This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Please comment on the following proposed version for WP:synth. It differs from the present version only by replacing the two examples currently in the section with a link to a page that contains the two examples. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. For examples see Original synthesis at Wikipedia:No original research/Examples.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
Comment of requester: This is an improved version that has a size that makes for better reading and communication and has a link to the examples, instead of having them in the section. I think it is a mistake to have most of
WP:SYNTH filled with examples since it takes up too much space compared to the other more important parts and obscures them. --
Bob K31416 (
talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Re Fuhghettaboutit's comment: "Moreover, those who would find reading through them too much to handle are, in any event, exactly the types who aren't likely to visit a linked satellite page." - If they found the more complex example too much to handle and stopped reading, they would miss the important last paragraph of the section which comes after the examples. How would all of you feel about putting the last paragraph after the first paragraph and then have the examples follow?
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
A simple example of original synthesis:The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts are true, the sentence implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how, when no source is provided, facts can easily be manipulated:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.
The following is a more complex example of an original synthesis. It is based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones:
Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
Now comes the original synthesis:
If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
The first paragraph was properly sourced. The second paragraph was original research because it expressed the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.
I took the liberty of copying the following comment of Blueboar from the section below: Are there other issues.-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please note that this proposal involves no policy change. It moves the last paragraph in WP:SYN to the position of being the second paragraph, and changes the beginning of the resulting third paragraph from "A simple example:" to "A simple example of original synthesis:". The consensus consists of support from 4 editors including myself, and an unclear position from another. Otherwise, there have been no objections since the Alternate proposal was first proposed Sept 3 2009, almost 2 weeks ago. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
From the earlier discussion, it seemed that two changes had potential consensus:
Current version | Proposed version |
---|---|
(First sentence of SYN section:)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (Last sentence of SYN section:) Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. |
(First sentence of SYN section:)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (Last sentence of SYN section:) Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. |
For the reasoning behind these proposals, see the discussion above. I would like us to raise an editprotected request to implement these changes. Before we do so, are there any objections? -- JN 466 18:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
There's an ambiguity in the following part of the proposed version:
Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic...
Is the editor doing the focusing or is the source doing the focusing? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources and summarizing their claims in your own words..."
Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context.
Okay. The current policy wording is,
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
Looking back on the comments made in the above discussion, would anyone have an objection to the following wording?
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
-- JN 466 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the article topic in the most reliable published sources and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
If a book on the American Civil War is among the most reliable published sources on Ulysses S. Grant, then I agree it would be best practice to cite it. That sort of thing often happens with minor topics that tend to be covered in works with wider scope, rather than having entire books devoted to them. I think the proposed wording allows that. Note that "reliable sources on the topic" is part of the present wording of this sentence; it never seems to have caused a problem. Could you live with the text as proposed? A number of people above said they liked it. JN 466 10:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by summarizing the claims from the most reliable published sources in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by summarizing the claims from the most reliable sources in the relevent field in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
{{
editprotected}}
I think we can implement the first half of the above proposal. It was previously discussed
here and has attracted support from all editors who commented on it. The change involves adding the words "or imply" to the first sentence of the SYN section, so it would then read as follows: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (The second half of the proposal is still under discussion and should not be implemented at this time.) Thank you.
JN
466 17:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I believe we now have a version for the second half of the above proposal that enjoys broad support, per the above discussions. The change involves revising the last sentence in the SYN section, which currently reads as follows:
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
to the following:
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
The proposal was first discussed at #Proposed_SYN_changes and enjoyed broad support then; it has only been tweaked since then ("sources on the topic" rather than "sources focused on the article topic"). This is probably still not the final and best version, but I think there is a general sense that this adds value over and above what we currently have. The good is not the enemy of the perfect. ;) Thanks. JN 466 21:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Please add this [[bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়]] instead of [[bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়]] because our wikipedia namespace changed.- Jayanta Nath ( Talk| Contrb) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that this page has been protected for a while. I hate seeing policy pages like this fully protected, because then things stagnate. We're a wiki! Sometimes there will be disagreements over exact wording on the policy page. That's okay! The idea is to compromise through edits and discussion on the talk page. Hopefully we can avoid the revert-based edit wars that happened leading up to the protection. It's important to discuss things on talk pages, but it's also important for people to boldly make edits and for others to edit those contributions *thoughtfully*, not simply with a revert or an undo. Most of the history of this policy is people making thoughtful contributions in an honest attempt to improve things. Even the bit of reverting recently was done in good faith, but hopefully we can move on. Especially considering that many of the involved editors have been around Wikipedia for a long time.
So, unless there is a good reason not to, I'll be unprotecting this page soon.
Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 03:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
OK... I think we have consensus on at least some of our issues regarding the SYNT section (see above)... are their other issues we need to discuss? Blueboar ( talk) 14:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Consensus? I don't know. It surely seems that for years up until now there hasn't been. Perhaps consensus has been reachedas of 16 September. I suggest the participants make a mental note to re-examine the idea of consensus in three months to see if, based on the dearth of discussions on the topic appearing here, consensus has been reached. Three months being just before Christmas let's add a month and make the (personal) re-evaluate date be January 16, 2010.
Just as Wikipedia values verifiability over truth (which does get to be over-expressed as a concept at times) I value consensus over reasonableness. So if there's consensus, even though I disagree, that will suffice. (With luck I may never even look here again. Well, luck plus self-discipline. Mostly the latter.)
Currently (and for a long time) the discussion has been wrongly focused. It is new ideas that are to be shunned, and that is a good policy and a reasonable one. New ideas can appear, Wikipedia just is not the place for them. Great. The entire discussion of synthesis appears to have arisen from real or imagined cases in which some editor took (or might take) established ideas from one or more sources and combined them to create a new idea - or at least a new approach to a way of striking a blow in some long-lasting dispute (that extends far beyond Wikipedia but rages on Wikipedia.) As far as I can recall all the examples that have been presented would also fail to appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica (which doesn't have such a strict no-new-idea) rule. They'd fail to appear because they simply are not encyclopedic, because the EB likewise isn't a place to strike partisan blows. The examples are, then, to me bad examples: they'd not pass muster even for an encyclopedia that does allow synthesis.
As appears above the original example of forbidding synthesis has resulted now in an absolute prohibition of logic. That's excessive. The synthesis example started as an attempt to illustrate one possible way that new ideas might be introduced and (correctly) pointed out that this is against the intended nature of Wikipedia. But it (of course) got Wiki-lawyered. Forbidding logic also forbids the use of logic to amplify the ideas implicit to a topic but perhaps not anywhere explicitly stated. EB is, after all, limited in size in a way that Wikipedia is not: terseness has to apply somewhere lest the work grow to the size of a full library (even doubling in size would be problematic for the printed version.) A major strength of Wikipedia can be that it is unlimited size enough that a fuller explanation on a significant topic can be made. Wikipedia, too, could welcome proper synthesis.
The test is whether the synthesis creates a new idea. I maintain some ideas are so inherent in a subject that logically combining two ideas to create a 3rd does not actually create a new idea, it only creates a new way of viewing the topic. That can be useful.
But look above: I favor consensus over reasonableness. So if true consensus is reached it is time to celebrate. If, however, months more pass and consensus still eludes (as shown here by continued discussion on the same topic) perhaps it is time to reexamine the matter from a fresh start. If months pass and the discussion has not ended that appears to me to be prima facie evidence that there is not consensus. I would guess it is still indicated, in the article on consensus, that never-ending discussion is evidence of the lack of consensus. It would be a major misdeed to alter the consensus article to remove that thought. Minasbeede ( talk) 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just come across the essay Wikipedia:Conceptualization, which appears to me to be a complete contradiction of WP:NOR. I was thinking that it should either be userfied or deleted, but I was looking for other input first. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
After careful study of the policies and examples, I still can't really tell where the line is drawn. Does the policy on synthesis actually forbid pure syllogistic reasoning? Does it make a difference if the major and minor premises are both contained within the same source? It would seem from some comments that "Socrates is mortal" would in fact be regarded as inadmissable original research if it was not stated as a specific conclusion. If this is the case, what about the limit case of two-valued logic? If a source states that "X is true", is the statement "Not X is not true" an original research synthesis, or simply a restatement? Personally I would think common sense would prevail in favor of commonplace logic, but wp:common sense tells me that there is no common sense, only existing agreements. Ben Kidwell ( talk) 08:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A Request for Comment has been posted at WP:Civil concerning reversion using the one-line Edit Summary. It is suggested that such summaries that employ WP:OR require a Talk page back-up that provides specific indication to the contributing author of just what it is that makes the reverting editor believe WP:OR is applicable. Please take a look and comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The proposal at One-line Edit Summaries found few supporters, as many felt that any mandatory requirement upon the one-line Edit summary was onerous. However, a modification of WP:Civil was made suggesting that on-line edit summaries be explicit. I have imported a version of the text added to WP:Civil modified somewhat to apply to this guideline. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering. Surely baseless troofing and fringe physics must have a home somewhere! — Rickyrab | Talk 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we need a slight clarification of the policy in relation to WP:BLP. In practice we tend, rightly, to use information published on eg a university website for factual information about a person, even though in practice this information is usually supplied by the person in question. The logic I think is that a university would be very unlikely to publish this information unless it were believed to be reliable, and if anyone spotted an incorrect claim they could rapidly email the part of the university responsible. If people are listed in Who's Who or similar publications then their biographies, although published by this 3rd party, are invariably sent to the people involved for checking and amendment. Again it is very unlikely that there will be false claims made, because if there were the editors would be informed and this would lead to embarassment or possible de-listing. Thus I think for the purposes of this policy applied to factual BLP bio-information from reputable publishers where there is 3rd party editorial control should be considered a secondary source, even if the information is derived from the biographee. What do people think? NBeale ( talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I have reverted this because it incorrectly identifies BLP sourcing as being less restrictive than other articles (where in fact it is generally the opposite), and also because primary information is allowed in all articles, with proper care and appropriate restrictions. Crum375 ( talk) 14:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a hypothetical situation: Let's say a Wikipedia editor wants to have his bio on Wikipedia, but unfortunately for him it has been deleted one, two, three, four times in 2½ years. Now, his first strategy for getting the article back in Wikipedia is to simply park it in his userspace, and appeal on his blog for all and sundry to restore it. But, despite the fact that several 5 or 10 edit Wikipedians restore it to article space, it keeps getting deleted. You see, as it turns out, his biography relies almost entirely on primary sources, or biographies written by the subject himself and published in tertiary sources (Debrett's People of Today and the Faraday Institute) without any fact checking. So, what's a fellow to do? Well, he might publish some nasty slander on his blog, but the blog route didn't get him too far before. Or, he could try to change the WP:NOR policy to include the sentence Note however that primary sources which are published by reliable third parties may generally be used for factual information in WP:BLP. Because, of course, once that is part of the policy, he can then use it to insist that his Debrett's People of Today and the Faraday Institute bios are now reliable, and thus prove his notability and worthiness of a Wikipedia article. So, in this hypothetical situation, would it be a good idea to actually create a special exception to a fundamental content policy so that this individual can finally stop his bio from being deleted? Or would it be better, perhaps, to simply leave policy as it is? Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
All this ad-hominem stuff and references to clearly wiki-political deletions (have we ever deleted anyone else who has written a WP:N book?) is perhaps mildly amusing, but doesn't address the problem that Wikipedia has a bad reputation with some key people (the Chair of that v well known media group was scathing) because we don't do a good job on BLP. I'm not suggesting that we use OR or primary sources to establish notability, but the policy here as written just doesn't fit with what professionals, or most Wikipedia BLP articles, actually do. Those who care about building a serious encyclopedia, rather than playing RPGs, might care to consider a re-wording. I'll steer clear to avoid irrelevant distractions. NBeale ( talk) 21:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
When reading articles on geology, it is often painfully clear to me that experts have not written the articles. Why is this? Prohibiting original research is a very broad brush, and - though absolutely necessary - doesn't distinguish well-reasoned explanation from the incorrect ones. After a few decades of research or teaching, experts likely can't remember whether the reasoning that makes a difficult subject simpler was created themselves or borrowed. It doesn't matter to lectures or journals, as long as the explanation isn't a significant part of the presentation. But, it matters here.
As an example, I am able to write 'any theory of heterogeneous buffering in thermodynamics will likely be based upon equations relating the derivatives of a characteristic function', but only if I can find it somewhere in the published literature. This is not likely, and no good teacher feels 'facts speak for themselves'. Many students pay exorbitant tuition to hear what the Wikipedia prohibits. However, I agree that the dangers of allowing 'well-reasoned explanation' are too great: it invites opinionated, poorly-reasoned ones.
Ironically, allowing statements from current texts, which I was told was preferred to 19th Century, primary literature, allows knowingly false statements to make it to the Wikipedia. Statements in texts are often inherited, slightly changed, from earlier generations of texts. The primary literature's statement proves either absent, very different from current statements, or was itself just an opinion.
Texts written (not from love but) for mass sale to U.S. state colleges are commonly referenced, but are known to be, essentially, collections of obsolete and even 'false' statements. Experts just wince & stay away. Contributors do not. Experts have read the original, primary literature and often can easily list the best articles on the topic (some are chapters in early texts or monographs).
The Wikipedia had the opportunity of inviting the best experts to write articles of interest to them. These have likely already been written, and the owning of articles is a problem in itself. (In my years of making corrections or suggestions in Talk pages, not one has been adopted.
How to attract experts and understand why they are not contributing is undoubtedly something the Wikipedia has addressed. This contribution is to suggest that prohibiting 'original research' has, to expert teachers, thrown out their babies with original explanation.
Better people than I may think of a solution. The only objective modifications I can suggest is (1) limiting the use of introductory texts to stubs, and (2) reminding authors that science is made of theories, theories we all hope will be false tomorrow. Dogmatic explanations are not scientific ones. This problem deserves better thought than I can offer. Geologist ( talk) 11:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.
It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.
Illness has caused my absence; but I wish to thank each of you for your excellent suggestions (and nice reference). Distinguishing a new presentation from new content is difficult. My apology for not yet reading the fundamental papers of the Wikpedia. There is a problem with referencing both books & journals in that many books being referenced are not of high quality (and experts are not even aware of them); and some experts read only a paper's data (geologists go for the map), ignoring the author's personal interpretation of it. Authors here cite only the personal interpretation.
May I offer here a quick observation of two problems the principal editors may wish to address; problems that do not appear in highly edited encyclopedias. The first is that of audience, and the second is that of presenting science dogmatically.
My old 'Encyclopedia Britannica' wrote to two audiences: the beginning of the article summarized the following content for everyone; and the following content was often for specialists. It was usually a history, pointing them to classical papers in the literature. This made an encyclopedia the place to look for an introduction to a subject and a list of highly regarded books to continue one's study. A specialist need not learn his discipline from an encyclopedia.
Examples
Fundamental to all sciences is the the 'equivalence class', a collection of objects having in common a list of properties. This should, consequently, be one of the Wikipedia's best articles, simply written for varying audiences. Equivalence class
Second, science changes regularly, and empirical objects or phenomena should not be presented as theoretical objects, when they are not. It is common in good secondard references to present the object & question, then a history of explanations, ending with the current one. Every primary reference ends with a personal opinion of the article's importance. Scientific articles should name the theory used when offering an explanation. Older 'Encyclopedia Britannica' articles usually offered a history of theories. Being written by experts, they never offered definitive explanations. Volcanic Arc
What I could do, from bed, is possibly start a history (for some subjects) of the better articles & books (possibly annotated) that the reader would want to consult for details. All pretty much agree which these are, and they could offer the reader expert presentations on the different theories. I shall, of course, read the fundamental articles here before contributing anything (but these criticisms :-) Thank you both for the clarifications! Geologist ( talk) 23:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
At WT:N I have argued that if a topic is not sufficiently notable to have a reliable source in English, then it is probably not sufficiently notable to have an article in the English Wikipedia, but most others disagree. But that discussion has lead me to this argument: If a given topic has no reliable sources in English, then creating an article in the English Wikipedia on that topic means creating the only, the original source in English for that topic. That seems to me to be a violation of NOR, in spirit if not in letter. I mean, isn't doing research about a topic in non-English, and not using any sources that are in English, and then writing about it in English, original research by definition? Comments/ thoughts? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
First, Blueboard, the issue I've raise here is different from those other places. Related? Sure. Same? No way. The question at issue here, and relevant to this page, is whether creating the first and only source on a given topic in English is original research. This is a very different question and issue then what is being discussed on those other pages, and the answers here are very different.
Sjakkalle's answer is particularly helpful because it essentially points out that since WP article writing in general is not OR, then writing the first one that happens to be in English is not either. I think that is a very good point, and I accept it.
As to Bob's concern, that belongs in the dicussion at WT:V since it is about verifiability. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion interviews are exclusively primary sources. Most interviews are conducted by a third-party (not directly involved with the subject) and often include an introduction. If that introduction were taken out of the interview and put by itself it couldn't it be considered a secondary source? Furthermore, interviews include comments as well as questions. Couldn't those comments should be considered secondary as well? - Stillwaterising ( talk) 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose a change to the guideline: "Interviews can be considered a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Statements made by the person(s) being interviewed should be considered primary sources. Statements and comments from the interviewer may be considered either primary or secondary sources, depending on context." - Stillwaterising ( talk) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I just added a quote to the lead and am wondering if it is formatted properly. I wanted to give credit to the author and used a diff as the reference. Would it be more proper for the author to make the edit so that there would be no quotations marks and the edit history would be the only credit given, or is using a diff to give credit okay? The reason I added the quote is because I don't see this very important aspect covered in the article. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the previous discussion on this has just been archived, prematurely in my view since this is still an ongoing topic as evidenced by the project page edit history. In order for this change to be accepted a much wider consensus is warranted because this does represent a significant change to a core policy and it is not without issues. Citing WP:NOTOR and presenting it as a simple cross referencing exercise between different policies is not valid: WP:NOTOR is not policy or even guideline and has no formal recognition. The original proponent of this change (Brews Ohare) was censured recently by ArbComm for applying these kind of "simple" logical deductions to controversial or simply plain wrong effect, and then arguing that these changes are above reversion since they are somehow reliably sourced: I suspect part of the motivation for this change is simply sour grapes.
The problem is that this kind of process can be used to mask problem areas or elide over huge areas of controversy. To take the very example cited one areas and sub-areas, consider Stanley. Stanley is in the Falkland Islands. I daresay we could find an official Argentine source that describes the Falklands as Argentine, and we will presume for the purposes of illustration such a cite has been found. Therefore we can infer that Stanley is in Argentina. This is clearly not consistent with NPOV.
For a more clear demonstration of a logical fallacy this allows, consider the number zero. [8] states "the positive integers are the same as the natural numbers". [9] states the natural numbers are "the set {0,1,2,…}". In combination this shows that natural numbers are positive and that zero is a natural number. Therefore, zero must be a positive number. This is obviously nonsense.
In each case the logical step is perfectly valid but leaves out a central element. If that central element is problematic then the deduction is invalid. These are simple examples and so easy to see through - it is easy to see that the problem in the first case is the sovereignty of the Falklands which is disputed. In the second case it is the lack of consensus as to what constitutes a natural number. Spotting problems such as these in more obscure topics may not be so easy. That requires genuine expertise in the subject area - we need someone considered reliable to make the connection to establish that it is a valid one. This is why we have NOR in the first place. CrispMuncher ( talk) 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Simple logical deductions
This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. 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.
Some of this discussion seems to be about the adequacy of the premises. There is no argument that the premises have to be sourced, and may be challenged by any editor. Given the premises, however, it is very difficult to imagine a situation where the use of simple syllogism can be argued about, as any automaton could use the premises to reach the conclusion. I believe Russell and Whitehead showed this to be the case. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in my personal experience, denial of simple syllogism has been used multiple occasions as a pretext to require verbatim statement of a result obtainable by simple syllogism using sourced premises, and I'd guess from the discussion above opposing this simple addition, there are many here that would do the same. Without such a statement, obstructive editors can exclude material they just don't wish to see expressed by requiring verbatim statements, or lazy editors simply can avoid thinking about what is wrong. I'd go further and support Count Iblis. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Before we modify a core content policy (with all the risk of unintended side effects, loopholes, and consequences, especially with respect to future wikilawyering and legalistic reading of policy), could the proponents – or anyone else – supply some examples of cases where uncontroversial logical deductions or syllogisms have been removed from articles? Wikipedia has managed for many years without this particular proviso written into WP:NOR, I see two possible explanations. First case — this has been an ongoing problem, and good, encyclopedic content has been removed on the basis of too-narrow reading of WP:NOR. If that is the case, there ought to be ready examples of this damage to the encyclopedia, and a modification to this policy is called for. Second case — there isn't evidence of a problem here. Common sense already generally prevails, and the proposed change would be an attempt to outlawyer potential future wikilawyers with more wikilawyering. Frankly, that never works, and it encourages the idea that editors must be slaves to the specific, codified, yet mutable wording of {policy} pages.
So, what specific instances of reasonable deductions and uncontroversial, logical syllogisms have been removed from Wikipedia articles based on a misreading of the existing policy? In those instances, has the beneficial material eventually been restored under the guidance of experienced editors? Briefly, can someone show me examples of the problem we're trying to solve, or are we fixing something that isn't broken? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I will paraphrase an example to avoid conflict with my topic ban that includes all physics. Source A said a system called "abra" was characterized uniquely by a certain set of parameters. A source B said a system called "cadabra" was characterized uniquely by the same parameters. I said "abra" was a synonym for "cadabra" The resisting editor said I had no source that said "abra" was "cadabra" and therefore this statement was [[WP:OR} and [[WP:SYN]. Obviously, the resiting editor understood the matter perfectly. However, their position was that it violated guidelines and could not be included without a verbatim quote from a reliable source. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to request a bit of imagination here to envision a reasonable example of this sort, and not request very specific detail that I am not allowed to go into. Suffice it to say, in the case at hand, there was absolutely no way to misconstrue the identity of "abra" and "cadabra", and yet objection was raised because the terms appeared in different sources. Eventually I found a source that used both terms synonymously and I made a verbatim quote. However, I had to look high and low because most sources used one term or the other, and not both. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC) The point here is not whether I am delusional or lack sophistication of mind, but whether such obstruction or confusion (whatever you want to call it) should be countenanced. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
How about common sense: if other users cannot follow the syllogism, then it isn't simple. Angryapathy ( talk) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Logical deductions
This policy does not forbid logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C.
Logical deductions
This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, for example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. Editors must agree that the deduction is likely to reflect the intention and understanding of a source's author at the time it was written. Deductions are not acceptable where it is unclear that the deduction would be obvious to or even accepted by the source(s) on which they are based.
In the event of a lack of consensus over whether a source fulfils this criteria the presumption should be against reliance on that source as evidence for the deduction.
This is of course open to judgement in any particular case but the default case in favour of non-reliance would hopefully prevent disputes spiralling out of control - if it is controversial it is not allowed. The intention at the time of creation seems pretty fundamental to me too. I think the last thing we want is sources being combined to show points that were not apparent at the time they were written. CrispMuncher ( talk) 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Logical deductions
This policy does not forbid logical deductions, provided all editors agree. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C.
It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.
<outdent>Count Iblis, I read the proposed guidelines that you mentioned and I could support them except for the part which says,
It does not constitute WP:OR to provide the logical connection between sourced premises and sourced conclusions, since “Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.”
It appears that this part allows, for example, original proofs by Wikipedia editors of unsolved mathematical conjectures. This goes beyond "carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material". Paraphrasing the quote that I mentioned in a previous message, "It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's [complex deduction] is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that." However, we are equipped to determine whether the simplest kind of deductions are valid, like those similar to the example in the proposal.
Re "Logical deductions and reasoning is needed very often when you read technical articles or books. This is then purely to understand the sources, not to do any original research. " - It seems that you are referring here to the normal process of editing that is allowed by the policy, "carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material", rather than including in an article a description of one's own complex deductions and thought processes. This of course is already OK, since editors don't describe in articles the thought processes that they use in summarizing and rephrasing sources. Also, along the lines mentioned in your guidelines, discussion of these thought processes on the article's talk page is OK. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Jayjg. In addition to previous problems, the current proposal substitutes two cans of worms for one. Under this wording the wikilawyers gain a wedge to claim that local consensus can trump policy. Durova 351 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears Michael C. Price thinks a majority of editors are able to be logical, so a majority view would trump illogical thought. However, the advantage of logic is that it transcends a majority opinion. Why would it be hard to point out that this argument is invalid because "all A is B" does not imply "all B is A" , or possibly because "some terrorists kill people" doesn't mean "all terrorists kill people"? Are we to have guidelines simply so editors do not have to present their reasons for objections, but can simply "rubber stamp" or "pigeon hole" when reasoning is a nuisance? That is what seems to me to be the position behind denying inclusion of simple syllogisms in WP:NOR, and avoiding misuse of WP:NOR is the reason for the explicit inclusion of syllogisms. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"For a real-life example of this problem see here. (Sorry for the length, which is actually a main point of this example. Be sure to read the following sections as well. This continued at ANI.) It's the most crass example I know. Even though it's about policy space, I am sure it's pertinent."
Why is there an obession with leaving things unsaid? So that we can have endless squabbles? Why not be explicit? Is it beyond our ability to formalise what mostly already happens in a confused fashion? Would not clarity be welcome? -- Michael C. Price talk 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Re example - There's a discussion that is currently in progress at WP:NORN. During the discussion, the editor who brought it up has simplified his question to the following issue, in order to get help with understanding what is and what is not allowed. I expect the editor will get back to the more complicated issue once he gets this simpler hypothetical example clarified. (I edited it a little to clarify.)
I think the proposed addition and Blueboar's approach, would not prohibit this simple deduction. But it could still be excluded if it was objected to and didn't get a consensus. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hans. This is exactly why NOR is OK the way it is. Statistics is a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. It involves simple numbers, but to correlate them to reality, esp. in controversial public opinion polls, is very tricky if not impossible, and is often misused to pursue specific agendas. We can say 4 is bigger than 2, but we can't draw far-reaching conclusions about behavior or feelings of people based on statistical polls. Crum375 ( talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't Hans' argument show that you need to allow for more than just simple syllogisms? Keeping an edit out of an article is in a certain sense also an edit (a negative edit). But this is then based on a more complex argument based on statistics that proves that the simple syllogism is not valid and hence one would need a direct quote from a source. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a source that says that 64% of Turks are unwilling to live next to Jews and 75% of Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists. Michael raised the question of whether the following statement would be acceptable, " according to the source, more Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists than to Jews." Hans felt this was better, but still seemed to feel that NOR prohibits it. This is the crux of the issue. Editors believe that this statement is prohibited by the current form of WP:NOR. Futhermore, that appears to be the fallback position of those opposed to the statement on the article's Talk page. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, it's a simple deduction and therefore prohibited. The proposed changes would not prohibit it but still require consensus for including it. With the proposed change in policy, the burden to establish consensus is still on the editor who wants to put it in, but the possibility of including it would not be eliminated solely by WP:NOR, which is currently the case. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, SlimVirgin, you are taking a simple example intended to illustrate the point, and making it into the point. To phrase matters more abstractly, "There are simple statements that presently are excludable, and in practice are excluded by citing WP:OR, that would become explicitly allowed with a modification of WP:OR; but changes to WP:OR that would allow explicitly such statements are opposed on the basis that such changes make the editing task of excluding bogus arguments too onerous." Brews ohare ( talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that would border on my topic ban. Nonetheless, it is an example where WP:SYN is used to block a simple syllogism. However, to continue, no matter what examples are brought up, and no matter how clear-cut the problem may be in some particular instances, there is no way to combat the argument that explicit inclusion of such cases opens the floodgates and makes editing too difficult. What is "too difficult" for a particular editor is a judgment call beyond argument. Change of WP:OR is at an impasse. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Slim Virgin, Re your remark, "They're not excluded." - Perhaps you and Hans should discuss this since you two seem to have a difference of opinion on that. See my response to Hans above. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Crum375: The notion of simple in this discussion is used in the combination "simple syllogism" and refers specifically to the topic syllogism. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Crum375: This discussion is not about controversial issues: it is about syllogisms, regardless of whether they are common or interesting. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Crum375: Again, this discussion is not about "real life" and is not about "statistical reliability". It is about syllogisms, which are symbolic manipulations of premises that find statements logically equivalent to the premises. These manipulations are purely mechanical, can be made by automatons, and have nothing to do with the validity of the premises, only with statements that are equivalent to the premises. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The main point is that in contentious cases there is rarely agreement on the reduction of the real issues to a "syllogism", and even more so to "simple" one. The only real example I see above is the Turkish attitudes poll and it was clearly not consensual that the issue was reducible to a "simple syllogism". In fact, as an uninvolved party I can see major issues in that reduction. If all sides agree that a conclusion is trivial and correct, they will use their common sense and consider it part of the allowed "summary and neutral presentation" process. If there is any dispute, then it's not really trivial or indisputably correct, and needs exact sourcing. Crum375 ( talk) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the proposal for reference.
Simple logical deductions
This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. 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.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think one fear here is that while allowing some simple syllogisms might improve the encyclopedia, it could potentially be misused to introduce WP:OR and WP:SYN into WP. Brews has seen a "hole" in the guidelines that he feels should be plugged, but he is making the same mistake I have made a number of times: the policies/guidelines of WP cannot cover every possible set of circumstances. Some debates and arguments come up that are totally germaine to that conversation, and don't apply outside of that realm. Other times, the editors at a certain article must make decisions based on current policies (and the spirits of policies) which may only work for that article. That's the nature of consensus and WP:IAR. Adding the section on syllogisms/logical deductions is a bit like this: You have a mild headache, so the doctor prescribes drug A. Drug A causes a rash, so the doctor gives you drug B. Drug B makes you nauseous, so he gives you drug C, ad nauseum. Sometimes the attempts to fix a problem will cause more and more problems, so it's best just to deal with the inital headache. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Angryapathy: I don't agree that this is a subjective matter. Everyone agrees what a syllogism is, and a syllogism can be established by simple symbolic manipulation that is totally non-subjective. That is what the Russell-Whitehead link is about. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hans: Undoubtedly some will not understand that they are not using a syllogism, or have incorrectly stated the premises, or have incorrect premises. A discussion will follow, which may converge or not. The issue is how much is gained by a practice that allows abusive use of WP:NOR compared to how much is lost by excluding statements logically implied by sourced premises. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
So far, the only movement by editors opposed to the proposal, towards including it, was long ago in this discussion by the editor who originally removed it from the policy page, and that editor left the discussion long ago. I've done about all I can so I'll exit now. Thanks for the discussion. Regards, -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is the original proposal:
Simple logical deductions
This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. 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.
This proposal seems fine to me, but objections have been raised. Therefore, below is an alternative. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Inasmuch as it already is part of WP:NOR that routine mathematical operations are allowable, I'd suggest that the statement be added that all syllogisms that can be related logically to routine calculations are acceptable, and are not considered to be WP:SYN or WP:OR. Perhaps an article can be written that demonstrates explicitly the equivalence of certain syllogisms to mathematical operations, and Routine calculations can be linked to this article. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on this page is evidence that such a statement is considered non-empty, as many have expressed reservations about it. It is my view that the trivial nature of this statement is not evident to all, and that statements have been excluded from WP based upon a misunderstanding of its nature. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. For the last few weeks small number of editors have been proposing changes that would constitute major change to longstanding policy; as each subthread fails to gain consensus the discussion gets a jump start with a minor variation on the same basic proposal--none of which addresses the substantive objections. In an ideal world the proposed changes might be reasonable, but they fail to safeguard against frequent and longstanding types of wikilawyering. Sometimes a minor inconvenience really is necessary for the good of the project. Please let it go. Durova 355 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Durova: It would be a useful contribution to this discussion if you could list the substantive objections, which in my mind boil down to the single "floodgate" or "Pandora's box" argument. That is the one argument you have raised as well. It's natural for a discussion of this kind to take some time, even though it is not a "major change", or even a change at all, but simply an explicit statement of what is already implicit in the Routine calculations subsection. Let's see what people think about that. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Glancing at the talk page of that example, I see other points being made by editors, and they are not related to an objection to syllogism. One editor makes a point that a source for the derivations would be helpful to students, another makes a point that the article is just a list of equations and derivations and thus does not merit its own page. I see nothing on that talk page that would support changes to any existing policy. Crum375 ( talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Crum375: Here is a possible formulation:
Routine calculations
- This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived. Likewise, simple syllogisms may be used that are logical equivalents of routine mathematical calculations, as described by Russell and Whitehead. Care must be taken to observe no synthesis takes place.
Brews ohare ( talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
While I'm generally strongly disinclined to recommend or encourage the use of straw polls as part of the policy-making process, it seems to me that (per Durova and others above) we've reached the point where the discussion is becoming circular, and no significant advancement is likely.
I would like to pose the following questions, and get a yes/no wherever possible. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Has there been a clear demonstration that simple, unambiguous syllogisms are incorrectly removed from Wikipedia articles on a regular basis?
Yes, evidence has been presented that syllogisms are often removed inappropriately.
No, evidence has not been presented to demonstrate the problem.
Comment - This is a rather poorly put question. "Clear demonstration" sets the bar high and would require a considerable amount of research into the histories of articles. "Unambiguous syllogisms" again unnecessarily narrows the subject more than it is since the proposal applied to simple deductions in general. "Often" in the yes part, and "on a regular basis" in the question, again makes the question difficult. Consider how this type of a question, narrowed in the way it has been, would be answered when it is applied to each existing part of WP:NOR. For example: Has there been a clear demonstration that there are situations like the Smith/Jones example that occur in Wikipedia articles on a regular basis and often?
Please note that when an example was requested, I found an example of a simple deduction that was excluded from an article, by giving a quick look at the current discussions at WP:NORN. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As proposed above (in any section) would you endorse a change explicitly exempting syllogisms and/or logical deductions to this policy?
Yes, I would support the proposed addition (specify which).
No, such an addition to this policy is not necessary. Obvious syllogisms are adequately covered by existing Wikipedia policies.
As it appears that the discussion here has largely run its course, it may be worthwhile to table the matter for the time being. New proposals regarding syllogisms should not be brought forward again for a period of not less than 12 months.
Yes, the discussion is essentially complete. We can take at least a 12-month break from this issue.
No, there is additional important ground which much be discussed on this issue. (Describe briefly.)
Comment - Please note this excerpt from WP:Consensus:
Please note that when I posted this message, one side on these issues is just voting, without giving their personal rationale for their opinion, which reduces the weight of those opinions, according to WP:Consensus. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 12:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Another comment: This poll seems fundamentally flawed to me in that it rolls together two distinct points in a way that artificially discourages separation again. The first part seems agreeable to me - it should be clear that the requisite consensus for this proposal is not going to be reached and therefore it is obviously dead in the water. However, that position is inextricably linked to to the 12 month moratorium in the poll. In my view that is fundamentally improper since it leverage support for the first part to create false support for the second part which had received no prior discussion before the poll. CrispMuncher ( talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
A motion has been made on Wikipedia talk:No original research to prevent further discussion of a topic by setting a time limit of one year before anyone is allowed to bring up the subject. This action appears to me to be a violation of the spirit of WP, as well as being unnecessary. What is your opinion? Brews ohare ( talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
When I put forward the idea of closing discussions per consensus in the ARBcom case about the problems on the speed of light page, this was dismissed because it was not grounded in wiki policies. But in that case, you had very long discusssions that were seen to be a problem (not by me, but by most other editors). So, I am sympathetic to the idea that you could do this. However, in this case, the discussions have barely started. While a lot has been written, it has been a "rapid fire" discussion. If you visit this page every few days, the discussion could have been declared "over" before you would have had a chance to take your time to think things over and give your opinion.
Perhaps we should accept that this can be long discussion that can take some time and act accordingly (i.e. slow down, there is no need to reply immediately, posting once per day is more than enough). Count Iblis ( talk) 02:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been accused of various nasty and unpleasant things as a result of my attempt above to assess the sense of the community on where (or whether) these proposals are going. Everyone (I hope) can agree that it's unnecessary, wasteful, and distracting to encourage or allow a policy proposal to drag on forever with no resolution. There must be an eventual end to the process. So now I'm going to ask the proponents of this proposal:
I'm looking for a fairly specific framework here. 'After the discussion concludes' is not going to cut it. There's been significant input from a number of experienced, long-term Wikipedia editors. While I hesitate to draw policy conclusions from a counting of heads, I also don't think that policy change should be brought about by war of attrition. It appears that a substantial majority of participating editors are not persuaded that the proponents of these changes have made their case effectively. Moreover, many editors have made comments to indicate that they're not interested in expending much more effort in a futile endeavour. I have a suspicion that the patience of many editors has already been exhausted, and absent a clear indication that proponents are willing – or at least able – to accept a negative decision then those editors will disengage and there will be no change to the policy regardless of how much more text is spilled on this talk page. Without clear and reasonable answers to the above question(s), I know that I can see no further reason to discuss this issue. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It is expected that a proposal for possible changes to WP:NOR will undergo some evolution as discussion proceeds and editors express their views. The present form of the proposed change is that below:
Routine calculations
- This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived. Likewise, simple syllogisms may be used that are logical equivalents of routine mathematical calculations, as described by Russell and Whitehead. Care must be taken to observe no synthesis takes place.
Examination of this form of the proposal was interrupted by the posing of a straw poll, and a resulting discussion of procedure instead of the proposal. I'd suggest the proposal itself be discussed further. Below are some comments and responses from earlier discussion:
1. It is my understanding of many comments on earlier versions of this proposal that some editors believe the syllogism to be a debatable concept that requires sourcing for each syllogism at each occurrence. That notion is met by the above proposal by pointing out that what is allowed is homomorphic with the "routine calculations" already allowed. The proposed change is therefore one of making explicit what already is agreed to in the present form of WP:NOR.
2. Some comments express concern that making the acceptance of syllogisms clear will encourage extended debate with contributors that presently can be abrogated by simply stating that reversion of certain material is WP:OR, when the real reason is that the material is illogical (violates a syllogism). I'd suggest that the real reason be given in such cases: the logic is faulty. The above clarification makes clear the applicability of WP:NOR to cases where syllogisms are not used, leading to illogic.
3. Some comments suggest that making the acceptance of syllogisms clear will encourage contributions based upon false premises, and it will be more difficult to persuade authors that their premises are false. I'd suggest that the argument over premises is not made easier by dragging in an inapplicable argument that the logic is false. The correct use of WP:NOR in such cases applies directly to the formation of the premises, and the proposed clarification above has nothing to do with such debates over premises.
For this discussion to proceed, I'd suggest those who are opposed to the clarification above re-formulate their views taking the above three points into consideration. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel, from the consensus above, that the fundamentals of this proposal, regardless of the wording, should not be added. No amount of discussion rehashing the same arguments is going to change that fact. The issue should be dropped. Brews, please take a lesson from your Arbcom case to see that continually trying to argue the same point will not allow you to get your way. Leave the horse caracass alone. Angryapathy ( talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Due to an inability of several editors here to grasp what a syllogism is, and because they are continually arguing about matters totally unrelated to the proposal and to syllogisms; and due to their inability to see that syllogisms already are accepted by WP:NOR as it is presently written, this discussion cannot proceed. Unfortunately, should a future contribution employ a syllogism, and should the contributor claim that WP:NOR is not a valid reason to reject it because only a syllogism was used, exactly this same unending argument will recur for exactly the same invalid reasons. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Since there is lack of consensus to modify the policy w.r.t. logical deductions, I think that there is something else one can do. Editors on any page can always decide by consensus to ignore certain policies if they don't work in their opinion. Therefore, what we can do is write up alternative versions of the core wiki policies and then editors on any page can decide by consensus to stick to these alternative policies instead of sticking to the official policies.
A good example of this is the practice on the Global Warming page to only allow in peer reviewed sources for scientific claims. This practice was ruled to be in violation of the Reliable Sources policies in a debate on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There was a strong consensus there in favor of allowing in an edit citing the BBC saying that the Earth hasn't warmed in the last decade. However, the editors on the Global Warming page rejected this ruling and they stuck to their own rule regarding reliable sources. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised that WP:ESCA hasn't been mentioned here: it suggests that premises and conclusions be sourced, and the connection can be filled in with logical reasoning that is not necessarily sourced. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As for the universality of WP:NOR, the lengthy discussion above regarding simply making explicit the allowance of simple syllogisms shows that WP:NOR will be applied by different editors differently, some using WP:NOR to exclude syllogisms in some cases and some not. Where differences of view occur, no resolution will be possible, although those denying the inclusion of statements built upon syllogism actually will be misapplying WP:NOR, denying what it already includes.
An example is found here where a prolonged debate over the use of classical vacuum as interchangeable with free space was settled only by finding a verbatim quote to this effect, despite the use in texts of either term (but very rarely both in the same text) to describe the reference state of classical electrodynamics. This is an example of A = C in some sources and B = C in others, but difficulty in finding a verbatim source saying A = B. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope that the Admins reviewing this paragraph to determine whether it is a topic-ban violation, will realize the physics topic itself is not being discussed here; it is being used only as an example of the type of quandary under discussion here. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Count, you are repeatedly stating there is a problem with science articles, which requires a modification of NOR policy, yet I haven't seen a single example of such an article, with a clearly demonstrated 'problem'. Let us see a single science article where we cannot achieve an excellent result by reflecting the best published reliable sources, per V, NPOV and NOR. And don't say "there are many": pick just one example, and let's examine it closely. Crum375 ( talk) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
the same article in the state it was in on 18 April 2008, almost 2 years later. For almost two years Wikipedia was saying that:
Islolated error? I don't think so, the error here dates back from 10 November 2005.
Count, you keep saying very emphatically that NOR is broken, at least for use in scientific articles, and I asked for a single example demonstrating the problem, showing how NOR is broken. Instead you seem to be focusing on some essay you are writing, not the NOR policy, and the example you gave above was about simple errors which were missed in a wiki article, nothing to do with NOR, AFAICT. What am I missing? Crum375 ( talk) 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If the issue is that "some people" are excessively pedantic, that's not specific to science — you'll find such editors everywhere, who insist we dot our i's etc. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, because they may balance the other extreme, those who are very sloppy and don't care much for any policy or guideline. The solution, as in most such situations, is to find a reasonable middle-ground. So if someone seriously insists on a source for something you feel is "trivial", it's often better to just get that source. After all, if it's so trivial, it should be relatively easy to find it. And typically, it will take less time to find that source than to argue endlessly about it. The point is that these issues are common to all article topics, not just science. And again, all policies and guidelines have to be applied with common sense, not blindly. Crum375 ( talk) 00:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the bit about "reasonable educated person without outside knowledge" kind of implies that simple logical deductions are ok, unless something can be found wrong with it. Based on the experience I recently had with the polls about Turks, Jews, and atheists, I think it would be nice if there was a link to an explanation of the ambiguity of polls included in the policy. In other words that even the simplest of comparisons is arguable depending on the way in which the study is done. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Some observations:
These apply in heavily-watched articles where nobody is pushing an agenda. If there are lightly watched articles, things slip through. If the article is "controlled" by a faction that has an agenda - and don't kid yourself, at any given time a number of topics on the wiki are under the "control" of dominant editor or group - then edits hostile to that agenda are much more likely to be reverted than edits friendly to it, everything else being equal. Where possible, such politically-minded editors will use Wiki-policy to defend their actions.
Based on this, I recommend people use common sense: If a mathematically correct reduction is simple enough that most people with a 100 IQ will understand it within seconds, then let it pass. If it isn't obvious, and you can explain it in less than a couple hundred words on the talk page so most people with a 100 IQ will understand it, make the edit and explain yourself. If it takes more than that to explain it, either drop it altogether or open a discussion. Obviously, in highly technical articles with a highly technical audience, you can assume the average reader has an IQ much higher than 100 and edit accordingly.
In no case should any mathematical reduction which is either disputed or, if original, likely to be disputed by anyone who understands the math, be accepted. Likewise, if the math is too hard to understand by the average reader of that type of article, it should not be added without discussion. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that part of the problem behind all this is the nature of sources in science or at least some parts of science. I say some parts of science because this whole discussion is really only about mathematics, physics and some areas of chemistry. Some popular textbooks take some topics and simplify them so much that they are actually wrong. To get an accurate description needs a source in the primary literature or in original books or perhaps in advanced textbooks which are not readily available. Different texts give different stories. It is not OK to say in these circumstances, unlike perhaps in say history, "according to A this is the case, while according to B that is the case". We have to get the science right. Science editors who know the material well, possibly because they are Ph D students in the area, will give the advanced explanation of the topic. This is then open to challenge on the basis of a larger number of editors who have read a common first year university text. Of course, the text does not say it is simplifying the explanation, and we are unlikely to find a reliable source that says that X's first year text on physics simplifies the problem. If the simple, possibly wrong, explanation is given in an article, we have to say where it simplifies the problem, but we do not have sources for that. Perhaps we should be giving the simpler explanations as many of these articles, such as those in thermodynamics, are incomprehensible to the average reader. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Please comment on the following proposed version for WP:synth. It differs from the present version only by replacing the two examples currently in the section with a link to a page that contains the two examples. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. For examples see Original synthesis at Wikipedia:No original research/Examples.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
Comment of requester: This is an improved version that has a size that makes for better reading and communication and has a link to the examples, instead of having them in the section. I think it is a mistake to have most of
WP:SYNTH filled with examples since it takes up too much space compared to the other more important parts and obscures them. --
Bob K31416 (
talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Re Fuhghettaboutit's comment: "Moreover, those who would find reading through them too much to handle are, in any event, exactly the types who aren't likely to visit a linked satellite page." - If they found the more complex example too much to handle and stopped reading, they would miss the important last paragraph of the section which comes after the examples. How would all of you feel about putting the last paragraph after the first paragraph and then have the examples follow?
== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. [2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
A simple example of original synthesis:The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts are true, the sentence implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how, when no source is provided, facts can easily be manipulated:
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.
The following is a more complex example of an original synthesis. It is based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones:
Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
Now comes the original synthesis:
If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
The first paragraph was properly sourced. The second paragraph was original research because it expressed the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.
I took the liberty of copying the following comment of Blueboar from the section below: Are there other issues.-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please note that this proposal involves no policy change. It moves the last paragraph in WP:SYN to the position of being the second paragraph, and changes the beginning of the resulting third paragraph from "A simple example:" to "A simple example of original synthesis:". The consensus consists of support from 4 editors including myself, and an unclear position from another. Otherwise, there have been no objections since the Alternate proposal was first proposed Sept 3 2009, almost 2 weeks ago. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
From the earlier discussion, it seemed that two changes had potential consensus:
Current version | Proposed version |
---|---|
(First sentence of SYN section:)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (Last sentence of SYN section:) Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. |
(First sentence of SYN section:)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (Last sentence of SYN section:) Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. |
For the reasoning behind these proposals, see the discussion above. I would like us to raise an editprotected request to implement these changes. Before we do so, are there any objections? -- JN 466 18:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
There's an ambiguity in the following part of the proposed version:
Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic...
Is the editor doing the focusing or is the source doing the focusing? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources and summarizing their claims in your own words..."
Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context.
Okay. The current policy wording is,
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
Looking back on the comments made in the above discussion, would anyone have an objection to the following wording?
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
-- JN 466 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the article topic in the most reliable published sources and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
If a book on the American Civil War is among the most reliable published sources on Ulysses S. Grant, then I agree it would be best practice to cite it. That sort of thing often happens with minor topics that tend to be covered in works with wider scope, rather than having entire books devoted to them. I think the proposed wording allows that. Note that "reliable sources on the topic" is part of the present wording of this sentence; it never seems to have caused a problem. Could you live with the text as proposed? A number of people above said they liked it. JN 466 10:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by summarizing the claims from the most reliable published sources in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by summarizing the claims from the most reliable sources in the relevent field in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
{{
editprotected}}
I think we can implement the first half of the above proposal. It was previously discussed
here and has attracted support from all editors who commented on it. The change involves adding the words "or imply" to the first sentence of the SYN section, so it would then read as follows: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (The second half of the proposal is still under discussion and should not be implemented at this time.) Thank you.
JN
466 17:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} I believe we now have a version for the second half of the above proposal that enjoys broad support, per the above discussions. The change involves revising the last sentence in the SYN section, which currently reads as follows:
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
to the following:
"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
The proposal was first discussed at #Proposed_SYN_changes and enjoyed broad support then; it has only been tweaked since then ("sources on the topic" rather than "sources focused on the article topic"). This is probably still not the final and best version, but I think there is a general sense that this adds value over and above what we currently have. The good is not the enemy of the perfect. ;) Thanks. JN 466 21:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Please add this [[bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়]] instead of [[bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়]] because our wikipedia namespace changed.- Jayanta Nath ( Talk| Contrb) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that this page has been protected for a while. I hate seeing policy pages like this fully protected, because then things stagnate. We're a wiki! Sometimes there will be disagreements over exact wording on the policy page. That's okay! The idea is to compromise through edits and discussion on the talk page. Hopefully we can avoid the revert-based edit wars that happened leading up to the protection. It's important to discuss things on talk pages, but it's also important for people to boldly make edits and for others to edit those contributions *thoughtfully*, not simply with a revert or an undo. Most of the history of this policy is people making thoughtful contributions in an honest attempt to improve things. Even the bit of reverting recently was done in good faith, but hopefully we can move on. Especially considering that many of the involved editors have been around Wikipedia for a long time.
So, unless there is a good reason not to, I'll be unprotecting this page soon.
Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 03:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
OK... I think we have consensus on at least some of our issues regarding the SYNT section (see above)... are their other issues we need to discuss? Blueboar ( talk) 14:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Consensus? I don't know. It surely seems that for years up until now there hasn't been. Perhaps consensus has been reachedas of 16 September. I suggest the participants make a mental note to re-examine the idea of consensus in three months to see if, based on the dearth of discussions on the topic appearing here, consensus has been reached. Three months being just before Christmas let's add a month and make the (personal) re-evaluate date be January 16, 2010.
Just as Wikipedia values verifiability over truth (which does get to be over-expressed as a concept at times) I value consensus over reasonableness. So if there's consensus, even though I disagree, that will suffice. (With luck I may never even look here again. Well, luck plus self-discipline. Mostly the latter.)
Currently (and for a long time) the discussion has been wrongly focused. It is new ideas that are to be shunned, and that is a good policy and a reasonable one. New ideas can appear, Wikipedia just is not the place for them. Great. The entire discussion of synthesis appears to have arisen from real or imagined cases in which some editor took (or might take) established ideas from one or more sources and combined them to create a new idea - or at least a new approach to a way of striking a blow in some long-lasting dispute (that extends far beyond Wikipedia but rages on Wikipedia.) As far as I can recall all the examples that have been presented would also fail to appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica (which doesn't have such a strict no-new-idea) rule. They'd fail to appear because they simply are not encyclopedic, because the EB likewise isn't a place to strike partisan blows. The examples are, then, to me bad examples: they'd not pass muster even for an encyclopedia that does allow synthesis.
As appears above the original example of forbidding synthesis has resulted now in an absolute prohibition of logic. That's excessive. The synthesis example started as an attempt to illustrate one possible way that new ideas might be introduced and (correctly) pointed out that this is against the intended nature of Wikipedia. But it (of course) got Wiki-lawyered. Forbidding logic also forbids the use of logic to amplify the ideas implicit to a topic but perhaps not anywhere explicitly stated. EB is, after all, limited in size in a way that Wikipedia is not: terseness has to apply somewhere lest the work grow to the size of a full library (even doubling in size would be problematic for the printed version.) A major strength of Wikipedia can be that it is unlimited size enough that a fuller explanation on a significant topic can be made. Wikipedia, too, could welcome proper synthesis.
The test is whether the synthesis creates a new idea. I maintain some ideas are so inherent in a subject that logically combining two ideas to create a 3rd does not actually create a new idea, it only creates a new way of viewing the topic. That can be useful.
But look above: I favor consensus over reasonableness. So if true consensus is reached it is time to celebrate. If, however, months more pass and consensus still eludes (as shown here by continued discussion on the same topic) perhaps it is time to reexamine the matter from a fresh start. If months pass and the discussion has not ended that appears to me to be prima facie evidence that there is not consensus. I would guess it is still indicated, in the article on consensus, that never-ending discussion is evidence of the lack of consensus. It would be a major misdeed to alter the consensus article to remove that thought. Minasbeede ( talk) 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just come across the essay Wikipedia:Conceptualization, which appears to me to be a complete contradiction of WP:NOR. I was thinking that it should either be userfied or deleted, but I was looking for other input first. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
After careful study of the policies and examples, I still can't really tell where the line is drawn. Does the policy on synthesis actually forbid pure syllogistic reasoning? Does it make a difference if the major and minor premises are both contained within the same source? It would seem from some comments that "Socrates is mortal" would in fact be regarded as inadmissable original research if it was not stated as a specific conclusion. If this is the case, what about the limit case of two-valued logic? If a source states that "X is true", is the statement "Not X is not true" an original research synthesis, or simply a restatement? Personally I would think common sense would prevail in favor of commonplace logic, but wp:common sense tells me that there is no common sense, only existing agreements. Ben Kidwell ( talk) 08:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A Request for Comment has been posted at WP:Civil concerning reversion using the one-line Edit Summary. It is suggested that such summaries that employ WP:OR require a Talk page back-up that provides specific indication to the contributing author of just what it is that makes the reverting editor believe WP:OR is applicable. Please take a look and comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The proposal at One-line Edit Summaries found few supporters, as many felt that any mandatory requirement upon the one-line Edit summary was onerous. However, a modification of WP:Civil was made suggesting that on-line edit summaries be explicit. I have imported a version of the text added to WP:Civil modified somewhat to apply to this guideline. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering. Surely baseless troofing and fringe physics must have a home somewhere! — Rickyrab | Talk 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we need a slight clarification of the policy in relation to WP:BLP. In practice we tend, rightly, to use information published on eg a university website for factual information about a person, even though in practice this information is usually supplied by the person in question. The logic I think is that a university would be very unlikely to publish this information unless it were believed to be reliable, and if anyone spotted an incorrect claim they could rapidly email the part of the university responsible. If people are listed in Who's Who or similar publications then their biographies, although published by this 3rd party, are invariably sent to the people involved for checking and amendment. Again it is very unlikely that there will be false claims made, because if there were the editors would be informed and this would lead to embarassment or possible de-listing. Thus I think for the purposes of this policy applied to factual BLP bio-information from reputable publishers where there is 3rd party editorial control should be considered a secondary source, even if the information is derived from the biographee. What do people think? NBeale ( talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I have reverted this because it incorrectly identifies BLP sourcing as being less restrictive than other articles (where in fact it is generally the opposite), and also because primary information is allowed in all articles, with proper care and appropriate restrictions. Crum375 ( talk) 14:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a hypothetical situation: Let's say a Wikipedia editor wants to have his bio on Wikipedia, but unfortunately for him it has been deleted one, two, three, four times in 2½ years. Now, his first strategy for getting the article back in Wikipedia is to simply park it in his userspace, and appeal on his blog for all and sundry to restore it. But, despite the fact that several 5 or 10 edit Wikipedians restore it to article space, it keeps getting deleted. You see, as it turns out, his biography relies almost entirely on primary sources, or biographies written by the subject himself and published in tertiary sources (Debrett's People of Today and the Faraday Institute) without any fact checking. So, what's a fellow to do? Well, he might publish some nasty slander on his blog, but the blog route didn't get him too far before. Or, he could try to change the WP:NOR policy to include the sentence Note however that primary sources which are published by reliable third parties may generally be used for factual information in WP:BLP. Because, of course, once that is part of the policy, he can then use it to insist that his Debrett's People of Today and the Faraday Institute bios are now reliable, and thus prove his notability and worthiness of a Wikipedia article. So, in this hypothetical situation, would it be a good idea to actually create a special exception to a fundamental content policy so that this individual can finally stop his bio from being deleted? Or would it be better, perhaps, to simply leave policy as it is? Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
All this ad-hominem stuff and references to clearly wiki-political deletions (have we ever deleted anyone else who has written a WP:N book?) is perhaps mildly amusing, but doesn't address the problem that Wikipedia has a bad reputation with some key people (the Chair of that v well known media group was scathing) because we don't do a good job on BLP. I'm not suggesting that we use OR or primary sources to establish notability, but the policy here as written just doesn't fit with what professionals, or most Wikipedia BLP articles, actually do. Those who care about building a serious encyclopedia, rather than playing RPGs, might care to consider a re-wording. I'll steer clear to avoid irrelevant distractions. NBeale ( talk) 21:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
When reading articles on geology, it is often painfully clear to me that experts have not written the articles. Why is this? Prohibiting original research is a very broad brush, and - though absolutely necessary - doesn't distinguish well-reasoned explanation from the incorrect ones. After a few decades of research or teaching, experts likely can't remember whether the reasoning that makes a difficult subject simpler was created themselves or borrowed. It doesn't matter to lectures or journals, as long as the explanation isn't a significant part of the presentation. But, it matters here.
As an example, I am able to write 'any theory of heterogeneous buffering in thermodynamics will likely be based upon equations relating the derivatives of a characteristic function', but only if I can find it somewhere in the published literature. This is not likely, and no good teacher feels 'facts speak for themselves'. Many students pay exorbitant tuition to hear what the Wikipedia prohibits. However, I agree that the dangers of allowing 'well-reasoned explanation' are too great: it invites opinionated, poorly-reasoned ones.
Ironically, allowing statements from current texts, which I was told was preferred to 19th Century, primary literature, allows knowingly false statements to make it to the Wikipedia. Statements in texts are often inherited, slightly changed, from earlier generations of texts. The primary literature's statement proves either absent, very different from current statements, or was itself just an opinion.
Texts written (not from love but) for mass sale to U.S. state colleges are commonly referenced, but are known to be, essentially, collections of obsolete and even 'false' statements. Experts just wince & stay away. Contributors do not. Experts have read the original, primary literature and often can easily list the best articles on the topic (some are chapters in early texts or monographs).
The Wikipedia had the opportunity of inviting the best experts to write articles of interest to them. These have likely already been written, and the owning of articles is a problem in itself. (In my years of making corrections or suggestions in Talk pages, not one has been adopted.
How to attract experts and understand why they are not contributing is undoubtedly something the Wikipedia has addressed. This contribution is to suggest that prohibiting 'original research' has, to expert teachers, thrown out their babies with original explanation.
Better people than I may think of a solution. The only objective modifications I can suggest is (1) limiting the use of introductory texts to stubs, and (2) reminding authors that science is made of theories, theories we all hope will be false tomorrow. Dogmatic explanations are not scientific ones. This problem deserves better thought than I can offer. Geologist ( talk) 11:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.
It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.
Illness has caused my absence; but I wish to thank each of you for your excellent suggestions (and nice reference). Distinguishing a new presentation from new content is difficult. My apology for not yet reading the fundamental papers of the Wikpedia. There is a problem with referencing both books & journals in that many books being referenced are not of high quality (and experts are not even aware of them); and some experts read only a paper's data (geologists go for the map), ignoring the author's personal interpretation of it. Authors here cite only the personal interpretation.
May I offer here a quick observation of two problems the principal editors may wish to address; problems that do not appear in highly edited encyclopedias. The first is that of audience, and the second is that of presenting science dogmatically.
My old 'Encyclopedia Britannica' wrote to two audiences: the beginning of the article summarized the following content for everyone; and the following content was often for specialists. It was usually a history, pointing them to classical papers in the literature. This made an encyclopedia the place to look for an introduction to a subject and a list of highly regarded books to continue one's study. A specialist need not learn his discipline from an encyclopedia.
Examples
Fundamental to all sciences is the the 'equivalence class', a collection of objects having in common a list of properties. This should, consequently, be one of the Wikipedia's best articles, simply written for varying audiences. Equivalence class
Second, science changes regularly, and empirical objects or phenomena should not be presented as theoretical objects, when they are not. It is common in good secondard references to present the object & question, then a history of explanations, ending with the current one. Every primary reference ends with a personal opinion of the article's importance. Scientific articles should name the theory used when offering an explanation. Older 'Encyclopedia Britannica' articles usually offered a history of theories. Being written by experts, they never offered definitive explanations. Volcanic Arc
What I could do, from bed, is possibly start a history (for some subjects) of the better articles & books (possibly annotated) that the reader would want to consult for details. All pretty much agree which these are, and they could offer the reader expert presentations on the different theories. I shall, of course, read the fundamental articles here before contributing anything (but these criticisms :-) Thank you both for the clarifications! Geologist ( talk) 23:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
At WT:N I have argued that if a topic is not sufficiently notable to have a reliable source in English, then it is probably not sufficiently notable to have an article in the English Wikipedia, but most others disagree. But that discussion has lead me to this argument: If a given topic has no reliable sources in English, then creating an article in the English Wikipedia on that topic means creating the only, the original source in English for that topic. That seems to me to be a violation of NOR, in spirit if not in letter. I mean, isn't doing research about a topic in non-English, and not using any sources that are in English, and then writing about it in English, original research by definition? Comments/ thoughts? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
First, Blueboard, the issue I've raise here is different from those other places. Related? Sure. Same? No way. The question at issue here, and relevant to this page, is whether creating the first and only source on a given topic in English is original research. This is a very different question and issue then what is being discussed on those other pages, and the answers here are very different.
Sjakkalle's answer is particularly helpful because it essentially points out that since WP article writing in general is not OR, then writing the first one that happens to be in English is not either. I think that is a very good point, and I accept it.
As to Bob's concern, that belongs in the dicussion at WT:V since it is about verifiability. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion interviews are exclusively primary sources. Most interviews are conducted by a third-party (not directly involved with the subject) and often include an introduction. If that introduction were taken out of the interview and put by itself it couldn't it be considered a secondary source? Furthermore, interviews include comments as well as questions. Couldn't those comments should be considered secondary as well? - Stillwaterising ( talk) 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose a change to the guideline: "Interviews can be considered a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Statements made by the person(s) being interviewed should be considered primary sources. Statements and comments from the interviewer may be considered either primary or secondary sources, depending on context." - Stillwaterising ( talk) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I just added a quote to the lead and am wondering if it is formatted properly. I wanted to give credit to the author and used a diff as the reference. Would it be more proper for the author to make the edit so that there would be no quotations marks and the edit history would be the only credit given, or is using a diff to give credit okay? The reason I added the quote is because I don't see this very important aspect covered in the article. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the previous discussion on this has just been archived, prematurely in my view since this is still an ongoing topic as evidenced by the project page edit history. In order for this change to be accepted a much wider consensus is warranted because this does represent a significant change to a core policy and it is not without issues. Citing WP:NOTOR and presenting it as a simple cross referencing exercise between different policies is not valid: WP:NOTOR is not policy or even guideline and has no formal recognition. The original proponent of this change (Brews Ohare) was censured recently by ArbComm for applying these kind of "simple" logical deductions to controversial or simply plain wrong effect, and then arguing that these changes are above reversion since they are somehow reliably sourced: I suspect part of the motivation for this change is simply sour grapes.
The problem is that this kind of process can be used to mask problem areas or elide over huge areas of controversy. To take the very example cited one areas and sub-areas, consider Stanley. Stanley is in the Falkland Islands. I daresay we could find an official Argentine source that describes the Falklands as Argentine, and we will presume for the purposes of illustration such a cite has been found. Therefore we can infer that Stanley is in Argentina. This is clearly not consistent with NPOV.
For a more clear demonstration of a logical fallacy this allows, consider the number zero. [8] states "the positive integers are the same as the natural numbers". [9] states the natural numbers are "the set {0,1,2,…}". In combination this shows that natural numbers are positive and that zero is a natural number. Therefore, zero must be a positive number. This is obviously nonsense.
In each case the logical step is perfectly valid but leaves out a central element. If that central element is problematic then the deduction is invalid. These are simple examples and so easy to see through - it is easy to see that the problem in the first case is the sovereignty of the Falklands which is disputed. In the second case it is the lack of consensus as to what constitutes a natural number. Spotting problems such as these in more obscure topics may not be so easy. That requires genuine expertise in the subject area - we need someone considered reliable to make the connection to establish that it is a valid one. This is why we have NOR in the first place. CrispMuncher ( talk) 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Simple logical deductions
This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. 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.
Some of this discussion seems to be about the adequacy of the premises. There is no argument that the premises have to be sourced, and may be challenged by any editor. Given the premises, however, it is very difficult to imagine a situation where the use of simple syllogism can be argued about, as any automaton could use the premises to reach the conclusion. I believe Russell and Whitehead showed this to be the case. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in my personal experience, denial of simple syllogism has been used multiple occasions as a pretext to require verbatim statement of a result obtainable by simple syllogism using sourced premises, and I'd guess from the discussion above opposing this simple addition, there are many here that would do the same. Without such a statement, obstructive editors can exclude material they just don't wish to see expressed by requiring verbatim statements, or lazy editors simply can avoid thinking about what is wrong. I'd go further and support Count Iblis. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Before we modify a core content policy (with all the risk of unintended side effects, loopholes, and consequences, especially with respect to future wikilawyering and legalistic reading of policy), could the proponents – or anyone else – supply some examples of cases where uncontroversial logical deductions or syllogisms have been removed from articles? Wikipedia has managed for many years without this particular proviso written into WP:NOR, I see two possible explanations. First case — this has been an ongoing problem, and good, encyclopedic content has been removed on the basis of too-narrow reading of WP:NOR. If that is the case, there ought to be ready examples of this damage to the encyclopedia, and a modification to this policy is called for. Second case — there isn't evidence of a problem here. Common sense already generally prevails, and the proposed change would be an attempt to outlawyer potential future wikilawyers with more wikilawyering. Frankly, that never works, and it encourages the idea that editors must be slaves to the specific, codified, yet mutable wording of {policy} pages.
So, what specific instances of reasonable deductions and uncontroversial, logical syllogisms have been removed from Wikipedia articles based on a misreading of the existing policy? In those instances, has the beneficial material eventually been restored under the guidance of experienced editors? Briefly, can someone show me examples of the problem we're trying to solve, or are we fixing something that isn't broken? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I will paraphrase an example to avoid conflict with my topic ban that includes all physics. Source A said a system called "abra" was characterized uniquely by a certain set of parameters. A source B said a system called "cadabra" was characterized uniquely by the same parameters. I said "abra" was a synonym for "cadabra" The resisting editor said I had no source that said "abra" was "cadabra" and therefore this statement was [[WP:OR} and [[WP:SYN]. Obviously, the resiting editor understood the matter perfectly. However, their position was that it violated guidelines and could not be included without a verbatim quote from a reliable source. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to request a bit of imagination here to envision a reasonable example of this sort, and not request very specific detail that I am not allowed to go into. Suffice it to say, in the case at hand, there was absolutely no way to misconstrue the identity of "abra" and "cadabra", and yet objection was raised because the terms appeared in different sources. Eventually I found a source that used both terms synonymously and I made a verbatim quote. However, I had to look high and low because most sources used one term or the other, and not both. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC) The point here is not whether I am delusional or lack sophistication of mind, but whether such obstruction or confusion (whatever you want to call it) should be countenanced. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
How about common sense: if other users cannot follow the syllogism, then it isn't simple. Angryapathy ( talk) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Logical deductions
This policy does not forbid logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C.
Logical deductions
This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, for example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. Editors must agree that the deduction is likely to reflect the intention and understanding of a source's author at the time it was written. Deductions are not acceptable where it is unclear that the deduction would be obvious to or even accepted by the source(s) on which they are based.
In the event of a lack of consensus over whether a source fulfils this criteria the presumption should be against reliance on that source as evidence for the deduction.
This is of course open to judgement in any particular case but the default case in favour of non-reliance would hopefully prevent disputes spiralling out of control - if it is controversial it is not allowed. The intention at the time of creation seems pretty fundamental to me too. I think the last thing we want is sources being combined to show points that were not apparent at the time they were written. CrispMuncher ( talk) 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Logical deductions
This policy does not forbid logical deductions, provided all editors agree. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C.
It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.
<outdent>Count Iblis, I read the proposed guidelines that you mentioned and I could support them except for the part which says,
It does not constitute WP:OR to provide the logical connection between sourced premises and sourced conclusions, since “Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.”
It appears that this part allows, for example, original proofs by Wikipedia editors of unsolved mathematical conjectures. This goes beyond "carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material". Paraphrasing the quote that I mentioned in a previous message, "It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's [complex deduction] is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that." However, we are equipped to determine whether the simplest kind of deductions are valid, like those similar to the example in the proposal.
Re "Logical deductions and reasoning is needed very often when you read technical articles or books. This is then purely to understand the sources, not to do any original research. " - It seems that you are referring here to the normal process of editing that is allowed by the policy, "carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material", rather than including in an article a description of one's own complex deductions and thought processes. This of course is already OK, since editors don't describe in articles the thought processes that they use in summarizing and rephrasing sources. Also, along the lines mentioned in your guidelines, discussion of these thought processes on the article's talk page is OK. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Jayjg. In addition to previous problems, the current proposal substitutes two cans of worms for one. Under this wording the wikilawyers gain a wedge to claim that local consensus can trump policy. Durova 351 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears Michael C. Price thinks a majority of editors are able to be logical, so a majority view would trump illogical thought. However, the advantage of logic is that it transcends a majority opinion. Why would it be hard to point out that this argument is invalid because "all A is B" does not imply "all B is A" , or possibly because "some terrorists kill people" doesn't mean "all terrorists kill people"? Are we to have guidelines simply so editors do not have to present their reasons for objections, but can simply "rubber stamp" or "pigeon hole" when reasoning is a nuisance? That is what seems to me to be the position behind denying inclusion of simple syllogisms in WP:NOR, and avoiding misuse of WP:NOR is the reason for the explicit inclusion of syllogisms. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"For a real-life example of this problem see here. (Sorry for the length, which is actually a main point of this example. Be sure to read the following sections as well. This continued at ANI.) It's the most crass example I know. Even though it's about policy space, I am sure it's pertinent."
Why is there an obession with leaving things unsaid? So that we can have endless squabbles? Why not be explicit? Is it beyond our ability to formalise what mostly already happens in a confused fashion? Would not clarity be welcome? -- Michael C. Price talk 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Re example - There's a discussion that is currently in progress at WP:NORN. During the discussion, the editor who brought it up has simplified his question to the following issue, in order to get help with understanding what is and what is not allowed. I expect the editor will get back to the more complicated issue once he gets this simpler hypothetical example clarified. (I edited it a little to clarify.)
I think the proposed addition and Blueboar's approach, would not prohibit this simple deduction. But it could still be excluded if it was objected to and didn't get a consensus. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hans. This is exactly why NOR is OK the way it is. Statistics is a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. It involves simple numbers, but to correlate them to reality, esp. in controversial public opinion polls, is very tricky if not impossible, and is often misused to pursue specific agendas. We can say 4 is bigger than 2, but we can't draw far-reaching conclusions about behavior or feelings of people based on statistical polls. Crum375 ( talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't Hans' argument show that you need to allow for more than just simple syllogisms? Keeping an edit out of an article is in a certain sense also an edit (a negative edit). But this is then based on a more complex argument based on statistics that proves that the simple syllogism is not valid and hence one would need a direct quote from a source. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a source that says that 64% of Turks are unwilling to live next to Jews and 75% of Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists. Michael raised the question of whether the following statement would be acceptable, " according to the source, more Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists than to Jews." Hans felt this was better, but still seemed to feel that NOR prohibits it. This is the crux of the issue. Editors believe that this statement is prohibited by the current form of WP:NOR. Futhermore, that appears to be the fallback position of those opposed to the statement on the article's Talk page. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, it's a simple deduction and therefore prohibited. The proposed changes would not prohibit it but still require consensus for including it. With the proposed change in policy, the burden to establish consensus is still on the editor who wants to put it in, but the possibility of including it would not be eliminated solely by WP:NOR, which is currently the case. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, SlimVirgin, you are taking a simple example intended to illustrate the point, and making it into the point. To phrase matters more abstractly, "There are simple statements that presently are excludable, and in practice are excluded by citing WP:OR, that would become explicitly allowed with a modification of WP:OR; but changes to WP:OR that would allow explicitly such statements are opposed on the basis that such changes make the editing task of excluding bogus arguments too onerous." Brews ohare ( talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that would border on my topic ban. Nonetheless, it is an example where WP:SYN is used to block a simple syllogism. However, to continue, no matter what examples are brought up, and no matter how clear-cut the problem may be in some particular instances, there is no way to combat the argument that explicit inclusion of such cases opens the floodgates and makes editing too difficult. What is "too difficult" for a particular editor is a judgment call beyond argument. Change of WP:OR is at an impasse. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Slim Virgin, Re your remark, "They're not excluded." - Perhaps you and Hans should discuss this since you two seem to have a difference of opinion on that. See my response to Hans above. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Crum375: The notion of simple in this discussion is used in the combination "simple syllogism" and refers specifically to the topic syllogism. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Crum375: This discussion is not about controversial issues: it is about syllogisms, regardless of whether they are common or interesting. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Crum375: Again, this discussion is not about "real life" and is not about "statistical reliability". It is about syllogisms, which are symbolic manipulations of premises that find statements logically equivalent to the premises. These manipulations are purely mechanical, can be made by automatons, and have nothing to do with the validity of the premises, only with statements that are equivalent to the premises. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The main point is that in contentious cases there is rarely agreement on the reduction of the real issues to a "syllogism", and even more so to "simple" one. The only real example I see above is the Turkish attitudes poll and it was clearly not consensual that the issue was reducible to a "simple syllogism". In fact, as an uninvolved party I can see major issues in that reduction. If all sides agree that a conclusion is trivial and correct, they will use their common sense and consider it part of the allowed "summary and neutral presentation" process. If there is any dispute, then it's not really trivial or indisputably correct, and needs exact sourcing. Crum375 ( talk) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the proposal for reference.
Simple logical deductions
This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. 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.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think one fear here is that while allowing some simple syllogisms might improve the encyclopedia, it could potentially be misused to introduce WP:OR and WP:SYN into WP. Brews has seen a "hole" in the guidelines that he feels should be plugged, but he is making the same mistake I have made a number of times: the policies/guidelines of WP cannot cover every possible set of circumstances. Some debates and arguments come up that are totally germaine to that conversation, and don't apply outside of that realm. Other times, the editors at a certain article must make decisions based on current policies (and the spirits of policies) which may only work for that article. That's the nature of consensus and WP:IAR. Adding the section on syllogisms/logical deductions is a bit like this: You have a mild headache, so the doctor prescribes drug A. Drug A causes a rash, so the doctor gives you drug B. Drug B makes you nauseous, so he gives you drug C, ad nauseum. Sometimes the attempts to fix a problem will cause more and more problems, so it's best just to deal with the inital headache. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Angryapathy: I don't agree that this is a subjective matter. Everyone agrees what a syllogism is, and a syllogism can be established by simple symbolic manipulation that is totally non-subjective. That is what the Russell-Whitehead link is about. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hans: Undoubtedly some will not understand that they are not using a syllogism, or have incorrectly stated the premises, or have incorrect premises. A discussion will follow, which may converge or not. The issue is how much is gained by a practice that allows abusive use of WP:NOR compared to how much is lost by excluding statements logically implied by sourced premises. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
So far, the only movement by editors opposed to the proposal, towards including it, was long ago in this discussion by the editor who originally removed it from the policy page, and that editor left the discussion long ago. I've done about all I can so I'll exit now. Thanks for the discussion. Regards, -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is the original proposal:
Simple logical deductions
This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. 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.
This proposal seems fine to me, but objections have been raised. Therefore, below is an alternative. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Inasmuch as it already is part of WP:NOR that routine mathematical operations are allowable, I'd suggest that the statement be added that all syllogisms that can be related logically to routine calculations are acceptable, and are not considered to be WP:SYN or WP:OR. Perhaps an article can be written that demonstrates explicitly the equivalence of certain syllogisms to mathematical operations, and Routine calculations can be linked to this article. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on this page is evidence that such a statement is considered non-empty, as many have expressed reservations about it. It is my view that the trivial nature of this statement is not evident to all, and that statements have been excluded from WP based upon a misunderstanding of its nature. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. For the last few weeks small number of editors have been proposing changes that would constitute major change to longstanding policy; as each subthread fails to gain consensus the discussion gets a jump start with a minor variation on the same basic proposal--none of which addresses the substantive objections. In an ideal world the proposed changes might be reasonable, but they fail to safeguard against frequent and longstanding types of wikilawyering. Sometimes a minor inconvenience really is necessary for the good of the project. Please let it go. Durova 355 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Durova: It would be a useful contribution to this discussion if you could list the substantive objections, which in my mind boil down to the single "floodgate" or "Pandora's box" argument. That is the one argument you have raised as well. It's natural for a discussion of this kind to take some time, even though it is not a "major change", or even a change at all, but simply an explicit statement of what is already implicit in the Routine calculations subsection. Let's see what people think about that. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Glancing at the talk page of that example, I see other points being made by editors, and they are not related to an objection to syllogism. One editor makes a point that a source for the derivations would be helpful to students, another makes a point that the article is just a list of equations and derivations and thus does not merit its own page. I see nothing on that talk page that would support changes to any existing policy. Crum375 ( talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Crum375: Here is a possible formulation:
Routine calculations
- This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived. Likewise, simple syllogisms may be used that are logical equivalents of routine mathematical calculations, as described by Russell and Whitehead. Care must be taken to observe no synthesis takes place.
Brews ohare ( talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
While I'm generally strongly disinclined to recommend or encourage the use of straw polls as part of the policy-making process, it seems to me that (per Durova and others above) we've reached the point where the discussion is becoming circular, and no significant advancement is likely.
I would like to pose the following questions, and get a yes/no wherever possible. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Has there been a clear demonstration that simple, unambiguous syllogisms are incorrectly removed from Wikipedia articles on a regular basis?
Yes, evidence has been presented that syllogisms are often removed inappropriately.
No, evidence has not been presented to demonstrate the problem.
Comment - This is a rather poorly put question. "Clear demonstration" sets the bar high and would require a considerable amount of research into the histories of articles. "Unambiguous syllogisms" again unnecessarily narrows the subject more than it is since the proposal applied to simple deductions in general. "Often" in the yes part, and "on a regular basis" in the question, again makes the question difficult. Consider how this type of a question, narrowed in the way it has been, would be answered when it is applied to each existing part of WP:NOR. For example: Has there been a clear demonstration that there are situations like the Smith/Jones example that occur in Wikipedia articles on a regular basis and often?
Please note that when an example was requested, I found an example of a simple deduction that was excluded from an article, by giving a quick look at the current discussions at WP:NORN. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As proposed above (in any section) would you endorse a change explicitly exempting syllogisms and/or logical deductions to this policy?
Yes, I would support the proposed addition (specify which).
No, such an addition to this policy is not necessary. Obvious syllogisms are adequately covered by existing Wikipedia policies.
As it appears that the discussion here has largely run its course, it may be worthwhile to table the matter for the time being. New proposals regarding syllogisms should not be brought forward again for a period of not less than 12 months.
Yes, the discussion is essentially complete. We can take at least a 12-month break from this issue.
No, there is additional important ground which much be discussed on this issue. (Describe briefly.)
Comment - Please note this excerpt from WP:Consensus:
Please note that when I posted this message, one side on these issues is just voting, without giving their personal rationale for their opinion, which reduces the weight of those opinions, according to WP:Consensus. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 12:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Another comment: This poll seems fundamentally flawed to me in that it rolls together two distinct points in a way that artificially discourages separation again. The first part seems agreeable to me - it should be clear that the requisite consensus for this proposal is not going to be reached and therefore it is obviously dead in the water. However, that position is inextricably linked to to the 12 month moratorium in the poll. In my view that is fundamentally improper since it leverage support for the first part to create false support for the second part which had received no prior discussion before the poll. CrispMuncher ( talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
A motion has been made on Wikipedia talk:No original research to prevent further discussion of a topic by setting a time limit of one year before anyone is allowed to bring up the subject. This action appears to me to be a violation of the spirit of WP, as well as being unnecessary. What is your opinion? Brews ohare ( talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
When I put forward the idea of closing discussions per consensus in the ARBcom case about the problems on the speed of light page, this was dismissed because it was not grounded in wiki policies. But in that case, you had very long discusssions that were seen to be a problem (not by me, but by most other editors). So, I am sympathetic to the idea that you could do this. However, in this case, the discussions have barely started. While a lot has been written, it has been a "rapid fire" discussion. If you visit this page every few days, the discussion could have been declared "over" before you would have had a chance to take your time to think things over and give your opinion.
Perhaps we should accept that this can be long discussion that can take some time and act accordingly (i.e. slow down, there is no need to reply immediately, posting once per day is more than enough). Count Iblis ( talk) 02:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been accused of various nasty and unpleasant things as a result of my attempt above to assess the sense of the community on where (or whether) these proposals are going. Everyone (I hope) can agree that it's unnecessary, wasteful, and distracting to encourage or allow a policy proposal to drag on forever with no resolution. There must be an eventual end to the process. So now I'm going to ask the proponents of this proposal:
I'm looking for a fairly specific framework here. 'After the discussion concludes' is not going to cut it. There's been significant input from a number of experienced, long-term Wikipedia editors. While I hesitate to draw policy conclusions from a counting of heads, I also don't think that policy change should be brought about by war of attrition. It appears that a substantial majority of participating editors are not persuaded that the proponents of these changes have made their case effectively. Moreover, many editors have made comments to indicate that they're not interested in expending much more effort in a futile endeavour. I have a suspicion that the patience of many editors has already been exhausted, and absent a clear indication that proponents are willing – or at least able – to accept a negative decision then those editors will disengage and there will be no change to the policy regardless of how much more text is spilled on this talk page. Without clear and reasonable answers to the above question(s), I know that I can see no further reason to discuss this issue. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It is expected that a proposal for possible changes to WP:NOR will undergo some evolution as discussion proceeds and editors express their views. The present form of the proposed change is that below:
Routine calculations
- This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived. Likewise, simple syllogisms may be used that are logical equivalents of routine mathematical calculations, as described by Russell and Whitehead. Care must be taken to observe no synthesis takes place.
Examination of this form of the proposal was interrupted by the posing of a straw poll, and a resulting discussion of procedure instead of the proposal. I'd suggest the proposal itself be discussed further. Below are some comments and responses from earlier discussion:
1. It is my understanding of many comments on earlier versions of this proposal that some editors believe the syllogism to be a debatable concept that requires sourcing for each syllogism at each occurrence. That notion is met by the above proposal by pointing out that what is allowed is homomorphic with the "routine calculations" already allowed. The proposed change is therefore one of making explicit what already is agreed to in the present form of WP:NOR.
2. Some comments express concern that making the acceptance of syllogisms clear will encourage extended debate with contributors that presently can be abrogated by simply stating that reversion of certain material is WP:OR, when the real reason is that the material is illogical (violates a syllogism). I'd suggest that the real reason be given in such cases: the logic is faulty. The above clarification makes clear the applicability of WP:NOR to cases where syllogisms are not used, leading to illogic.
3. Some comments suggest that making the acceptance of syllogisms clear will encourage contributions based upon false premises, and it will be more difficult to persuade authors that their premises are false. I'd suggest that the argument over premises is not made easier by dragging in an inapplicable argument that the logic is false. The correct use of WP:NOR in such cases applies directly to the formation of the premises, and the proposed clarification above has nothing to do with such debates over premises.
For this discussion to proceed, I'd suggest those who are opposed to the clarification above re-formulate their views taking the above three points into consideration. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel, from the consensus above, that the fundamentals of this proposal, regardless of the wording, should not be added. No amount of discussion rehashing the same arguments is going to change that fact. The issue should be dropped. Brews, please take a lesson from your Arbcom case to see that continually trying to argue the same point will not allow you to get your way. Leave the horse caracass alone. Angryapathy ( talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Due to an inability of several editors here to grasp what a syllogism is, and because they are continually arguing about matters totally unrelated to the proposal and to syllogisms; and due to their inability to see that syllogisms already are accepted by WP:NOR as it is presently written, this discussion cannot proceed. Unfortunately, should a future contribution employ a syllogism, and should the contributor claim that WP:NOR is not a valid reason to reject it because only a syllogism was used, exactly this same unending argument will recur for exactly the same invalid reasons. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Since there is lack of consensus to modify the policy w.r.t. logical deductions, I think that there is something else one can do. Editors on any page can always decide by consensus to ignore certain policies if they don't work in their opinion. Therefore, what we can do is write up alternative versions of the core wiki policies and then editors on any page can decide by consensus to stick to these alternative policies instead of sticking to the official policies.
A good example of this is the practice on the Global Warming page to only allow in peer reviewed sources for scientific claims. This practice was ruled to be in violation of the Reliable Sources policies in a debate on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There was a strong consensus there in favor of allowing in an edit citing the BBC saying that the Earth hasn't warmed in the last decade. However, the editors on the Global Warming page rejected this ruling and they stuck to their own rule regarding reliable sources. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised that WP:ESCA hasn't been mentioned here: it suggests that premises and conclusions be sourced, and the connection can be filled in with logical reasoning that is not necessarily sourced. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As for the universality of WP:NOR, the lengthy discussion above regarding simply making explicit the allowance of simple syllogisms shows that WP:NOR will be applied by different editors differently, some using WP:NOR to exclude syllogisms in some cases and some not. Where differences of view occur, no resolution will be possible, although those denying the inclusion of statements built upon syllogism actually will be misapplying WP:NOR, denying what it already includes.
An example is found here where a prolonged debate over the use of classical vacuum as interchangeable with free space was settled only by finding a verbatim quote to this effect, despite the use in texts of either term (but very rarely both in the same text) to describe the reference state of classical electrodynamics. This is an example of A = C in some sources and B = C in others, but difficulty in finding a verbatim source saying A = B. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope that the Admins reviewing this paragraph to determine whether it is a topic-ban violation, will realize the physics topic itself is not being discussed here; it is being used only as an example of the type of quandary under discussion here. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Count, you are repeatedly stating there is a problem with science articles, which requires a modification of NOR policy, yet I haven't seen a single example of such an article, with a clearly demonstrated 'problem'. Let us see a single science article where we cannot achieve an excellent result by reflecting the best published reliable sources, per V, NPOV and NOR. And don't say "there are many": pick just one example, and let's examine it closely. Crum375 ( talk) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
the same article in the state it was in on 18 April 2008, almost 2 years later. For almost two years Wikipedia was saying that:
Islolated error? I don't think so, the error here dates back from 10 November 2005.
Count, you keep saying very emphatically that NOR is broken, at least for use in scientific articles, and I asked for a single example demonstrating the problem, showing how NOR is broken. Instead you seem to be focusing on some essay you are writing, not the NOR policy, and the example you gave above was about simple errors which were missed in a wiki article, nothing to do with NOR, AFAICT. What am I missing? Crum375 ( talk) 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If the issue is that "some people" are excessively pedantic, that's not specific to science — you'll find such editors everywhere, who insist we dot our i's etc. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, because they may balance the other extreme, those who are very sloppy and don't care much for any policy or guideline. The solution, as in most such situations, is to find a reasonable middle-ground. So if someone seriously insists on a source for something you feel is "trivial", it's often better to just get that source. After all, if it's so trivial, it should be relatively easy to find it. And typically, it will take less time to find that source than to argue endlessly about it. The point is that these issues are common to all article topics, not just science. And again, all policies and guidelines have to be applied with common sense, not blindly. Crum375 ( talk) 00:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the bit about "reasonable educated person without outside knowledge" kind of implies that simple logical deductions are ok, unless something can be found wrong with it. Based on the experience I recently had with the polls about Turks, Jews, and atheists, I think it would be nice if there was a link to an explanation of the ambiguity of polls included in the policy. In other words that even the simplest of comparisons is arguable depending on the way in which the study is done. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Some observations:
These apply in heavily-watched articles where nobody is pushing an agenda. If there are lightly watched articles, things slip through. If the article is "controlled" by a faction that has an agenda - and don't kid yourself, at any given time a number of topics on the wiki are under the "control" of dominant editor or group - then edits hostile to that agenda are much more likely to be reverted than edits friendly to it, everything else being equal. Where possible, such politically-minded editors will use Wiki-policy to defend their actions.
Based on this, I recommend people use common sense: If a mathematically correct reduction is simple enough that most people with a 100 IQ will understand it within seconds, then let it pass. If it isn't obvious, and you can explain it in less than a couple hundred words on the talk page so most people with a 100 IQ will understand it, make the edit and explain yourself. If it takes more than that to explain it, either drop it altogether or open a discussion. Obviously, in highly technical articles with a highly technical audience, you can assume the average reader has an IQ much higher than 100 and edit accordingly.
In no case should any mathematical reduction which is either disputed or, if original, likely to be disputed by anyone who understands the math, be accepted. Likewise, if the math is too hard to understand by the average reader of that type of article, it should not be added without discussion. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that part of the problem behind all this is the nature of sources in science or at least some parts of science. I say some parts of science because this whole discussion is really only about mathematics, physics and some areas of chemistry. Some popular textbooks take some topics and simplify them so much that they are actually wrong. To get an accurate description needs a source in the primary literature or in original books or perhaps in advanced textbooks which are not readily available. Different texts give different stories. It is not OK to say in these circumstances, unlike perhaps in say history, "according to A this is the case, while according to B that is the case". We have to get the science right. Science editors who know the material well, possibly because they are Ph D students in the area, will give the advanced explanation of the topic. This is then open to challenge on the basis of a larger number of editors who have read a common first year university text. Of course, the text does not say it is simplifying the explanation, and we are unlikely to find a reliable source that says that X's first year text on physics simplifies the problem. If the simple, possibly wrong, explanation is given in an article, we have to say where it simplifies the problem, but we do not have sources for that. Perhaps we should be giving the simpler explanations as many of these articles, such as those in thermodynamics, are incomprehensible to the average reader. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)