Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 4

message: I'd like to see an arbitration on the following subject:
Fact: In page "General relativity", secion "Alternative theories" a ref to my page titled "General relativity with conservation of energy" has been removed by Ems57fcva with the following explanation: (→Alternative theories - removed User:JimJast's "general relativity with conservation of energy". Cannot verify that this is not original research.) 
Implications: It means that Ems57fcva believes that "general relativity with conservation of energy" is a result of my original reserch rather than work of Einstein. 
My objections: I was not born yet when Einstein proposed his 1915 "general relativity theory" (necessarily with conservation of energy since it happen to be the basic principle of physics - see Wikipedia), and so it was impossible for Einstein to base his work on my "original research" (copy of my driver's license verifying my date of birth may be presented when required). 
Comments: In my humble opinion it is improper to remove the original Einstein's theory of 1915 from the list of possible alternative theorires to the present general relativity that is an Einstein's original theory "enhanced" by the removal of conservation of energy from it to make viable a hypothesis that the universe has been created in a hot "big bang" event some 14 billion years ago and is expanding ever since. The impropriety is because the original Einstein's theory (as it can be easily demonstrated wit high school calculus which does not require any research) is able to explain all the mysteries that the present general relativity without conservation of energy can't explain. The new (post Einsteinian) general relativity to stay viable has to postulate except non conservation of energy severeal not observed yet phenomena. Which strongly suggests in my humble opinion that Einstein's original theory of 1915 is right and the theory without the conservation of energy but with expanding space in it instead, is wrong. Yet I don't insit on deciding on rightness of any theory just on keeping the record straight, that there is available also the original Einstein's general relativity of 1915, with conservation of energy, that can be used as an alternative to the present post Einsteinian general realativity without conservation of energy. If mentioning the fact that Einstein theory of 1915 is able to explain all the mysterious phenomena in relatively simple way by postulating general time dilation (another removed page) would constitute an original resaerch, it does not need to be mentioned. But I don't see why mentioning that Einstein 1915 is an altrnative theory, contradicts the policy of "no original research" (if Einstein's theory of 1915 was not discovered by me, which I can prove). Jim 12:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do I really have to prove that Einstein's general relativity of 1915 isn't a result of my '''original research'''? 

message: The current guidelines for no original research seem as though they don't do a good job dealing with the issue of published crackpottery.  A couple of points to propose with respect to this, but before I start I'll notice that most of my experience with crackpottery on wikipedia has been with respect to historical/archaeological, rather than strictly scientific, subjects:
#Crackpot/fringe views about particular scientific or historical subjects should not be discussed in the articles about those scientific or historical subjects.  Thus, David Rohl's view of when Ramesses II lived should not be mentioned in the article about Ramesses II; Graham Hancock's view of the Great Pyramid should not be (but, sadly, is) discussed in the Great Pyramid of Giza article.   The Jehovah's Witnesses' dates for the reign of Nebuchadrezzar II need not, and ought not, be mentioned in that article.  I would imagine that plasma cosmology theories of the origins of the universe should not be mentioned in the Big Bang article, to take a scientific example.  The fact that Rohl, Hancock, and plasma cosmologists have had books published by major publishing houses, and that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a relatively large religious group, ought not trump the fact that their views are nearly universally rejected by the competent experts in their respective fields.
#In articles where it is appropriate to discuss crackpot views, it is incredibly important to note the crackpottiness of the views.  Our David Rohl article oughtn't pretend that Rohl's views are a serious challenge to traditional chronology, because they are not.
A corollary issue to this is the problem of apologetics.  Most scholars believe in the Documentary Hypothesis on the origins of the Torah.  Most believe that the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC, and that there are at least two, and more likely three, separate strands of the Book of Isaiah, written at widely different times.  And so forth.  In such instances, the fact that some religious groups dispute these findings ought to be mentioned.  But I don't see how we can treat the beliefs of some religious groups as though they are equivalent to the beliefs of many other religious groups and of nearly all mainstream scholars.  I think we need to make a much greater effort to insure that apologetics (of whatever kind) do not make their way into wikipedia. john k 21:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about David Irving as an example? He was very widely published and his discredited research on the numbers of people killed in the Bombing of Dresden are still used by some respectable sources like Columbia and Encarta Encyclopaedias? The Judge at the Irving initiated libel trial, said in his summing up "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".  The problem is that if one does not discuss the "Crackpot/fringe views about particular scientific or historical subjects" (a) there are endless edit wars over the issue as each new generation of editors who have seen Irving's numbers but do not know they are from Irving, (or the usual suspects), re-adds the information. (b) By omitting mention of the person and their research means that their ideas go unchallenged and for a young person doing a school project, who is looking at more than one source, how are they to judge that one source, eg Encarta which mentions up to 135,000 dead, is less reliable than the 25,000-35,000 estimated killed in Wikipedia? And I haven't even mentioned the 202,040 put out by Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry...! Philip Baird Shearer 08:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published Crackpottery and Apologetics 

message: What do I do with a page about a book that only contains a book review.  Do you delete it or put something else there. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 07:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mark it for  or , not deletion, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. ··gracefool |☺ 08:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I did not see anything about book review in the Deletion policy. Perhaps that is the point. Ok, but isn't book review a simple case of original research? A summary of the book might not qualify as original research, but a book review, which usually includes some form of criticisms, seems to qualify. Deletion policy says that articles that are [entirely] original research should be listed for deletion. --Lumière 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Review 

message: FYI -
I have been working on my own redraft of this policy at User:Ems57fcva/sandobox/No_original_research.  The basic points this I try to make with this are that 
* Wikipedia cannot act as a primary of secondary source of information, and
* what counts as an appropriate source is context dependent.
To me, it is not enough to achieve publication.  Instead, the idea must have become noteworthy.  That is not to say that it must be famous or well known, but at least for those with an interest in a relevant field that this is an item worthy of their attention.  I have run across one editor who published his alternate explanation of gravity in Electronics World, and popular science magazine devoted mostly to electricity and modern technology.  He took that to be the "primary publication" needed.  So I have tried to produce a sense that the source must be relevant.
I have done what I can with this.  I do not feel that it has come together quite right, and so I am not formally proposing it as a replacement for the current policy.  However, I encourage people to look it over and see if they can make some use of it. --EMS | Talk 03:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe you are reworking this policy, I believe you are proposing another policy.  There is nothing wrong with doing this.  But please bear in mind that Wikipedia has many policies.  No one policy can or should bear the weight of all of our standards.  Rather than tack on another requirement for inclusion to this policy you should be looking at other policies first to see if thee is one that already raises this issue (some do, I believe) and if you are not satisfied that any make this point, then you should propose it as a new policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An attempt to rework this policy 

message: [someone had inserted another subject header, which obscured the issue]
:: The original context (if I remeber well) is NPOV and the related requirement of proper documentation. It's also borrowed for NOR. In any case, this clarification makes it perfectly clear for me, the newcomer. Assuming that I'm "fresher" than you, my opinion on this counts stronger (is there another freshman here to give his/her opinion?). Why did you think that it will be unclear for newcomers? Apart of that, likely everyone will agree scrapping "not highly obscure" as unneeded. And how new are you? (see below).
 
:: As I misunderstood it as encouraging a careless attitude concerning providing "factually accurate information" for the readers, there can be little doubt that it's a *fact* that that phrase is unclear (maybe not for those who already know what it was supposed to mean, but that is irrelevant!) 
:: Apart of that, ems57 and I think that it's an improvement like he proposed. Thus now the ball is in your camp to propose an improvement, if you also dislike the following  (after reconsideration, I think that it should be "goal" instead of "purpose" - for ems57 to reconsider):
::"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." 
:: The point is that it is not the goal of Wikipedia to report the truth, but instead to report on that which can be verified as being believed to be the truth. Wikipedia can accept minority views, but not unpublished views.
:: Note that for me it would already have been clear enough without the last sentence.
:: Cheers, Harald88 22:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good, it means that we're getting somewhere! :-)
Maybe ems57 wanted to use the opportunity to add something that he wants to clarify... and he thinks that it doesn't matter so much where? ;-) Harald88 18:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Harald, is your interest in this connected to the controversy a few months ago at Special Relativity? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, which controversy of a few months ago? Actually, I had a look at NPOV and related issues to get an idea if (apparently) minority opinions about QM by experts on that subject (e.g. Nicolas Gisin) are respected by Wikipedia. Anyway, I thought that it was clear from the subject header that that phrase about "true or not" needs to be clarified in order to prevent doubts about the ethics of Wikipedia as well as its consistency of rules, *independent of the subject at hand* - but now I notice that the subject header had been changed to only "minorities"! - thus I reinserted the original subject here above. Cheers, Harald88 21:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was at the end of last year, an editor kept trying to add that the second postulate hadn't been experimentally verified (as he put it), and further, that it had been invalidated. Edited as , , , and possibly . He himself had produced a proof, he believed, and couldn't understand why it couldn't be taken into account in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, afterwards I thought that you perhaps meant "mass", where I'm not even sure what is minority and what majority view. About the second postulate: Yesterday I saw that and also commented on that, as that editor was just as misguided as the editor who presented his/her own version (or some book's version) of the second postulate - which shows how essential it is to stick to the primary sources. Cheers, Harald88 10:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minorities/Undue weight: clarification of "regardless of whether it's true or not" - continued 

message: Section reads: Primary sources...such as...transcript of a public hearing...
Can this be clarified to include declassified information, for example, declassified transcripts of closed door hearings now held in the public domain, or FOIA documents, etc.  Thank you.  nobs 15:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These would count as primary sources.  It ought to be noted, though, that novel interpretations of primary sources, and putting undue emphasis on some particular primary source which nobody else has noticed before, can be a violation of the NOR rule. john k 17:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  transcript of a public hearing 

message: Let's take a concrete example ... what wording of the policy would tolerate the continued existence of the three images now associated with spoon?  One image is from a Wikipedian.  One image is from a free online resource of images.  One image is from the US Government. Let's set aside the complications inherent in interpreting facial expressions and take care of a simple case first.
:begin quote from policy
::Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
::The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
:end quote from policy
I would propose the following text insertion directly after "data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication;":
:unique observations that are not otherwise corroborated;
These seven words would seem to unlock the box some of us see Wikipedians in.  It is quite safe to say that a person photographing a spoon and saying "this is a spoon" would be an example of an observation that non-unique and corroboratable (looking at the picture I can safely say, yes, that is a spoon and I've seen one like it on most days).  The facial expressions matter is something altogether different.  This observation could very easily be either unique or so sparsely experience as to be practically unique such that a person looking at the photo would not be able to corroborate that in fact that expression was seen in the named circumstance.  Such a photo does not pass the test - it cannot be corroborated and it is a practically unique experience.  Now, this criterion only applies to information from Wikipedians added directly to Wikipedia and not to news services or other sources of record (just to be pedantically clear).
The seven words are something of a skeleton key in that they don't merely open the photo box.  I took a brief look up the page here and saw a reference to a dispute over where Billy Joel lived.  In the end of the thread there essentially these seven words were invoked in spirit; prior to finding of sources that corroborated the personal observations of a personal acquaintance of Billy Joel, only sources that contradicted him were found and it was a case of "you say one thing but evidence says something else - and we don't know why that evidence would be wrong" (paraphrased), but once sources were found that agreed with the person's personal experience, all was right with the world; in other words the person was no longer in a "he said - she said" situation but had corroboration on his side.  My gut says "add the seven words" and turns a little bit at addition of a section for the present purpose.  I think User:SlimVirgin's reminding us to word it carefully need not be construed to mean word it exhaustively ... in this case I think that more words are not a better course to take.  Seven words seems about right. Courtland 04:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven words is all it might take 

message: How about editors who distort standard reference works?  An experienced editor has told me there's no Wikipedia policy on academic dishonesty.
I've tried to reason with two such people on the Joan of Arc article.  To give an example, the context here is the fate of Joan of Arc shortly after her capture.  The duke of Burgundy's men captured her.  A few months later the English bought her from the duke of Burgundy.  These editors say French king Charles VII tried to ransom her.  Every part of the footnote is false:
::Note 3: Several surviving documents state that Charles or his faction tried to induce the Burgundians to ransom her - e.g., on 14 July 1430 the University of Paris sent a letter to John of Luxembourg stating that the Armagnacs were attempting to obtain her by ransom or other means (see Barrett's "Trial of Jeanne d'Arc", p. 9; and Pernoud's "Joan of Arc By Herself and Her Witnesses", p 158). An entry in the records of Antonio Morosini records a similar account. But just as Charles VII was never given the chance to ransom his own cousin the duke of Orléans (since Henry V's last will and testament had forbidden it - see: Pernoud's "Joan of Arc: Her Story", p. 193), the to be allowed ransom, and the Burgundians were just as opposed to Joan as their English allies were.
The above citations actually say:
*The letter from the University of Paris refers to English attempts to purchase her.
*Pernoud and Clin mention Henry V's will in passing in a completely different context.  The document is irrelevant.  Even if it were applicable to English policy, the duke of Burgundy was not bound by it.
*The Morosini journal describes a rumor that Charles VII threatened retaliation against English prisoners of war.  Morosini was a visiting Italian merchant, not a diplomat.  No evidence survives that such a threat was carried out.
These distortions were not created in ignorance. When the fraudulent footnote was in its infancy I posted an excerpt from one of the same books they cite. I excerpted Morosini's actual journal entry with Pernoud and Clin's subsequent comment (pp. 97-98):
::The slight tremor of this passage is the sole piece of evidence for the suggestion that Charles VII made any effort on Joan's behalf. Even here there is no claim that he himself attempted to ransom Joan, but only to prevent her delivery to the enemy. No documentary evidence suggests that the king offered a ransom or made any effort whatsoever to free Joan of Arc.
Pernoud and Clin speak for the academic consensus.
One of these two editors has been sitebanned and posts from an anonymous IP address.  I requested mediation after I found a note where the other one admits to fabricating a nonexistent source document.  Admin deleted that edit but has not moderated.  These editors refuse to cite sources for most of their strange assertions.  I don't want to put myself in trouble with the three edit rule.
I'm new to Wikipedia.  What's your advice?
Durova 05:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're in the right and if you can cite sources, then the truth will out - keep correcting, cite sources, request mediation again if necessary, and demand that they cite their sources.  In factual questions like this it's unfortunate that tenacity is important, but it's so on a wiki.  Tempshill 21:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Crackpottery Citing Legitimate Sources 

message: I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party. 
Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
:Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B".
Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities. 
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   05:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. what I am suggesting is that photos "intended to make a specific point" are easy to spot and should be barred, unless a condition of "previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party" has already been met for the photo in question. The "reputable" comes from the NOR policy as it currently stands. 3rd parties such as "Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) do have problems with the "reputable" angle, but have also a problem with "disinterested". What are we do to, let rogue wikipedians run amok, uploading photos which they have personally staged and taken? Of course all of the rouges will say "I didn't stage (or photoshop) that photo - I found the scene that way".... See this photo which caused an editing dispute at John Kerry. Granted it was a pro-Kerry photo, but it easily could have been a anti-Kerry one. What if the photo had said "don't support John Kerrry", with some symbols other than bras (perhaps guns?). Then what? The only constant which can be monitored for is whether or not a photo is "intended to make a specific point", as this particular one was ("support John Kerry"). Rex071404  216.153.214.94   06:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You say above "What are we do to, let rogue wikipedians run amok, uploading photos which they have personally staged and taken?"  Do you think this question and the position it implies has some conflict with Wikipedia:Assume good faith?  The assumption of good faith is as important to the functioning of Wikipedia as the assumption that some (few, really) folks will try anything to sway public opinion, including using Wikipedia as a tool to that end.  In reading through some of these related discussions I do think that this assumption of good faith is getting unfairly tossed into the back seat in favor of "wikiprotectionism" ... protecting Wikipedia content at all costs (I'm not accusing you of consciously ignoring the "assume good faith" doctrine ... just reminding that it is a common and early victim in these types of discussions, bearing a reminder as to its importance from time to time). Courtland 18:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Photos which are intended to make a specific point 

message: SlimVirgin commented when he deleted a sentence about it (from Tempshill I think), that we don't have a factual accuracy policy. But any self respecting encyclopedia should have such a policy!
Thus:
1. Is that correct (is that accurate, pun intended!)
2. If so, where to launch a proposal for such a policy?
Thanks, Harald88 23:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Harald, SlimVirgin is saying that in place of "accuracy" we have "verifiability."  Please read our Wikipedia: Verifiability policy and tell us if you are satisfied, or unsatisfied, that it is sufficient to achieve the effect you think is so important to encyclopedias. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: (viat edit conflict) That's certainly correct.  We use verifiability, not truth, as our standard.  Having a factual accuracy policy would be unneccessary (and, in fact, impossible), so a proposal for such a thing would not get much support.  I hope.  Friday (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the precisions! With "factual accuracy" I mean of course accuracy of verifiable information ("facts"). I have the feeling that there may be something missing, but I'm not sure how to put it onto words right now. Something relating to the accuracy with which the verified information is transmitted in Wikipedia; Verifiability doesn't obviously imply that the rendering must be accurate.  There can be a preference for popular phrasing at the cost of accuracy. For example, I could not (or hardly) convince the GRT editors that as -technically- GRT was according to Einstein in 1915 not a "theory of gravitation" (for which I cited factual, verified information), Wikipedia should not simply state that GRT is the theory of gravitation that Einstein published in 1915.  OK I'll read the verifiablity policy again. Harald88 12:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Harald, a factual accuracy policy would directly conflict with the NOR policy. What we do is cite reputable sources, and hope that what they say is accurate. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slimvirgin, that's indeed what I do too, but many editors don't seem to care much... I also agree with Deco. Harald88 12:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: All that said, if there are authoritative, rational doubts about the factual accuracy of some of an article's content, this should at least be noted in that article. We can't hope to be right all the time, but we can at least qualify statements that are verifiably suspected to be incorrect. Deco 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia doesn't have a factual accuracy policy? 

message: This seems like a common practice, though perhaps there is a nuance not apparent to me in the comment.  Is the idea that "it is in poor taste" to argue for your own theory on a talk page, so as to influence the weight it is given in an article, in contrast with
* clarifying your own theory informationally, about which others might be presently writing about 
* speculating where/whether relevent theory might be found elsewhere, in planning the flow of an article, "I always wondered whether that moon landing wasn't faked, It would work like this....Anyone ever hear of something like that?"
* idle speculation in discussing an article and general exchange of information
Comment appreciated -SM 21:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Smaines, the talk pages are there to discuss article content, and no one's personal theories are allowed in articles, so there's no reason to discuss them on talk pages. We can't stop people from doing it, but it's discouraged. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''"...although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages"'' 

message: Several (largely unregistered) editors have apparently simply been adding things to two lists of examples (on Wise Old Man and, until recently Hero) as they pop into their heads. Would unilaterally deciding that "Johnny Tsunami's Grandpa" and "Peppy Hare" are the Wise Old Man as defined by Jung count as original research? Or that a character in the Epic of Gilgamesh counts as being a "Wise Old Man in popular fiction"!? elvenscout742 22:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Would this qualify as OR?

message: This definition of OR, right at the outset of the article, is not apt:
:Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia.
First, this defines original research (boldface) in terms of something different which is also called "original research," which is confusing. For purposes of this discussion, let me distinguish them, so the above definition is:
:OR1 refers to OR2 by editors of Wikipedia.
This is still inadequate. What's intended is: Don't use Wikipedia to publish your own OR2. But you shouldn't publish your friend's OR2 either. 
So all reference to whose OR2 it is should be scrapped, because it's irrelevant. 
One might argue that any OR2 appearing in Wikipedia is always OR1, since it was found and placed there by a Wikipedia editor. But that's misleading. OR2 might be some gossip that everyone is talking about. If a Wikipedia editor reproduces the gossip, which he learned effortlessly, it doesn't seem like "research."
This comment does not apply to the draft rewrite of the article, which has eliminated the problem.
—Urielw 13:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "OR refers to OR by WP editors"?

message: From the article:
:The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication....
Why "untested"? Isn't a tested theory that has not been published in a reputable publication also original research? Why not drop "untested"?
—Urielw 13:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you're right: if I test my own original theory with a voltmeter, it's still original research. The word "tested" is No Good. Thus: delete "untested", and replace ; by (). Harald88 22:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression was that here "tested" means not "verified by experiment" but "verified by peer review or some other expert scrutiny". Deco 02:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If so, then one should write "unverified" or "unpublished". Harald88 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: <i>Untested </i>theories?

message: I would like to know where we stand with regards to disputes about the accuracy of external links.  As I understand it, original research means something that someone just "knows", whereas external links mean that something is researched.  If the external links are disputed, then this is a dispute about verifiability, and assertions of original research are incorrect.  If an article about something is verified by links to its official web sites, then I would suggest that that does not count as original research.  If the article is then verified as notable by referencing third party reviews, alexa rankings, and noting important historical significance, then I do not think that either of these rules should apply.  Case in point in the discussions for the Vfd of planes of existence (chat site) where assertions have been made that it is original research in spite of over 50 references, similarly with the Vfd of lintilla (chat site).  I do not think that it is appropriate to make such assertions in these cases.  I think that they can be misused to try to steamroll votes, and that they probably were used in this way in these cases. 
I would like to see the policy modified to prevent such misuses. Zordrac 14:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the only case in which original research covers external links is when that page is owned by the Wikipedia contributor who links it. It is, as you say, for Wikipedia generally more a case of accuracy and verifiability than it is original research. That said, it is original research in the larger sphere of the web, which permits this (in a way this is a demonstration of the need for this rule on Wikipedia). Deco 02:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and disputes of verifibility 

message: Old section title: Taking an article with a proposal and inviting others to modify it.  The original author modifies the article before others do so that his or her proposal becomes an "example" inside what could become a neutral point of view article with well organized references.
Will it be ok to add an adjective to a regular, well known term as to be descriptive of a "category" of a certain thing, such as "Distributive" Income Tax, even though the meaning of the adj. + term, though utilitarian and good for comprehension purposes, hasn't been spoken in those same words?
See Distributive Corporation Tax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmarinas86 (talk • contribs) 
:I don't understand the question.  Jkelly 01:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neologisms in article titles are never okay, per naming convention. In article text, if it's clear or explained, it might be okay. For example, some proof articles define a term "temporarily" to ease explanation. Deco 03:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited cases of original vocabulary 

message: This is a bad policy and should be withdrawn. It's just too semantically vague, which inevitably leads to time-wasting debates when somebody invokes the policy. It was plainly instituted to keep out long, developed personal theories or points-of-view, but it is now being used to attack even simple observations of phenomena and written matter-- the sort of basic observation which simply cannot be avoided in the construction of sentences. I vote for a vote to delete. JDG 09:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Policy 

message: The ArbCom has yet to finalize the new "priveleged expert" exemption  based upon Nobs01 and others case, yet I note the change has already been made official here with little discussion .  nobs 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the material deleted by User:SlimVirgin was redundant, some was not. I have taken the liberty of restoring the non-redundant material, merging it into the appropriate section. --HK 22:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Priveleged experts

message: Is there a Category or some list to include articles that (suspected to) violate WP:NOR?  I just came across NPR and Commercialization which appears to be someone's school paper copied into Wikipedia.  I don't think it necessarily needs to be deleted (it has references), but at least needs major cleanup, needs to adhere to WP:NPOV, and moved to conform to the Manual of style. ---Aude 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem articles 

message: Hi Uncle G, I reverted that edit again because you're introducing footnotes. It's not the extra quotes I'm concerned about, just the deletion of the embedded links. When I have time, if it's all right with, I'll put back the extra quotes but give the sources as links. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: A very interesting discussion is taking place at .   has claimed that the inclusion of events in a "list of media circuses" that's in the article can only be done by citing a source that has referred to them as a "media circus", or else it's a contributor's opinion, and original research.  I'm advocating that this is not the case, since "media circus" is not a standardized, nor an official-on-any-level term, but rather a general characteristic of an event receiving more media attention than would be reasonable, or necessary.  I'm particularly enphasizing the fact that "media circus" is a term in English, but it's general parameters (too much media coverage) can happen anywhere, but it would be next to impossible to find a source saying "this is a media circus" about an event taking place outside of the English-speaking world.  Well, best if anyone interested would read the discussion going on here.  Then all the points of view being expressed can be read and reflected upon.  Regards, Reduxtalk 22:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me why this would be an interesting case.  Calling something a "media circus" is clearly making a judgement about media response.  If something is simply our own opinion, it doesn't belong in the article.  Jkelly 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Calling something a "media circus" in the absence of anyone else calling it that is an example of the editor expressing his own opinion, and therefore original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the complexity of it.  A "media circus" is not an adjective such as "beautiful", or "interesting".  If we were going to say, on any article, that something is "beautiful" or "interesting", we must cite an external source that has referred to the object in question as "beautiful" or "interesting". The meaning of a "media circus", as we define it on our article, is a situation (any situation) where the media coverage is out of proportion to the event itself.  Thus, saying that a situation was a "media circus", as I see it, is not stating a subjective opinion about something, but rather observing a practical, empirical reality.  And the threshhold for what's too much media coverage?  That comes from reasonableness.  As this very project page affirms (and I quoted this over there too), In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge (...) a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources.  The primary source being the record of news programs spending half an edition, over weeks, talking about a celebrity feud, or the images of hordes of reporters camped on the lawn of a family whose child is accused of a crime.  An analogy: if I see a plane crash, and I say "that plane crashed", that cannot possibly be original reseach.  It's not the same as saying "that plane crashed with a pattern that indicates that the accident was caused by an engine malfunction", which is an extrapolation on the empirical event, and thus I would need a reputable, external source that has made reference to this in order to state it in one of our articles.  Redux 03:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the threshhold for what's too much media coverage?  That comes from reasonableness. Sorry, but "reasonable" is a subjective judgement. Calling something a "media circus" is a disparaging characterization and should only be used if attributed to a source. Otherwise it is projecting an opinion onto the description. older≠wiser 03:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the section I quoted should be removed from our policy then?  Right now, it says "reasonable adult", but you're saying it doesn't count because "reasonable" is subjective.  Well, it would appear that our policy allows for a certain subjectiveness.And the article does not say that a "media circus" is peremptorily used as a pejorative remark on something.  Rather, it opens saying that it is the situation of excessive media coverage of a subject and, as I understood it, that this affirmation can be used in a disparaging context.  It would appear that the context in which it is said is subjective, but the concept of something being a "media circus" is not (within what's reasonable).  The events listed in the article are those where there was disproportional media coverage, regardless of whether that might have been used as a pejorative adjective attached to the event or its media coverage.  I had worded it more clearly (I hope), but it got reverted back to the previous version when the tags were reinserted.  Regards, Redux 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the section I quoted should be removed from our policy then? No, just that I think it applies primarily to trivially factual descriptions. For example, you wouldn't reasonably expect much clamor to require a citation for the statement that Texas is in the USA. I'd say that labeling something as a "media circus" fails the second clause of the relevant portion of the OR (which you elided when you cited it above): "and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims". That is, labelling something as a media circus requires making both an analytic and evaluative claim. older≠wiser 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasonable-adult test is to cover edits like "The sun rose in the east this morning." Calling something a media circus is to comment on the appropriateness of the coverage, which is a subjective judgement related to how much coverage the event was worth, and there are no facts about issues like that, only opinions. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the article itself in the first line says it is a "metaphorical term" -- this is figurative language which is inherently impossible to define objectively. You can describe the general sense of the term and give examples of how it has been used (which would involved citing who used the term in what context). But simply identifying a list of incidents as examples of a media circus without attribution is applying editorial judgement (i.e., something is a media circus in someone's opinion--not by some universally recognized standard). older≠wiser 15:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's metaphorical because it applies the word "circus", but it would not negate it having a clear, objectively observable (by the reasonable...you know) characteristic(s).  I'm still wondering if the article is wrong in its definition of the term.  Bottom line is: is that a dead-on pejorative term, as users have been saying in this discussion (and the one at the article's talk page), or is the article accurate?  As I've said, according to what I've understood from the article, it's not editorial judgement to say that a situation that took place somewhere fits that description, as measured by a reasonable standard.  You are absolutely right if the context is automatically attached to the expression (thus saying that something is a "media circus" would forcibly imply our judging the event as being bad, good, exaggerated or whatever).  If that's the case, if that's how the expression is perceived by the average individual (who would read the article and thus assume we are judging those events as having had a "bad media coverage"), then there's nothing left to discuss and I'll remove the unsourced references myself.  Redux 16:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I had not missed that point.  But it seemed to be clashing with what our article makes it out to be, a "media circus".  I wanted to be 100% clear on this (it's a POV expression, used to criticize the media coverage peremptorily), since I'll reword the article to reflect that, as well as delete all the unsourced entries on the list.  I was guiding myself by what the article was stating, since I didn't know any better, and the opening section had not been revised in a long time.  Of course, if the article (as it stands right now), had been right, I'd still say it was not original research.  Thanks, everybody.  But just to be on the safe side, I'll be waiting a 24 to 48-hour period before cleaning up the article, this way, anyone wishing to dispute further the meaning of the term "media circus" should have time to post on the article's talk page.  Regards, Redux 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting case 

message: I know that personal interviews are considered original research, and thus are not allowed as a source. But what about personal interviews that were done some time ago for the purpose of publication elsewhere? Can I cite my own published work?
Specifically, several years ago, I worked as a newspaper reporter. During that time, I did interviews with a few people whom I believe should have articles in Wikipedia. Since that information was published (albeit under my byline), can it be used? (The subjects never disputed the accuracy of what I wrote.)
-- Michael J 01:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this spelled out somewhere?  We will, in fact, often say to people that if they want their research used as a source on Wikipedia that they need to get it published first.  It seems that you have done precisely that.  I would be especially careful in this situation about WP:RS and use painstakingly careful phrasing to make sure it is absolutely clear who said what and in what context, but, unless I am mistaken, quoting those interviews should be fine.  Jkelly 01:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds legitimate to me, but be prepared to face accusations of self-promotion. You may wish to leave additions on the talk page for other interested contributors to add, as I sometimes do with, for example, links to my website. Deco 07:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Your interviews aren't original research.  They are source-based research.  Like Jkelly says, be very clear about stating who said what from the interviews.  Make sure any new or novel theories, interpretations, definitions, etc are from the source (and stated so) and not from you.  If you aren't the one making new claims, then you aren't the one doing original research.  Make sure the source material, such as notes or recordings of the interview, would be available for verifiability. SchmuckyTheCat 08:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I only partially agree. The interview can only be used as a source for the content that was published. Some illicit content that appears in the interview might have been carefully removed in the final publication. Remember that one of the purpose of the requirement for a reputable source is to remove stories that might be innacurate or unfair. This is a tricky situation. I would say that if there is a consensus that the significant content of the interview is also supported in the final publication, then go ahead. Better, if your understanding is that the essential content of the interview is also supported in the final publication, then go ahead without asking for a consensus, but be ready for an opposition,  in which case, if you fail to get the consensus, you will have to remove it.  --Lumiere 19:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal interviews that were published 

message: I want to ask a question, as I don't know how to react. User:Vald adds his own translations of poems to the articles on Russian poets, e.g., here. I'm not a native English speaker; please clarify whether this may be classified as original research and whether the quality of his translations is sufficient to be kept. Or, perhaps, such poems should be moved to Wikiquote? I don't want to offend a potentially valuable contributor, so I'm asking someone more knowledgable to look into the matter. --Ghirla | talk 13:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Ok on Wikisource. We have an editor's translation from the Chinese, for example. Just add a link from the WP articles about the poet. Apwoolrich 14:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A few stanzas demonstrating the author's style are probably fine. Link to Wikisource for the rest. Make sure the poems are out of copyright. A translation is a derivative work, so if the original poem is copyrighted, the translation cannot legally be released under the GFDL. Deco 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, a translation of a non-copyrighted poem may still be subject to copyright.  A spanish poem from the 19th century might be public domain, but if someone translates it to English - their english text is copyrighted. Yes, that is why high-school textbooks often commission new translations of Homer. SchmuckyTheCat 03:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publishing one's own translations in Wikipedia

message: I don't think it should be called "original research." I've seen several people think that it means reporting information from primary sources. Many times I've been accused of original research for doing that --not making synthetic arguments or anything like that, but simply paraphrasing a quote from a primary source and providing a reference link for it. A lot of newbies think the rule against original research means that only research from secondary sources is allowed. "Original research" should be called "unsourceable research" or better yet, "unsourceable assertions." It would be much more readily understandable as to what is meant. RJII 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change the name of "original research" to "unsourceable research"

message: It is wrong to have a general requirement for a reputable publisher that is independent of the content and the way it is presented. The policy already indicates that the definition of reputable publisher is different for academic contents than it is for less rigourous contents. So the idea that the requirement depends on the contents and the way it is presented is there, but it is not clear enough. This is a very important aspect of the policy and it should be presented very clearly.  For example, if a content is clearly the viewpoint of the catholics (the religion) and it is presented as such, a publication from the Vatican is perfectlty fine to source that viewpoint. However, if the Vatican itself enters into a scientific debate, just because the debate itself as some scientific pretention, then the Vatican's opinion in that debate automatically gains some scientific pretention as well and must be sourced in a reputable independent scientific publication. I don't think this is clear enough in the current formulation of the policy. --Lumière 18:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The way the policy is setup is not clear. 

message: Someone added to "secondary sources": "This should include websites." 
That's unclear and likely open for discussion; thus I put it here for clarification. Harald88 20:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This should include websites"? 

message: Can someone get rid of the "this page has been cited by..." from the top of this talk page? Yes, it's all nice to give ourselves a pat on the back, but it's really irrelevant and counterproductive to anything we're trying to achieve here. Maybe these citations could be collected somewhere else? Stevage 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove citation from talk page?

message: I added some text describing the motivation for NOR. Please review for accuracy and add any suitable citations that you know of. The idea is to simultaneously describe why NOR is necessary and give a clear-cut, concrete of example of the sort of thing it prevents, while giving a little history too. If there's strong opposition to this addition it's okay to remove it. Deco 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some motivation 

message: There is another bias against sourced research - sometimes a new article is created which includes external links and/or references, and the article is voted for deletion — because the voters think it is copied from the source(s). If the contributor had neglected to add references, the article would probably have been less likely to be deleted! I know several newbies who were turned off Wikipedia when this happened to articles they created. ··gracefool |☺ 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it happens with sources with a reputable publisher?  --Lumière 02:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright bias

message: : However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.
Copied from the section "The role of expert editors".  I think that the purpose of this sentence is just to summarize what was said in the section, which is that experts do not have more right to present original research than any other editors. I think we should be more direct to the point. The fact is that experts do play a special role in Wikipedia articles. We still need them to understand source articles and present their content fairly with no original research. It is fine that a few experts on a topic determine together that some source articles are well represented in some WP article on that topic. A non expert will have to understand these source articles before he can argue against them. In particular, a non expert cannot use his own ignorance to argue that most of the content must be replaced with exact quotes from these articles. This will significantly reduce the quality of the article and discourage these experts from contributing in Wikipedia. IMO, we have to count on the fact that many experts will be interested in this article and check it for neutral point of view and especially for no original research. There is a tag to call for expertize on a topic. Perhaps we should mention it in that section. --Lumière 05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KillerChihuahua, with regard to the 33 edits, you have a good point. However, the issue is that I revise a lot each of my comment several times, not that I have so many comments. Still, I admit that it would be better that I do not revise so often each of my comments because it becomes less easy to use the history.  This is a valid criticism, I am aware that I should do something about it, and I would do my best to correct the situation. It is just that it is the way I always worked: somehow I focus more after I officialy posted a comment. Now, let me dismiss entirely the remainder of your comment. I believe that my comments, including the one just above, are toughtful and should help discussions that will improve Wikipedia policy. Also, what you say is not true: I often propose  specific edits or, if not, some general line of action together with my comments. --Lumière 14:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if you used "Preview" more often. Also Edit summaries would be appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I fail to see the point in "dismissing entirely the remainder", unless your intent is to insult me. I noted you had asked questions and made comments. What specific suggestions have you made? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the above I just made the suggestion to explain that experts are useful to determine if an article is original research or not, and that there is a tag to call for such expertise. I did not suggest precise statements. At other times, I did provide precise statements. --Lumière 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  As far as the "totally dismiss" is concerned, I did not want to insult you. I meant that I totally disagree. Clearly, I did not really dismiss (or ignore) it, because I replied after. --Lumière 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More to be said about the role of experts.  

message: Someone is deleting a claim that a person is a member of Sigma Xi, the honorary Scientific Research Society, so I emailed the Society to make sure and they responded that the person is indeed an active member. They don't have a printed book where the names are listed --it's all in a computer database. What do I do? How can I cite it?  Is this original research?  I'm sure the editor will continue deleting it, unless I have a way to cite it. RJII 03:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article is about the person and the person has a website or any other self-published source that contains this information, then you can cite this website or self-published source. This is in accord with the Verifiability policy. It is mentioned in the sections on Self-published sources. Otherwise, I don't see what else can help you. --Lumière 06:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I can cite a self-published source --the scientist himself sayng he's a member. Ok. I'll try that. I just know what's going to happen though. It's going to be deleted on the account that it's "self-referential" or something like that. RJII 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this may happen, but I think this rule is reasonably understood by the admins and you should have all the support you need. Be sure that the wikipedia article where you include this info is about the scientist, not about anything else. IMO, this extra condition does not really apply to your case, but it is still a part of the rule. It is useful to have this extra condition in other cases. For example, if the info that is sourced is that the scientist has claimed to have discovered a new theory. This claim can be included in an WP article about the scientist, even if it is only self sourced, but not in another WP article where the claimed theory could be relevant. --Lumière 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Email to ask question is original research?

message: The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history
What an embarrassing statement. "practical means to deal with physics cranks" sounds like wikipedia is one of those flame-ridden usenet groups. This is also undoubtedly insulting to whoever get labeled as such person. Please raise the bar of civility here. This isn't helping it. 
The whole paragraph sounds to me like wikipedia editors are some "counter crankism unit" in a holy war against the evil "charlatans" or "crackpots" or whatever. Note that many of the so-called "cranks" honestly believe in their theories and have spent a lot of time developing them. (Alchemy was just as "crankish" but it inspired developments in "real science")
Such hostility is really useless. Politely asking "please show me a journal where your work is published (in accordance with the wikipedia policy)" will do the job just as well.
--Anon84.x 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot more agree with Anon84.x. Putting the attention on defamatory notions such as "charlatans" or "crackpots" is the best way to encourage editors to forget about the basic rules. Some editors, as Anon84.x explains, enter into an holy war against vague notions such as "crackpots". This is dangerous and can lead to highly biased suppression of information. This is also why I think that the basic rules should be clear and well explained. For a while, I fighted in the talk page of the NPOV policy against a rule that implies that "non significant" information  should not be included in an article. The editors supporting that rule argumented that this rule was necessary to remove theory of "crackpots". This was the exact term used. I asked what is the definition of "significant" and the answer was that editors can determine together what it means. Finally, I gave up that fight because I accepted that it makes sense that editors together determine to the best of their endeavours if a contribution is acceptable for inclusion. However, we should be very careful about the way this principle is applied. This is such a delicate issue! We should rely as much as possible on objective criteria.  I even wounder if it would not be better to entirely rely on objective criteria as do the No original research and the Verifiability policies.  Of course, the choice of these criteria involves some subjectivity, but not their implementation. It is only the NPOV policy that has this special rule based on a highly subjective notion, "significant", which can be used to remove about anything.  This together with the holy war against "crackpots" can lead to unnecessary suppression of information by editors that know little about the given topics. Lumière 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I am going further than Anon84.x in my analysis. Anon84.x's comment  was only that instead of being rude with these notions of "crackpots", etc., we should simply politely refer to the objective rules of Verifiability and No original research.  I am going a step ahead and point out that there is even a subjective rule in the NPOV policy that can be used to remove about anything. How does it look when you use that subjective rule with the explanation that this is a "crackpot" theory? It looks very bad! --Lumière 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, consider Jimbo's audience. At the time there was an issue with articles that we knew were full of shit, but we couldn't seem to find a policy to use to delete them, since cranks go out of their way to make their theories seem plausible, including false references, unfalsifiable claims, and so on. He was talking to the useful contributors who wanted a way to get rid of these articles, or at least rewrite them from the perspective that the theory is unsubstantiated. This does not give us license to call these people by these names to their faces — that is biting the newbies and quite rude. Even in the face of clear vandalism or obvious unverifiable, biased, or original information, we must always keep in mind that a contributor who's tired of testing the system may decide to turn over a new leaf. Deco 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is interesting.  You are suggesting that at the time the policy was not sufficient, and so new rules were needed.  Was this before NOR? If not, which new rules were added or at the least considered?  --Lumière 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  That is a very hypocritical attitude. What made the "established" wikipedians' own "original research" (and there was and still is a lot of it) more valid? couldn't it be possibly "full of shit", as you call it, just as well? What about standards of justice? Self criticism? Objective quality standards? I am repulsed by your answer just as I'm repulsed by Jimbo's quote --Anon84.x 06:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that the rule was originally created as a means of combatting a deliberately malicious element. Now it is also put to good use in helping to instruct and refine contributions by well-meaning contributors as well. Deco 07:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not agree that these so-called "cranks" are malicious. Original thinking, even if not based on established norms or methods, is not "malicious" and should not be "combatted". This sounds just like the usenet flame mentality. What a disgrace. I am repulsed. --Anon84.x 07:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not talking about anyone in violation of the rule when I say cranks. I'm saying that cranks violate the rule, and that this inspired the rule's original design, but not that all violators are cranks. Please don't misinterpret me - I'm sure we're in agreement about this. Deco 08:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'd take this policy discussion more seriously if it were initiated by an individual with a demonstrable edit history of encyclopedic content, rather than just arguing on project pages. To paraphrase (for civility) the Sam Rayburn quote, "Any mule can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one." How about spending time actually editing articles, instead of just offering theoretic critiques and being "repulsed" by the "disgrace" of Wikipedia? —LeflymanTalk 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please keep the dicussion on-topic. --Anon84.x 09:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Troll-like disruptive behavior and sock-puppetry is germanely on topic. If you are not here to contribute positively to Wikipedia, then insofar as the project's goals, arguing about what policy should/should not be is moot. Demonstrating your intent to improve the site through practical application, rather than specious theory will carry more weight than any amount of grandstanding about "embarrassing statements" and "hypocritical attitudes."—LeflymanTalk 09:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The topic says "Jimbo's quote", not "Flame the critic" --Anon84.x 09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In the spirit of preserving order, I'll make a concession: no user, even if they are actually a troll who refuses to compromise, accept criticism, or respect others, should be treated aggressively right off the bat - NOR is a tool for controlling introduction of content into articles that is not widely accepted, not a way of insulting or demeaning people's personal theories, and should be applied to content, not people. I've had some negative experiences with real trolls on Wikipedia who were determined to turn an article with consensus into a soapbox for their personal beliefs, but one should always attempt friendly reasoning and common sense before whipping out accusations of policy violation. I do not believe if Jimbo were speaking to the "physics cranks" he refers to that he would have used that terminology. Deco 09:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point was that the quote encourages unneeded (and uncivil) hostility towards these "original researchers". I suggest that it would be linked to rather than inlined on the policy itself. Other than that, I have nothing more to add. --Anon84.x 10:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know whether this quote would actually inspire such a reaction, but the proposal for moving it seems valid to me, especially as it constitutes more of a historical note than an "effective" part of the policy. Besides, it's an awfully long quote. Maybe we can have a "History" subpage or something? Deco 10:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo's quote 

message: If editors want to engage in "conversations" rather than gathering consensus for specific proposals for the improvement of this policy, I would suggest they susbcribe to the mailing list or handle these conversations on IRC at #wikipedia-en. Thank you. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, but it is hard not to talk about Jimbo from times to times. Lumière 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree --Anon84.x 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well! Jimbo is the ultimate authority in Wikipedia, unless something changed. Or unless I misunderstood the situation. --Lumière 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not USENET 

message: This edit relates to the overall organization of the policy and its connection with other policies and guidelines. Lumière 11:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with reliable source and verifiability 

message: Keepers of the policy needed. I'm amazed that people are actually voting in an AfD that it's not that important to avoid original research, and keeping an article that is pure original research is ok. They're obviously uninformed voters and an anon's aggressive wording is not helping thing, as some voters are voting to be contradictory to the anon. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London. - Taxman Talk 16:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably the closing admin will be savvy enough to discount any "vote" that reads "Keep -- nothing wrong with original research..."  Jkelly 17:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably closing admin will be savvy enough to realise that a majority of people ignoring the rule despite it having been mentioned intend for it to be ignored, as per policy,'ignore all rules' (when the majority feels it is appropriate, that is). Sandpiper 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this particular case is clear-cut. Whether something is sufficiently original research to be excluded from Wikipedia is a subjective judgement depending partly on the amount of original interpretation involved. There are things that involve inventing all kinds of original ideas, which are clearly OR, things taken directly from sources, which are clearly not, and then there's things involving a small amount of interpretation or combining of elements, which is somewhere in the middle and, I think, necessary on occasion for improved presentation. Deco 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research being allowed?  

message: This is weird!  When you follow the wikilinks for primary and secondary sources (which are provided in the project page), the explanation of these concepts that you obtain is only meaningful in the context of the work of historians. This is weird because we are not only constructing history when we create Wikipedia. -Lumière 04:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I havn't checked to see what this says right now (these things seem to change), but i must agree with you that interpretation of these things depends very much on what you are talking about. Some subjects are much more clear cut than others in what is identifiably factual. The concept of primary and secondary sources fits well in the study of history, but can be more difficult to apply elsewhere. What do you do if there are no written sources because something is blindingly obvious? Now perhaps an example of a primary source would be a map. Of a secondary source, a table of road lengths derived from the map. So it would not be legitimate for someone to go out and create a map, then publish it on wiki, but it would be legitimate to compile a table of road lengths, essentially just a tabulation of the maps data in a different form, and list it on wiki. Sandpiper 09:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Finally, after a second thought, even though it is weird that the explanation is given in the context of the work of historian, it gives an understanding about what is meant here (in this policy) by primary Vs secondary source. The key sentence (in the target articles of these wikilinks) is that whether something is a primary source or a secondary source depends more about the way it is used than it depends on its content. For example, a scientific textbook is normally a secondary source, but if you use it to compare the style of writing of scientists in the past with their modern style, then it becomes a primary source: a primary ingredient in some analysis, generalization, etc.  Similarly, an interview can in general be used as a primary source or a secondary source, but we can only use an interview as a primary source in Wikipedia (because it is dubious as a secondary source.)  A map can be seen as the result of a collection and analysis of different kind of data, especially if it contains information about notable buildings, etc. so it can be seen as a secondary source. Of course, in the work of historian, old maps are primary sources. It seems to me that this dichotomie is closely related to the dichotomie opinions/facts. When you use some source as a primary source, then you do not use it for the view that it contains, but for the fact that someone had this view. For example, when one uses an old map as a primary source, one does not take at all for granted what is in the map, but instead consider this map as a testimony of the way people view the world at the time. -Lumière 13:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Vs Secondary sources 

message: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"
:Does this mean that a significant minority is defined by a minority having prominent adherents, or does "significant minority" have its own definition (numerically significant minority?), and "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" can also have prominent adherents that may just be harder to name?  And while the question was raised about, it does need attention, I think: what is a "prominent adherent"?
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia""
:What is "extremely small" or "vastly limited"?  Numerically/percentage-wise small?  Or the absence of a "prominent adherent"? Schizombie 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms are subjective, and I believe it would be counterproductive to define them precisely. Deco 07:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the basic principle that the policy should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. There is a limit to any attempt to add precision. At some point, it may just bring more confusion. The point is well taken. However, it does not mean that necessarily there is nothing we can add to the policy to clarify it. Any useful precision that we can add, will make the policy more useful in the case of dispute. Whether some precision is useful to add or not, should be seriously considered on a case-by-case basis.  I believe that there is room for more precision in the case of notability criteria. Schizombie just raised questions and did not yet proposed any useful clarifications that we could add to the notability criteria. Still, I think we should consider this as an open issue.  -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For example, since to my surprise this question was raised, we should clarify if the notability criteria (i.e. the criteria that is discussed above) is in itself a valid ground for exclusion. What I mean is that if it seems obvious to an editor that some material violates the notability criteria, and that after some inquiry and discussions there seem to be a consensus that it is the case, is that a valid ground for exclusion? I would say yes. The alternative is that even such a non notable material can be included if another factor such as significance/relevancy is not violated.  In both cases, the decision is taken by consensus, but the guidelines are different in these two cases. Leaving this issue unclear will just make a consensus much more difficult to obtain.  I personally vote for the former interpretation, which I believe is the one adopted in practice. It is more exclusionistic than the latter, but if there is a consensus that something is not notable, why should we include it?  Moreover, this former interpretation of the policy is simpler in the case where one criteria such as notability is clearly violated. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NOR#Disputes over how established a view is]]

message: Katefan0 reverted an edit I made to the article that contained multiple changes.  Because she did not instead simply edit the changes she disagreed with, I'm not sure what parts were objectionable.  I've modified and restored my edits, and am commenting here on some specific parts of my changes, to further discussion.
*Adding "from a primary source" to the description of secondary source - This is merely a clarification.  The Secondary source article itself explains that secondary sources are based on primary sources, adding the text here helps keep the definition consistent.
*Inserting a primary vs secondary example - I don't think that giving an example of primary vs secondary immediately after introducing the terms should be controversial.  Perhaps the JAMA example wasn't ideal, so in this edit I've borrowed and modified the "Grant's Diary" example we were already using at secondary source.
*Deletion of "(that is, not self-published)" in the paragraph on wikipedia inclusion - Maybe this isn't completely consensus, but the key distinction here is that we want the source to be reputable.  We do indeed cite reputable self-published sources.  A key example would be citing an editorial in the New York Times.  Editorials are authored by the staff of the paper, and are published by the paper, and are effectively self-published.  However, because the source is considered reputable, we use it.
*Other edits - There were some other changes intended to be primarily grammatical.
Thanks! - O^O 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand what a secondary source is. Do not change policies without consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I find the tone of your statement somewhat rude, bordering on how one would treat a newbie or suspected troll.  You are mistaken in thinking I misunderstand secondary sources.  Do not revert my changes without discussion here.  In particular, secondary (or higher) sources rely on primary sources; that is their very nature.  My edit made at 14:43 was extremely narrow, only inserting this clarification and changing a word that had just been inserted by SlimVirgin.  Also, the fact that you are reverting to INCLUDE SlimVirgin's edits and EXCLUDE mine indicates that you are either being sloppy or prejudiced in your reverts. - O^O 14:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to misunderstand what a secondary source is. A secondary source is a source that is not a primary source - a compilation of information from secondary sources is a secondary source. Slim is not changing the policy, or making factual errors - you are. Please stop editing this important policy without gathering consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." 
is perfectly fine. As Slim pointed out, it appears to contain an inconsistency, but actually it does not. This sentence makes perfect sense, and it was the policy for months. Here is why it makes perfect sense.  The analytical, evaluative, etc. content of an article is its essential content. Every thing else are just basic ingredients that are used in this essential content.  Because of its evaluative, analytical, etc. aspects, the support for this essential content should be  secondary sources, not primary sources. This is not in contradiction with the fact that we can also cite primary sources because, while reporting what is published in secondary sources, it is very natural to cite primary sources, the basic ingredients. Therefore, I think that we should keep the sentence as it was for the last months. As it was, it conveyed an important understanding.    -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't only report what other reliable secondary sources have published. We report what reliable primary sources have published too e.g. official trial transcripts. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your valuable input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A handful of edits =

message: In view of the above discussion, it seems necessary to clarify what is the usefulness of the expressions primary source and secondary source in the policy.  Below are the only three occurences of the expression "primary source" or "secondary source" in isolation in the policy, as recently modified by User:SlimVirgin. The significance of these two expressions relies entirely on these three occurences:   
# Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.
# 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.
# ... it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication ...
I claim that the two expressions "primary source" or "secondary source" have an unclear significance in the policy, unless we keep the sentence  
*"That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." 
which uses the expression secondary source in isolation. Please prove me wrong by explaining the significance of the expressions primary source and secondary source as expressed in the three above occurences of the expression "primary source" in isolation in the policy. Note that in the next section I argue that the sentence Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. can be replaced by Original research is not allowed. This means that only the last two phrases determine the usefulness of the expressions "primary sources" and "secondary sources". -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 04:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't a number of articles on WP secondary sources?  A lot of the ones about books or movies, for example, would seem to be based on editors making observations about the primary source, rather than using secondary sources.  WP:RS states "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source."  However, it would seem WP could also be a secondary source according to that definition. Schizombie 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  Like I wrote above, I think many movie and book pages (certainly most of the stubs).  I'm not thinking of controversial pages, they may have just author/director info, brief plot summary, and no secondary sources are really required for that.  The longer the article gets, the more likely it will get into analysis or awards and so on, and then secondary sources may enter.  Yes, I guess the two points of the so-called "apple pie exception" describes these well.  Whether such pages would be well-described as tertiary sources, I doubt. Schizombie 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provide your interpretation 

message: I understand that the policy distinguishes between (1) primary-source material and  (2)  generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. I understand that primary-source material can be sourced in primary sources, but not generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.  The required sources for this other kind of material are by definition used as secondary sources, not as primary sources. In other words, this other kind of material is secondary-source material. I understand that we can cite a primary source such as an official trial transcript to include some primary-source material in the article, but we cannot provide  any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of this material, that is, you cannot provide any secondary source material to discuss this primary source material, unless you provide a secondary source to support it.  The problem is that such a secondary source material is necessary to see how the primary source material fits in the article. 
Therefore, you cannot have the primary source material without an associated secondary source material to provide the context. 
If the connection with the article is implicit, it is the equivalent of an implicit interpretation of the primary source material, and this interpretation is secondary source material. For example, the use of such primary source material to create an insinuation is not allowed. An insinuation is very bad and against policy. For example, as a primary source-material, an official trial transcript says nothing bad about the defendant. For example, this transcript can be used as a criticism of a witness in the trial or of the trial itself in an article that is in support of the defendant.  A reference to this transcript in the context of a criticism of the defendant corresponds to an implicit interpretation of this primary source material. Whatever is insinuated from a trial transcript or any other primary source material should be explicitly stated and sourced in a secondary source, or else the primary source material that creates the insinuation should be removed.  The same is true for any implicit secondary source material, insinuation or not, that is normally created when a primary-source material is added in an article.  Therefore, [the essential content of] the article normally reports what is already published in secondary sources. The exceptions are the articles with no significant implicit or explicit secondary source material such as the apple pie and the current events articles.
:Aren't a number of articles on WP secondary sources?  A lot of the ones about books or movies, for example, would seem to be based on editors making observations about the primary source, rather than using secondary sources.  WP:RS states "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source."  However, it would seem WP could also be a secondary source according to that definition. Schizombie 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Like I wrote above, I think many movie and book pages (certainly most of the stubs).  I'm not thinking of controversial pages, they may have just author/director info, brief plot summary, and no secondary sources are really required for that.  The longer the article gets, the more likely it will get into analysis or awards and so on, and then secondary sources may enter.  Yes, I guess the two points of the so-called "apple pie exception" describes these well.  Whether such pages would be well-described as tertiary sources, I doubt. Schizombie 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My interpretation

message: Let us consider the following 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.
IMO, the part "primary and/or secondary" in "primary and/or secondary sources" is uneccessary. It is important to go directly to the point and remove any uneccessary expressions such as "primary and/or secondary" whenever possible. If anyone see a real purpose to "primary and/or secondary" in the above, let me know what it is. Otherwise, I propose to remove it. We obtain: 
:Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
Moreover, IMO, the first sentence
: Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.
is implied by the simpler statement
: Original research is not allowed.
Some original research creates primary sources, but original research may also create secondary sources. Any original research is not allowed. It cannot be wrong to replace a statement by another one that contains all the information that is provided in the original statement.  Therefore, I suggest the followoing:
:Original research is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
If there is a any difference (in terms of what is allowed or not allowed by the policy) between this paragraph and the original paragraph, let me know what it is. Otherwise, I propose that we use the last version instead of the original version that contains uneccessary expressions. 
Note that the proposed paragraph has nothing to do with primary and secondary sources. Moreover, it would fit very well at the beginning of the section "What is original research?"  We obtain: 
: Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
:Original research is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
In this way, the purpose of the second paragraph is to clarify that, even though new interpretation, analysis, etc. is not allowed, it is fine to collect and organize information from existing sources.  Looks good to me. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me Harald88 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplification: removing primary and/or secondary 

message: Consider the paragrah:
: In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.
I have no idea what is the purpose of the terms "authority" and authorities in this paragraph. They suddenly appear out of nowhere and they are not mentioned anywhere else in the policy. Perhaps the objective was to refer to the authority of the adherents to a view. It is indeed important to consider how prominent (and authoritative) are the adherents to a view, but this is a part of the Neutral point of view policy, not of the no original research policy. To keep the focus on the no original research policy, I propose to remove "authority or" and "authorites or".  We obtain:
: In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.
Any objection? -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been trolling on this talk page, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and, I believe, the NPOV page for weeks. No idea what the point of it is. I revert the changes but otherwise don't respond. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been there, done that, on all three pages. Merely wanted to put a "cover-all-bases" statement so that when I revert, he cannot claim that I "didn't say anything when it was suggested on talk!" because the statement above makes that meaningless. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must say I endorse KC's position as well. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse KC's position as well, on this and all other policy pages. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority is not a concept in the no original research policy.  

message: I understand that the policy distinguishes between (1) primary-source material and  (2)  generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. I understand that primary-source material can be sourced in primary sources, but not generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.  The required sources for this other kind of material are by definition used as secondary sources, not as primary sources. In other words, this other kind of material is secondary-source material. I understand that we can cite a primary source such as an official trial transcript to include some primary-source material in the article, but we cannot provide  any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of this material, that is, you cannot provide any secondary source material to discuss this primary source material, unless you provide a secondary source to support it.  The problem is that such a secondary source material is necessary to see how the primary source material fits in the article. 
Therefore, you cannot have the primary source material without an associated secondary source material to provide the context. 
If the connection with the article is implicit, it is the equivalent of an implicit interpretation of the primary source material, and this interpretation is secondary source material. For example, the use of such primary source material to create an insinuation is not allowed. An insinuation is very bad and against policy. For example, as a primary source-material, an official trial transcript says nothing bad about the defendant. For example, this transcript can be used as a criticism of a witness in the trial or of the trial itself in an article that is in support of the defendant.  A reference to this transcript in the context of a criticism of the defendant corresponds to an implicit interpretation of this primary source material. Whatever is insinuated from a trial transcript or any other primary source material should be explicitly stated and sourced in a secondary source, or else the primary source material that creates the insinuation should be removed.  The same is true for any implicit secondary source material, insinuation or not, that is normally created when a primary-source material is added in an article.  Therefore, [the essential content of] the article normally reports what is already published in secondary sources. The exceptions are the articles with no significant implicit or explicit secondary source material such as the apple pie and the current events articles.
:Aren't a number of articles on WP secondary sources?  A lot of the ones about books or movies, for example, would seem to be based on editors making observations about the primary source, rather than using secondary sources.  WP:RS states "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source."  However, it would seem WP could also be a secondary source according to that definition. Schizombie 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Like I wrote above, I think many movie and book pages (certainly most of the stubs).  I'm not thinking of controversial pages, they may have just author/director info, brief plot summary, and no secondary sources are really required for that.  The longer the article gets, the more likely it will get into analysis or awards and so on, and then secondary sources may enter.  Yes, I guess the two points of the so-called "apple pie exception" describes these well.  Whether such pages would be well-described as tertiary sources, I doubt. Schizombie 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed on points in both edits. Schizombie 01:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My interpretation