Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 18

message: Vision thing just wanted to add this from RS:
Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since WP:RS doesn't talk about tertiary sources at all anymore, I think it's important to have some more detailed explanation, specially when it comes to other encyclopedias. As it now stands, this issue is completely neglected.  -- Vision Thing -- 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, was just going to ask this, because the article as it stands now doesn't even say tertiary sources are allowed. And if it did, it has to be made clear that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source (this used to be here, didn't it - why was it removed?) - Merzbow 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I don't see any harm in re-adding it. -- Vision Thing -- 20:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unlike Wikipedia, Britannica has editorial oversight. -- Vision Thing -- 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica is probably the most reliable scholarly source in existence. - Merzbow 03:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tertiary sources 

message: The problem with the Wikipedia policy is that there is no critique included with it. The policy is badly flawed, but stating the reasons here is a complete waste of time as these words will soon be archived and forgotten, included with all the rest of the drivel written here.
Any policy to have any validity must include its critique or it is just mindless nonsense. Once the critique of the policy is sharpened the policy itself will finally begin to approach validity.
Original research is a red herring.  Some of the problems with
Wikipedia are:
1.)  Quality work being degraded with later edits.
2.)  Controversial subjects Being treated very poorly because
of the OR policy.
3.)  Quality work being erased due to the OR policy.
...etc...
But this article is complete nonsense without discussion.  And this means discussion in the article itself so its critique can 
be refined.  The discussion on the discussion page is basically
worthless in this article because important ideas just get lost.
For example there was a very important thread regarding verifed
falehoods.  This thread was relegated to the archives, but it
really belongs in the main article.01001 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, a policy can not also include critiques of itself. Policies are not just vague opinions, they codify what is supposed to happen. Including a bunch of opinions that it isn't supposed to happen only serves to make people treat it as "Oh, well, I can ignore this because there's no consensus on it." -Amarkov moo! 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting your definition of policy?  Your statement is just plain wrong.01001 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. A policy can not include a statement that contradicts it. The page which it is listed on can, although I don't think that should happen either, but unless I'm mistaken, you want the critiques to be part of the policy, not just on the same page. -Amarkov moo! 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask again, where are you getting your definition of policy?01001 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of Wikis that accept OR - perhaps you're in the wrong place?  WilyD 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no one responded to my main point as to why there is no analysis or critique on the policy articles.  Wikipedia has serious fundamental flaws in policy but these can only be corrected with some serious analysis.  I can know that there are serious flaws in policy because so many of the articles are seriously flawed.  It is not worth discussing the flaws in policy here because any discussion here will go nowhere as I have seen important discussion go to archive along with most of the rest of the discussion on this page, which is predominately trivial nonsense.01001 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're looking for :Category:Wikipedia essays? For what it's worth, the main cause of poorly written articles is well understood, and it has nothing to do with policy.  It's straightforwardly that Wikipedia isn't finished, or even near it's "equilibrium finished" state.  For what it's worth, your main problem seems to be with the no original research policy, which is not set in stone, but not going to change in purpose.  If you want to include any kind of your own thought in articles, you're at the wrong wiki.WilyD
01001 I think your basic premise is flawed.  If there is something you feel is badly stated in the policy, it can be changed.  Policies are not set in stone, you just need consensus to make a change.  It's possible. Wjhonson 03:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What about articles that are regressing?  For example, the article that compares Linux to Windows has been completely eviscerated.  But I could name many other articles.  I truly dont understand why there is no substantive discussion of the problems with Wikipedia policy01001 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 01001 if you could specify the exact nature of the conflict, maybe we could take a look at the particulars.  There are quite a few Wikipedians, including admins who do not clearly understand what original research is and isn't. Wjhonson 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly, or perhaps not suprisingly, noone has yet responded to the main point, why is there no analyis are critique in this article are any of the policy articles?01001 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the analysis and critique are contained within the historical talk pages, which you can see above in the archives of this page.  We have had long arguments in the past about some very arcane points of the policy.  You're welcome to start a new argument here about some particular detail with which you disagree. So far your argument is a bit vague.  Why don't you propose some language that you'd like to see on the page?  The more specific you make it, the more likely you'll get some kind of resolution here. Wjhonson 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: These talk pages are basically worthless for discussion that will advance interests of Wikipedia.  The important points get lost.  The critique and analysis needs to be in the article itself where it can be refined01001 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel this is an incorrect statement.  Many discussions on these pages get translated onto the article space.  In fact that is the main reason for these pages.  So, if you have specific changes you'd like to see, if you could be excruciatingly exact that would help.  In other words, quote the section you want to change, then state how you'd rather it read, so we can discuss the specific requested change. Again it would help if you were more specific about what exact quoted language you'd like to change and to what. Wjhonson 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be exact there should be a section entitled ==Criticism and analysis== in this article.  In this section there should be a critical analysis of this policy.01001 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Articles have that because they're intended to be neutral, and not presenting the criticism would make them one-sided. Policies don't need to be neutral, and in fact, they make little sense if they are. If people have an issue with part of the policy, there is no reason it can't be brought up on the talk page, and then if there's a consensus that there is a problem, it can be fixed. Why keep a list of failed attempts at changing the policy and the arguments behind them? -Amarkov moo! 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To have a policy document and a commentary on how that document was put together is a reasonable idea and one which often exists for international agreements. Perhaps I can help 01001 with an example from the Geneva conventions. If one looks at the Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Which is the article that prohibits the use of children in combat. The wording is "The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. ...". Now at first reading this would seem to be clear. But is is not until one reads the ICRC commentary on Protocol I and reads that during the negotiations over the clause "take a part in hostilities" the word "direct" was added to it, this opens up the possibility that child volunteers could be involved indirectly in hostilities, gathering and transmitting military information, helping in the transportation of arms and munitions, provision of supplies etc. and that the ICRC had suggested that the Parties to the conflict should "take all necessary measures", which became in the final text, "take all feasible measures" ... I'll leave you to look up what the difference is on those two phrases (See Child_soldiers#International humanitarian law, wikisource:Geneva Convention/Protocol I, ICRC Commentary on Protocol I: Article 77). The commentary helps the reader to understand the thinking of the negotiators who put the treaty together and how they intended the phrases to be interpreted. FAQs (e.g. the proposed WP:ATT/FAQ) is another way of doing something similar, and one which the internet community is more familiar with. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  These policies aint worth a crap without critique 

message: Can we put original research into a sister project and link to it like we do Wikiquote? - Peregrine Fisher 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it's still original research. The idea of the policy is to make sure everything in Wikipedia has reliable sources, and is not self-published or original research. Notinasnaid 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about wikiversity? - Peregrine Fisher 07:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can we put original research? 

message: The important issue is not whether original research lands in the article.  The important issue is whether the reader can determine that which is original research and that which isnt.  The problem being that once original research is excluded, logic prevents the article from being written.  This is because the very first sentence of any article whatsoever must advance a position, and so forth for each sentence thereafter, and for each word of each sentence and so on.  This logic must be addressed in this article or the article lacks any logical validity.
I was writing to the article on stature which has oscillated between a strong negative bias against short stature and a milder negative bias against short stature.  I had written a section to the article that arguably is OR, but it certainly balanced the article.  After, having this section tagged and deleted for being OR it occured to me that NOR is a very dangerous policy.
This is because people read Wikipedia and Wikipedia should not have a negative bias towards short stature.  And certainly, in this article the truth is more important than NOR.  The argument for the advantages of short stature should be stated in this article, or all bias should be removed.  The present policy is dangerous as it serves to reinforce stereotypes.
Further, for some time now there has been reference to height and intelligence suggesting that taller people are smarter.  This is backed up by some kind of verified source. 
It might be alright to have this illogical OR policy if noone read Wikipedia, but millions do read it.  Wikipedia should not maintain this illogical policy that leads to false and unbalanced articles.01001 00:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is no policy which mandates "balance". If there are no published resources that say being tall is good, and many that say being short is good, our articles should reflect that. WP:NPOV includes an "undue weight" clause, which makes it clear that both sides do not have to be given equal weight if they don't truly have equal weight. -Amarkov moo! 00:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let assume for the sake of argument that society has a perception one way or the other.  Wikipedia can honestly discuss the issue, Wikipedia can avoid the issue or Wikipedia can simply reflect published sources with no regard to truth.  This last choice is the worst, and this is the choice Wikipedia has made.  By making this choice Wikipedia essentially becomes a primary source for bullcrap.  This is because mindlessly parroting anything can be nothing better than nonsense01001 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's the choice wikipedia has made, and it is better than publishing previously unpublished bullcrap. the sourcing requirement limits the bullcrap to the sourceable kind MPS 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not better than avoiding controversial subjects altogether as the present policy does not present the argument fairly.  Further it is not better than presenting a balanced argument.  Sourced Bullcrap is Bullcrap and by any other name smells as sweet.01001 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And who says that there should not be rules?  Wikipedia needs rules but certainly more logical ones than the blatantly illogical ones now in use.01001 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind that there are more medical journal publications proving that blacks and jews are biologically inferior to white aryan males.  Is this really the stance that Wikipedia wants to take?  We are still drolling through and disproving "factual" information that has existed for a 1000 years, and there have certainly been more than one Wikipedizens to contribute to this effort. --Agvulpine 07:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These publications are verified content from reliable sources.  I dont see where Wikipedia policy deals with this problem.01001 08:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, note that if OR is allowed then there's nothing to prevent massive article bloat and inclusion opinions on many topics such as philosophy will become highly subjective. How would we go about deciding which OR to include? We have similar problems in some of the sciences which many cranks wanting to essentially publish their stuff here. JoshuaZ 01:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said that Wikipedia should not have rules?01001 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue wasn't with the WP:NOR policy, but with the failure to properly apply WP:V. Andrzej Turowsk's personal website is obviously not a reliable source for such an absurd claim; or, indeed, practically any claim. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. But if rubbish like this appeared in the mainstream press - as occasionally happens - I would have applied the same reasoning. Peter Ballard 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the need for multiple reliable sources, especially for contreversial, or important stuff :) . —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If a source is bad you find a better source. You don't replace it with original research. --bainer (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proving sources to be bad usually requires original research. --tjstrf talk  08:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? The example was of a personal website being used as a source for the number of online chess players; the source is "bad" in terms of not being reliable for the purpose it was being used for. --bainer (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOR is a red herring 

message: Everytime you edit you are told "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". WP:NOR is one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia. It is a hardline policy. WP:IAR is not policy, it is a guideline, a very controversial one at that, and never intended to bypass consensus. Lode Runner, your crusade against the "rules lawyers" is borderline disruptive, especially given your non-consensus edits to WP:NOR to reflect that.  This is not in the best interest of the project, and it's not what Jimbo would want, bottom line. If you want to add OR and synthesis, establish your credentials at Citizendium, or take it to an internet forum. Encyclopedias are for SOURCED information, not original research: not in brittanica, not here. Wikipedia is not primary source, and without verification of credentials, it's not a place for publication of new material. Since we don't know who the editors are, it's no different than a bunch of guys meeting at a pub, or a conspiracy theorist in a 'zine or webforum. Once again, WP:NOR prevents all of that. That is why it is one of the fundamental, inviolate pillars of the project. Can you see that the entire concept of wikipedia having ANY credibility hinges upon it? Your crusade against the "rules lawyers" is misguided: you're really crusading against the concept of wikipedia itself, and it's disruptive and dangerous. The blanket accusations such as "the accusers", "rules lawyers", allegations of WP:BITE, etc are disruptive and the resultant unilateral changes to, again, a fundamental policy, border on WP:POINT. You need to chill out and look at this objectively: On the SOLE basis of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR (neither of which are policy), you want to change at least FOUR policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:TALK, WP:RS and a fifth if you include WP:ATT. Does that make ANY sense to you whatsoever? Because to the rest of us, it is ridiculous. 
I can sum it up in one sentence: You can't use a single controversial guideline that is not accepted by many people on this project, to overrule no less than FIVE fundamental policies that constitute the very essence of what makes Wikipedia what it is.
I can sum up the remedy in one sentence: Start your own wiki, or go to Citizendium, or publish a blog; all of which places where original research is welcomed -- not here.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IAR is a policy, and a very fundamental one at that, but the problem is most people don't understand it. You many ignore a rule, but only if the rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The prohibition on original research (like the other content policies) of itself does not prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, indeed quite the opposite. --bainer (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I'll be damned, when did it change to a policy? Last I visited the page, it was a guideline. When you look at the five pillars, what's the very first thing you see: "No original research". See the policy trifecta page: all other policies, including IAR are a corollary of that. The concept of wikipedia is neither inherently disabled or enabled by WP:IAR, it's only facilitated. But the concept of wikipedia is completely disabled by allowing OR, as it ceases to become an encyclopedia at that point, and instead becomes something lesser. 
And, taking the direct wording of the IAR page, it says if the rules PREVENT you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. OR does not IMPROVE the encyclopedia, and not allowing OR does not PREVENT you from improving it. All that OR does, is lowers the quality of the encyclopedia into that of a webforum, blog, or chatroom, and that's clearly unacceptable. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 09:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Doh, that's exactly what you just said Bainer. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 09:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are circumstances under which OR improves the encyclopedia.  That's why we have IAR in the first place--no rule works well all the time.  IAR allows the NOR rule to be ignored in such cases. Ken Arromdee 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there aren't, and NOR always overrules IAR, because OR never improves the encyclopedia. Give an example if you think it does.Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that claim is "original research", so what's the point? This whole discussion presumes that we are experts on encyclopedia writing who do not need citations. If we are to take this "no OR in talk" seriously, every single statement in this exchange would need a citation. Since even the "no OR in talk" proponents aren't bothering to do so, the message is that the demand need not be taken seriously. Indeed, it seems blinkin' obvious that discussion is going to have rely heavily on ordinary reasoning and evaluation. Mangoe 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An Admin's opinion on a rule does not count as original research, as they have met the Wiki standard for expert in their field and did this through a peer review process. Thus, Jayjg is basing his information on what the admin above have said. Jay is not using original research. SanchiTachi 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you produce a citation for that? It seems to me that this could be continued indefinitely.Really, the problem here is that the talk pages are research. Perhaps within some framework we ought to expect proper citation and the like, but rigorous application of this is simply going to result in paralysis. People will as a rule ingore this demand, except when it's convenient to tie the discussion in a knot. Then they will pop up and say "WP:NOR!", and the fight over that will consume the talk page. And yeah, this is OR, but we have to have somewhere to talk about writing an encyclopedia. Mangoe 18:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A citation? Thats not needed. Why? Because if you looked at the process to becoming an admin, you would know that its peer reviewed. Furthermore, if you looked at the main page of this, experts that are verified are allowed in. You don't need to "cite" that, as its already cited for you. Please stop being purposely rude and trying to make such blatantly false claims. SanchiTachi 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you will probably claim that you have to literally cite it, even though its obvious where to find it. Here: WP:RfA proof that Admins are peer reviewed. Only opinions on potential admin with references to their actual actions are allowed (See the actual requests), which shows that the process does not use OR. The process was created by the creator of Wikipedia, which makes him an expert source on Wiki Rules and thus, not OR in the way you claim. SanchiTachi 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An Admin's opinion on a rule does not count as original research, as they have met the Wiki standard for expert in their field and did this through a peer review process. But can you show us that admins were 'voted' in with the understanding that they have an excellent knowledge of wikirules? I have seen many a comment on RfA's which go along the lines 'is a nice guy, can't see him misusing the tools, has made many good edits' etc... There doesn't seem to be anything on the RfA page which states that admins are put in place because they have an expert knowledge of wikirules. Can you not see what we are saying? Throughout the site people express their opinions on various facts, figures, and other opinions. They do this in article talk space, in wikipedia talk space and in user talk space. To stop this under WP:OR would lead to a work to rule situation where nothing would get done.-Localzuk(talk) 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so according to Localzuk, Admin have no right to make any claims or to judge on certain matters, which would then negate the WP:Admin page. So says Localzuk, so says God, right? Admin are experts by definition. That is how Wikipedia functions.SanchiTachi 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I just point out that the page you linked to doesn't mention admins being experts in any way. It says they are 'familiar with and respect wikipedia policy' and 'have gained the trust of the community' but nothing defining them as experts.-Localzuk(talk) 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a strange understanding of "familiar" and "trust" if you do not see them as having expertise in rules or the ability to enforce rules via block and other methods. SanchiTachi 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter if they published anything outside of Wikipedia, because, by definition, they are given the title of Experts on Rules and are given the ability to block people and other privledged information. If you cannot understand the review process or the like, please, find another place, because Wikipedia is not the place for you. SanchiTachi 19:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you want to cite that? At the very least, the arbcom process indicates that this is not so, and even then there is continuing argument over how much authority arbcom has in this wise. Mangoe 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I struck this comment as I provided information for Mangoe on his user talk page. I felt that taking it to such a place would be more appropriate than leaving comments here. SanchiTachi 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I am not an administrator, I do not know what the admin tools look like. Nonetheless, it is a widely held view that administrators are only to execute certain risky functions, and are not to determine or provide final interpretation of policy. Attempts by admins to do so are widely held to be an abuse of power. Calling me a dick is widely viewed as a personal attack, disclaimers on your user page to the contrary. And as you are not an admin, even by your own standards it would be necessary for you to cite evidence as to my intent. All of this comes down to your need to be able to denounce my position without having to live up to the standard you are demanding. And the point is that it is not really possible to operate as you are demanding. Mangoe 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I struck this comment as I provided information for Mangoe on his user talk page. I felt that taking it to such a place would be more appropriate than leaving comments here. SanchiTachi 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We all know this. We are waiting for SanchiTachi to get it. SBHarris 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, did you just purposely lie about what I said? I clearly defending Admins having the right to say or act without them violating OR. That is obvious and people like you keep trying to claim that Admins are violating OR. SanchiTachi 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of lying, it's simply a matter of your being wrong. What you "said" is posted above, and it's incorrect. Administrators have no special powers to do or say anything that escapes OR, but somehow would not if an ordinary editor said or did them. You seem to believe they do, by shear authority. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. A number of us (including at least one administrator, Mangoe) have tried to tell you are wrong. You're not listening. Too bad. Originality (or lack of it) is not a matter of authority, but merely (in the context of Wikipedia) a matter of prior publication of a particular point of view outside of Wikipedia, in a reliable source medium. SBHarris 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put forth evidence supporting my case, but you have put no such evidence supporting yours. It is obvious to anyone besides you what is right, what is wrong, and that you misconstrued everything I said, or you don't understand that Admin have the ability to block and rule on what Wiki rules are without dealing with citing "research" in the same kind of manner as other pages. Their only information is the rules and their interpretation of the rules. Thats how judgments work. If you don't understand that, please scroll through the block users page and complain about admin only posting original research in deciding if the rules have been broken or not. You will quickly be shot down. But I do thank you for trying to speak for others, butting in where you obviously didn't belong, and trying to make fun of admin. SanchiTachi 02:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why you can't change it (crossposted) 

message: A discussion is going on here about whether it would be justifiable for a non-specialist Wikipedian to create an 'artist's impression' of an object that is so far invisible (the object in question is the distant planet Gliese 581 c), or whether the only acceptable 'impression' would be something produced by a noted scientist, or at least produced under the aegis of a scientific organization, such as NASA. Some users believe that the policy on images means that the non-specialist Wikipedian is welcome to go ahead. Others (including moi) think this would open the floodgates to rubbishy images with no scientific backup. Does anyone here hae any views on this? Cop 633 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean a picture/image? If so, see above: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#WP:OR_and_images_of_non-existant_things. There is a reference made to Wikipedia:OR#Original_images. "This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." "If they are noted as manipulated, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." So, if it fits what the article says, then it seems to be allowed. See if that helps. SanchiTachi 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original images and 'artist's impressions' 

message: The secondary source paragraph has a sentence that reads "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources."  The presence of the word "verifiable," as an adjective modfying "sources," is confusing and I believe in error. This is going to get semantic, but: WP:V applies to the content of WP articles, not to the sources for that content.  The WP article has to be reliably sourced, of course, but that is enough; we don't have to in turn be able to verify the source (to do so for a newspaper article, for example, I think we would need access to the reporter's notes, or the article editing process).  I propose removing that one word.  Comments? UnitedStatesian 05:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another word change 

message: I think there would be a wiki to publish original research and ideas. I imagine the wiki was once upon a time... ;) an original idea. If it would be refussed, I (and you ) couldn´t be reading and/or writting these lines--62.87.96.65 13:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are wikis where you can publish original research.  This just isn't one of them. Wjhonson 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikinews permits original reporting, but has very strict rules about it, so that this reporting can still be reliable (you need to publish all notes etc on the talk page alongside the story.) --Kim Bruning 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikiinfo. Its main page reads: Original research which addresses significant problems is especially appreciated.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki 

message: WP:NPOV states that facts should be allowed to speak for themselves, which to me means that any qualification or explanation of them by an editor not citing a source is original research because the qualification/explanation didn't appear in the source. This is an illustration of why I think it is original research to add perspective not in the source. 
(X = criminals)
Situation              	Says	Wikipedia says	Final	WP:OR?
1. A WP:V, WP:RS source	X   	X             	X    	No
(Y = people referred to as)(Z = people referred to as criminals)
Situation              	Says	Wikipedia says	Final	WP:OR?
2. A WP:V, WP:RS source	X   	X + Y =       	Z    	Yes
I'd suggest finding a source to assert Y, but that might be WP:SYN.
Situation              	Says	2nd valid source says	Wikipedia says	Final	WP:OR?
3. A WP:V, WP:RS source	X   	Y                    	X + Y         	Z    	Probably
Anynobody 06:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is adding perspective [[WP:OR]]? 

message: Hey fellow editors: please help me edit this new essay: Wikipedia:It's ok to use your brain.  I think it applies to more than this policy. MPS 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad essay... however, I think it would be helpful to discuss situations where it is NOT OK to use your brain.  IE where using your brain leads to Original Research and Synthesis. Blueboar 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:It's ok to use your brain 

message: OK, here's an example of "using my brain" and that example is the reason I'm even reading this page.  In the article Curveball (informant) I inserted a section that stated that Curveball's statements demonstrated internal inconsistency and that the internal inconsistency indicated he was a poseur.  Curveball claimed to be a chemical engineer yet nothing that appeared to be derived from the intelligence provided by Curveball, as seen in the CIA/DIA white paper, showed any sign of having been written by anyone with engineering training.
So my thought process was: IF Curveball provided information that was not like the information you would reasonably expect an engineer (in particular a chemical engineer) to present when describing a piece of equipment for which he claimed he had been trained to operate THEN Curveball was lying about being a chemical engineer, and was thus visibly a liar.  
That section stood for many months and then it was removed anonymously.  I restored it and was then told that whether or not it was accurate was beside the point, it was "original research."  I then deleted it myself, following a strict interpretation of NOR.
But this is very disturbing.  Other than in tightly-controlled countries (e.g., USSR) I don't know of any encyclopedias that forbade thought or the products of thought.  
More properly I could have enumerated the items attributed to Curveball in the CIA/DIA white paper that lacked any glimmer of engineering intelligence and then could have documented what is is that chemical engineers concern themselves with.  Even then it appears that a strict reading of "no original research" forbids my conclusion.  If nobody has published the conclusion then, it seems, Wikipedia forbids its appearance, no matter how simple the logic.
This is weird in a way because the white paper (and the discussion of that piece of intelligence reporting and all Iraq-war intelligence reporting) appear to follow, even though they are not a part of Wikipedia, the NOR rule.  In fact the reason I put in the "internal inconsistency" section in the first place was as a protest against that idiotic approach.  It's absurd for the CIA to limit it's conclusions to Wikipedia-style reporting of what CIA sources supply.  Their job is expressly to synthesize from the raw intelligence, is it not?  Yet all the discussions I've seen center on whether or not the intelligence agencies had been told Curveball was unreliable (or on whether or not that very clear message had gotten through.)  What he said wasn't what an engineer would say.  Is it conceivable that the CIA neither employs nor consults chemical engineers on chemical engineering issues?  Wouldn't any chemical engineer instantly conclude "this guy sure must have gone to a bad engineering school: he doesn't know what engineering is about"?  (It is lunacy if they do not employ or consult suitable professionals.)
In the discussion page for Curveball (informant) a describe a report by a mythical self-proclaimed automotive engineer in which the person demonstrates he doesn't recognize an engine block and spark plugs.  Whether or not it's allowed to reach the conclusion "he's a liar" in Wikipedia wouldn't the CIA have to reach that conclusion, if he were making such a report to them?  
A simpler example is in the greenhouse gas discussion.  I state there that a 1 degree Celsius change in the average temperature of the earth is less than a 0.4% change.  But to do so I had to perform the division 1/(273 + 15)  That computation seems, by the NOR policy, to be forbidden.  Yet I would like to contend that the deniers are foolish in claiming that it is not possible for the observed change in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to cause a change in average temperature of less than 0.4%.  It's important and significant to show the relative magnitude of the change and every piece of that calculation can be tied to data.  Can I make the calculation in Wikipedia or can I not?  Are there not many items of general education that are (or should be) always available for use in any analysis, discussion, or presentation? Minasbeede 04:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use My Brain 

message: I did remove the section myself.
But how about the George Washington autograph that's written in ball point ink (a sort of classic example of self-contradictory information)?  It appears that in Wikipedia one must stand mute, even though one knows George Washington was long dead before ball point pens were invented, unless one can find a published statement that a written item that purports to be from some time before ball point pens were invented is a forgery or fake if it is in fact written in ball point ink.  Is it actually necessary to be able to cite a prior identification of the self-contradictory nature of a statement to mention that self-contradiction in an article?  That something is self-disproviItalic textng isn't enough in itself, it has to have been published, too?
Of course my frustration isn't really with Wikipedia, it is with that whole world in which nobody has published that Curveball's lay language and approach mark him as a non-engineer.  As he claims to be an engineer and he reveals himself not to be one he is clearly a liar.  Whether or not word got to the analysts at the CIA they had the proof he was a liar in the raw intelligence from Curveball they received.  After the fact we know that to be true (I can say that in Wikipedia.)  I think Wikipedia is hobbled by too tight application of the "no original research" standard but my actual frustration is the apparent prevalence of that same standard in he real world.  Logic is forbidden, all that the press and media can do is report what people say.  That's wrong.  It's also not the nature of the Encyclopedia Britannica over the years.  But is worth noting that Wikipedia is hobbled by over-intense enforcement of NOR, with "hobbled" implying harm to it.
I do recognize that this is related, in a way, to the standard for a patent.  A patent is valid if what it discloses is not obvious to someone skilled in the art prior to seeing the patent.  I lose here.  Obviously the dearth of published statements that Curveball's non-engineering language show him to not be an engineer demonstrates that those "skilled in the art" have not, on their own, comprehended this fact.  That's why I removed the section. 
Does a particular form of syllogism have to be referenced if it is used in a Wikipedia article or does the syllogism have status above the rules and principles of Wikipedia as part of the set of valid human reasoning skills?
Minasbeede 04:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To cut to the chase - what you want to do is reasonable and admirable - but you've come to the wrong place.  Complain to reporters, submit to scholarly journals, whatever - Wikipedia just isn't the right place for what you want to do. WilyD 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sure 

message: User:SanchiTachi is also trying to introduce his original research and synthesis into the Shane Ruttle Martinez article (see Talk:Shane Ruttle Martinez). If there's an ongoing problem with this user and OR violations then some action should be taken against him. Black as pitch 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shane Ruttle Martinez 

message: If I say something.  Then a news story reports it, how should I behave on the talk page of the article?  Mathiastck 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct quote 

message: Although one situation is resolved I still am interested in changing policy in such a way that it either allows unambiguous synthesis (such as I described above) or be strictly enforced which means disallowing even things like adding 2+3. I understand and subscribe to the idea of building consensus. However, confronted with the same discussion time and time again I do feel we need to settle this by mentioning it in policy. Otherwise we keep rehashing this debate over and over again. Again I would like to ask how we can get policy to change in such a way that common sense is not entirely dismissed.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we need an unambiguous statement on how to read WP:NORWP:SYNTH can be found here. Apparently when you invoke this policy it negates the normal process of resolving disputes: discussion and finding compromise. Since that is currently a widespread practice around here we need a definite consensus on how to apply this policy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a simple case where I disagree with a complaint of OR. Robert Rankin is an author who writes in a particular style, and he has a series of 8 books that contain the same characters and a series of running jokes - the The Brentford Trilogy. If I interpret the comments on the Talk page correctly, it is suggested that it is incorrect to even suggest there are running characters from book to book, as to establish this one would have to synthesise this from more than one book. (To suggest Harry Potter is a recurring character of the Harry Potter books similarly would require the research of checking the books, or that Fleming wrote a series of James Bond books, but was it the same character each time?). That seems to be WikiLawyering to me. The next case is running jokes, which I can see becomes a waeker case, but if you read the books, one would discover that they are blatant, the author's style uses footnotes to point them out, uses characters to state that they are and so on: they are so obvious and blatant for it to be an entirely uncontroversial statement of fact: it requires no true analysis to come to this conclusion. Finally, the author himself identifies the books as being related. Do we really have to disengage our brain so much and plagiarise other works? Is the acid test really absolute OR or is it no disputable OR? Is it a sin to state the (verifiably) obvious (especially with the words in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor)? Spenny 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still looking

message: We're told:
:Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. [...] In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. 
#"University presses" seems tight; I'll take Erlbaum, Blackwell, FSG, McGraw-Hill, Wiley, Springer, etc as well.
#The (London) Daily Mail is an example of a mainstream newspaper, and I wouldn't believe anything it says (though I suppose it gets things right occasionally). The Financial Times is an entirely different matter (though I suppose it occasionally gets things wrong).
#"Known publishing houses"? That seems loose (Is the National Enquirer from an unknown publishing house?); I'll take "reputable".
Morenoodles 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the most reliable sources" 

message: I've never seen "no original research" used in anything but a heated discussion over an edit war, where one user disagrees with another and uses it to undermine the validity of what the other person is trying to say.  Often times it's justified, but sometimes it isn't.  I understand the need to have a policy on original research, but there doesn't seem to be a very clear distinction between "original research" and POV.  A user might add in an interpretation of something that someone else doesn't agree with, but isn't original research.  I see two problems:
1) WP:OR is used (seemingly) more for POV bashing than its actual purpose, and
2) Often times published works based on original research or very undersourced claims are added in as sources, and aren't called attention to as unreliable sources.  As of now, WP:OR applies to original research of wikipedians.  I think unreliable sources would be weeded out more easily if added to WP:OR, because instead of beating around the bush in the talk page, arguing over content from a questionable source, a user could just refer to WP:OR and make their position on the source immediately clear.  As we all know, arguing between editors is the biggest difficulty in trying to improve wikipedia, so a procedure for cutting down on arguing is probably warranted. 74.75.234.252 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Problem with WP:OR 

message: Can people more familiar with this policy look at this? The HDI for the EU was basically calculated by another editor as the weighted average of the HDIs of the member states. A simple weighted average doesn't work because of the logarithm term. Also, it is unclear which population figures were used and may not be the same ones that the UN uses. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 12:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDI calculation 

message: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research
I take this to mean that asserting unfounded relationships is the problem. I do not take this to mean that an article on a topic that applies to diverse events is therefore verboten. The mere creation an article on a topic does not imply an assertion of relationship to its content other than the application of the topic to the contents. 
Does having an article on a topic that can be applied to diverse subjects imply synthesis? I would think that to violate WP:SYN, the synthesis i.e. assertion of relationships would have to be explicit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis 

message: User:Jayjg, an administrator for the past three years, and the wikipedia's 46th most prolific editor, performed this edit, with the edit summary,  "(→Writings - remove original research, per talk)" — even though they had not engaged in any discussion on the talk page.
As best I can understand from an earlier explanation on Talk:David Frum, the other party considers collating the names of nine captives Frum had written about, using only their ID numbers, is considered WP:OR.
Cheers!  Geo Swan 11:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: more recent examples

message: Although one situation is resolved I still am interested in changing policy in such a way that it either allows unambiguous synthesis (such as I described above) or be strictly enforced which means disallowing even things like adding 2+3. I understand and subscribe to the idea of building consensus. However, confronted with the same discussion time and time again I do feel we need to settle this by mentioning it in policy. Otherwise we keep rehashing this debate over and over again. Again I would like to ask how we can get policy to change in such a way that common sense is not entirely dismissed.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we need an unambiguous statement on how to read WP:NORWP:SYNTH can be found here. Apparently when you invoke this policy it negates the normal process of resolving disputes: discussion and finding compromise. Since that is currently a widespread practice around here we need a definite consensus on how to apply this policy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a simple case where I disagree with a complaint of OR. Robert Rankin is an author who writes in a particular style, and he has a series of 8 books that contain the same characters and a series of running jokes - the The Brentford Trilogy. If I interpret the comments on the Talk page correctly, it is suggested that it is incorrect to even suggest there are running characters from book to book, as to establish this one would have to synthesise this from more than one book. (To suggest Harry Potter is a recurring character of the Harry Potter books similarly would require the research of checking the books, or that Fleming wrote a series of James Bond books, but was it the same character each time?). That seems to be WikiLawyering to me. The next case is running jokes, which I can see becomes a waeker case, but if you read the books, one would discover that they are blatant, the author's style uses footnotes to point them out, uses characters to state that they are and so on: they are so obvious and blatant for it to be an entirely uncontroversial statement of fact: it requires no true analysis to come to this conclusion. Finally, the author himself identifies the books as being related. Do we really have to disengage our brain so much and plagiarise other works? Is the acid test really absolute OR or is it no disputable OR? Is it a sin to state the (verifiably) obvious (especially with the words in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor)? Spenny 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I considered this further, and it seems to me that there has been an unintended creep of the principle. It seems that the basic policy started out as how to resolve disputes on scientific issues, which was then extended into history, in each case, the problem being cited that the editors would have no means to determine the validity of what was being said, (especially as the information and experience might be beyond the layman). However, it seems that this principle is now being extended into areas where that is not the case. It seems to me that there is a test that could be used, a principle that is often used in law the reasonable person: if any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion based on readily available information, then it should not qualify as original research. A statement that most people enjoy eating strawberries is so uncontroversial and universal that it would be embarrassing to suggest that it needs a citation - no reasonable person would dispute such a comment (which is not to say there are not people who would dispute it, but wiki should not have to entirely immunise itself against the unreasonable - it has the wiki process itself for that). In other words, I look at my book or books, note a matter of fact, then there should be no need to cite a source. Someone writing a book synopsis is not going to find one elsewhere, they are going to make their own up, totally originally, and the power of Wiki will correct any glaring errors: this is how it is intended to be. This is not research, but it seems to becoming cast as it by some. Spenny 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still looking

message: Section Verifiability (V) needs clarification, who assesses the  reliability of a source. I've experienced one such discussion, where one part claimed that X was an "disreputable" source, but I deemed that X was reputable, but that it contained less reliable information for cataloguing purposes. "Reputable publisher" is not a good criterion, the central point is whether a source can be used for citations, and what import such a citation has for the discourse of an article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability (V) - clarification needed 

message: Original research here: User:Rursus/NPOV T. (Giggering evilly) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR Claim: 3 legs'o' WP derivable from usability 

message: Before I go to an RfC, I thought I would try here first. I am having (another) disagreement with User:Gamaliel on the Jeff Gannon article. In the section on White House visitor logs, an assertion is made that the logs make it appear that Gannon spent the night at the White House. A published reliable source has since been provided that does not mention Gannon by name, but was published around the same time that Gannon started first visiting the White House. The source shows that at that time, there were known problems with the Secret Service's logging system, which resulted in visitors being logged out of the WH 12 hours after they entered if they failed to swipe their pass on the way out. The source is published here and here, and is referred to by a third party here. Gamaliel contends that using this source is original research, since it does not mention Gannon, and was published several days before he started visiting the WH (making it out of date info), and any linking of this to Gannon is a synthesis. It is my contention that this is "source-based" research, and that since the section it is being used in is on the topic of White House records, that this source is relevant to the discussion. It is not creating a link or synthesis to Gannon, it is commenting further on and providing context to the topic of the White House visitor logging system. If what Gamaliel is asserting is correct, then the larger implication is that any reliable source that is used in an article, and does not specifically mention that subject in the source, is to be considered OR and removed. Is that really what WP:OR means? - Crockspot 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Probably helpful to have a diff of the disputed text. Should also point out that all assertions are taken directly from the source, with no editorializing. I guess the basic question is, does a reliable source need to mention the subject overtly before it can be used in a Wiki article, regardless of any other relevant factors, or be considered OR? - Crockspot 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR interpretation dispute 

message: It is quite obvious that the Wikipedia policy is broken.  The issue is how to fix it.  After lurking here and contributing for some time, I do not think it likely that this discussion page can solve the problem.01001 05:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced. I just think there is a conflict between the ideal end result of Wiki'ing and the process of evolving articles. As people aspire to Wikipedia being a sound source, that falls more into conflict with those who just want enjoy telling the world about something that they think they know. The two can co-habit, but they can't with a Wiki-Laywering approach to OR. In the end, there are supposed to be no rules, we are supposed to be bold. I think it is similar to the idea that trivia is unencyclopaedic - I'm not a fan and most can be integrated into the article, but sometimes getting the nonsense out the way at the bottom can help the rest of the article. Clearly the public at large seem to enjoy it but the powers that be (who should not exist if I understand it) have determined that this unsatisfactory. Spenny 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to fix the problem? 

message: let's say for the sake of argument that I was a freelance reporter for various news outlets. I witnessed some news and turned in a story to the New York Times. They publish the story. is this the only way that it can then be offered to Wikipedia? Meaning, if for instance no outlets did pick up my story, then you guys would not accept my story on your site? How is a story published in the New York times NOT original research? I mean, presumably a person researched a story, and then th Times published it, right? Why does that next little step of something being published make it a "fact" in Wikipedia's eyes? Again I'm talking about hard news, not opinions or theories. For instance I see a major news event happen with my own eyes in person. Why is this not acceptable to Wikipedia? Just wanting some clarification on this, because it seems to me that every single line of text on this site is original research--or was at one point--so it seems odd that original research is listed as unapproved content. if by origignal research wikipedia is talking about opinions, then I totally get it. But if they are talking about facts, then I don't get it. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talk • contribs) 
:This policy seems to be the most complex of wikipedia's main policies, possibly least understood and most violated.  It is written more techinically and not much in laymen's terms.  The issue you address could be more of a case of notability.  It may be more worthy to include something from an established newspaper than a freelance reporter.  My interpretation of original research is, "don't do your own research, cite what others have researched," maybe that is a good way to describe it.  If that's the case here, you could say that The New York Times cited you as the original source and therefore wikipedia citing their article is not OR. MrMurph101 03:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember also that all of Wikipedia's core polices fit together. "No original research" complements "Verifiability". There's no way of verifying original research. In the example given above if the editor wrote, "The mob was violent", based only on their own assessment then there's no way for other editors to verify that fact. If it was published in a newspaper then they can verify that what's written in the article is what was reported. A related issue is the presence of fact checking. If the Times published it they presumably did fact checking beforehand, and would publish a correction if there were an error. If it's just one person writing what they (think) they saw, then there's no fact checking or chance for correction.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MrMurph, what I see as a clearer version of NOR can be found at WP:ATT, which was created as a summary of V and NOR. Some of us hoped to have it replace the two pages, but the community in its wisdom decided against. Nevertheless, you can use it to orient yourself if it helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a question about original research: 

message: Please come to Osteopathic medicine. There seems to be a clearcut case of a WP:SYN violation which keeps getting reverted. There is  discussion on this matter here. I would appreciate some third-party opinions. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osteopathic medicine 

message: Wasn't all research original research at one point in time, just because someone writes a book about something or publishes a theory doesn't mean his opinion is any more valid than anyone elses, I mean, If I fly on a American Airlines jet and see that the seats are all cream colored, but some book says that all American Airlines seats are blue, doesn't that mean that my original research is completely valid?
:I think this is where OR overlaps with notability.  I could come up with some brilliant theory that would solve world hunger and be totally convincing but it would not be a worthy article to write in wikipedia because I am not notable.  If a reputable journal published my theory than that can be used as a citation in a new wikipedia article describing my theory.
:As for your American Airlines comparison, your observation that contradicts what a book says provides a good point.  However, you can take into consideration when the book was published and maybe they changed the color of their seats since you boarded the plane so both cases could be right.  MrMurph101 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, I feel that wikipedia should be a place where people can share valid information, even if obtained through original experiments and that the notability of a person shouldn't impede them from providing the world with new and exciting technologies, and if they need a place to share their discoveries, I feel wikipedia should be a place that they can do so. Planes&mustangs510 03:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that the plane itself is a primary source. if you took a photograph, placed it on wiki as evidence of that source, then you would be entitled to mention it. Reporting what exists is not original research. Wikipedias meaning of original research is not the same as that used in real life: on wikipedia the act of collating information from diverse sources is not original research, whereas in real life it is. Sandpiper 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could take a picture and put in on the article with an accurate description of the picture. But if you referred to the picture in the text and said it refuted what the reference said, that would be OR. Of course, with evidence that the source is wrong or outdated, you don't have to report what it said either. People can draw their own conclusions from primary sources, we don't need to do OR by stating the obvious. Dhaluza 09:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficult issue of contradictory sources, as being discussed below. If two sources are quite evidently contradictory then simply omitting one of them is in itself OR, because you have chosen which is correct. It seems to me essentially absurd and in itself a contradiction of policy to argue that the plane itself having different coloured seats could not be mentioned in the article. It would however be difficult to substantiate this without some proof, hence the need for the photograph. But you can't really argue that it would be incorrect to mention the colour of some particular plane's seats. Who knows how this has come about, perhaps a mixup at the drycleaners, but it is a demonstrable situation that there was at least one exception to the books information.  But it would also be Or to argue that the books is dismissable as a source because of the existence of the plane. Sandpiper 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buy Why?? 

message: The policy read, "reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you." - sources can't write anything, as defined later, sources are books, journals or newspapers. Authors can however write about things. I have changed this to "reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." I hope this is OK. 
Also the list that at present states:
# It introduces a theory or method of solution;
# It introduces original ideas;
# It defines new terms;
:Should either be:
:# It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
:# It introduces original ideas;
:# It defines new terms;
:Or omitting the "new" and "original", if the word "introduces" is sufficient for the meaning:
:# It introduces a theory or method of solution;
:# It introduces ideas;
:# It defines new terms;
I tried to insert the word "new", but this change was reverted. Which option would people prefer? Tim Vickers 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need the "new" in "new theory" - this helps clarify that we are talking about new, unpublished theories here. Same for "original". Enchanter 08:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a 'new', 'introduces' is probably meant to mean 'presents for the first time', but could be read as 'brings into wiki'. For variety you could try 'novel', but it might not be understood so well. Sandpiper 10:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Added "new", thank you. Tim Vickers 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two minor points 

message: User:SlimVirgin has repeatedly objected to the copy-edits made in these edits as she feels that 
::"Your edit aren't clarifying things — they're either making no difference, or they're introducing problems — and most of the people who agree with you are people who themselves don't understand the policies (one or two of whom have caused real trouble around them in the past)."
The specific objections are:
1) Introduces a new theory is unnecessary; if it's introducing it, it's a new one; 
::The next line is 
# It introduces a theory or method of solution;
# It introduces original ideas;
So the phrase "Introduces ideas" wasn't seen as enough and the word "original" was added, either you need such an additional clarifying word in both items, or in neither.
2) Sources are people or publications, so saying "who" of a source is fine 
'''
The old wording was "a reliable published source who writes about", but all the reliable sources listed later were books, newspaper articles etc, nowhere is this policy are people referred to as "reliable sources". Indeed, people can never be reliable sources.
3) "A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports ..." But what if it isn't? 
The old wording was "A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. " the edit was to "A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports and is a secondary source." - this does not change the meaning of the sentence.
4) Nothing wrong with his or her. 
"His and her" or even worse "s/he" is clumsy English, "their" is clearer.
5) By a publisher, not in a source, because sources are sometimes people.
People are not reliable sources, people write reliable sources. Tim Vickers 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We often judge documents according to who wrote them, and not who published them, and in such cases we view the author as the source. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding #3, it does change the meaning.  Old wording meant: When you have 'A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports  then you have something that is a secondary source.  Your version  means:  When you have a A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident then you have something that is a based on eye-witness reports' and then you have something that is a secondary source.  The problem with the change is that the whole point of saying analysis and commentary was a secondary source was solely because it was based on eye-witness reports and if instead the analysis and commentary were based on other things it may or may not be a secondary source.  So your change ends up diluting the point of the example by changing the emphasis.  Granted I think the entire section is horrible and inaccurate way to explain the whole issue of primary/secondary sources, but most people have heard me say that more than enough times.--BirgitteSB 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe alot of the misunderstanding here is because SV looking at how these edits effect sources used as primary sources and Tim is looking at how they effect sources used as secondary sources.  The bar of reliably for sources used as primary sources is very low.  You simply need to know sources are not fabricated to use them as primary sources and you probably can say you are using people as sources(but I do think that is stretching it  a bit; more like you are using people's assertions or words or claims).  When it comes to sources used as secondary sources; you cannot use people by any stretch and there are much higher standards of reliability in general.  If I misunderstand you, SV, please help me understand where you see people being used as secondary sources--BirgitteSB 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean, Brigitte. If journalist X publishes a story about something he wasn't personally involved in, he's a secondary source. In most cases, we regard the newspaper as the source, but if he were to publish it on his personal website, whether it could be used or not would boil down to who he was, what his expertise was etc i.e. we would regard him as the source, and it would be his authority that would matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any real examples of this sort of thing?  I am thinking that in practice we are only using personal website to source things like "X believes/claims/disputes Y".   Which is really using it as a primary source.  I could be wrong, but I not really seen people, in good practice, sourcing analysis from a personal website.--BirgitteSB 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All kinds of material can be sourced to personal websites; see WP:V for the provisions on self-published sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am having problems with your use of "people".  When you source something to self-published material you judge the reliability of the material based on the author.  However the source is the material not the person.  The self-published "Reader's Guide" from the Kipling Society, may or may not be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, but the "Reader's Guide" is the source not the people who worked on.  The reliability must judged based on those people, because of the lack of other benchmarks for reliability.  However the people are not the source of the information, the eight volume book at the library is.  I can see you sourcing a quote to person rather than to that person's material, but that would always be as a primary source.--BirgitteSB 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about "If a journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports, then it is a secondary source." I think that is both clearer than the original and avoids any possible ambiguity. Where I reworded "a reliable published source who writes about" is specifically about "reliable sources". I'm puzzled as to when unpublished primary sources (which are when you use "people" as sources) are ever considered as reliable sources. In the journalist case, it is not "Him" who is the source, it is a website written by him. I think it is very unclear to conflate people and the sources they write. Indeed, that would contradict how we cite sources, If I cite a website written by Joe Bloggs, it would be simply wrong to put the citation as "Joe Bloggs", instead the citation is http:joebloggs.org "Stuff I did in my holidays" by Joe Bloggs Tim Vickers 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what you say simply isn't true. Why do you believe a journalist's story must be based on eye-witness reports before it can be a secondary source? And unpublished material is never used as a source. Tim, I'm bewildered by where you're going with all this. You seem to be laboring under several fundamental misunderstandings of policy, but I can't even work out what they are. In the Joe Bloggs website case, you judge whether to use it according to who Bloggs is i.e. he is your source. Otherwise, how would you decide whether to use his site? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good point, neither version addresses that, what about - "If a journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is not based on personal experience, then it is a secondary source." As to "people", the problem is that in talking about reliable sources, people are never the source. Instead it is material published by people that may be considered reliable sources. The identity of the author may indeed be an factor in deciding if their writing is a reliable source, but this is not the same as the person being a source themselves. Although you might refer to an author as "a source" in colloquial English, when you in fact mean the material that they have produced and published, this is certainly not clear enough for policy. Tim Vickers 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to copy-edit 

message: To focus the discussion a little and make it less personal, could people please indicate which of these edits they object to? That would allow us to replace the majority of the grammatical corrections and clarifications and concentrate on working towards a consensus wording on the disputed changes. Tim Vickers 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one could be better, how about: - "If a journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is not based on personal experience, then it is a secondary source." Tim Vickers 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still relies on the negative, which I think is uncomfortable. I think a fresh start might help. The analysis and commentary of a journalist discussing the cause of a road traffic accident based upon the testimony of witnesses would be a secondary source, as opposed to a war correspondent giving his eye-witness account in the same paper, which would be a primary source. Too long perhaps, but I think it works towards understanding the definition of the terms. Spenny 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A journalist's article about a war, based upon interviews with soldiers, would be a secondary source: while a war correspondent giving an eye-witness account would be a primary source. Tim Vickers 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that. Gets rid of the stilted English and clarifies both concepts in a simple example that the average person should be able to grasp. (I would have used a semicolon though :) ) Spenny 21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This change is constructive. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The use of 'they' in a singular fashion is poor. I don't know that else can be done, but I prefer the awkward, gendered singulars over using plurals for gender-free construction. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of singular their is preferable to the awkwardly gendered styles.Newbyguesses - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The way it was worded before "published by a reputable publisher may be published" is awkward.  Tim's change makes the wording much clearer and improved. --Aude (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Best to avoid that repetition, especially since publication definition is awkward. Unsure if 'source' is best, but that sentence is awkward and should change. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How about simply inverting the sentence? The no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another by insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reputable reliable source may be used in Wikipedia. -- MarcoTolo 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Much better. Although say "reliable source", since this has a defined meaning. Tim Vickers 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Amended. -- MarcoTolo 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggested alternative to both versions: "The prohibition against original research limits the possibility that editors may present their own points of view in articles." Enchanter 11:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. Tim Vickers 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I like Enchanter's the best. --Thespian 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer "provide context", I think it's clearer to most people than "situate your research". DrKiernan 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that assuming silence is approval would be a good idea.  Hopefully things will calm down a bit and there will be more comments.  It is a shame that we have not been better able to separate valid concerns from the invalid ones so far.  I see plenty of good faith as well as a middle ground in this and am beginning to think it would be best if everyone went into mediation.  I don't think the "peanut gallery" effect of the open wiki is helping things.--BirgitteSB 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the sentiment and the comment is provocative by implication. Obviously, I am surprised that the changes that have caused sufficient concern for the page to be locked down, are not worthy of critical comment. However, I don't think it has got anywhere near needing mediation, it is a very small issue really, I am sure that this will now go forward sensibly and fairly. 'Nuff said. Spenny 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've put the agreed changes from above on the page. Thanks people. Tim Vickers 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working towards a consensus wording 

message: The page has now been unprotected. Are there any editors with strong objections to the consensus wordings that are outlined above? Tim Vickers 20:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the agreed changes from above on the page. Thanks people. Tim Vickers 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Have we reached consensus?

message: One of the sections is titled "What is excluded?"; however, the contents of that sections suggest what is constituted as OR, rather than what is not considered OR, as the section title suggests. Should this be changed to a more appropriate title (i.e. "Examples," etc.)? Although I am an admin and can change this in an instant, I am loath to, given the current state of affairs and full protection of the page. —Kurykh 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excluded or included? 

message: Okay, I've unlocked the article, I hope you can all work it out without edit warring again.  Remember, one bold edit, one reversion, and then lots of discussion to consensus, and then the next bold edit, the next reversion, the next discussion and the next consensus, and then the next...
Good luck. Hiding Talk  12:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: It is clear to me that Open Source Software brings a product of much higher quality than Wikipedia brings.  Also Open Source Software not only allows OR, but thrives on it.01001 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a false analogy. Encyclopedias are not software. Dcoetzee 07:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are encyclopedias different, and why does that matter?  I think this is a very important issue because open source software has good policy.01001 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Software compiles and runs. Providing a reliable published source for all claims that are questioned is wikipedia's way of ensuring a similar level of quality. Allowing people to simply add stuff without backing it up would be like adding lines of code and releasing it without ever bothering to compile and run it. WAS 4.250 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compiling and running the code is analogous to checking spelling and grammer.  Crappy code will compile and run.  This is not how open source software gets its excellent quality control.01001 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None the less, quality control measures are needed and sourcing is an important one for wikipedia. It is needed because there are many different versions of "truth" and the best wikipedia can do in a contested case is to say well this reliable published source says this and that one says that. WAS 4.250 13:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you were to follow up on this analogy, I would say original research is analogous to the design of original algorithms and data structures. Our writing is original, just as a particular implementation may be, but we should leave it to the researchers to come up with - and thoroughly analyze - fundamentally new ideas. For example, there are countless amateur cryptography systems out there that have been broken, when they ought to have used a well-known published system. Dcoetzee 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Source Software vs. Wikipedia