" (texts such as Bible, Koran, Vedas etc) to the list of  primary sources ? I know that this should be pretty obvious, but working on the Hinduism page I have seen editors debating on what the religion really says, based on quotes culled from the scriptures. It would be useful to point out the policy that specifically states that wikipedia articles cannot be argue a position (as opposed to illustrate a position) based on such quotes. Abecedare 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that any recognized historical document is a primary source. Its published interpretation would be a secondary source. I think all religious scriptures or holy writings are therefore primary sources. In general, a primary source cannot be used to advance a position - it can only be used as reference or background material for secondary sources. Crum375 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that scriptures are covered by the mention of historical sources in WP:OR; but some editors working on religious articles would dispute that simple contention. So I am suggesting that we explicitly list "religious scriptures" as a primary source in the list, with the pro being that needless debates on article talk pages can be short-circuited and the only con that I can see would be the lengthening of the policy by two words. (I am assuming of course that no one here is disputing that scriptures are primary source. ) Abecedare 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main problem is that the "not truth" part of "verifiable, not truth" is so heavily underrated, and completely unappreciated! It is not so much the difference between primary vs secondary sources, the difference is how easily some idea can be attributed to a source. Secondary sources are very explicit, and you can cite a quotation from a secondary source saying "The meaning of Matthew x:yz is the following ... ". So it all comes down to attribution, NOT TRUTH! I wish the official policy was "No truth!" :) (please don't take that literally, but at least anybody who has been in a dispute over primary sources should know what I mean) --Merzul 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I personally see no problem adding 'religious writings' to the list of examples of primary sources. Like any primary source, they would only be used as a reference or background for the relevant secondary source that discusses them and should not be used on their own to advance a position. Crum375 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think holy books are fine primary sources.  However, there is one issue.  I've lately been arguing against the stricter interpretations of OR, especially w.r.t. the "synthesis" paragraph, and I'm in favor of retaining the editor's leeway in comparing/contrasting sources.  But I do think that for articles on religion, philosophy, or science, we must be careful not to cherry-pick verses to prove a point. Squidfryerchef 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should never prove a point with primary sources, whether 'cherry-picking' or not, as that would be 'advancing a position with a primary source', which we may not do per WP:NOR. It is fine to let a secondary source do it, and then we can supply the primary source as background and reference to the reader. Crum375 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scriptures 

message: During a recent AfD the topic of Original Research came up, specifically the "synthesis of information" part of the policy.  It was argued that citing a number of media references about a term and including them in a section titled "References in the Media" constituted synthesis, because the references made by the media were not noted by other media sources.  Eventually the argument boiled down to whether or not the "mere collection of information" (my words) with no implied or directed conclusions drawn from this information constituted synthesis, thusly becoming Original Research.  I have seen this same argument rasied a number of times since then.
The question I have is this: is the simple act of compiling information (say, background information on a person or place) from multiple sources without drawing any conclusions from that information a form of Original Research?  My understanding of the policy is that provided there is no new conclusion created (implicitly or explicitly) by comparing or combining pieces of information it does not qualify.  To paraphrase the example in the policy, if the text includes "A" and "B", so long as there is no "C" it is not Original Research.  (After all, 99% of Wikipedia is a compilation of information from numerous sources)
Regardless of whether or not my understanding of the policy is correct, I believe that the article needs to be much more clear on this point. (e.g. a bolded sentence that states "the mere collection of information with no expressed or implied conclusions from that information (is/is not) synthesis."  Thoughts? -- Y|yukichigai 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mere collection of information with no expressed or implied conclusions from that information is not synthesis. However, the mere collection of material with the implied purpose of establishing the notability of a neologism, is original research, and violates WP:NEO. --Merzul 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What I'm trying to say is that once notability is established by a source discussing the term rather than using it, I can not imagine anybody objecting to a collection of interesting usages of the term. For example, the term 'new prog' can be cited as notable with this article because it says "The sound of 2006 will be called — in fact, already has been called — new prog", but a collection of reviews, where the term is used, should not be used for this purpose. Then once the notability is established with hopefully a few sources like the above, then these reviews can be used as evidence that individual bands have been labeled with this term. The collection of information without any implied conclusion other than what is contained in the original sources is wikipedia at its best. I hope this was clearer. --Merzul 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that's a bit more understandable.  I should make it clearer myself that I've seen the "collection is synthesis" argument raised mostly in non-neologism articles since. Good to know, though.  -- Y|yukichigai 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about the wording, but your idea seems spot on. For example, I don't like to see section headings like "Religion and intelligence" that cite research saying "most scientists don't believe in God." This isn't exactly synthesis, but it is using sourced material to imply something that is not attributable to the original sources (unless the study really did claim that religious people are less intelligent). One may think that this is covered by NPOV, but what usually happens is that for the sake of neutrality other studies are cited with contradictory results, and so the battleground is formed and the OR-wars for neutrality ensue. See the above discussion, where we have: the Detroit manual says this, but the Cleveland manual says that... Thus we have Neutral Original Research! Well, that's not quite NOR, or is it? --Merzul 22:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, indeed, I did misunderstand the above. However, we both want the same clarification: do we accept Neutral Original Research? If we don't want it, then the example should be simplified to the following: "Mr. X, who wrote an article in a particular scholarly journal, was accused of plagiarism when it was discovered that he had copied a list of references from another journal article." And the neutral original research: "The Detroit Style Guide requires citation of the source actually consulted, but does not label violation of this rule plagiarism, whilst the Cleveland Style Guide does."  If we do allow Neutral Original Research, then the wording of Yukichigai is truly spot on. --Merzul 01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I can tell the existing wording permits "Neutral Original Research", because the first part of the sentence clearly indicates that the information must "build a particular case" to qualify as Original Research.  However, I will point out that your example is not precisely neutral, as it would seem to propose (via vague implication) that whoever accused Mr. X of plagarism used the Detroit Style Guide over the Cleveland Style Guide.   What would be more neutral would be a statement like "not all style guides define Mr. X's actions as plagarism," perhaps with the appropriate sections of the Cleveland and Detroit style guides cited or ref'd to back up that bit of info. -- Y|yukichigai 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, on real articles one should not simply be a dick and demand sources for no reason, but on this page I have allowed myself to be one, and so I apologize, but the last example is original research, or rather original legal work. Are you Mr. X's defense attorney? Why should he be defended with a source that was not talking about him, it is the job of Mr. X's lawyers to engage in such research and point out these things, and then we can cite them. This is original research, if we don't have a source defending Mr. X on these grounds. -Merzul 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The latter falls more into the category of "possibly tangential information" than Original Research.  If anything though, that sort of info might very well be necessary to an article if Mr. X was accused of plagarism via a rule that was not present in the U.S. or U.K.  In such an instance, not including that information could (unlikely) lead a reader to conclude that the N. Korean plagarism rule applied in the U.S./U.K. as well; in a sort of roundabout, non-NPOV way that lack of information would accomplish the same thing that the NOR policy sets out to prevent. -- Y|yukichigai 18:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Legal definitions vary considerably from country to country.  If one source's definition of plagiarism was different enough from what an English-speaking reader would assume plagiarism was, then we'd be almost obligated to explain the difference.  Otherwise, we'd border on libelling Mr. X.  PS. I think "possibly tangential information" is a great concept and maybe there should be a tag and a WP:TANGENT.  Because I always see "unsourced" and "OR" tags added when what the editor really means is "justify or remove this tangent" Squidfryerchef 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research vs. Collection of information 

message: At the moment we have a sentence which says:
:"The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editors' consensus."
I suggest that it is removed, because:
* As far as I'm aware, this doesn't reflect an actual statement by the foundation. The document on meta that the statement links to does not mention original research at all, and in any case is not an official document issued by the foundation.
* The real reason why no original research is one of our core policies is because there is an overwhelming consensus among Wikipedia contributors to support it. The sentence gives the impression the policy is there because of some edict by Jimbo or a committee, which is not the reality of the situation - like other Wikipedia policies, the policy was adopted primarily because there was a strong consensus in favour of it.
Enchanter 11:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done Enchanter 12:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation issues??? 

message: Still, let's get legalistic again... My question is if you all agree that the following example is equivalent to the current example used in the policy?
 
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call the copying of references plagiarism. 
So let's forget about the issue of this being OR or not. The question is only if this is equivalent? Meaning has this less precise reformulation also removed the violation of SYNT? --Merzul 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it has.  A line is definitely crossed when you add a third explicit statement that itself isn't supported by anyone, but is someone's synthesis of the other two.  So that is the easiest place to draw the line.  Take away the third novel statement, and all you have are two supported statements from two different sources, that could easily both be relevant.  Let the reader make their own inferences by putting the two statements together, but you can't nail it down as being a "synthesis", unless the synthesis (conclusion) is explicitly stated. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The two sentences aren't in the WP definition of OR because they can be attributed to reliable sources.  But the second sentence is irrelevant, so it ought to be removed.  It doesn't matter what the CMS calls plagiarism, Smith has still been charged with it. Adding a third, unattributed sentence saying "Therefore Smith didn't commit plagiarism" would certainly qualify as OR unless a source could be provided for that opinion.  Putting well-sourced but leading sentences into articles to attempt to  influence the reader falls into the POV policy but not into the OR policy.CMummert · talk 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to current policy 

message: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.Mr. Wales disapproves of synthesized historical theories and states: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004) A and B, implies C is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. 
Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material:
The Chicago Manual of Style requires citation of the source actually consulted, but does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.
=== discussion ===
So is this still SYNT? If the regulars agree with this, then I see no reason why you prefer the official version. (Except the fear of abuse). The reason I hate the official version is that everybody knows the first sentence is original research, so it really distracts from understanding what synthesis is! --Merzul 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which first sentence is OR? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually less clear, because the intervening text makes it look like a new paragraph, the purpose of the sentence you removed is to make it screamingly obvious that someone is trying to tie these thoughts together into a new synthesis. But while we're at it, would it be okay to let editors use the above section on this talkpage as a sort of sandbox to tweak the wording of the policy for various proposed improvements? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't tweak it just yet. I want to know, if SlimVirgin would call this synthesis or not. The point is that, if they consider this synthesis, then this should be spelled out, because then we would not be confused about it. Clearly, if the above is synthesis, then the official example is OBVIOUSLY synthesis.  --Merzul 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I'm talking about the first sentence of the official version that has been removed in this example to make it clear that the entire paragraph is OR. In the proposed example above, I don't have to even write "entire paragraph", because there is no confusion. You should know what I'm talking about! I'm amazed that in spite of all the evidence that the policy is not understood, you insist that it is clear as it stands. Please, just consider this more carefully, neither the above revert or the revert to my edit would have even been needed, if the policy was clearer. --Merzul 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis proposal: without the red herring 

message: So is this still SYNT? If the regulars agree with this, then I see no reason why you prefer the official version. (Except the fear of abuse). The reason I hate the official version is that everybody knows the first sentence is original research, so it really distracts from understanding what synthesis is! --Merzul 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which first sentence is OR? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually less clear, because the intervening text makes it look like a new paragraph, the purpose of the sentence you removed is to make it screamingly obvious that someone is trying to tie these thoughts together into a new synthesis. But while we're at it, would it be okay to let editors use the above section on this talkpage as a sort of sandbox to tweak the wording of the policy for various proposed improvements? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't tweak it just yet. I want to know, if SlimVirgin would call this synthesis or not. The point is that, if they consider this synthesis, then this should be spelled out, because then we would not be confused about it. Clearly, if the above is synthesis, then the official example is OBVIOUSLY synthesis.  --Merzul 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I'm talking about the first sentence of the official version that has been removed in this example to make it clear that the entire paragraph is OR. In the proposed example above, I don't have to even write "entire paragraph", because there is no confusion. You should know what I'm talking about! I'm amazed that in spite of all the evidence that the policy is not understood, you insist that it is clear as it stands. Please, just consider this more carefully, neither the above revert or the revert to my edit would have even been needed, if the policy was clearer. --Merzul 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion 

message: All great writing, all good writing is without exception based on originality. If originality is removed from the equation, it is the same as just feeding the subject into some sort of computer search engine and have the computer spit out some bits and bytes and there is Wikipedia. But there are good articles in Wikipedia and without exception, these are created in spite of this rule not because of it. It is not possible to have a good article without originality, it just cannot be done. Throughout history in every case of good writing, the spark has been originality.
 
On controversial subjects this rule is even more of a disaster. There are all sorts of bad and rude idiotic ideas published and verified, and what is there to refute all this rubbish? 
It would be far better to let both sides present their strongest argument and let the reader decide the truth. This would insure that both sides of the argument get a fair hearing which is not now the case on Wikipedia.  
It must also be remembered that this article is itself completely and totally originally research and its claims that this policy works are not shown by Wikipedia itself.  Perhaps the strongest proof that this policy is a failure is that in so many articles the pictures are of far greater quality than the prose.  This is very likely because the prose is far more restricted by this policy than the pictures. 
 
I am surprised by the overall low quality of Wikipedia, and it certainly cannot be because of lack of effort.  It must be bad policy.01001 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This rule cannot work, does not work and will never work. 

message: At the article Persian Gulf naming dispute, someone has gathered a collection of 16 maps that call the Persian Gulf the "Persian Gulf", apparently (?) in an effort to argue that this is the proper name.  When maps with the name "Arabian Gulf" were added, they were removed multiple times.  The issue was raised by Lambian above, but few people commented on it.  It seems to me that the entire article has a WP:SYNT overtone, but especially the maps section. I am wrong? CMummert · talk 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of policy then of course you are right. The entire map section is a big SYNT! The maps in question are in no way different from the Chicago Manual of Style from the synthesis example: a source is being used to argue a case in a conflict that the source's authors were not addressing. However, since the analysis of historical maps seems quite relevant, surely there must be reliable secondary sources that have made such analysis, why not base our research on them? --Merzul 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SYNT]] at [[Persian Gulf naming dispute]] ?  

message: When I said I would gracefully accept reverts, I didn't expect something as childish as "please don't change the original; it's a real example". Fine, I'm leaving. --Merzul 17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I leave, I just have to admit that my section title has to be the most childish one in the history of wikipedia. I overreacted, I always do! --Merzul 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That has to be the most childish revert in the history of wikipedia 

message: I fully apologize for my above stunts, but I think I have at least understood the policy myself. Now, I consider the following as original research:
: Mr. X, who wrote an article in a particular scholarly journal, was accused of plagiarism when it was discovered that he had copied a list of references from another journal article. Of plagiarism the Detroit Style Guide says that any reference cited must actually be used in the text, whilst the Cleveland Style Guide says that this is an acceptable way to create a working bibliography.
However, I am still unable to say why the following material from a featured article is not original research:
: According to the U.S. Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest has the greatest number individual glaciers of any National Forest in the Rocky Mountains. The forest recreation guide lists 16 named and 140 unnamed glaciers within the forest, all in the Wind River Range. Forty-four of these glaciers are in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness, centered around the highest mountain peaks.[23] However, the state water board for Wyoming lists only 63 glaciers for the entire Wind River Range, and this includes areas outside the forest boundaries.[24]
This is synthesizing the sources to make the implicit claim that the forest recreational guide are slightly exaggerating the numbers, yet in some sense this is more acceptable. I can only think that this is because the editors found this more neutral/innocent. Maybe one can also draw the distinction between an analysis at the tertiary level (presenting different secondary sources neutrally) and the secondary level (presenting contradictions in primary sources), but I'm not sure how to define that properly... Maybe since the issue is so difficult, it is better to keep the policy ambiguous. --Merzul 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reasonable question 

message: The section on synthesis supports the statement:
:Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.
with the footnote:
:...Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history.
I think this is misleading.  This part of the policy is not directly based on this statement, (or any other statement by Jimmy, to my knowledge) - it was written by Wikipedians themselves, like most parts of policy.  Where a statement is cited with a footnote, the reader has the right to assume that the statement is directly based upon the footnote, not a creative interpretation of it.  Enchanter 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing misleading about this.  The footnote is a footnote, it's not meant to be a reference such as we would use in an article to source an assertion.  Jkelly 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, a policy is not an external article, it is an internal  document intended for WP editors engaged in encyclopedia building. We can use various types of rationale for our policies, including the founder's comments or views, combined with other language that is accepted by community consensus. Crum375 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll concede that point - you're right that the footnote itself fairly reflects what Jimmy said.  I agree the footnote can stay, provided that we don't interpret that as meaning that Jimmy endorses the current version of the policy in some way.  This part of the policy goes quite a way beyond anything that he has said, to my knowledge. Enchanter 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Jimbo's words are gospel per se, but OTOH they do serve as a general guideline. I assume that even he himself, like all of us, evolves his own views over time, and WP in general keeps evolving as it grows. I think what we have is a combination of the founder's original vision coupled with ongoing evolving consensus as well as common sense. Crum375 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although I think the synthesis section in particular needs a bit of work to reflect consensus. At the moment differemt people seem to be coming to different conclusions about what the existing wording means, and it's not altogether clear to me - in particular, I find the plagiarism example very hard to follow. Nor does the section clearly set out the rationale for why the policy is as it is. Enchanter 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I agree that the current version can be improved. I would like to see 'synthesis by juxtaposition' listed as a type of OR. I think that if John Doe is sourced as doing act X, and act X is sourced as being illegal in state Y, we can't say "John Doe did act X[1]. Act X is illegal in state Y[2]", unless we have a source that actually combines the 2 facts together; WP cannot be the original combiner of facts by juxtaposition in controversial cases or sensitive BLP issues. So if there is a way to include that, I'm all for it. The plagiarism example adds new verbiage, and by calling the entire paragraph OR we would be weakening the synthesis criterion, IMO. Crum375 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this is what I understood is already the consensus, but even adding something like that was reverted. Now, unlike me, Crum has not behaved like a troll, so at least people should listen to him! ;) --Merzul 00:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Jimmy Wales

message: I'm currently translating this project page into Dutch for NL-Wikipedia, but I'm sort of stuck... There's one word in Jimmy Wales' text that I just don't know. Google and loads of dictionaries weren't able to help me either, so here I am asking for your assistance.
See Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view (NPOV):
"If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."
Does he mean ancilliary or ancillary here? And what exactly does he mean? Don't worry, I do not expect Dutch translations ;) but what I would appreciate is some sort of paraphrase or alternative for this specific word so I know what to use in my Dutch version.
Thanks! 
Kind regards, Erik1980 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He means Ancillary, meaning supplementary, subordinate, accompanying.  So, for example, we would not cover in detail the viewpoint that the Earth is flat in the artcle on the Earth, but instead include it in the ancillary article flat earth.  Enchanter 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation into Dutch 

message: Could someone please take a look at what I believe is a perfect example of unacceptable synth
here ?
A user called "Big Brother 1984" has recently come into the article Heaven with a very militant attitude and has concocted a new section on "The atheist view of heaven".  The problem is that in order to concoct "the atheist view of heaven", he has synthesized a string of citations for support, that consist of quotes from various literary authors taken completely out of context, such as Edward Gibbon and George Orwell - neither of whom was writing on behalf of atheism in the quotes in question, and neither of whom was ever known to have been an atheist, nor any kind of spokesperson for atheism. As far as I can tell, this synthesis of disparate quotes from non-atheists, who were not talking about atheism or purporting to give an "atheist point of view", in order to create the "atheist view of Heaven" is a completely novel invention of his own. On the talk page, he refuses to acknowledge that it is a novel synthesis - even though he acknowledges that Gibbon and Orwell were each criticising governmental misuse of state-controlled religion, rather than the theological concept of Heaven per se: all secondary analyses agree that Gibbon was really criticising the pagan Roman Empire, while Orwell was criticising Stalinism, in the quotes in question - and certainly not formulating any "atheist doctrine", as he has done with these quotes.  He has engaged in a revert war with me now for the past week, and at one point he peppered the rest of the article with gratuitous "fact" tags after I reverted him. Aside from that, I also have issues with undue, disproportionate weight now being given to the "atheist view of heaven" in an article about explaining the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist, and other concepts of Heaven - it just seems needlessly confrontational.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your description is accurate, then this is just blatant misattribution. Abusing quotations to further a certain case is far worse than SYNT, and should not be done even with a single source. I looked through the policy, and false attribution related problems are not discussed, but I think it is just common sense that one should fairly represent the ideas of a source, not just pick what is suitable. --Merzul 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention needed of SYNT experts! 

message: This article's nutshell currently reads: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." This is confusingly written, and I believe it's not a very good nutshell. I tried changing it to "Wikipedia articles may only contain information that's been published in other sources," but that was reverted. I'd like community help on coming up with a better nutshell for this policy. - Brian Kendig 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just posted my suggestion - let's see what others think. Crum375 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this simplification of the nutshell - the nutshell is meant to be a concise summary, and the remaining detail can be in the rest of the policy page. Enchanter 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell 

message: The Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney has many scheduled trains per day, which go from stopping only at some more major stations to stopping at all stations. Is it original research to pick some of these as the primary ones and call the others variations, when the timetables don't do anything of the sort? (Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney#Stopping patterns) --NE2 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we can use English definitions in an normal way. Wjhonson 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain what you mean by that? I did my own "research" with the timetable and was not able to pick out the patterns that are in the article. --NE2 08:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you using your normal senses cannot determine that the statements are apparent, then they probably are not.  However you yourself said that the trains stop at "major" stations and then other stations.  Your statement appears to distinguish between types of stop in some fashion. Wjhonson 08:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the schedule of the 182 weekday outbound trains:  There are many variants in which trains stop at or don't stop at some stations. All I can really see is which stations are served by the majority of trains. Now it's possible that some of it could be backed up by a footnote: "of the foo trains that run to bar, baz of them run in exactly this pattern", and that could be verified by the reader. But as it stands, I can't verify what's being said there about the stopping patterns. --NE2 08:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo.  You said it yourself.  You can't verify the statements.  Take the above to the Talk page of the article, and remove the statements from the main page, or place a  on the statement. Be sure to post to Talk why you're removing or tagging the statement and hopefully the other editors will join you in discussing the issue.Wjhonson 08:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: However, if every train stops at Main street and Grand Avenue, you can certainly say that in the article, even if your train schedule doesn't state it in those exact words.  It's called simple analysis and we're allowed to do it. If you can verify by trivial inspection that the statement is true, then it's allowed. Wjhonson 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually placed a  tag (for the second time; it had been replaced by a cite to the timetable about an hour ago). I also wrote Talk:Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney#Original research with stopping patterns. --NE2 08:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picking patterns out of a timetable: OR?

message: Hi - I'm curious what people here think of the discussion that has begun on talk:Ido. A user has decided to enforce policy there but since population estimates are so entrenched that simply enforcing WP:NOR won't do anything for the other pages on other IALs, both in English and pretty much every other language. Adding to the problem is a lot of mutual intelligibility between IALs - thanks to learning Ido I can read and write Esperanto, Novial, etc. and for all I know might count as a speaker of those as well depending on the definition. Making it even more difficult is the political nature of the movement - often 'number of speakers' means 'number of supporters' because people will choose to only use the language they feel to be the best even if they speak and understand another one. What to do? Mithridates 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the estimates are cited from published, reliable sources, they can be used. If they aren't they can't be used. If there are published, reliable sources analyzing why the estimates are questionable, they can also be used. Any unsourced analysis would be OR. -- Donald Albury 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IAL population hydra 

message: Some 2nd person "you" references were just cleaned-up from the WP:CCC text merged into WP:CON because they stuck out like a sore thumb after the merge. This policy article is written almost entirely in the 2nd person, almost like a how-to. Does anyone else think this is inappropriate? Dhaluza 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One case of it stuck out at me just now as I was reviewing this policy... I rephrased it ever so gently.  Personally I'm of two minds about it -- I think it's good to address the reader directly when we are providing specific instructions to them, but in cases where we're merely describing policies and their rationales, addressing "you" don't seem right.  Using words like "we" and "our" are good, though; it promotes a sense of inclusiveness and community, which is a great thing to reinforce with our fellow editors, especially newer ones.  -/- Warren 06:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using the 2nd person is considered informal, and I'm not sure this is appropriate for a policy. It is definitely inappropriate for other encyclopedic content like articles. I considered your point about community as well, but I think the bigger issue is that this sets a bad example, which people may then repeat in articles. Dhaluza 12:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Person 

message: Can I upload a short clip of backwards messages found in songs in the List of backmasked messages? The clips would, of course, be reversed versions of the original sections. And the existence of the backwards messages would be documented by reliable sources.
My tenative theory is that, since audio seems to generally fall under the same standards as images (for example,  is in :Category:Non-free image copyright tags), a short reversed sample would be similar to an image in being exempt from the Original Research policy. Of course, it would still have to meet the restrictions at Wikipedia:Music samples. Λυδαcιτγ 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring any objections, User:Bearingbreaker92 and I are going to start uploading reversed clips. Λυδαcιτγ 02:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversed audio clips 

message: Certainly there is a place for an internet encyclopedia that we can all contribute.  Wikipedia has filled that void and has now achieved a monopoly position there.  The success of Wikipedia does not validate the original research policy.  What would happen if the OR restriction was removed entirely?    
Clearly, as pointed out previously the OR policy is logically invalid.  It is hard to believe that Wikipedia needs to rely on a logically absurd policy.  How could the policy be changed to be logically valid?
How is one to refute verified nonsense without OR? 
Lastly, if we have a physics article where we have two sides of a right triangle can we infer the length of the third side?01001 04:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First it's not clear that the OR policy is logically invalid.  You yourself miscontrue the issue by then advancing the claim that it's logically "absurd", which makes no sense in logic.  Second what exactly is "verified nonsense", I think you're trying to push a POV here.  Lastly, what exactly does *physics* have to do with *geometry*? Nothing much.  That's all. Wjhonson 07:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's clearly logically invalid. And how do we show that something is "verified nonsense"? Since when was it Wikipedia's job to refute it? If the OR restriction was removed entirely, Wikipedia would be used as a dumping ground for new theories, personal vendettas and all manner of rubbish, essentially becoming useless as an encyclopaedia. Trebor 07:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not confuse the success of Wikipedia with the success of this policy 

message: The nutshell had an unfortunate example of a double negative, so I reworked it into a bulleted list to try to make it more clear. The IP edit source was an accident since I did not realize my login timed out. Dhaluza 11:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell 

message: I am trying to establish the limits of the rules about synthesis of published material. This is relevant to discussions going on at Talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society.
I'll use a fabricated example which may seem stupid, but definitive answers to which would help me understand the limits of the policy: There are articles on Wikipedia about each of the Canadian provinces, each reporting its (properly sourced) surface area. A user reads all these reports and concludes that Quebec is the largest province. If he adds a sentence to the article about Quebec stating that it is the largest province, but without providing a source, is that original research? To me, the plagiarism example clearly implies that it would be. John FitzGerald 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Quebec is the largest province, it would be easy to find a source to that effect. If you couldn't find a source who said exactly what you're saying, it would be OR, yes. OR is material for which no source can be found, not something for which no source has been offered. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find that a ludicrous idea.  Think about it: if we could only state things that had specifically been stated by another source in the specific way we wanted to present the information then Wikipedia would be nothing but abject plagarism.  All of Wikipedia is a compilation of information from multiple sources -- a "synthesis" of information, if you will.  It is only OR when that synthesis promotes a certain position that cannot be sourced to a reliable source.  In this case if a source has listed all of the province sizes in Canada and Quebec's listed size is the largest, then saying "Quebec is the largest province (according to source X)" isn't OR, it's a rewording of the information cited.  It's basic math and a restatement of fact, not an advancement of position.  -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Another issue to consider here is controversy or 'fuzziness'. The surface area of provinces is a mathematical or geographic attribute which is clear, well-defined and non-controversial. So in this case, even without a source that directly includes the comparison, IMO if we are given reliable sourcing for each province's area, we may arrange them from largest to smallest as WP editors. As soon as the attribute we compare becomes fuzzy (e.g. most parks), or the issue becomes contentious (e.g. highest crime rate), we need to tread more carefully and rely on a source that will do the comparison for us. Other opinions welcome. Crum375 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule 'plagiarism.' Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them." 
This statement is described in the article as original research. The statement seems abundantly clear and well defined to me, and any possible controversy can be resolved by consulting the Chicago Manual of Style. Furthermore, a secondary source is no more likely to be accurate about this issue than is a group of Wikipedia users who consult the manual.
I'm not trying to be difficult about this. I already am grateful for your statement of these criteria. I also understand perfectly your examples of other issues that would involve people in original research, and agree with you about them. John FitzGerald 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the assertion that you would need a source which said exactly that "Quebec is the largest province."  If a person of average intellect can surmise that, among the 13 provinces of Canada, that Quebec has the largest land area, then we can state that.  That is, simple assertions of fact do not require a source.  This is the "We do not need to source that the Sky is Blue" rule.  If we only parroted what each source said, we wouldn't be synthecizing, and our articles would be just a series of disjointed quotes.  That doesn't make for smooth writing.  What we actually do, in my opinion, is mostly indirect quoting, not direct quoting.  That is, we paraphrase what our sources say.  What we shouldn't do is make them say something quite skewed from what they do say.  Controversial points need direct quotes with specific citations, but mundane points do not. Wjhonson 07:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To put this another way, if comparing sizes is not considered inference, I don't see why comparing specific claim about behaviour to a definition in the Chicago Manual of Style is considered inference. This is the crux of much of the debate at Talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society. John FitzGerald 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two differences.  The first is what sort of judgments are implicit in the statement.  If a single source gives areas for all ten provinces, identification of the largest province depends only upon fundamental facts about sets and positive rational numbers that are not subject to reasonable dispute.  On the other hand, the statement about the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism depends upon a judgment that the particular definition is authoritative in the circumstances.  That is far from clear in the example, so we need someone with authority to make the connection.  The second difference is the degree of expertise needed to make the comparison.  One could reasonably ask fourth-graders, "Which province has the largest area?"  On the other hand, whether a particular fact pattern conforms to a detailed set of rules is a complicated judgment best left to experts, or at least specially-empaneled laypersons.  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Note that I give the stricture that a single source gives areas for all ten provinces.  Areas as found in distinct sources may be computed using incompatible methodologies, so we should avoid making inferences based on assumptions that may not be true.  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: An inference or conjecture vs. a simple summary of quoted text is a matter of degree. We also have the issue of juxtaposition, which IMO can be an even more subtle OR and/or expression of bias by WP. In non-controversial cases, we can afford to use a little more elaboration and analysis of the sources, whereas when we touch controversial topics, and even more so when a living person is involved, we try to cut the OR and juxtaposition to near-zero. If any reasonable editor spots a possible OR or bias, s/he may remove it, and it becomes the burden of the others to find a language that properly reflects the available sources (with due weight) and nothing more, while still being legible. Ideally we'd like to have secondary sources as much as possible, where the primary sources are already analyzed and compared, leaving us a much easier job as a tertiary source. Unfortunately we often just have the lower level primary sources and we have to make the best of the situation by following our WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR policies. Crum375 14:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. That clarifies all the points made here. It also allows me to pst a qyery further down about an actual dispute going on right now. John FitzGerald 18:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis of published material -- request for clarification 

message: Guys I need your opinions urgently about NOR on an article Languages of Iran; as you will see from the history of the article and its talk page I have been told that we cannot take a calculator and add up the figures on this article and demonstrate the discrepancies because that is counted as Original research! Is this true?  Is adding up the figures on a list and showing their discrepancies counted as original Research? Kiumars
: First of all, some people will speak several languages, so one might expect the total to exceed the population. In the UK, for example, this would certainly be the case. But adding up figures itself is not too difficult to qualify as OR - and probably less work than finding a refernce in a library for most readers. So I suspect the problem is the spin you are putting on the answer you get. Stephen B Streater 09:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very well reasoned approach.  Unfortunately, the OR rules as written preclude any such rational methods.01001 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ATT differs on this point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Helllllllppppppp

message: The second paragraph of the article says: "Wikipedia is not the place for original research." I think, you should, after that, include a link to one of the Wiki projects that is the place for OR. Mausy5043 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikinfo springs to mind. Stephen B Streater 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read up a bit on Wikinfo but it seems their fork was in order to circumvent WP:NPOV not WP:NOR. Wjhonson 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought, more generally, the fork was to avoid heated arguments about what should be in articles. Stephen B Streater 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's more a factor of how many editors are present :) Wjhonson 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've checked on the Wikinfo website and they say they welcome original research. Stephen B Streater 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I propose to add something in the article like "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Other projects exist (like Wikinfo) that are more suitable for that." Pity though there is no Wikimedia project that covers that. It would be easier to link to and from it and the Commons. Mausy5043 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is indeed such a Wikimedia project where research is welcomed, as I've mentioned before: :v: ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiversity is for writing *textbooks*.  What if I want to write a cookbook, or a novel, or an tour guide? Wjhonson 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikibooks cookbook?  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put it 

message: At Angie's List there's some info in the article that is unsourced speculation about the company, specifically numbers that are assumed from other numbers, numbers based on things like minimum wage and postal rates, and similar things.  Also removes citation needed tags, insisting they aren't needed.  Seems like blatant OR to me, but I don't want to get into a one on one situation with this editor (so far I've left most of it with citation tags, but I suspect sources don't exist for most and the claims will be deleted).  Outside input would be helpful - the article is locked right now but explanation from someone else on the talk page would be helpful.  Thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional opinions wanted - Angie's List 

message: Just a note that I've edited the bit on images to reflect that manipulated images are not per se required to be listed on Images for Deletion. Only when the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image should we be concerned. If there's a photo of a flower for example, it's normally considered acceptable (according to WP community consensus) to do things like alter saturation levels, exposure timing, and perhaps even artificially blur out the background to simulate shallow depth of field. On the other hand, it would be unacceptable to do things like fundamentally change the color of the flower (red -> yellow, etc.), remove or add important parts of the flower, and other things that would improperly represent the "reality" of the flower. There have been many lengthy discussions about the appropriateness of various and specific manipulations at WP:FPC, and anyone with questions may wish to look there. I trust that my addition to the WP:OR page is uncontroversial, but please let me know if anyone has a problem with it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does :Image:Xenu space plane.jpg fit in? --NE2 09:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly well.  The magic words, in this case, are "artist's impression".  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo manipulation 

message: As MsHyde correctly pointed out (see abpve), the intro confuses the concepts of reliable source (part of verifiability) with original research.  The two concepts are quite disjoint.  A reliable source may do original research, they may also not be doing original research.  As well an unreliable source may do original research, and also may not do it.  All four cases are possibilities.  In a truth table, they are independent variables, free to move without restraint from each other.  We should not, right here on the main page, be hopelessly confusing them with each other.  I have reworded the offending section to remove the issue of reliability.  All questions of reliability should be place on the appropriate policy page, which isn't this one.  I'm open to discussion about the matter should others disagree. Wjhonson 17:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Source

message: We're having a disagreement at Talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society about original research. I think to a large extent it's an argument at cross-purposes, so I will be encouraging the other people involved to post their views of the dispute here. Anyway, I raised a question about a section of the article dealing with the city of Westmount's opposition to a policy of the Quebec provincial government. This opposition was characterized by some politicians as Quebec-bashing and colonialism. My point is that it is not clear that Westmount's action constituted criticism of Quebec society, and that therefore any unsourced assumption that it does constitutes original research. Others seem to think (and I'll leave it to them to clarify whether I'm stating their argument correctly) that as long as a source can be provided showing that the accusation was made that Westmount's actions constitute criticism of Quebec society. To me that sounds like letting the accusers serve as their own verification. I think Stephen Harper wears a hairpiece, but I can't add that assertion to the article about him and then say it's verified by my claiming it's true. John FitzGerald 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it has to do with notability. Those who characterized the opposition as Quebec-bashing were high ranking officials in the Quebec government. Their opinions carry more weight than your average person. Peregrine981 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Controversy over criticism of Quebec society]] 

message: I'd like to suggest that the following paragraph be added to the policy:
Original research is allowed on Talk pages
:Most Wikipedia activity takes place on the Talk pages, and users occasionally tend to believe that the prohibition to use original research applies to those pages as well, which is not the case. Actually, original research is not only allowed, but also welcome in Talk pages, especially in the following situations:
:*When an editor argues for or against the use of a certain source. In those cases, the editor may do some research about the source, find that it is reliable or unreliable, and argue for using it or not based on his research. Other users participating in the Talk page may accept or reject his arguments, but may not refuse to consider them on the grounds that they constitute original research.
:*When an editor finds a factual error in an article; for instance, a mistake in a mathematical equation. In that case, he may communicate his finding at the Talk page and argue for the removal of the flawed equation, but he may not write the correct one into the article without citing a source for it.
:The first question an editor must ask when considering doing original research is: will this be written into the article itself? If the answer is a clear no, there is no problem. An editor may do some research to remove Source A from an article -- he will be deleting, not adding, something. What he cannot do is write "Source A is unreliable" into the article itself: that would be in violation of WP:NOR.
The reason I suggest this to be added is that actually an awful lot of editors believe you can't do O.R. to check a source.--Abenyosef 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think we need all of that. I just inserted 'included in an article' into the policy page - we'll see if it'll fly. Clearly the entire WP:OR policy applies only to articles. We actually do encourage editors to do research as you say, and not to blindly follow existing textbooks or other published materials. But at the end of the day, the article itself must be strictly based on existing sources. Crum375 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but you're an intelligent and sensible person. Less bright and more stubborn editors --and in my few weeks here I've stumbled into quite a few-- may need for these evident points to be explictly stated in the rules, so that the other editors will not have to explain to them over and over again that, like you say, the entire policy applies only to articles. --Abenyosef 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you run into one of those editors now, point him/her to the words included in an article. If s/he still finds it insufficiently clear, then we can fine tune it more. In principle, I believe that simpler is better, especially in policies. Crum375 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What can you do when someone says "All of Abenyosef's statement abouve is Original Research. Therefore, they [sic] cannot form the basis of a deletion"? Or "It is only your original research that asserts she misrepresents the source"? Or "Please stop filling the page with repetitive and irrelevant original research, let's stick to policy"? Or "Actually, WP:NOR applies quite explicitly to the way sources are chosen and used. It baffles me that you would imagine you understand Wikipedia's content policies better than I do"? See for yourself here and here. As you'll be able to see, they tried, and tried hard, to actually prove that I couldn't object to a source based on my O.R. When I pointed them to the words included in an article they ignored me. Maybe the fully explicit wording I'm proposing would be necessary to deal with such stubborn people.--Abenyosef 07:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reviewed the article and it's associated Talk page.  I did my own source-based research and found a scholarly book discussing this very controversy.  I quoted and cited it on the article page including the controversy and misquoting hoax letter that stirred the pot in the first place.  SFGate.com put their foot in their mouth here by not fact-checking, as did the editor who cited the 1969 article without actually reading it. Wjhonson 08:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't try to change policy based on your misrepresentation of content conflicts. Your research on the source was not whether or not it was reliable, but rather, that you disagreed with the analysis made by the source, and therefore insisted it was "unreliable" because of that, and wanted to exclude it on that basis. Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  We can and do give people wide latitude on talk pages - people express their own POV's all the time for example.  But while I hesitate to ban any kind of discussion from talk pages, the fact remains that OR on talk pages is utterly useless.  Talk pages are meant for discussion that will lead to improvements in an article.  If people go on and on with what is essentially OR, none of it will be allowed in the article - it ends up wasting a lot of time. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition: "Original research is allowed on Talk pages" 

message: On the Brett Favre article, there is debate as to including a statistic concerning career number of points scored that can only be derived (as far as we can tell from available sources) by combining statistics available on a football reference site - specifically, the site does not provide the number of points outright, but rather the number of rushing and passing touchdowns scored, both of which would need to be multiplied by 6 and then summed to get the career number of points. Is this an acceptable use of verifiable data or would this be breaching WP:NOR? Thanks, PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO if the statistics are very straight forward and can be verified by an average person, then there should no problem to provide it. For example, if we provide election results in parliamentary seats per party, we may calculate a percentage for each, given a sourced total number of seats. When it gets more complex the calculation may get challenged and it may then be needed to provide an outside source for it. Crum375 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is one of the items mentioned in the essay Wikipedia:These are not Original Research, which I wrote several months ago. I'm a little disappointed that no one has referenced it here & that it has not attracted much attention since then. -- llywrch 18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does adding statistics count as synthesizing data? 

message: Let's say I wanted to do a bit of research into which fighting game has the most selectable characters. Now in my opinion, this is original research that could easily be proven with a little work. It also does not seem like the kind of information one could found somewhere else to cite, at least not from a reliable source (even if reliable, it may be out of date). So if I, perhaps with the help of other Wikipedians, checked every fighting game to see which has the most, we should be able to cite ourselves, correct? I got to wondering about this after I realized that The King of Fighters Neowave has 47 selectable fighters, and was considering doing some original research into if this was the highest.
So would the following example perhaps work?
:Super Fighter 13 has 82 selectable fighters, the highest of any fighting game.1
:1. (Pretend this is a cite) As of February 14, 2007. See findings at List of fighting games by number of selectable characters (article would contain list of games that were checked followed by number of characters so that readers could check for themselves to see if "they checked x game"; if such an article is not considered to be encyclopedic, the information may be hosted somewhere else like User:SeizureDog/NumberOfFighters).
It seems to me that certain statistic type information such as this (highest, lowest, first, last, etc.) should be an exception to OR as it is information that can be undeniably proven by anyone who cares to check well enough. However, the results and process of the person's research should still be made available so that others can verify. Comments?--SeizureDog 13:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that we do this type of thing all the time.  We list all sorts of things by ranking, since it is just a synthesis of known information and trivial.  This includes ranking of cities and states by population and other stats.  I don't know if this applies, but there is at least some similarities. -- RM 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my own opinion is that if the criteria are clear, stable, non-controversial, and well defined (in contrast to 'fuzzy' criteria),  the information is well sourced and the statistics or comparison can be readily verified by an average reader, then we can report them as a service or convenience to our readers. So 'tallest buildings list' would be OK (i.e. sorted by officially reported height), but 'largest employers' would not be (fluctuates, fuzzy criteria, unreliable and/or conflicting data, etc.). Crum375 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like too many elements of original research to me. How could anyone verify you've checked every fighting game? What's defined as a fighting game? There's a reason we need reliable sources for material and it's to avoid this type of thing. If you have to resort to citing a Wikipedia article, then the material shouldn't be included per WP:NOR. - Taxman Talk 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistically proveable original research  

message: Wikipedia:Attribution, a proposal to subsume and replace Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, is ready to be implemented. Please review the document and discuss any problems on the talk page. —Centrx→talk • 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the top of this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]: Merger of [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research]] 

message: I have come accross a case in where an editor is resusing to accept that he has engaged in original research by drawing his own conclusions from sources. An editor of the Historical revisionism article includes two examples of historical revisionism - Serbia and the Yugoslav Wars and Macedonism - on what I see as original research. 
In the case of Serbia he cites a number of Serbian language (I presume) nationalist websites plus a report from the UN about Serb war crimes to claim this as an example of historical revisionism. None of the sources state anything about Serbian historical revisionism. I see this as a clear cut case of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. The same situation applies to Macedonism, which is not supported by any sources claiming it as an example of historical revisionism. I have informed him of this and suggested that the examples be removed but he does not agree. Any comments? Anyone willing to take action (it would be better if an admin did it than if I acted as a party to the discussion)? Regards Osli73 14:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments on Original research in [[Historical revisionism]] article 

message: I gather that WP:ATT is now considered Policy... a merging of WP:V and WP:NOR.  I have no problem with this, but I do have a concern with how this is being done.  At the moment all three Policies are up and running... and this is going to lead to confusion and argument.  The three policies do not completely agree with each other (or to put it more exactly, they agree with each other in surface substance, but they differ in greatly in tone and emphysis).  This is especially noticable in the area of reliability of sources (especially Self-published sources - a frequent area of controversy) and how they are dealt with.  Look at them side by side: WP:V#Sources, WP:NOR#Sources, WP:ATT#Reliable_sources.  
As a frequent contributer at WP:RS... a guideline that is supposed to help explain this particular aspect of Policy... I am seeing this conflict of tone writ large.  Many of the questions we are asked involve parsing Policy statements and intent.  Those of us at WP:RS agree that we need to conform what is said there to what is stated in Policy, but right now there is confusion as to which policy we should conform to.
I would therefore request that, if WP:ATT is indeed confirmed as Policy, we redirect WP:V and WP:NOR to that page.  If not, please move WP:ATT back to "proposed" status until the community can reach consensus.  I don't care which, but we need clarity and not confusion.  I have posted this request at the Village Pump Policy Page as well.  Thank you. Blueboar 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally am pretty hard-core about NOR, V, and of course RS.  I say this with two caveats: first, I am an academic and know that the standards by which I would hold any source concerning an article concerning an academic topic are pretty strict ... and I acknowledge that people in other professions writing articles on other topics would find my own standards either twoo strict or wholley inappropriate.  Before I explain the second caveat let me share my own sense of the trend at Wikipedia: when we started Jimbo's and Larry Sanger's vision for whatever number of reasons privileged NPOV - I mean, the the extent to which the question was, could the idea of NPOV be operationalized into a viable policy, and could a wiki-community exist and collaborate on an encyclopedia guided by NPOV?  That is, Wikipedia to an extent was (I think) founded as an experiment in putting NPOV into practice.  Early articles - including many to which I contributed and some that I wrote, had no sources at all and probably wouldn't have held up to our NOR standards of today.  Perhaps this was because Wikipedia was founded based on a trust in the expertise of editors and that the wiki-process, constrained only by NPOV, would eliminate all that was false or inaccurate leaving only that which was, implicitly, reliable.  I see the past several years as characterized by an increasing awareness that NPOV alone was inadequate to guarentee the encyclopedic nature of the project (or, the quality of the encyclopedia).  And, thus, an increasing appreciation of the importance of the values expressed in the constellation of policies and guidelines NPOV, V, and RS.  In fact, I think one reason there are these three is precisely because of the direction of the trend - as we become mor eand more committed to externally verifiable standards of research, we have developed more specific and rigourous policies.  Thus, first came NOR telling people what not to do.  Then V, providing a minimal standard of what people should do, along with two guidelines, first CS (again providing a minimal standard) and finally RS, providing a more rigoroous standard.  As I said, I am ALL for this.  But the point I am trying to make is this: I think that five years ago most Wikipedians were really committed to NPOV, but today there are more Wikipedians who are committed to NOR, maybe even more than NPOV.  We have not abandoned the old values, but some of us - I include myself - are more fired up by some new values.  So here is my second caveat: I think that there will be times when there is an unavoidable tension between NPOV and NOR/V/RS.  Specifically, there will be times when all major views are not represented in equally rigorous sources, and people may feel that a view must be included to provide balance even if it comes from less reliable sources than other views.  i do not want to argue specifics.  Obviously I personally would be very careful in these cases and probably insist that with enough research one can find highly reliable sources for any major view i.e. there is no conflict.  nevertheless, I do think that NPOV and NOR/V/RS do reflect fundamentally different principles and I believe both are equally important.  I think when there is an apparent clash between the two principles editors should seek a solution on a case-by-case basis.  So frankly while I agree that NOR, V, and RS ought to be made fully consistent with one another, I do not think this should and maybe not even could happen with NPOV.  And this is why I think right now there are inconsistencies between NOR and V, which are policies, and RS, which is only a guideline - it is to allow enough room to play when there is a conflict with NPOV.  If NOR, V, and also RS are consolidated (i.e. if RS is to be a policy and not just a guideline) I think we will need to be attentive about this, that guaranteeing NPOV may require a range of different types of sources that range between different levels of reliability or rigor, and that our policies need to be flexible enough for conflicts to be resolved not merely by appealing to some policy that covers every possibility but rather through the good judgement that comes out of an open discussion among informed editors who are acting in good faith - on a case-by-case basis.  I am probably the last person here who would ask "what would Larry do?" but I do hope that there are still enough people who remember the original and motivating zeal of NPOV who are participating in this process. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is still important, and still a Pokicy.  WP:ATT is intended as a merger of WP:V and WP:NOR (and to some extent WP:RS), keeping the essence of both but unifying them into one Policy.  The folks who wrote this actually did a good job, so I am not complaining about what they did... only how.  The problem as I see it is that a unified Policy has been accepted without getting rid of the ones it was intended to replace. This is causing confusion. Blueboar 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw comments somewhere explaining the idea was to run the new policy in parallel for a short period, then replace the old ones with redirects.  Since ATT has been tagged as a policy since Feb. 15, I expect to see the redirects any day now. It has only been 8 days, and people will be shocked when the redirects appear. CMummert · talk 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict between Policies 

message: Being bold, I have marked this as .  That should end the confusion alluded to above.  (Now let's see how long before I get reverted...) --EngineerScotty 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now historical 

message: Even though the policy has been merged, to try to suppress discussion here is not appropriate.  If we want to discuss things here, we should be free to do so, just like on any other talk page. Wjhonson 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother? This policy is no longer in effect, having been superseded by Wikipedia:Attribution, and there is no point to discussing the provisions of the former policy here. The policy is best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Attribution. -- Donald Albury 11:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saying it should not be forbidden. Wjhonson 17:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Who "banned" it, anyway?  Ninetywazup?Review meMy ToDo 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This former policy should not be edited, so what is there to discuss? If you want to address something that was part of this former policy, you would do better to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Attribution. -- Donald Albury 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate editing