Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 5

message: Someone should point out that the theory of no original research, here displayed, is unpublished or, that is, is synthetic original research or a novel idea.  However, what I just wrote was such as well, and thus should be by this law removed.  It's just funny; I'm not being a dick.--Tyler Nash 08:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research or novel idea 

message: It's not just a matter of phone calls vs text, but of paper vs electonics. Many things have been around for years on the Internet, and are well-known within certain communities of experts, but have no paper version. There are theorems in mathematics called "folk theorems" since they are known but not actually written down anywhere.
Jimbo said this:
The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with
physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.'''
It seems to me that the Instruction Creep has gone way beyond this. Experts in 
a field, by no means self-selected cranks, are not allowed to discuss what they know. Gene Ward Smith 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paper vs web

message: Longest Streets in London was a list of named roads, sorted by length by Wikipedians into a ranked list. It had no references. It survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London and was then reduced to its present form: only two roads with length references. Clearly the sorting (and more particularly the implied claim of longest, second longest) constituted “original research” if anyone wanted to be picky (and some people were picky!). I tried to set a good example by adding  a long road with a length reference.
:* 11 - 12 miles: Western Avenue (part of the A40 trunk road). Multimap travel directions from Old Oak Common Lane Acton W3 to Denham Roundabout Denham UB9
This was twice deleted in good faith and with discussion Talk:Longest_streets_in_London#WP:NOR
Now, I’d be delighted to discuss over a pint of beer whether my reference was satisfactorily verifiable: I think it was. However, I find the “NOR” argument very difficult. I looked at a street atlas to see where the road went; I looked in a reference book to see it was constructed as a whole; I looked it up on Multimap (which confirmed the starting and finishing points); and I used Multimap to work out its length. Certainly this was a synthesis of published information but it was Multimap doing the length synthesis (at my request and in a way verifiable by Wikipedians).
# Was what I did “original research” by the (non-Wikipedian) standards of a reasonable, thoughtful and informed person?
# Was it a breach of WP:NOR?
# Should it be a breach of NOR?
# Could I have improved the reference to make it acceptable?
# Should NOR be changed?
# If my edit was indeed unacceptable in Wikipedia, should it have been caught by Verifiability rather than NOR?
As a footnote: I failed to find the length of Western Avenue either by using Google for a non-dynamic text reference or by using reference books. Could this be the “undisputed fact for which no reliable source could be found” which SlimVirgin has been seeking all this time :-) Thincat 13:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this one has been hashed out over and over and reasonable people have come down on both sides of the issue. I strongly feel that without some difficult to obtain information there are too many elements of decision involved for this to not violate WP:NOR and/or WP:V (keep in mind it has to meet both). What constitutes the same road? What are it's endpoints? You'd need a source that clearly answers both of those first. I think you're getting closer by using a mapping system and just reporting their numbers, but you need to answer the other questions too. Additionally what has been pointed out as another major problem is reporting a list of the 100 longest. Unless a source specifically lists "here are the 100 longest streets in London", then ranking them involves original research. How do you know you haven't missed some? But if you're just listing some long streets in London and you have a source for the end points and you report a number from a mapping system, then that seems to meet the OR and V requirements. - Taxman Talk 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thincat, if you can't find a source for the length, it doesn't have the status of an "undisputed fact," and therefore can't be one "for which no reliable source could be found," so no, you haven't found the Holy Grail. Nice try, though. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is utter insanity. Print publication does not imbue data with truthfulness or absolve it from dispute. To suggest that it does is nonsense. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is why you need to focus on higher quality sources and cite the source. Higher quality sources are reviewed more heavily by more talented people. So while they don't guarantee truth, they are more likely to be closer to it. So even though it's not guaranteed to be correct, as a rule it is one of the most important we can apply as a gatekeeper of what information we include. Truth is impossible, so the fact that this method doesn't guarantee truth is irrelevant. We apply it anyway. - Taxman Talk 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A practical approach (but making the point mute) would be to simply change the title into "Long Streets in London"... Harald88 21:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overstretched definition of “original research”? 

message: I wrote an article on this book, and included a synopsis. Then someone wrote comments on that, so I told him that was original research. Upon which he said that my writing a synopsis also constitutes original research. But as I understand it that is called 'source-based research'. Not sure though. Could an 'expert' (whatever constitutes that :) ) comment on this? 
And while you have a look, could you give your input on whether in a synopsis (in a section with a header that identifies it as such) one should include in almost every sentence that that is 'according to the book' (or something similar)? DirkvdM 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Synopsizing is not OR, AFAIK: see a previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive4#My_interpretation.  Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources "where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." it can be done. Esquizombi 15:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to solve the synopsis bit. But what about the criticism-section by StuRat? Without references that is OR, right? He claims to give criticisms of the book, but at best they're more general criticisms that might be applicable to the book. StuRat has read neither any specific criticisms, nor the book itself. A clear case of OR, I'd say. DirkvdM 09:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it fails the test of being "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge", because the book, and all sources provided by DirkvdM, are in Dutch, with apparently no English translations available.  Thus, a working knowledge of the Dutch language is required to review the book.  DirkvdM has used the fact that he knows Dutch to provide a rather one-sided article (no criticisms included) which can't be either verified or altered, according to him, by the majority of English Wikipedia editors, since they don't speak Dutch.  I have therefore placed a "no sources" tag on the article (meaning no sources verifiable by the majority of English Wikipedia editors). StuRat 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The question is simple: are the criticisms StuRat's, or are they criticisms made by others in published sources, that StuRat is reporting or summarizing?  If the former, yhen it is definitely a violation of NOR; if the latter, then StuRat will be able to provide verifiable sources and it is NOT a violation of NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Tag the section with  or move it to the talk page and ask for sources there, I think are acceptable options. Esquizombi 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[A turning point in national history]] 

message: 1. Is this a primary or secondary source?
Oral History Interview with E. Allan Lightner, Jr. Assistant Chief, 1945-47, and Associate Chief, 1947-48, of the Central European Affairs Division, Department of State
May one use reference to his conclusions or quote what he says?
2. Is this a primary or secondary source?
The President's Economic Mission to Germany and Austria, Report 3, March, 1947
May one use the text just as if it were an ordinary book?
3. Is this a primary or secondary source? Obviously primary I would assume?
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box32/t301h06.html
May one use reference to possible conclusions or quote what is said from such a letter?
May one collect a bunch of such letters and present them with a conclusion?
4. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_3_transcript.pdf
I assume whatever applies to no.3 also applies to this (no.4)?
All four examples come from "reputable" sources, and are published so everyone has access to them.Stor stark7 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to be primary sources.  Since they are verifiable they can be used in articles, but you cannot add your own interpretation or analysis of them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, allowed analysis comes from verifiable secondary (and tertiary) sources. Adding any interpretation that is novel ourselves violates Wikipedia:No original research, a peer policy to this one. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source Definitions?

message: I couldn't help but notice the comment in the project page on theories.  Given that Wikipedia has a good deal of scientific content, it is worth keeping in mind that scientists mean something very different by 'theory' than common use of the word.  Hence 'its only a theory' would to most folks mean that an idea lacks veracity.  But scientists speak still of the theory of gravity, and we should think twice about jumping from windows if we doubt the veracity of that theory.  In short: 'theory' in science implies consensus.  Cheers!Dmccabe 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See #How to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories above. ..dave souza, talk 13:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is a theory? 

message: In the age of pay per use or restricted access internet a source may be available to many but not all.  For example lots of 16th Century books are available to students and scholars at most major universities via Early English Books Online ('EEBO).  However, the price of this service and its limited interest means that it is not open to everyone.  If I cite a 16th century book available from EEBO is this original research.  1) The book quoted has been published (if only in the 1500s) and 2) the source is available to anyone with a University pass.  They are therefore verifiable but not by everyone.
*Hell no it's not original research.  Nor is it a verifiability problem, nobody says verification has to be easy. SchmuckyTheCat 18:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited Access Publications 

message: A discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archival materials is attempting to make an exception to WP:V and WP:NOR for material held in an institutional archive. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page, I was in fact doing nothing of the sort. First off, RFC has absolutely no power currently to change anything, I was merely trying to get some community thoughts, so the suggestion that it is an attempt to bypass these pages is insulting to me (please see WP:CIVIL). Second, I already did note the discussion on the policy talk page, I simply did it on WP:RS because that was the policy discussed in the RFA that spawned the discussion in the first place. Please do not assume something sinister from a simple discussion in the future. I would also ask that any and all readers of this talk page contribute however they see fit to the public discussion as it is just that. Staxringold 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to bypass WP:V and WP:NOR 

message: JA: Re:
[policy in a nutshell|Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any novel synthesis thereof that is designed to advance a position.]
JA: That last mutation by SlimVirgin, I imagine soon to be reverted, has the effect of confounding NOR with NPOV.  My brief experience in WikioPolis already tells me to be very wary of doing any more of that.  Jon Awbrey 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right: NOR is a protection against rubbish as well as a protection that editors don't need to verify research. But that last phrase seems to turn it into something that it wasn't meant to be; almost an interdiction to assemble information in such a way that we obtain the goal of a great new encyclopedia. Thus it sounds rather counterproductive. Harald88 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Leflyman, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. What is not allowed under NOR is a novel synthesis that is designed to advance a position. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, "A and B and C" is allowed. "A and B, therefore C" is not (unless already published). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confounding NOR and NPOV 

message: I just realised that my problem with the proposed wording of the policy in a nutshell is that I consider that a synthesis of published material, even if this synthesis is unpublished,  is not original research as long as it does not include any unpublished analysis, evaluation or interpretation of this material. Therefore, my proposal would be
:Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any synthesis of published material that includes an unpublished evaluation or interpretation of this material.
or even simpler:
:Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any unpublished evaluation or interpretation thereof.
There is not even a need to mention "synthesis" because it is not where the problem lies. 
-Lumière 03:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Synthesis might not be NOR per se, but the interpretation of material may indeed be combined in such a way that is totally novel or original.  If material is to be synthesised, it must be in accordance with a neutral point of view too. --Knucmo2 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitiely!  You are right. I never meant to say that all syntheses are fine, but only that we should not imply that all syntheses are original research. Moreover, though I do not mind that we refer to NPOV in the NOR policy, we should emphasize what is not acceptable in a synthesis from a NOR angle. In particular "to advance a position" sounds more like a NPOV issue, whereas to create new unpublished connections or new unpublished interpretations or new unpublished evaluations, etc. (of material considered in a synthesis) are NOR issues. We should emphasize the latter kind of issues, not the former. -Lumière 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Lumiere, I'm confused as to why you are continuing to insist on involvement in a month-old policy discussion, while you are currently under an RfC for user conduct? It doesn't appear to me that you are taking seriously why the RfC was called, or what the consensus there appears to saying. Rather than continuing to provide examples for those who are pushing to have you banned, perhaps you might better spend your time demonstrating that you understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is to actually edit articles, and not belabor policy minutiae. In fact, since you started this new account on March 14, you haven't made a single substantive edit to any article-- only reverting a disputed link and twice reinserting an NPOV tag to the same article.—LeflymanTalk 00:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis of published material is not in itself original research  

message: The original version of the policy in a nutshell before the dispute was:
:Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.
One problem with this original version is that it implies that every WP article is original research because a WP article is a new synthesis of the material that is contained in its sources. This modification, which is mainly the work of SlimVirgin, was an attempt to simplify the sentence, but it also had to deal with this problem. The solution proposed by SlimVirgin to solve this problem was to add the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" after "synthesis (of published material)". The reaction of other editors was not favorable (see #Confounding_NOR_and_NPOV), but SlimVirging explained his point in the following way:
:Hi Leflyman, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. What is not allowed under NOR is a novel synthesis that is designed to advance a position. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
My interpretation of this phrase is that a synthesis should not advance anything new. Note that, as pointed out by SlimVirgin, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. Therefore, it is fine to have a novel synthesis. The requirement is that this (novel) synthesis should not contain any new narrative or historical interpretation. More simply, it should not advance any new position. Therefore, I proposed this  small modification, which just added "new" in front of "position".  It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this revert. I also tried this other edit. It was not as good as my previous solution, which only added "new" in front of "position".  It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this other revert. 
However, I maintain that my first proposal (expressed in this  small modification) is perfectly in accord with the policy, as described in the words of Jimbo Wales. Can someone explain to me why SlimVirgin insists to revert a wording that is in accord with the view of Jimbo Wells?  The "new" (meaning "non verifiable") that I proposed to add in front of "postion" is important. For example, there is no problem if the synthesis advances an historical interpretation, as long as this interpretation is verifiable (not new).      -Lumière 06:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That looks OK to me. Harald88 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas; nor may they promote any novel synthesis of published material, without a verifiable source.
However, it does not solve the problem. What needs to be considered is the fact that every WP article promotes a novel (unsourced) synthesis of published material. Is it so hard to understand that it makes no sense to require a source for the synthesis as a whole?  It is not the synthesis (the WP article) as a whole that must be sourced because, of course, unless it is a copy of another encyclopedia article, such a source does not exist.  We need to specify what exactly must be sourced in the synthesis. The answer is simple: whether it is part of a synthesis or not, we must always provide a source for any theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas, or any interpretations or evaluations thereof. -Lumière 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute about the policy in a nutshell 

message: I notice that an edit war is taking place on an official policy page.
Instead: before making changes, consensus should be reached! Thus I revert the body of the article to the last version by KillerChihuahua (3 March). If this continues, the article will need to be protected. Please make sure to reach consensus about improvements before editing. Harald88 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert: please reach consensus before making changes 

message: There are many articles on Wikipedia which consist primarily of a synopsis of a work of fiction, or contain as a major component a synopsis of such a work.  These articles then proceed to use that work as a primary source to state a variety of conclusions about the work in question.  This raises questions such as:
#When does a plot synopsis become a (prohibited) "synthesis"?
#What level of detail can be plucked from a fictional primary source without becoming synthesis?
#When (if at all) can direct observation of a film/novel/videogame/etc be a valid source for a synthetic opinion or "fact" statement about the work in question?
I would argue that almost any plot synopsis that goes on for more than a paragraph or two falls into the category of synthesis, and that direct observation of a fictional work should not be sufficient sourcing for Wikipedia, as it is not source-based research, but (in the case of a fictional work), original research. -- Gnetwerker 23:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I'd say that if other published synopses are available, Wikipedians shouldn't write their own, except in a very perfunctory sense to give a general overview. Any level of detail that is contentious or analytical would be original research. We had this situation when some of the hostages in Iraq were killed. The murders were taped and Wikipedians were watching the videos and describing what they saw. On the pages I edited, I requested that only published descriptions be used, and even though some editors felt they were inadequate (newspaper accounts didn't give much detail for obvious reasons of taste), the NOR policy did hold up in the end. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Am I allowed to ask a question? Your example seems so good. Were the videos published primary sources? By "published", I mean  were  are copies available to anyone that requested them? -Lumière 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were posted on the Web by the group that killed the men. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I rephrased my question because I think that to count as a publication it must be relatively stable. -Lumière 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're probably still available, sadly. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the difference between describing what can be seen and descibing what can be read? IMO there is for this subject no fundamental difference between paraphrasing and description. Harald88 18:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopses of film/video/etc 

message: Although recently introduced with some reason, the expression "to advance a position" seems to overlap with NPOV, and is IMO a bit awkward; see also earlier discussions. I think to have found an improved phrasing, more to-the-point and easier to understand: Replace it by "to advance a new idea". Harald88 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what about it? As this phrasing appears to be the "child" of Slimvirgin (please correct if I'm wrong), it would be especially helpful to hear her comment before improving it. Harald88 21:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny, nobody commented on it, eventhough it relates to the problems of "synthesis" as well as "to advance a position" as again discussed below. And currently a summary is back in place on the protected page that effectively forbids to correctly (obeying NPOV) synthesize information from different sources...  Harald88 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "to advance a position" 

message: It's almost correct, but any unpublished analysis is OR, whether or not it advances a position. It's only the synthesis the phrase is meant to refer back to. Also, it shouldn't be "designed to" because it's not the intention that matters. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. Still, we need to qualify synthesis. How do you suggest we do that? I still think that we should focus on  NOR issues such as "advance a new idea", not on NPOV issues such as "advance a position".  -Lumière 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designed to advance a position 

message: I have sprotected this article (not the talk page) because of edits by an AOL anon.  I have no idea exactly what the edit conflict consists of here, but the anon is simply doing a blanket revert of everything, including various minor formatting and the Greek interwiki link.  It's not acceptable to revert all users' prior contributions in order to, in effect, assert unilateral ownership of an article, see Wikipedia:Ownership.  Leaving a message on this user's talk page is not possible because AOL anon IPs specifically don't have one. -- Curps 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Following a discussion in a FAC then an RFC the following proposal has been organized. Obviously if you have an alternative proposal, please voice it, and vote no matter what if you have an opinion. Basically the proposal includes 3 slight alterations to allow archives to be used as source on Wikipedia provided that additional information is included in the citation to prove the archives existence, public accessibility, and reliability. Staxringold 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ARCHIVES]]

message: ::What was the point of the above statement?  The community can read what has occured and they will see the truth thankfully. They can also read everthing that has been done to myself by the above two editors since arriving here, and further 'clean hands'?  I support your last statement with the modifier that 'minor' is really 'major'...it needs consensus to change...and therefore let us get underway to ferret this matter out, and not personal insults against any editor.  I have been saying this all along...collaborate, consensus for changes, work with good faith, challenge but don't resort to attacks, be civil...let us engage in proper discussion. --Northmeister 15:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Collaborate on what? Finding or making loopholes in policy? I'm sorry, but I do agree that two editors with limited edits in mainspace concentrating on a few articles are not in a position to lecture well-established Wikipedians on how to handle policy disputes. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Collaborate on changes made.  Whether you agree or not per your statement about editors, all editors have a right to make a point and to contest changes made against the policy of reaching a consensus on policy before adding definitions which change it. Are you argueing that changes can be made without consensus, that is contrary to wikipedia policy. Her changes (see below statement) are policy changes without consensus, not mere 'clarity' and are unacceptable without consensus. --Northmeister 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why continue these insults, let us engage in proper discussion to reach consensus

message: Everyone please stop messing with the policy page until a consensus is arrived at. It's not helpful, and it's arguably detrimental, to have one of the primary policy pages changing nuance every 20 minutes. Regardless of who is right or wrong here, it is especially important to follow proper consensus-building methods on the talk page; otherwise, the entire concept of "Wikipedia policy" is weakened. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, could you revert then to the original before the April 10th change, so we can discuss any changes and reach a consensus...that has been my point all along. Thanks. --Northmeister 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; for me to do so would imply I'm taking a position in this discussion, which I'm carefully not doing. I'm just observing the thrash, and the effect of the thrash. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The community has already reached a consensus on this policy. It is YOU who must win a broad consensus of editors (meaning at venues far broader than this talk page) if you'd like to change it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is so, where is it? I reverted to original version that was changed without any discussion or consensus here. That is legitimate until this is worked out. Let us now engage to form a consensus until then policy remains as it was prior to Slimvirgins unilateral change on April 10th. I am reverting here to uphold policy per the page itself and I ask protection of the original version until discussion reaches a consensus that is verifiable. --Northmeister 16:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you will revert yourself into an indefinite block, I predict. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Meanwhile, User:Irishpunktom has decided to jump into the fray with a blind revert; he's none too keen on me, which basically explains his sudden and entirely new interest in this page. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone stop... 

message: Edit wars are bad enough on actual articles.  But when it comes to a policy page, they are virtually inexcusable.  I urge warring editors to do two things: first, take a few days to discuss the underlying issues and specific proposals on the talk page, and actively seek out the views of well-established long-term editors (we all know that the ideal is for people to edit articles on topics they are knowledgable about.  With policy pages, the topic is Wikipedia and obviously the people who have been most active over a long period of time are the most knowledgable about Wikipedia).  Second, take a break from editing this policy page altogether and focus on actual articles.  Policy pages should never be as active as substantive article pages, and besides, it is the encyclopedia articles that this project is all about.  I urge people who are relatively new to Wikipedia to focus on contributing to actual articles and take time to understand the Wikipedia community and its policies by working on real articles, and return to the question of policy later. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was precipitated by SlimVirgin's attemp to write into the policy in the form of a hardy-veiled analogy, her own (mis)application of the policy to the [Norman Finkelstein] article.  --1010011010 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkuser, anyone? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, no. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, this was precipitated by people who have no idea what Wikipedia policy is, and who have hardly ever edited Wikipedia, insisting they know policy better than others have made tens of thousands of article edits using those policies.  People like you, for example, an editor with all of 6 article edits.  Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: William Connolley has unprotected the policy page.  Given that this is a policy page, and the number of reverts, I think page protection was warranted to allow for a cooling down.  And I think people need more than 25 minutes.  Given that this is a policy page and doesn't really need constant attention anyway (I mean, it is not like an article that people are constantly adding new information to), I see no real cost to protecting it for a couple of days. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has stated on his talk page that he wouldn't mind if you re-protected it. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi. Sorry for the confusion. Yes, re-protect is fine by me, I misunderstood the reasons for the protect I think: it looked to me just like a consequence of Northmeisters 3RR block, which appeared to have been fixed, and I didn't read all the talk here first... William M. Connolley 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Just in case it's not clear what's going on here, with all the flying back and forth, we have a bunch of new accounts and two accounts associated with the LaRouche movement trying to undermine tnis policy completely. Here is the diff to Northmeister's changes. He is trying to add that original research, including editors' personal views, may be added to articles so long it's not a "POV expression" of those views and so long as there's consensus to do so on the article talk page. His new version reads (emphasis added):
[Original research] also excludes POV expression of editors': personal views, political opinions, and personal analysis or interpretation of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold against the consensus of editors working on that given article. Further, original research includes any unpublished synthesis of published material that does not directly relate to the topic at hand and is meant to support an argument that consensus of editors working on any given article does not support. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, synthesis of related sources, or arguments published by Wikipedia must hold to a consensus of editors and be verifiable through published sources both online and in print.
The rest of his edit barely makes sense.
The intro to WP:V and WP:NPOV says of NPOV, NOR, and V that: "The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." I suggest we add that sentence to this page too when it's unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; what he called a "clarification" was actually a complete reversal of NOR.  Northmeister's new policy would actually allow original research, so long as it was not written in a "POV way", or even if it was, so long as there was a consensus of editors on that page that it should be included.  His re-write of the examples section introduced this new policy is well.  Perhaps he should have re-named the page "Wikipedia:No original research except when we really want to do it". Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No original research, unless there's a "consensus of editors" on the page to add it, and so long as it's not, in the opinion of those editors, a "POV expression" of original research, is a bit like saying you have to provide a source — unless you can't find one. Or you have to be neutral — unless you have very strong views. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the plus side, it would fix the problem of unverifiable sexcruft which can't be deleted because the subject is "notable" :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And The Game would get to be back in (although they apparently just found an actual bonafied RS that is being checked out now, which will render that argument moot). What other charming oddities can we think of? JoshuaZ 20:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: SlimVirgin hits the nail squarely with her comment, "Just in case it's not clear what's going on here, with all the flying back and forth, we have a bunch of new accounts and two accounts associated with the LaRouche movement trying to undermine this policy completely." Other new editors from at least one other cult (Transcendental Meditation) and other promoters of New Age mysticism are also working here to tear down barriers to publishing occult and pseudoscientific nonsense in Wikipedia. It is no coincidence that two of the more vocal Vandals at these gates (Lumiere and Keith Tyler) are also two of the most vocal Vandals at the [Natasha Demkina] article, trying to let in information from disreputable, self-published sources in support of the supernatural view. If the Vandals succeed, they will lower Wikipedia's editorial gates to the level of tabloids like the Sun, Weekly World News, Pravda RU, etc., which regularly publish stories promoting pseudoscience and superstitious nonsense. Askolnick 17:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to destroy the policy

message: 1010011010 says he does not find the Apple Pie example to be helpful.  I also find it a strange example of an article likely to be based solely on primary sources.  I looked at the current Apple Pie page.  As I expected, it's interesting, somewhat scholarly, and cites a number of sources, including secondary sources.  I was puzzled, until I realized that the experienced editors were still living in the dark ages of 2003.  They probably had in mind an
early version of the page, when the Apple Pie article really was just a collection of well-known facts.
So my proposal is to change:
* "(examples would include apple pie or current events)" to 
* "(examples would include this early version of the Apple Pie article or current events)" 
A few more comments regarding the blind spots of the experienced editors.  When 1010011010 raised this issue, SlimVirgin responded "Please stop posting to this page."  Someone else (who has otherwise been civil and responsive) said "you may want to sleep on it and read those articles again with a fresh mind."  I found these responses to be wrong-headed for two reasons:
1. A good way to craft a policy understandable to new editors is to listen to the reports of new editors, when they say that don't understand certain points.
2. If you have to "sleep on it," before understanding an example, it's probably not a very good example.
Ragout 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ragout.  By the way, everybody, Ragout and I have often taken opposing positions on the Finkelstein page.  You should all be ashamed of yourselves for letting newbies show you how to agrue rationally and with civility.--1010011010 03:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: change Apple Pie example 

message: I have a question regarding the way the NOR policy is to be interpreted. Assume that the person X has written the book Y and that there is a wiki article on the person X. Is one permitted to write that "in the book Y, X writes about/discusses/claims the subject/statement Z" solely based on the actual book Y, or does one have to cite a scholarly source devoted to the person X and his/her work Y? 
In other words, can the book Y be used as a primary source (even though the primary sources listed in the article don't include books) or do you have to use a secondary source that says that the book Y does indeed treat the topic / include the statement Z? 
--85.187.44.131 14:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may use the book as a source on Z so long as it's not self-published. If it is, you can only use it as a source about X himself (i.e. not about Z where Z is a person or an issue not directly related to X), and even then only with caution (which means you may use it only if it is not contradicted by published third-party sources, if it is not unduly self-aggrandizing, and so long as the material is notable). SlimVirgin (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you are SlimVirgin, then you can use a self-published source from Alan Dershowitz to advance the uncited assertion by James O. Freedman that the uncited source the Chicago Manual of Style exonerates same Dershowitz of plagiarism.  But you'd need a lot of nerd points to carry off a maneuver like that.  And don't try looking at the CMA yourself or SV will make an example of you. Literally. We want responsible source based research, but not if it's critical of Israel.   --1010011010 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending, to a certain extent, on the nature of Z - WP:NPOV may require careful handling of absurd claims which have never been repeated or deemed worth rebutting in reputable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless he has some claim to expertise I doubt it would be included in Earth. However, in an article on that person himself, if it were judged proper to have a segment of his article discussing his views on various topics, this could be included as "X believes the earth is flat." · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Now where in the policy is this distinction made between using Y as a source about X (allowed) and using Y as a source about Z (disallowed).  This sounds more like NPOV to me than OR. Where do you get "if Z...not directly related to X"?  Isn't that a judgement? That seems to be Katefan0's conclusion: she uses the word "judgment" rather than interpreting the policy based on its actual wording. The problem is that Jayjg and SlimVirgin resort to assertions based on their "authority" as "senior editors" rather than an intelligent interpretation and explication of the policy based on its actual wording.  They arbitrarily introduce convenient distinctions to rationalize their unilateral decisions. By the way, go look at SlimVirgin list of recent contributions/stubs.  They are all uncited assertions.  Where is the sourcing for these claims?  This is OR under SlimVirgin's absurd definition.--1010011010 03:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time you type a word into an article an editor judges whether it's relevant or not.  The judgement I was referencing was whether or not it would be relevant to a biographical article about (Person X) to include a section of his or her views on various topics. Every time editors contribute to Wikipedia articles they decide what's relevant to that subject and what's not. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right Kate.  I wasn't intending to be antagonistic to your post.  Just making the point that it is precisely a matter of the editor's judgement rather than some formalistic conception of OR that can be strictly applied.  When you try to do the latter, as SlimVirgin does (in a partisan way, no less), you rule out all source-based research, which is absurd.--1010011010 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well. Seems like the above poster gets it, Jayjg.  And no goofy persona with so many nerd points.  Just a regular joe with an IP address. How can that be?--1010011010 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Null and void page exists now - original page before April 10th is official - to wit:
The wikipedia policy page NOR which is not suppose to be edited in a manner to change policy without community consensus, which [edits on April 10th did], is now protected under an altered version. The original version can be accessed by all, and is the official version, until discussion, collaboration, and or a Straw Poll determines consensus. Hence, no editor is bound to adhere to the changes as the changes were made in violation of policy - regardless of what some editors keep writing about this - it is as clear as the State of Texas is big! :)  That said, I propose an official RFC on this matter be conducted to determine consensus, and I insist any editor abused by the 'new' langauge inform Arbcom or the Mediation cabal of such abuse and of the violation made per policy changes without consensus.  The original Version is different quite so from the one now protected which is a false version not confirmed by consensus and should as I stated be considered null and void for all intent and purposes of Wikipedia - as the proper procedure was not followed to change the wording which changes policy! As the opening box states:  
*
	This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Feel free to edit the page as needed, but please make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus before you make them.
As it calls for consensus, thus, no one is obligated to follow reconstructed policy without editor's consensus. --Northmeister 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Northmeister's original excessive capitalisation, contrary to netiquette and Wikipedia style guide, has been refactored. See: Capital letters, "Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis".—LeflymanTalk 22:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: North, are you were attempting to get people to listen to you? issuing pseudo-legalistic proclamations with use of odd use of capitalization will generally make people less inclined to listen, rather than more inclined. JoshuaZ 02:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I know, but I think an RFC to conclude this matter is best and I don't like the way I have been insulted here by Slimvirgin on several occasions, which amounts to personal attacks. I wanted to officially in no uncerntain terms protest in the highest manner what has happened to get people to listen whether they hate me for it or not - because what was allowed to happened is just wrong. I have a right, you have a right, and all editors have a right to expect policy to be followed and not abused.  If I enlighten just one Joe out there as to what has occured then I am satisfied.  I apologise about the way I did this above, but I had to respond to what was engaged in, with my inability to respond - especially the critique of my edit when I could not respond.  I have given my word not to respond here for two weeks.  I will stop here and respond no further out of respect for others.  Thanks and may the RFC commence and this matter be resolved in the right way and without personal insult and injury occuring above to users who protest the changes made without consensus building here. I fyou wish or anyone wishes to discuss this further then I am more than willing to respond on my talk page, I will do so here no further by my word. --Northmeister 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So start one.  It is trivially easy. And STOP SHOUTING :-)  Just zis Guy you know? 07:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, please go ahead! There has been too much uncontrolled messing around with this policy page. I myself don't have the time and energy to take it to RFC, otherwise I'd have done it myself last week. Harald88 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated my reasons when I protected the page and I urge Northmister to read my original advice.  When I protected the page, I protected it in the form I found it in.  This is following Wikipedia's page protection guidelines.  Another admin. unproteced it, but after consultation he agreed that it could be reprotected.  At that time other admins protected the version I protected.  This means that they disregarded one edit that was made at the time that the article had a banner stating it was protected.  The protected page is simply the verson I found when I arrived.  It is wikipedia to protect it in precisely that state.  To have done otherwise would have been to violate the policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, you protected the wrong version. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proclamation of protest against policy violation on N.O.R.

message: I see that a group of experienced editors are discussing restrictions on who can edit the policy page. 
In my view, the edit-warring on WP:NOR could be most effectively dealt with if editors would take the trouble to demonstrate consensus before making changes.  I know that many editors insist that clarifications and examples do not constitute "changes" and so can be made without discussion.  But this undermines the legitimacy of the policy (since, at most, only those with extensive experience can know if the changes really do have consensus).  Further, this view opens the door to "clarifications" contributed by anybody without discussion, again inviting edit wars.  Unless editors start building and demonstrating consensus before extensive edits, I predict the edit-warring will continue, and restrictions on who can edit the policy will surely be needed (again, jeopardizing the legitimacy of the policy).
SlimVirgin's recent changes took less than 6 hours (!) to go from conception to incorporation into the policy, hardly enough time for discussion.  I am quite pleased about my role in forcing editors to demonstrate consensus (even if it did have the appearance of insiders rallying together against outsiders rather than a genuine meeting of minds).  I see this talk-page discussion as healthy, not a "mess," and I'm only sorry it didn't take place before SlimVirgin contributed her "clarifications." Ragout 03:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They existed in policy for months; examples aren't new policy. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mess on WP:NOR 

message: I find it alarming that policy pages can be changed so easily to directly bolster an editor's argument in an edit war. 6 hours is not a discussion, it's a coups d'etat.  SlimVirgin has been pushing a particular interpretation of NOR to disallow certain material at the Israeli settlement article. She has met with considerable disagreement with her interpretation, even by editors who did not think the material was suitable for the article, bit did not agree that it was Original Research. This particular edit war directly concerns SlimVirgin's views regarding Synthesis of published material. I urge the community not to allow WP policy pages to become a mockery where admins make changes to bolster their position every time they get into an edit war. See Talk:Israeli settlement#Julius Stone. I certainly take this comfort: If SlimVirgin is taking the trouble to change the policy pages, perhaps she finally realized that the policy did not support her interpretation. Thank you.--AladdinSE 12:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether your basic point is valid or not, your comment ignores all the discussion on this page for the past several days.  Slim Virgin, Jayjg, an a half dozen other users have argued that Slim Virgin made absolutely no changes to the policy.  If you cannot respond to their specific arguments an reasoning, it is hard to know how to respond to (indeed, even whether one should respond to) your comment.  I urge you to read what others have written and actually join the conversation, rather than make points that ignore a considerable discussion of the issue. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition to Slrubenstein's cogent point, I might add that just yesterday you apologized for not understanding (and violating) the WP:3RR policy.  Given the simplicity of the 3RR policy, is it possible that you have also misunderstand the rather more complex and subtle WP:NOR policy? Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was no change to the policy, why was the text changed?  The previous text was perfectly clear.  Did the people who changed the text have difficulty understanding the policy?  The new wording about "advancing a position" is less clear and more open to interpretation.  It convolutes the meaning and intent of NOR.  Already people are arguing about nuances in NOR that were never there to begin with.  There is simply no reason to have the additional text because everything must be cited.  Uncited material should be deleted out of hand and this includes synthesized arguments.  The additional text will give editors a reason for to add original research under the guise that it doesn't advance a position when in fact that was never a criteria. --Tbeatty 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was changed because editors like Ragout and 666 (below) kept showing up and arguing they could advance new positions without violating NOR. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either substantiate that accusation or desist from your disruptions and violations of WP:CIVIL.  Ragout and I were largely on different sides of the plagiarism issue.  If you knew what you were talking about you'd know at least that.  It was Finkelstein who accused Dersh of violating the Chicago Manual of Style and it was Dersh who referred to it in his own defense. There was never any new position advanced.  For someone with a million nerd points you don't seem to get the picture.--1010011010 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Alladin.  SlimVirgin changed the policy and then look how many times she went and referred complainants at Israeli Settlements and Norman Finkelstein to the policy.  What a cheat!--1010011010 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not desist from your disruptions and violations of WP:CIVIL, you will be blocked.  Please take this statement seriously. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha!  Go read WP:CIVIL yourself and then we'll talk.--1010011010 04:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last chance. Jayjg (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a load of yourself.--1010011010 05:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1010011010, you shouldn't assume that you can adopt Jayjg's standard of civility.  He's an admin, and is apparently allowed to tread much closer to the incivility boundary than us commoners. Ragout 05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Jayjg, what "disruptions"? The policy page is protected, so 1010011010 can't be disrupting that.  Could you please spell out exactly how comments on a talk page can constitute disruption?  I ask this in all seriousness, and I hope I'll get a serious reply. Ragout 05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See your comment above, about me being "allowed to tread much closer to the incivility boundary than us commoners"?  That's an example of a violation of WP:CIVIL.  People who do that don't get serious replies. Jayjg (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Accusing you of incivility does not constitute incivility on my part.  Nor does noting that your incivility has been at least as serious as 1010011010's.  And if you're going to charge folks with "disruption," much less threaten sanctions, I really think you should be prepared to explain what "disruption" means. Ragout 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ragout, have you suddenly been appointed to some sort of administrator overseer position on Wikipedia? I wasn't aware of that.  Please re-review WP:CIVIL, and please use this page for its intended purpose, discussing article content. Jayjg (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, my comment about your incivility was directed at 1010011010, not you. I know how natural it is to adopt another's uncivil tone during a discussion.  I was urging him not to be baited by you into rudeness, since you have a lot more power than he does.  I could have complained to you about incivility after almost comment you've made to me, but I have no interest in "overseeing" you.  Your punishment for incivility is the fact that every rude comment you make undermines your credibility. Ragout 06:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 1010011010, directing rudeness and aggression against editors whose standing in the community is as high as Jayjg's probbaly says more about you than it does about them.  I suggest you calm down and take things less personally.  Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But new text was not needed to argue that unsourced material should be removed.  The problem isn't that NOR somehow allows synthesized views.  It doesn't.  Nor would it qualify under "source all claims".  But the new wording will give cover to those that want to have new interpretations.  In fact, I would argue that the changes have created more harm than good and should be reverted.  --Tbeatty 06:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing policy pages to bolster one's own position in an article edit war