Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 25

message: I think that a cool-off period is needed. I am not interested in discussing motives, or diverging into polemics about policymaking, the role of the "admin cabal" in these pages, and all other miscellanea.  I am taking a break from this page for a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sensible point, and I trust that your silence for a few days will not be taken by others as assent to whatever new consensus is claimed to emerge. .. dave souza, talk 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, others will need to step into Jossi's shoes for a bit to ensure that the basic principles of NOR and PSTS are not tampered with. •Jim62sch• 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody needs to be stepping into anyone's shoes and nobody is trying to subvert any basic principles as far as I am aware. The most telling point is that all the discussion has been on talk pages, there has been no attempt to force a change into policy. Please do not continue to insinuate that those seeking change are trying to subvert a reasonable process. Will you please at least give a semblance of assuming good faith until there are actual changes that occur to allow you to prove otherwise. I am sure we can agree that the tag edit was most inappropriate by all parties. This rhetoric is most unhelpful to a calm and friendly atmosphere which will allow us to discuss the issues sensibly. Spenny 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe one step in the direction toward consensus is to stop referring to "PSTS" as an initialism, on par with NPOV, NOR, RS, and V. The primary-secondar-tertiary source model is just one expression of one aspect of the NOR policy. Referring to it as an initialism implies that it is a policy, rather than a particular (perhaps imperfect) model of describing Wikipedia practice, and that it can't be messed with. We're going to have to "mess with" the model if we want to achieve consensus. There's no other way. The OR policy itself, and how it is effectively applied, will not change, but we have to find a way to describe the intent of the primary-secondary model without using those concepts. COGDEN 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope you and User:Jossi will continue to monitor the discussion, because I think we'll need your agreement on the consensus replacement language for the controversial section. COGDEN 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck... we need their participation to even reach a consensus that there is a controvercial seciton.  But seriously... I echo what Cogden says... I hope both of you do come back once your batteries are recharged. Your opinions are valued. Blueboar 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded (if I am allowed to say that!) Spenny 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. .. dave souza, talk 19:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like an AOLer, me too... you both represent some of the most sensible reasoning and discussion that this debate has seen (along with some others). Please, take all the break you think you need, but I think we (the whole discussion, both/all 'sides') are better of with you than without you. SamBC(talk) 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Rest assured that no decision will be made during your absences. Hopefully, by the time you return though, we might have added enough information to the Sandbox pages to continue having worthwhile discussions that actually address peoples concerns with the policy (all sides), and can begin to work on addressing those concerns. wbfergus  Talk 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everybody needs to cool off 

message: I understand that sandboxes are appropriate for proposals, but would an essay at Wikipedia: PSTS concerns and proposals be a better solution? We could keep the basic summary, list of proposed solutions, etc. on the essay page, so it doesn't disappear as the talk page grows. Jacob Haller 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can we put stuff so it won't be lost? 

message: The guidelines seem clear than UNpublished original research is NOT allowed, but what about PUBLISHED original research? If an article I have written based on my original research is PUBLISHED in a peer-reviewed periodical, can it be included in Wikipedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadmanpaul (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the policy (look up, and click on the "project page" tab) - which answers your question. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, see Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself. ... dave souza, talk 05:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published Original Research 

message: I'd like to add the following at the end of the "origins" section:
:As a more diverse group of editors were drawn to Wikipedia it became clear that other topics besides physics, such as politics and religion, were attracting original research, and the community sought a more systematic way to define original research and to guide editors in avoiding it.
Given that our discussion has involved confronting different ways people in different disciplines use sources and do research, I think that this should be uncontroversial.  Any objections? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None here... I would add some topics that are not so obviously controvercial to the list (history/pseudohistory articles come to mind). Blueboar 13:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and if you feel strongly go ahead and add "history."  I don't only for this reason: I tried to limit myself to just a few examples so as not to give the imporession that I am even attempting an inclusive list. My concern is if we add history people will say "Well, what about anthropology?  Sociology?  Journalism?  Law?" and so on and so on.  I just wanted to suggest a more diverse group.  And I wanted to keep it simple.  But if you can think of a better wording I won't object. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've read it and re-read, trying to determine if any hidden meanings were escaping me (I'm rather dense at times, especially before I get my caffiene levels to normal). I don't think I have any objections to it. It did get me to thinking though if perhaps it might be appropriate (since we are discussing the history of this policy), to also note that there has ensued numerous 'discussions' (or arguments) on the types of sources and their usage and/or preference, since at least January 2005 (the oldest talk page I can find). wbfergus  Talk 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections from me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks OK to me, except the whole thing is OR, which is ironic. Probably the whole history should be converted to summary style, and the detail should be moved to another page that can cite the diffs. Dhaluza 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't forget [this thread], where J. Wales deals with OR as it relates to history. Incidentally, the current location of the "origins" section is an appropriate spot for it, IMO. Had the participants here revisited that issue as yet? ... Kenosis 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A minor point, but the ref that's included is not in a proper format, throwing off the numbering by having two refs labeled as [1]. wbfergus  Talk 11:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor proposals 

message: I just went over Google and search for +"original research" +definition. There are couple of interesting hits (and a bunch of 'bogus' hits). One 'hit' that doesn't delve into what the 'source-type' is, is . It is also interesting to note a somewhat similar discussion taking place on [Wikiversity:Scope of research/En]. There appears to be numerous examples of how other 'entities' seem to be able to define this term fairly easily without resorting to what the type of source is (or was). If other 'entities' can do so, why can't Wikipedia? wbfergus  Talk 14:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That link does nnt work. In any case, "Original research" is a term coined in WP to address a specific constrain in the aims of the project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, that link brings up a University of North Florida Library student guide page which is headed "What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source." What was that about it not delving into what the 'souce-type' is? .. dave souza, talk 07:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was, can this policy define NOR without getting into the definitions of different types of sources (like other 'places' seem to be able to do, this is not a Wikipedia-specific term). While the first link does start with "Original research is considered a primary source", it does not state that use of other primary sources is original research. Nor does it anywhere state any definitions of primary, secondary, tertiary or anything else in those terms, though it does give a brief definition of journal, magazine, etc. without 'typing the source'. The only reference that is made to 'primary source' is that original research itself is a primary source. This goes hand in hand with WP:NOT#OR, which says that Wikipedia is not a primary source. The second link, to Wikiversity, was merely included to show that another Wikipedia (sister project?) is also contemplating NOR issues, but instead of primary source, etc., there is a reference to "original research"/"secondary research" which may be of use (I don't know). Also, while the link I first provide was the correct page header (or article title, like we use here), the actual URL is , which appears to be a beta version of Wikiversity. wbfergus  Talk 11:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can Original research be defined without defining the types of sources? 

message: Okay, in light of the general mix of comments in a preceeding section, would there be agreement to add to the policy the following paragraph (I took the liberty to add one more sentence)? 
And if there is agreement (consensus) to add the above paragraph, where should it go? I think right at the beginning of the "Sources" section, before "Reliable sources", would be the logical place. wbfergus  Talk 10:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another proposal (yes, again)