Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 32

message: The KISS principle states that design simplicity should be a key goal and unnecessary complexity avoided. Complexity should, very simply, be avoided: simplicity becomes a goal in itself.
This is a follow-up to the “Life beyond PSTS -bloat reduction” section above, but focused upon the “Other options” section this time. This section is designed to grant a limited exempt from WP:NOR to certain article pages stating: “These pages may contain original research; that is, research for which there is no reference other than projects in the Wikipedia namespace. Original research that does not have Wikipedia as its object should, however, be avoided on these pages too.” I am purposing that we eliminate this section from WP:NOR for the following reasons.
:#It directly covers only two articles in all of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Statistics Department which is tagged as inactive, and another page,Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia, that while not tagged as inactive, might as well be. There may or may not be other pages that are covered but not named. We expect that editors will read the policy pages, and in return editors expect that what they read will be relevant to what they are doing. Policy that focuses on such a limited area is relevant to only the tiniest fraction of editors who will ever read it. We are asking editors to take the time to familiarize themselves with all three core policies (“editors should familiarize themselves with all three.”) If we say that and mean that, then it’s too much to ask to include policy that applies to only 2 pages.  
:# In terms of reliability, anything within Wikipedia is automatically a Questionable Source. WP:SELFPUB already grants the same basic exemption, using different wording, to any questionable source including the pages covered here. 
:# As Fullstop pointed out in a conversation we had: “The really simple reason why it does not belong in article policy is that its all about non-article thingies. A less obvious reason is that policy is WP:NOT a directory (either).” -3 of the 4 bullets act as a directory of non-Wikipedia entities that allow OR. Good point. 
If anyone has a good reason for retaining this section, I am all for hearing it. Brimba (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all in favor of taking exemptions out of this policy.  Are there, and will there be a few articles should be exempt (ie where OR is appropiate and makes the article better)?  Sure...  And if consesus says a specific article needs to include OR, so be it. That is why we have WP:IAR.  But I see no reason to highlight the exemption in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Operating on the general principle that a policy should be as simple and understandable as possible (which will help consensus) I agree with the idea of removing this section from the policy. Exceptions can and should be hashed out in guidelines. These can be a little bit more flexible and responsive to change, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. I say take it out. COGDEN 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite my belief that an awareness of the primary source / secondary source distinction is very important, I agree:  Take PSTS out.  Consider starting again with a summary section, after the question of relevance has been sorted, and do not use policy to redefine incidental terms.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you missed on the ongoing discussions, SmokeyJoe? PSTS is not going anywhere soon.... Brimba's proposal is about the removal of the "Other options" section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, clearly I was a bit off the rails.  I have no issue with the removal of the "Other options" section.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Brimba's proposal. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good call, Brimba. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent, Brimba.  Dreadstar † 09:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life beyond PSTS -bloat reduction “Other options” 

message: Kenosis, regarding your recent edit, it's a minor point, but the thing about signed encyclopedia articles is that they're often not tertiary sources, but secondary ones. They often represent quite a distinct POV -- sometimes strongly representing it -- as opposed to the usual disinterested overview. I'm thinking particularly of signed articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It might be worth pointing that out. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez; I'm tryin' to help here. Firstly, why confuse the issue of what a tertiary source is? As a practical matter, encyclopedias are inherently tertiary sources, almost by definition. Secondly, Encyclopedia Britannica features articles signed by experts? Where? Please provide an example. In my experience only specialized encyclopedias provide articles signed by experts, which is part of the stock-in-trade of many specialized encyclopedias. General encyclopedias don't ordinarily do that. Third, If there's going to be wiggle-waggle about some being more reliable than others, then there should be a link to WP:V#Reliable sources. Since it's place at the end, that pretty much covers the interaction between PSTS and RS for PSTS in general. Could it be written differently? Of course, as always. If it makes poor sense the way I edited it, change it back. But please leave out the confusion about Encyclopedia Britannica and signed articles and all that, and leave it with a simple referral to the proper place to discuss reliable sources, which is either WP:RS or the RS section in WP:V. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The EB has lots of articles by signed experts and those articles would be regarded as secondary sources. For example, "Why wasn't Auschwitz bombed?" by Michael Berenbaum. You'll need a subscription to read it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. This is on the Britannica website? Is the caveat on the project page about reliability of tertiary sources and the referral to WP:V#Reliable_sources adequate to cover this minority of situations where an encyclopedia features interesting special articles such as this? I'm trying only to "keep it simple ...", wherever possible. Wikipedia has some articles that arguably serve as secondary sources too, such as lists, straightforward recitations of certain types of facts, articles like Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, Women in the United States Senate, etc.  (Again, I'm not trying to confuse things, but only to keep them in perspective and seek language that hopefully has a better chance to remain reasonably stable the next time around.) ... Kenosis (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair point, keeping it simple is good. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  (1) Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary, but they may still have a viewpoint. Tertiary doesn't guarantee objectivity; it just means synthesizing previously published sources and arguments. Those arguments could still be selectively chosen, leaving out, for instance, some critiques and putting in others. (2) The classic example of signed encyclopedias is the 1911 ed. of Encyclopedia Britannica. Kropotkin wrote the article on anarchism, Freud wrote the article on psychiatry, and so on. These expert-authored articles are one reason why that edition is so acclaimed. (* Actually I'm not totally certain if those articles were "signed", per se, or if attribution is just widely known. Other encyclopedias do frequently include initials at the end of an entry and the initials correlate to an author page; so, signed. I'll try to generate a better example.) (3) All that said I agree with the general thrust of Kenosis' points which is that we should discuss reliability of particular sources on RS or V, and ultimately on the relevant article talk pages.  --Lquilter (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood-- yes, the articles with author's initials could be tracked to a noted author, I suppose. And yes, I would think some of these issues should be conveyed at WP:RS and/or WP:V#Reliable sources too, perhaps with even greater emphasis in that policy area. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signed encyclopedia articles 

message: Just to make myself clear, lets say there is an article on Wikipedia about a high school I attend and there are a few things I know about the school, but can't be backed up online. Is this original research? 24.151.192.38 (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it cannot be backed up by published sources, online or printed, you will be violating Wikipedia:Verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to be clear... 

message: The discussion on the policy issues have become somewhat fragmented with the RfC and RfA comments and discussion going on now. I saw something that Fullstop posted at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/COGDEN. He summarized the issues with the PSTS section as follows:
:a) the relevance of a distinction between "primary" and "secondary" sources with respect to "original research";
:b) the applicability of the terms "primary" and "secondary", to include the arbitrariness of such definitions, and the problems that such definitions cause;
:c) the pitiful prose in that section. 
I believe this is a very succinct and accurate summary of the questions that have been raised on this talk page that still remain unaddressed, and should be discussed further here. I also think these items are sufficient justification for applying the dispute tag to the PSTS section to flag the issues and encourage further discussion to reach a true consensus. Dhaluza ([[User talk:
Dhaluza|talk]]) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So since there are no cogent arguments disputing this summary, can we reapply the  tag to the PSTS section now? Dhaluza (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since no one has disputed this summary, I have reapplied the tag. Please discuss this here before reverting. Dhaluza (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of PSTS issues 

message: There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews: Please post definite answer. (essentially about the reliability of quoting and citing to Wikinews interviews) that touches on WP:NOR issues.... some people here may want to participate. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews 

message: I've always found the wording of this section, and the examples given, somewhat confusing and/or unclear. When trying to explain what sort of edits constitute original synthesis, I generally use the following examples:
=== The first kind ===
John says A. Bob says A implies B. Therefore, John and Bob say B. - This example constitutes original research by advancing a position unsupported by either John or Bob; John never mentions B, and Bob does not claim A is true.
=== The second kind ===
John says A. Bob says not-A. Therefore, John is wrong. - Bob never claims that John is wrong, so this extension of his argument constitutes original research.
=== The third kind ===
John says A. Bob says B. Steven says John is wrong. Therefore, Bob is right. - Claiming one assertion to be wrong is not an endorsement of an alternative assertion, and thus this extension of Steven's claim constitutes original research.
I think adding something along these lines would greatly clarify the meaning of "original synthesis." I'm presenting it here to get thoughts and opinions (and because I can't actually add it myselfWhoops, mistook the color of the protection template. Well, I still don't like editing policies myself). Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? NPOV has nothing to do with it. NPOV is the fair representation of all sources that say different things about the same subject. Not applicable here. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "John says A. Bob says not-A. Therefore, John is wrong." is taking the side of John in Wikipedia. NPOV explanation says "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth"". "Therefore, John is wrong" is an assertion that Bob's statement is the truth; hence, a straightforward violation of NPOV. One could characterize this as "OR" but it's a bit of a stretch; what's the research? It's not a synthesis, just a preference of one side over the other. If I'm missing something, please clarify. --Lquilter (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, that (Someguy1221's) example. The indenting led me to suppose the "examples" you were referring to were those I had just previously provided. But that second example doesn't have enough material to call it NPOV either; after all, the editor is providing both sources. It is however still OR because the "is wrong" is a conclusion that the editor is making himself: "saying not-A" isn't the same thing as "A is false." -- Fullstop (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about the confusion; I didn't want to interject in someguy's thread. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, though; describing "is wrong" as a (research) conclusion seems less intuitive than describing it as an opinion. Luckily I don't think it really matters -- we can putter about with it on our talk pages if we care to. --Lquilter (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's another example of synthesis which to me is the same idea as the plagiarism one, but easier to understand.  Suppose source A says, "Any bird can easily escape from a leopard by flying away." and source B says, "An ostrich is definitely a bird." and the Wikipedia article says, "Any bird can easily escape from a leopard, and an ostrich is a bird."  That's OR synthesis.  It's not stating that an ostrich can easily escape from a leopard.  It's implying it.  But it's still not allowed by the NOR policy. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original synthesis by juxtaposition of facts. It's usually part of subtle attempt "the first kind." It's also usually very easy to deal with as one of the facts is almost invariably irrelevent to the sujbect of the article. Noticing completely irrelevent facts tends to be a good way of spotting attempts at leading the reader to an original conclusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that an implied synthesis is not only possible and often happens. For example, if source X asserts A, source Y says B implies C, and source Z says C implies not-A. Putting sources Y and Z together to contradict source A is an implied synthesis even if "therefore not-A" is not explicitly stated. However, there's a grey area. As long as one isn't constructing an argument, it's OK to string statements from different sources together, and every Wikipedia article does this. Sometimes it's not necessarily clear whether an implied argument is being constructed or not. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of WP:SYNTH is very clear and describes what synthesis is very well.  There have been a number of different versions proposed in the past, but I haven't yet seen a better version than the one we have now.  Dreadstar † 18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible rewording of [[WP:SYN]] 

message: John says A. Bob says B. Steven says John is wrong. Therefore, Bob is right. - Claiming one assertion to be wrong is not an endorsement of an alternative assertion, and thus this extension of Steven's claim constitutes original research.
I think adding something along these lines would greatly clarify the meaning of "original synthesis." I'm presenting it here to get thoughts and opinions (and because I can't actually add it myselfWhoops, mistook the color of the protection template. Well, I still don't like editing policies myself). Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The third kind 

message: Also, very often it occurs in a "John says A, Bob says B, therefore C" fashion. ["C" is the result of "A"+"B", is the essential assertion.] From my experience, this is the most common "formula" of original synthesis. Vassyana (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? NPOV has nothing to do with it. NPOV is the fair representation of all sources that say different things about the same subject. Not applicable here. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "John says A. Bob says not-A. Therefore, John is wrong." is taking the side of John in Wikipedia. NPOV explanation says "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth"". "Therefore, John is wrong" is an assertion that Bob's statement is the truth; hence, a straightforward violation of NPOV. One could characterize this as "OR" but it's a bit of a stretch; what's the research? It's not a synthesis, just a preference of one side over the other. If I'm missing something, please clarify. --Lquilter (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, that (Someguy1221's) example. The indenting led me to suppose the "examples" you were referring to were those I had just previously provided. But that second example doesn't have enough material to call it NPOV either; after all, the editor is providing both sources. It is however still OR because the "is wrong" is a conclusion that the editor is making himself: "saying not-A" isn't the same thing as "A is false." -- Fullstop (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about the confusion; I didn't want to interject in someguy's thread. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, though; describing "is wrong" as a (research) conclusion seems less intuitive than describing it as an opinion. Luckily I don't think it really matters -- we can putter about with it on our talk pages if we care to. --Lquilter (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's another example of synthesis which to me is the same idea as the plagiarism one, but easier to understand.  Suppose source A says, "Any bird can easily escape from a leopard by flying away." and source B says, "An ostrich is definitely a bird." and the Wikipedia article says, "Any bird can easily escape from a leopard, and an ostrich is a bird."  That's OR synthesis.  It's not stating that an ostrich can easily escape from a leopard.  It's implying it.  But it's still not allowed by the NOR policy. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original synthesis by juxtaposition of facts. It's usually part of subtle attempt "the first kind." It's also usually very easy to deal with as one of the facts is almost invariably irrelevent to the sujbect of the article. Noticing completely irrelevent facts tends to be a good way of spotting attempts at leading the reader to an original conclusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that an implied synthesis is not only possible and often happens. For example, if source X asserts A, source Y says B implies C, and source Z says C implies not-A. Putting sources Y and Z together to contradict source A is an implied synthesis even if "therefore not-A" is not explicitly stated. However, there's a grey area. As long as one isn't constructing an argument, it's OK to string statements from different sources together, and every Wikipedia article does this. Sometimes it's not necessarily clear whether an implied argument is being constructed or not. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of WP:SYNTH is very clear and describes what synthesis is very well.  There have been a number of different versions proposed in the past, but I haven't yet seen a better version than the one we have now.  Dreadstar † 18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I've been doing a fair bit of editing in religion articles. Much of what I've read so far focuses on the problems of sourcing scientific and historical articles.  Religion articles have special concerns, especially as regards primary and secondary sources.  I'd be curious about how we might word things to take these issues into account.
* primary source: some would consider the sacred literature of a tradition the "primary source".  However, these texts often have a rich interpretative tradition and sometimes significant disputes over the "real text", or even whether or not there is a "real text".  Furthermore phrases that seem to have "obvious" meaning in the eyes of one reader community have an entirely different "obvious" reading in the eyes of another.  A good example might be passages of the bible that Christianity has generally read as "obvious" allusions to Jesus of Nazareth and Jews have read quite differently.
* secondary sources: in liturature an article or essay that analyzes or interprets one passage in a book or connects two or more passage to describe a theme within the book would be considered a secondary source.  Within a religious tradition, there are many, many such sources.  However, these interpretative sources over time become the subject of yet further interpretation and integrative work.  This happens internal to the tradition and, in the last 200 hundred years, it has also happened within academia.  To further complicate the issue, liberal streams of both Judaism and Christianity reincorporate the academic tradition building upon it yet another layer of interpretation upon interpretation.  Example: 
** bible (primary source)
** midrash - interpretive material from the talmudic period (approx 200-700CE)
** rashi - medieval commentator using midrash to read the bible. secondary source? - most Jews would say yes.  Functionally Rashi is used this way and many religious readers are not always aware of his relience on midrash.  Others view him this way because they feel that midrash isn't really interpretation - it is filling in the blanks and is as much God's word as what was written in the text itself.  Still others (mostly academic) observe that rashi used midrash but artfully selected material to reflect his own interpretative beliefs.  Tertiery source? - many non-orthodox and academics would say yes to this as well)
** modern academia - many studies and disputes about what rashi really means (secondary source on rashi? tertiery source on bible?)
** reform/conservative Judaism bible commentaries - interpretation of a biblical passage using rashi seen through the eyes of one or more academic sources.  Secondary source? arguably since this is a direct commentary on the bible passage.  Teriery soruce? arguably because the interpretation generally reflects a survey of all prior commentary and academic analysis and reads medieval commentators such as rashi through the lens of integrative and analytical academic studies of the same.
So what here is a secondary or teriery source? Sorry to muddy the waters further, but I'd like to see the religion articles improved and a clear policy on sourcing them would help immensely.   Egfrank (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My own sense here is that primary sources can be used to illustrate a point made by an integrative or analytic source but that any claim that is made directly from a primary religious text source is OR. In some cases even a claim based on an integrative source may also be OR, if there is a history of disputes about how to interpret that integrative source. Egfrank (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would Rashi is a primary source, as a historical source of religious writings. To make Judeo-Christian parallels, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Hadith are also primary sources. To make respective parallels with more distance of time, the Church Fathers and historical commentaries on ijma are also primary sources. These writings are not only primary sources of the historical interpretation of Judeo-Christian religions, but indeed primary sources regarding the religions themselves. This is especially true since the writings mentioned are central material in the modern orthodoxy of those faiths. Vassyana (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rashi has been very thoroughly peer-reviewed and found almost always a notable authority within the field he represents and cited in almost all contemporary works in the field, and this makes a big difference. The commentary in the very recent and well-known Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud, for example, is based mostly on Rashi. Given this thorough peer review, why should we treat Rashi differently from the contents of other kinds of peer-reviewed research? If we disallowed all works in which authors provide "original insights", what sources would be left? Many fields have abstruse jargon and disagreements about what people meant. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find myself in thorough agreement with User:Ravpapa that the question of what is and is not original resarch cannot be reduced into a small number of simple rules. Here we have a case of two different peer communities, between which WP:NPOV requires neutrality, having two different views of the nature of figures like Rashi resulting in two different classifications. From an academic point of view, as User:Vassyana points out, a source like Rashi would be regarded as merely "historical" and hence a primary source in that respect, and academics may consider his work principly original and hence primary for that reason as well. But as User:Egfrank points out, traditional Judaism classically regards Rishonim like Rashi as putting into writing an existing oral tradition (see Oral Torah) and commenting on and filling in the gaps of their predecessors, rather than creating original work. For this reason, a traditional Orthodox Jewish point of view would regard Rashi's work as being largely secondary in nature (although all would agree he provided valuable insights, as does any significant scholar in a field). Moreover, he is still regarded as being a very significant authority in the religious community, as contemporary works like the Schottenstein edition of the Talmud reflect, and hence he has a reputation in this religious community as reliably representing a significant perspective rather than merely being historical. I respectfully submit that WP:NPOV prohibits Wikipedia from taking a position that one outlook is correct and the other incorrect. All that Wikipedia can do is report the different views on what kind of work a figure like Rashi conducted and what his viewpoint represents. While it requires taking a religious position to determine whether to regard Rashi as a primary or a secondary source, no such position is required to determine whether or not Rashi is reliable. The only question there is whether or not he has a reputation for reliability in a significant peer community, and there is no need to take any position on whether that peer community is right or wrong as a matter of ultimate truth, only on whether its viewpoint is significant. From an academic point of view he is doubtless merely a historical figure and not a reliable source at all for academic positions. But from a contemporary Orthodox Jewish religious point of view he is considered a reliable and authorative source by his peers in this community on many subjects, and hence has a reputation as a reliable source to present that point of view. The two peer communities have different outlooks and criteria for what they consider reliable, so it's not surprising that they would reach different conclusions and the same person would have different reputations with respect to the community reflecting each point of view. Reputations are relative and vary from peer community to peer community. So by basing reliability on reputation and requiring viewpoint neutrality, Wikipedia necessarily made reliability relative as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I honestly have no idea how my comments relate to NPOV in such a manner. Could you please elaborate? Vassyana (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PST in religion articles 

message: I see serious NOR (and NPOV) problems here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adamic_language but two editors keep reverting my deletions, ignoring my argument, and even deleted my RfC.  I´d appreciate it if people who care about this policy would check out this case and tell me if I am off-base.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed you called for an RfC categorized solely in Language and Linguistics. It might be useful to add an RfC in the sociology and religion category since the article subject appears to represent an intersection of religious and linguistic concepts and viewpoints. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another test case? 

message: Just notifying about a parallel discussion: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Primary sources --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WITS]] (II) 

message: copied from above
What is missing from your comment, Dhaluza, is addressing contentious, disputed, and/or controversial subjects and facts. In these type of subjects, the use of secondary sources is imperative, and the use of primary sources, discouraged. On non-contentious subjects, or those about which there are no disputes (such as the wingspan of a Gulfstream IV, or the number of inhabitants of Guam, the use of secondary sources is, I agree, ancillary. So, I would not call this excess bagagge", on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to keep in mind is that of the 2+ million articles, only a small fraction are contentious. They may take up a lot of editor's time, but we still should not base policy solely on this. The problem is with the absolute statements which are not absolutely correct. Since they are narrowly focused, they have the potential to do more harm than good if widely applied. While these absolute black/white policy statements may seem helpful in beating editors over the head, that is not how things are supposed to work in a consensus based community. So for a broad based policy, this is excess baggage. Perhaps we need a separate policy for addressing contentious articles, so we don't clutter up the core policies with things intended to address special cases. Dhaluza (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to Jossi's wording... however, I am concerned that it will be yet another addition that has no relation to the concept of "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH"... Jossi, please make sure that anything proposed directly relates to this concept.  If your intention is to say that OR is acceptable if it is non-contentious, I very much disagree.  To my mind OR is bad no matter how contentious, and no matter what kind of source it cites to. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need to keep the page on-topic. Any discussion of bias, for example, belongs on NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objection to having special provisions for "controversial, disputed, and/or contentious" subjects, but not articles. The point is that the dispute should be reflected in the sources, not just the article talk page and edit history. An internal Wikipedia dispute is a separate problem. We can discuss whether this belongs in this policy, another existing policy, or a new stand-alone policy based on the content. If it is directly related to the fundamental definition of original research, then it belongs here. But we should not expand the concept of OR just so we can attach important provisions to this policy as a rider. Dhaluza (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source typing in controversial articles 

message: ::::::::::Okay, I suppose that you must mean things like this  must be discussed and approved then, since they were pretty massive changes, far from just afew minor copyedits. And as you've stated before, the silence of the community evidently doesn't amount to consensus for those changes, it just took some of us a while to notice the changes, and since then many have disagreed, so there therefore is no consensus for them. Regarding Crum's statement above about "instantly responds", it also seems like that is how Vassyana was being held to regarding the side-by-side versions, yet when he requested comments over a week long period, that wasn't time enough. 
::::::::::I don't mean to nit-pick or attack you. You seem to have the respect of several other editors that I respect, yet there seems to be a double-standard at play here as well. I could easily go back through the last 4 months of archives, and pick out statements by supporters of your position that when applied to the other posistion, don't carry any weight, like they (the supporters of your position), clearly stated numerous times, that silence did in fact equal agreement, so therefore consensus was met. Now, when Vassyana makes an edit after being offered for dsicussion for a week or longer, changes made when their were suggestions or objections, etc., suddenly the silence no longer means consensus, but tacit disapproval? There's many other similar cases of what seems to be double-standards at play here as well, that's just one example off the top of my head.
::::::::::Can we just agree to stop all of the nit-picking, etc., lay down some new 'ground rules' for here on out, and everybody agree to play nice and treat each other with the same respect and courtesy they expect from others, and that everybody plays by the same set of rules? That doesn't seem to much to ask. wbfergus  Talk 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Random break