Wikipedia talk:These are not original research

message: I respect the desire to use foreign language material as sources, but having seen dozens of sources misinterpreted in a simple summarizing reorganization (i.e., from English to English), I believe the potential for mistranslation and misinterpretation is even higher for a Wikipedia editor-translated source.  Also, even assuming a professional translation, the problem cited for any mathematics other than the most simple applies -- checking a source other than in English requires "skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors."  I do not believe that the desire for a less English-centric encyclopedia overrides the need for editors to be able to verify sources without special training.  At the very least, the translator should be cited along with the original source, following the principle outlined in Wikipedia:CITE#Say_where_you_found_the_material.  Blackworm (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand if the article is about something in a foreign country, then the best references might well be in the language of that country and a significant number of readers would also have a knowledge of that language.  I have had a few instances where I have corrected an article because it was erroneously translated into English by a native speaker of the foreign language concerned. Martinvl (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria of "difficult to detect errors" ignored with regard to translation from other languages. 

message: OK. I am curious. Articles on specific phrases often include the "first use". In many cases, this is a well-known phrase. However, what if a Wikipedian finds- and cites- an earlier use of said phrase? (For examples, in the talk page on Where no man has gone before, I cited a use prior to the date of said article, which someone else added in later. A similar situation may occur with Behind the sofa  or Faith-based (See the talk pages of said articles for my contribution).) Orville Eastland (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this a number of times.  Read the bit about primary sources in the No Original Research policy.  Using a primary source- Lovecraft'ss books when discussing Lovecraft's books- is NOT original research so long as you are drawing interpretation from them.  That may be unclear in some cases, but as far as "this quote is in this book", there is no interpretation involved.  It's on the face of the work.  Though wiki may prefer as secondary or tertiary source, even the letter of the rule does not require us to be blind to what is patently on the face of the book.  I would include original copyright dates as patent to the book.  If there is any issue, it's more verifiability, and really, if there's no specific reason to doubt it, there should be no further sourcing needed.  In fact, years of release throughout most author, series, and book articles is based off the books themselves from what I've seen.  IMHO (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NOR and first use of quotations

message: :As an extension of the "Policy" and "Kudos" discussions above, whose resolution is unclear to me...I think a) this "essay" has to be explicitly referenced by a short summary paragraph in the WP:NOR article - and b) additionally -- upgraded to a guideline.  With the holidays here, I'm just throwing this out there. I'll come up with specific examples in a few days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Making this article a guideline??

message: i wondered how editors felt about moving what i think is the least controversial section to NOR. as NOR allows routine calculations, routine syllogisms should be included there not here because arithmetic implicitly contains logical "calculations". in fact language itself is fundamentally built on (among other things) syllogisms. we make them all the time, we just don't realise. for example, using a pronoun involves a syllogism--Mongreilf (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted, as just because some people don't think it should be explicitly stated in the policy doesn't mean it should be removed from this essay. I haven't had time to read the huge discussion at WT:OR, but from what I skimmed the major objecting arguments are: (1) someone could potentially reason from faulty premises and/or using invalid logical reasoning, (2) no one has shown that the lack of such language in the policy has actually caused any problems, and (3) "the proposer is trying to legitimize his POV-pushing in some unspecified manner". I don't see any real argument that all logical deduction, including that using correct reasoning from well-supported premises, is or should be disallowed. Anomie⚔ 18:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know what? Screw it. If people would rather make undiscussed edits to gut the essay rather than actually discussing anything, I'm not going to worry about it (and just WP:IAR if the situation ever comes up). Anomie⚔ 19:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I originally wrote this essay to start a discussion over what original research should, & should not, cover. Since then it's been embraced as policy, & rewritten beyond what I intended it to be. (Essays don't create policy, they are meant only to make people think.) I've preserved my version here. If you want to quote this essay, quote my version; this version should simply be deleted as being redundant, & disputes over what "original research" means should be centralized at the NOR talk pages. -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point... let us all remember that the actual policy is still at WP:NOR.  This page is not policy.  Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  syllogisms 

message: The issue of whether basic logical deductions (and especially syllogisms) should be allowed or not has come up again at the main NOR article... the consensus seems to be fairly clear that a logical deduction can be OR... and that we should not exempt such material from the policy.  I have therefor removed listing them in this essay. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted, as just because some people don't think it should be explicitly stated in the policy doesn't mean it should be removed from this essay. I haven't had time to read the huge discussion at WT:OR, but from what I skimmed the major objecting arguments are: (1) someone could potentially reason from faulty premises and/or using invalid logical reasoning, (2) no one has shown that the lack of such language in the policy has actually caused any problems, and (3) "the proposer is trying to legitimize his POV-pushing in some unspecified manner". I don't see any real argument that all logical deduction, including that using correct reasoning from well-supported premises, is or should be disallowed. Anomie⚔ 18:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know what? Screw it. If people would rather make undiscussed edits to gut the essay rather than actually discussing anything, I'm not going to worry about it (and just WP:IAR if the situation ever comes up). Anomie⚔ 19:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I originally wrote this essay to start a discussion over what original research should, & should not, cover. Since then it's been embraced as policy, & rewritten beyond what I intended it to be. (Essays don't create policy, they are meant only to make people think.) I've preserved my version here. If you want to quote this essay, quote my version; this version should simply be deleted as being redundant, & disputes over what "original research" means should be centralized at the NOR talk pages. -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point... let us all remember that the actual policy is still at WP:NOR.  This page is not policy.  Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  more on logical deductions 

message: I've come into a discussion on Talk:App Store which involves the limits of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL, which might be of relevance to this essay. I added to the article App Store a sentence saying that "some have started using 'app store' as a generic term referring to any similar service", and then giving three references to such use in notable sources. Another editor claims that this is synthesis, since none of the sources say that the term is used in this way - although he agrees that the sources are using the term in the way I say. My point here is, that maybe this is an example of something that should be addressed either in the Simple or direct deductions or Compiling facts and information section in this essay? To me, the edit in question seems to represent the same kind of thinking that lies behind the "Simple or direct deductions" section, but in a different field of knowledge (language rather than mathematics or logics). Could something be added to this section to include similar kinds of deductions that don't necessarily belong strictly to the fields of mathematics or formal logic? --Anderssl (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another kind of simpe or direct deduction

message: If I record something that I see and report it in Wikipedia without any additional comment, is this research or not.  The item that I have in mind is in the article M3_motorway. Towards the end of the article is an exit list with headings "Northeast exits", "Junction" and "Southwest exists".  Recently roadsigns have been erected which identify the Northeast carriageway as being the "B" carriageway and the Southwest carriageway as being the "A" carriageway.  I cannot find any documentary evidence about this, but I frequently drive on that motorway and I can verify the fact for myself (as can anybody else who is able to drive there).  
Since I describe it in an unambiguous manner without interpretation I have recorded the source as "Verified ... in situ ... on <date>".  Comments?  I am assuming of course that the signs will be there for the foreseeable future. Martinvl (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried contacting the government body responsible for those signs (would that be the Department for Transport?) to see if they have any official map you could cite? Such a map would also be useful for citing the rest of the table. Otherwise, you could word it as something like "Driver location signs erected by the Department for Transport" (or whoever) to make it sound a bit better. Anomie⚔ 18:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anomie, thank you for your comments.  I have located one map which I have used for the M25_motorway, but unfortunately the Highways Agency (who erected the signs) are trying to get maps done on the cheap, so they are not readily available (apart from the M25).  What I will do is to write and article on the driver location signs and cross-refernce that article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In situ recording 

message: I don't think moving this page was a good idea. For setting that this or any page page is an essay/policy/guideline or what it comes, the template in the begining is enough, it's not needed to tell it in the page name. If someone takes an essay as policy, he should be explained better, and if someone tries to enforce an essay as if it was policy, it should be pointed that way. 
Besides, if someone attempts to turn a lowly watched essay into a policy or guideline, for later enforcing it, there are bots that would warn so at the village pump. MBelgrano (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The move doesn't make much sense, considering this essay uses Template:Essay. --Conti|✉ 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: An issue has arisen here Talk:Anti-Americanism#Latin_America over whether this text [] should be retained as resonable contextualisation, or does it constitute OR.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation and contextualizing

message: SlimVirgin removed this:
* Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source. The concerns are similar to the issues with complex mathematics.
Now I seriously doubt that SV thinks that if Town A is in District B, and that District B is in Province C, that Town A is anywhere other than in Province C.  But perhaps there is a more significant concern, e.g., people trying to pass of complex "logical" deductions as being acceptable?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I should be edited back. Moreover from my perspective the point of this essay (rather than policy or guideline) to add a particular perspective to the grey border areas of the existing policy to show in which cases their rigid interpretation is counterproductive. Now if the differing views about the policy (in particular the literalist or rigid interpretation) get mixed into this essay and turn it  into a text somewhat mostly redundant to the policy, then there is no point in having this essay in the first place. If there are some editor who feel the need to formulate the "literalist" interpretation, they should restrict that to the policies discussion or write their own separate essay.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply syllogisms 

message: I reworded most of this, please take a look and correct me as necessary. I think I improved it, but others may likely disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial edits to conflict between sources 

message: Recently BruceGrubb changed WP:DUCK, an essay about Wikipedia internal procedures, to make it apply to article content: . Slightly before those changes BruceGrubb inserted links to WP:DUCK in this essay, so that it reads "An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit" unless it falls under WP:DUCK." This seems to be saying that an unpublished synthesis can be published if the synthesized argument seems obvious to the editor who puts it in. Well, editors who insert synthesis always think it's obvious, don't they? So this change seems to be opening the door to putting SYNTH in articles.
I think this is a bad change in and of itself, but it's even more troubling because BruceGrubb and I are in a content dispute at Christ myth theory over this very issue: he's inserted original analysis of sources that he thinks are conflicting into the article, and in the discussion of that issue at Talk:Christ myth theory#Removal_of_synthesis_tags he's cited this very essay—in other words, he's edited this essay to give himself ammunition in a content dispute. I don't think this is a good way to go about resolving a dispute. For these reasons I'm going to remove the changes. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Changes to help in a dispute are never a good idea, and this change was a bad one in any case. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a new sentence to that essay to further clarify that: "If there was an animal that "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck", but zoologists agree that it does not belong into the Anatidae family, then it would not be a duck, period". Cambalachero (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The inherent flaw in this logic is clear to anyone who bothered to READ the Anatidae article--geese and swans are part of the Anatidae family but they are clearly NOT ducks.  The WP:DUCK article deals one aspect of with the blatantly obvious.  If you are told that 7+7 = 16 and that 7+1 = 10 then clearly per WP:DUCK you are not dealing with base 10 math but base 8 math.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic does not say that all Anatidae are ducks, but that all ducks are Anatidae. So, if some animal is not an Anatidae, it can not be a duck. Simple logic. If (Duck) -> (Anatidae) (if it is a duck, then it's an Anatidae), then it follows that NOT (Anatidae) -> NOT (duck) (if it's not an Anatidae, then it's not a duck) Cambalachero (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:DUCK]] 

message: I've started a new discussion here to ask about whether a particular edit constitutes synthesis. Could interested, experienced editors offer their viewpoint? Nightscream (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this synthesis?

message: I added a section, .  There are probably simpler examples, or we could use a hypothetical, but I liked this one because it illustrates not only how the surrounding context of the article shows that the quotation needs to be clarified with a [bracketed insertion], but also that misinterpreting it as applying to a broader context would very radically change its meaning (i.e. there's a danger of OR in the opposite direction), and further illustrates why we could want to use it despite it needing a contextualization, since it's a secondary source interpreting a primary source for us.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurately contextualizing quotations 

message: I was reading the following:
:(section title) Removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors 
:Further information: Wikipedia:Inaccuracy
:"Experts are human, and can publish statements that are contradicted by known facts, or otherwise erroneous."
And then, there was a reference to Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. If the above is a quote, we should note it as such. If its a paraphrasing, its unclear what the original intent of Sagan's comment was. Can someone explain? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sagan quote? 

message: Hey!
I'm doing an article on a train accident, a first for me. I have pulled up several newspaper articles days within the incident. They state a lot of inconsistent numbers. The NTSB report states one number, and another newspaper article 8 years after the incident reports another number inconsistent with the NTSB report!!
Is it ok if I:
*use the NTSB numbers and information, and still use these sources for the gaps in-between? or...
*report on the wild discrepancies on the numbers over the years (which I think might be giving the situation undue weight)? or...
*report the "first estimates" as they are, and report the NTSB numbers as the final counts?
Thanks in advance! I haven't edited on Wikipedia in like TEN YEARS! lol. I helpdןǝɥ I 04:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back, @IHelpWhenICan.  I think you might get more useful assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains.  In the meantime, I'd generally suggest that you follow "official" (e.g., NTSB) numbers or the most recent numbers.  Sometimes it's useful to provide more than one number ("First estimates suggested X, but the NTSB report said Y"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherry-picking Sources? 

message: I've added a new section at the top, about the definition of what OR actually is.  If it doesn't fit the definition, then it's just not OR, full stop.  I hope that will eventually reduce the number of people who claim OR on the basis of a single already-cited source.  (Of course, Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so maybe it won't actually help.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: I wrote the original draft of this essay back in 2006, but have stayed away from it for at least 15 years. Coming here now I'm amazed how it's changed, & how one hope I had for the essay seems to have been lost: "This essay is offered as a contribution the ongoing discussion -- and as an attempt to help avoid Wikilawyering. For if we have a consensus on what this prohibition is meant to cover, as well as what it was not meant to cover, then we do not need worry about quibbles over the precise wording", even though I had cited an authority in a footnote for my statement. I guess the Wikilawyers will prevail in every instance, no matter our hopes. -- llywrch (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comment