Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 14

message: Slrubenstein recently struck out a word in the policy
Such an article or section should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing entirely on primary sources shoud be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.
I believe the conditions are appropriate for articles or sections that rely entirely or predominantly on primary sources, due to the danger of original research. I believe it is overly strict for articles that rely predominantly on secondary sources. I go along with no analytic, synthetic, or evaluative claims in any article. But some simple interpretation should be allowed. Also, some acceptable paraphrases may require some degree of specialist knowledge to verify that the WP article says the same thing as the source; typically about the same degree of specialist knowledge needed to read the article without struggling. 
Some might say the entire paragraph is about articles or sections that rely entirely on primary sources, and the last sentence should be interpreted in that context. But because a few words are changed at a time in Wikipedia, I am concerned that any alteration to the first sentence could change the meaning of the last sentence. Therefore I'm puting entirely back in. --Gerry Ashton 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specialist knowledge

message: Removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed my post as well, as now my response makes no sense. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, KC, I didn't mean to cause chaos. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: Just a note that Tyresias, who has edited the policy page, has been indef blocked, and also that he should not be confused with me. Tyrenius 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Tyresias]]

message: A technicality of importance about, in this case:
/Primary v. secondary sources discussion
I just noticed that a discussion was going on of which I completely ignored its existence because I trust in the overviews of my watchlist to see what discussions are going on about subjects on their Talk pages. It turns out thatSub-pages are not automatically included.
Thus in case such separate discussion pages are set up, regulary summaries and/or remarks need to be given here for the wider audience, otherwise it becomes de facto off-the-record for the larger group of generally interested editors. In my case, I'm not at all interested in primary/secondary as it is irrelevant for this policy (but possibly many interested participants think differently and made a corresponding edit!), and anyway I did not notice the creation of that page on my watchlist.
Harald88 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which was my exact objection when the subpage was created.  I found the entire episode really troubling on many levels, this being one of them.  It completely splits off the discussion and de facto hides it from the rest of the editors. Wjhonson 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't start discussions on other pages without repeated mention on this page! 

message: I am hoping some expert WP:OR people can give some feedback on an article I stumbled on. Its a heated arguement of which I just tossed my coin into and walked away. I think the participants can use some outside advice on WP:OR or I can learn something if I am indeed mistaken. The article in question is Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and the issue seems to be if editors are allowed to cast events as terrorism or terrorist acts by comparing them to popular definitions of terrorism found in dictionaries. I concluded from the title that an allegation would have to be made directly, meaning a person has to actually say the word "terrorism" for their to be an allegation of terrorism. However its being argued that if what the person is alleging falls within a definition of terrorism then its the same thing. Example: John Forman (made up) states that "the United States took part in an intimidation campaign that was illegal and heinous." Would this be permissable? Any feedback given here or on the talk page is greatly appreciated. --NuclearUmpf 17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just my two cents and perhaps loads of people will disagree with me on this.  But it seems to me that John Forman's quote should not be attributed to any popular definition of terrorism.  Afterall, other dictionaries can use terrorism to be whatever they want regardless of NPOV.  Just use the quote as is without interpretation.  The word "terrorism" is a politically charged, loaded word.  It should be used sparingly, IMHO.  I'm not even sure why we would be TRYING to use it.  If someone uses the words "terrorism", then that is fine.  But putting words into people's mouths (especially living persons) is dangerous and should be avoided. -- RM 17:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm forced to agree with Ram-Man. Generally speaking, quotes such as the one your describe should only be interpreted to the extent that such interpretation is obvious and beyond dispute. The assignment of a word that, regardless of its denotation, carries a loaded negative meaning with it, may distort the speaker's intentions. Deco 22:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you all for your feedback, hopefully someone from that page will see this discussion. I left a link pointing them here. I will post a more obvious link and hopefully they can ask the experts regarding WP:OR questions. --NuclearUmpf 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nuclear, it's difficult to comment meaningfully because this is a bad article that probably shouldn't exist. But given that it does, it should use only reliable published sources who have alleged the United States engages in acts of state terrorism, and who actually use that term. No sources should be interpreted as meaning "terrorism" unless they use that word. It's a loaded term and we shouldn't attribute it to sources who chose not to use it themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I read the article I see it presents a lot of references.  Yet there is very very little hard information in it, its more like a pile of rising bread dough than a baked piece of bread.  The very first reference seems to be to a commercial site which seems to have that information on its site just to generate web traffic.  The article is so far from encyclopedic as to be useless to a reader.  It might make fair, inflammatory reading in a newspaper or something like that. Overly referenced articles make me suspicious, anyway, heh. Terryeo 18:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify many of the references are not of people alleging terrorism, but just supporting that the events happened, leaving the allegations themselves widely unsourced. That is a whole new basket to tackle I believe though. --NuclearUmpf 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was originally titled something along the lines of "State Sponsored Terrorism and the U.S.", or "American Terrorism" or something like that.  By and large, the title "Allegations..." is widely acknowledged among the posters as a bad title, but because of edit-wars and other vandalizations of the page it has been hammered out as a sort of temporary compromise.  Moreover. given that  A) the U.S. State Department uses the term, and B) it's widely heard and read in the U.S. media, then there is no possible way to argue that it's a "bad" article simply because it uses the word "terrorism";  in fact, the idea that an encyclopedic article should *avoid* loaded terms is peculiar to the Wikipedia crowd alone.  The main use i put encyclopedias to -- and most other folks, as well -- is to try to get a starting handle on difficult terms, and by avoiding such issues one winds up avoiding a large part of what encyclopedias are supposed to do.  Finally, the situation referred to above occurred because one poster objected that definitions which were introduced did not "adhere to wikipedia standards" because they introduced "neologisms" and "presumes new definitiosn of pre-existing terms".  It was only within that context that the dictionary definition was introduced:  as a demonstration that the definition being proposed was a) conservative, and b) widely accepted.  218.160.178.169 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia should support such conservative usage of terms as far as possible, precisely because by not doing so one winds up with a mash of rising bread dough instead of hard information.  The page in question has been frozen now for three weeks, without any return to normal editing status.  The only person who is allowed to edit it is an "approved" wikipedia "negotiator", who has done little besides excise entries to the article and accuse its editors of "not fulfilling Wikipedia standards".  When new information is introduced, it is immediately vandalized by contrarians who object that the word "terrorism" should not be associated with the United States -- even while the United States has itself created a defintion and defacto standard by which the suitability of the term can be measured.  The problem with the page is, in short, that the editors who created it are not being allowed to shape it into an objective and fair page, but are instead being repeatedly hampered by cynical and unrepentant "negotiators" and "administrators" who are a wee bit too politically delicate to deal responsibly with the issue.218.160.178.169 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: @SlimVirgin:  your assertion -- that no sources be allowed unless they explicitly use the term "terrorism" -- winds up conveniently excising 300 years of American History from any possibility of inclusion in the article.  I really don't think anyone would object to someone including a passage that speaks of a "battle" or "raid" in an article about warfare, nor does anyone here object to the inclusion of a "carrack" or "caravel" in the Wikipedia article on battleships.  That's because carracks and caravels are relevant to the history of battleships, and battles and raids are readily identifiable as forms of warfare.  If there is clearly documented evidence that the United States was, let us say, supporting squads of heavily armed people who would purposefully and methodically murder large groups of unarmed people in an otherwise peaceful or undefended place, then i really don't see how it matters whether or not some commentator does or doesn't use the word "terrorism" -- the example clearly falls under the standard, most conservative definition of the word (i.e. -- the use of violence to spread terror amongst civilians, specifically as a military tactic).  Moreover, by adhering to such a restriction, the considerable commentaries of people like Mark Twain, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau are all suddenly rendered mute on the subject, even though it is obvious from any cursory reading of their works that they were steadfast figures who vocally and brashly condemned the U.S. for its use of such methods. Of course, the word "terrorism" not having yet been invented, they didn't use it;  yet to say that they had nothing to say on the modern issue of terrorism, and that their works do not hold some important insight into how the topic relates to the U.S. in our current day, is by no means "scholarship" or "adherence to standards", but rather mere obstinate rejection of sources whose relevance is indisputable.218.160.178.169 22:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its libel to say "Mark Twain alleged the US commited terrorism in relation to the Cuban missle crisis" if Mark Twain merely said "The US commited terrible acts during the Cuban missle crisis. The situation is made up but the point remains. To take his comments and label them I think is against Wikipedia rules and possibly the law. I didnt see the arguement over the definition. I just seen a user arguing heavily that they can add events that fall under one of many definitions he found and even one general one that was similar to "acts of violence" or something far to the extreme. But their extreme example is exactly the slope people go down when we are allowed to change peoples words to things we feel they said, and not what they actually said. --NuclearUmpf 10:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback Please

message: Er, why is there a revert war here? I don't even see that much of a difference between the two versions. >Radiant< 21:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original reverts? 

message: Wikiversity does not exclude original researches. We should note this.--Jusjih 10:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a peer-review process for OR posted in Wikiversity?  I am concerned that adding the above language could allow someone to post their OR in Wikiversity and then immediately come into Wikipedia and reference their newly-posted OR, thus circumventing this policy.  --ElKevbo 14:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First thing is that Wikiversity does not yet have a policy on OR, so at the moment there is no way of circumventing policy.  Also, I'm sure someone else will provide the link, but I'm pretty sure that it is forbidden to reference Wikimedia publications as sources.  All sources must be external sources, so no, this can't be used to circumvent policy, at least AFAIK. -- RM 14:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  I knew Wikipidia could not be used as a source but I have never looked into whether or not Wikimedia could be used as a source.  Makes sense.  Thanks!  --ElKevbo 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should make sure someone else can verify this first though. -- RM 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of no problem to link from Wikipedia to Wikiversity (a new site) but I do not think using Wikiversity as a source a good idea.--Jusjih 15:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: While if you use NOR policy on its own, you could perhaps make the argument that other Wikimedia sites could be used as a source, this falls apart on Verifiability grounds.  The sources on Wikinews or Wikisource must be available from third-party sources in order to merit inclusion.  Original research on either of those sites would not satisfy the NOR and verifiability requirements (the two go together).  It also fails the reliable soure, since there is no way that original research on Wikinews or Wikisource could be considered verifiable unless it was backed by a reliable third party source or, in the case of Wikisource, a physical copy of a document. -- RM 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why it is a guideline.  No one would/should think twice about citing the text of U.S. constitution or GFDL from WikiSource, since that information is obviously from a legitimate third-party source.  In fact, I'd rather link to another wikimedia project in that case because then the data is "closer to home" and easier to access and link to.  Don't have to worry about links being broken, etc.  But again here, the point is that the information is backed by another reliable source. -- RM 18:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiversity 

message: "WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" .  Therefore, in regards to the idea of Original Research;  unpublished information is always original research and defined to be original research by NPOV.  This is why I propose we place "unpublished" in the first sentence.  I would propose the first sentence of this policy change from:
* Wikipedia is not the place for original research.  To:
* Wikipedia is not the place for unpublished original research.
*: Academia people will immediately recognize they can not publish their unpublished ideas at Wikipedia.  Also, including "unpublished" in the first sentence carries the idea presented by NPOV into this policy in an obvious way.  I think it makes this policy easier to understand and harder to misunderstand. Terryeo 17:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrying NPOV foreward into NOR 

message: Does math count as original research?
An example:
 
A reputable source says that X = 10. A different equally reputable source says that Y = 5. Is it OK to say that "X is two times larger than Y"?
More sophisticated example:
Car A has 2.0 liter engine and produces 240 hp. Car B has 3.0 liter engine and produces 215 hp. Is it OK to say "Car A is far superior to car B in terms of horsepower per liter of displacement"? --Itinerant1 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math 

message: An issue that I've seen a couple of times lately (Talk:South_Tyrol#Discussion & Talk:H._P._Lovecraft#Copyright) is the question of whether it's appropriate for original research to influence how an article is written, without actually appearing in the article itself.
My view is that this is not actually prohibited by the wording of WP:OR, and that a certain amount of OR at a meta-level is not just acceptable but necessary in order to comply with other Wikipedia policies.
For instance, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) says: "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..." This is something that would usually impossible to determine except by methods (synthesis from a variety of sources, straw-polling editors, interpreting Googlefights etc.) that would clearly violate OR if used for actual article content. Similarly, whether an image can be counted as 'fair use' often comes down to an editor's judgement based on synthesis and interpretation from previous examples. 
In these cases, while it would violate WP:OR for an article to say "the majority of English speakers prefer $NAME" or "the precedent of $CASE1 combined with criteria established in $CASE2 indicate that such-and-such would be fair use", it would be quite appropriate to name an article or include an image on the strength of that reasoning (provided other editors find it reasonable) and indeed this is often exactly how we handle it. But since there seems to be some confusion on this account, perhaps it would be useful for WP:OR to explicitly state that it only covers claims presented within articles, not meta-considerations? --Calair 07:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do approach fair use cautiously, but even there it tends not to be as stringent as WP:OR is on article text. If I present my arguments as to why an image is fair use, and none of the other editors see a hole in those arguments, that's probably enough; OTOH, in article space, even a very reasonable argument that seems plausible to other editors is quite likely to be deleted on the grounds that it's an original argument.--Calair 01:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OR in articles vs OR in talk pages