![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
As a bit of a test, I have listed 9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny for deletion. It is a self-published video promoting the author's crank theory about whacky 9/11 conspiracies. The Wikipedia article editors of the page have provided a long, detailed synopsis of the video, which (IMO) (may now be relegated to edit history) serves primarily to promote the video and its theories. It is not otherwise sourced. So, is a synopsis of a self-published (Internet-published, in this case) crank video encyclopedic? If it is, may I load up all my home videos on the Internet and write pages about them :-) -- Gnetwerker 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This part of WP:NOR came up in an AFD: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy"
It's being claimed that it means that if wikipedians can't agree on the notability or reliability of a single source, that source should be included in the article anyway, and the article should note that wikipedians don't agree on its inclusion. I believe that is misreading the above, since such an interpretation would violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. I think the above means that when there is a difference of opinion about a source that the information in that source should be compared to what other sources say and that the differences between those sources should be addressed in the article. Part of the policy was left out when it was quoted in the afd, which reads in full: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view." Шизомби 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
However, an additional interpretation is the section does mean that in those rare cases of a strident disagreement between Wikipedians over the legitimacy/ reliability of a source, the portion of an article that is based on such a source might include a disclaimer ("an account of the controversy"), such as, "The legitimacy of the source for the following section is disputed". This would be no more a violation of "Avoid self-reference" than putting an "Original Research" or "NPOV" tag on sections of articles in dispute. (Note that "Avoid self-reference" itself is a style guide and not a policy, and likely needs to be cleaned up, too.)
Both of these views, IMHO, are appropriate, and not mutually exclusive; but in any event, the particular section being cited should be clarified with more direct language.— Leflyman Talk 07:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the warning at the top of the page to make clear that "changes" do not include grammatical corrections, links, clarifications, or examples. As I hope I've made clear, I do not agree with this policy, but I am deferring to those more experienced than I. In any event, my view is that bad policy clearly stated is better than ambiguous bad policy. When the main page is unblocked, the statement there should be changed too. Ragout 05:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
In the course of editing the top-of-page notice, I eventually realized that it is not the same as the main policy page notice. So I'm going to edit the talk page notice to make it consistent. I think there needs to be a very strong argument for having two different notices. Ragout 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Right after I wrote this, I noticed that SlimVirgin had edited the top-of-page notice that appears on WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. The intention seems to be to discourage edits to the policy pages. Since this was done without discussion, I reverted it too. Ragout 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, on April 22, SlimVirgin changed the 2nd sentence of the top-of-page notice from this :
to this:
And this was done while both WP:NOR and WP:V were protected! Ragout 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This is my first day here so I can't be too terribly demanding, but I really must at least ask the question after reading this policy regarding what qualifies as "reputable."
"...Does it have a large or very small readership?...does it have a large, permanent staff?...If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls 'reputable'."
While I certainly agree that fact-checking and responsible publication practices are essential to take any paper seriously, this doesn't mean there must be a "large, permanent staff" to do so. Ever heard of I.F. Stone? There are many publications that told the truth during the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as well, should they be ignored because the New York Times was beating the war drums at the time?
Such examples are particularly poinant regarding smaller-scale matters in local communities. With the national, state and regional press naturally ignoring what can often be bitter and brutal political and economic battles in rural areas, who are we supposed to turn to for research? Sometimes the one or two established daily newspapers in the area both get it wrong, are we to assume they are always right just because they have the cash flow and discount newer or smaller publications don't?
I hope the established folks here don't take this the wrong way, but as someone who is starting up a community paper, it'd be nice to see the open source and free-thinking community on the Internet be a little more open to research that isn't churned out by media conglomerates which more and more tend to shy away from the kind of real investigative journalism that makes history. Especially in small communities such as Humboldt County, the alternatives are few, but we are just as deserving to have our history recounted.
"where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and"
should read
"where an article (1) makes descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and"
-- SGBailey 13:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The policy should explicitly state that just because someone put something in an article without a citation, it doesn't automatically mean it's "original research." You would be amazed at the number of people on Wikipedia that don't understand this. I had an arbitration case against me that accused me of original research, and the ruling was against me and I was put on probation. But, the arbitrators never even bothered to request sources for ANY of my edits. I was ready to supply sources for any edit that was questioned, but, they never bothered. They either just didn't care to take the time to check if my edits were indeed original research or they just didn't understand the policy. I'm always careful to enter in information that I can present a source for if someone requests it. This shouldn't happen to anyone else. Please mention in this article that not attaching a source to an edit does not automatically "original research." Do not claim or convict someone of "original research" without requesting sources for their edits. Thanks. RJII 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think everyone has cooled down, so I am unprotecting. I urge anyone who wants to make a substantive edit to discuss it here first. If there is a violation of 3RR by more than one person in the next couple of days, I think it should be protected again. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Why was the mention that there is no policy requirement to cite a source deleted? This is a true statement. It needs to be clarified that it's wrong to assume something is original research without requesting a source. An unsourced statement may well not be original research. Most sentences in Wikipedia ARE unsourced, but are not necessarily original research. RJII 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This is very similar to the "no need to cite" discussion above, but that seems more oriented to cases were a person has citations but they don't see it necessary to put it up. I want a clarification on when the information in the article falls far below the "research-bar" and is just information. For example, if you work at Microsoft and happen to know that the new version of Windows had been given the in-house nickname "skyway" and you wanted to put that information on the entry, would you have to cite it? You didn't do research, you are the person people would goto for research. Nor is this the sort of thing that would be published in a "peer-reviewed" journal. This is a far-cry than the crack-pot physics theories wikipedia is trying to rule out by this policy. What if you worked with a philosopher who had an entry on wikipedia (as Susan Haack has an entry, a woman who is currently my prof) and you happened to know her middle-name? Or nick-name in the department? That sort of information is likely never to be published anywhere to be cited. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to need such citation to be allowed. What I am arguing for is an Original information exception to the No original research policy. This is for information that is too "small" to be research and information that the poster of the information might be an adequate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atfyfe ( talk • contribs)
SV, you are incorrect in your quick RV comment about tertiary srouces. Wikipedia contains a number of 1911 Britannica articles that are out of copyright. These are Tertiary sources (just like Wikipedia). Tertiary sources out of copyright can be included. In no stretch of the imagination does copying a tertiary source make it a secondary source. -- Tbeatty 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a level of abstraction between copying a (out of copyright) tertiary source and citing it for a fact. I would much prefer that we stick to the former and avoid the latter. -- Mmx1 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
We cannot say that sources are not required, only to say later that they are. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you ae mixing up two issues. First, I personally am against using encyclopedia artiles as sources, NOT because they violate NOR (they do not) but bcause I think it is just silly or one encyclopedia to use another encyclopedia as a reference. If the other encyclopedia is so good, why should people com here and not go there? Moreover, what makes that encyclopedia any good is that it is based on real esearch; so should we. Second, what is the specific status of 1911 Bitanica aticles here? I suggest that they are not sources in the sense of this policy. When Wikipedia started out it had few articles and great ambitions. One way to bridge the gap is to ceat stubs - otherwise crappy articles, really just placeholdes for future, real articles. Since 1911 EB is public, we in efect used it to create stubs. In other words, no one usede the 1911 EB as a source for an article, the original and entire 1911 EB article was used as a place-holder. As we work, I think most would agree we need to rewrite all these EB articles, and replace them with good up-to-date articles. Until we do that, someone using Wikipedia can at least read the 1911 article. Using 1911 means we have far fewer gaps than new and groing encyclopeida would normally have. That is all. It is not a real article, or a source for an article, just a stop-gap place-holder, a temporary thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I need help at Earth Day. There might be some original research involves and the page needs a neutral third person to check it. __earth ( Talk) 03:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What does this section have to do with this policy? Hyacinth 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
1. It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See " What counts as a reputable publication?" and " Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable. john k 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this recently added sidebar {{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}} appropriate in a policy page? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to briefly summarize this surprising policy and its blatant contradiction with copyright policy, as I see it (please see Wikipedia:Copyrights):
One: No new, previously unpublished material is allowed. Fine. Strange, but fine.
Two: If a contributor writes a new article (or adds new text to an existing article), based on previously published materials (books, magazines, webpages, newspapers, etc.) then almost invariably a self-appointed vigilante will appear, will decide that such material is, must be, in violation of such "copyrighted" reputable publications, and will delete or slash it, and altogether cripple it miserably.
This is no invention, it's a fact that happens too often in Wikipedia. Wonder how much traffic is devoted just to battles consisting of removal and replenishment of materials in articles. I also wonder how, despite this seemingly perennial confrontation, has Wikipedia managed to reach the astounding number of a million-plus articles. Amazing.
Can someone please help clarify this confusion? AVM 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Mnemonic#RfC:_How_should_WP:V.2C_WP:NOR.2C_and_WP:CITE_be_applied_to_unsourced_examples_of_first-letter_mnemonics.3F. The article contained about seventy-five unsourced examples of "first-letter mnemonics," probably representing a mix of well-known but uncited mnemonics, unpublished orally transmitted folk culture, and original creations. Should the WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR policies be interpreted as allowing such material, on the basis that it is self-verifying (i.e. anyone can see by inspection that the initial letters of "Kinky People Can Often Find Good Sex match those Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species, and the source of the mnemonic is of no practical concern)? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion in Wikipedia talk:External links about whether or not original links can constitute original research. Wikipedia:External links lists, among links to avoid:
However, I was under the impression that WP:NOR only applied to the actual content of articles. Having read it along with WP:RS a bit more carefully, I understand that exterior webpages about something that hasn't been talked about in reliable sources can also constitute original research. Is that right? How could we make things clearer on Wikipedia:External links?
(This is pretty much a copy of what I posted on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources) Flammifer 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The discussion of what constitutes new synthesis or analysis in this article seems to me to be far too broad, and doesn't contain any caveats. Let's repeat it here:
Is "A and B, therefore C" really only acceptable if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article? This would seem to suggest that A=An undisputed fact about the subject of the article + B=a dictionary definition of a term defined as "Something possessing characteristic A" cannot be put together to form C="The subject of the article is B", unless somebody has specifically said "The subject of the article is B".
If applied strictly, this policy could be used to exclude virtually any material which is not direct quotations from a secondary source. Every time we paraphrase something, we can be accused of conducting original research "Sure you've shown sources that say that X was born in Finland and has an ethnically Finnish name and his first language was Finnish and served as President of Finland, but it's original research to say 'X is Finnish' because you can't find a source which uses those words." I think we'd all recognize that such an argument is ridiculous, and that saying "X is Finnish" is not original research. But the current wording of the policy seems to support such a view, or at least not to rule it out.
As I write, I realize that an earlier statement, apparently trying to say the same thing, is even worse:
This way leads to insanity and complete unworkability, I think. It has the same problems as the quote I discuss above, but is even broader, in that it apparently doesn't actually go to new synthesis or analysis, but to any presentation of facts in the article. For instance, if an article on the Byzantine Empire is offering a sourced statement about the Seljuk Turks - say, what area they originated from - this statement would have to be excluded unless we can find a source which discusses this fact in relation to the Byzantine Empire. This is ridiculous on its face. At the very least, it should say "Any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic under discussion." An article may (briefly) deal with subjects that are only peripherally related to the topic of the article. It is completely ridiculous to demand that any statement about such peripherally connected subjects must be sourced with sources that are directly about the subject of the article.
I'll add, as I think others have in the past, that the prohibition on new synthesis is ridiculous. As I think others have previously pointed out, new synthesis is exactly what an encyclopedia does. The principal meaning of "synthesis" is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language "The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole.". Any article consists of synthesis, and the prohibition on new synthesis would mean that we couldn't have any material on wikipedia. I don't even find the philosophical definition of synthesis as "deductive reasoning" to be terribly problematic. Deductive reasoning is often misused by annoying people, but that doesn't change the fact that, given valid premises and valid operation of deductive reasoning, any conclusion of deductive reasoning is a priori true. The problem with people using deductive reasoning is that they generally use it wrong - they either operate based on invalid premises, or else make conclusions that aren't justified by the premises. Banning deductive reasoning would, again, prevent us from doing virtually anything on wikipedia, because any kind of paraphrase involves the use of deductive reasoning. We ought to be very careful about displays of "deductive reasoning," but the way to defeat the problems posed by POV-pushers claiming things are "simple facts" derived through "deductive reasoning" is not to ban the use of what is essentially a basic tool of human reasoning, without which it is completely impossible to write an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article is explicitly a work of synthesis, in that it is taking various sources and combining them into a whole. If we can only put together sources which some existing secondary source has already put into a coherent whole already, we are completely useless.
What we really intend to ban here is new analysis. The kind of "synthesis" which seems intended to be banned here seems actually to be analysis disguised as synthesis.
A final comment, which is that these particular parts of the article seem to have been at least partially derived out of disputes over articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. "Tough cases make bad law," says the old adage, and I think it applies here. When it comes to a subject that raises very strong emotions on both sides, there are bound to be issues where policy comes into question. I think it would be best not to base our general policies on issues arising out of such things, because the result is bound to turn out extreme, as I think it has in the case of the WP:NOR policy as it stands today. It is particularly troubling that the sole example of original research in the article is actually a direct quote from one such dispute, with the names changed. I think what is needed on this page is to kind of go back to basics and figure out what is not original research. The current definition would seem to define most of wikipedia as original research, in that it contains new synthesis. john k 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Recently there's been some strife regarding a group of pages that relate to the discussion on Age of consent. The sub pages (eg. Age of consent in Australia and Oceania for sex) list the laws pertenant to the subject with a brief discussion of what they mean.
My question is, does citing Law clasify as original research? At university we were always told under pain of death two things; First - don't plagiarise; Secondly - no original research. In order to satisfy these two points we had to always cite our sources. This meant pointing to both the Law itself (caselaw and legislation) and pointing to reputable discusions of said laws.
Has there been a position set on this at WP as yet? -- Monotonehell 07:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
See two edits here and please clarify, should original research be allowed to make something as these two say, NPOV or accurate or both? Or should wikipedia have original research if an article has no reliable sources except those that editors say are innacurate and NPOV? Some claim original research applies to only "It introduces original ideas" and not to requiring reliable sources as citation. DyslexicEditor 10:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I use this edition of Time magazine, featuring articles on Harry Dexler White as any other secondary source? Time Archive Stor stark7 19:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the problems with No Original Research is that it is often used by cranks seeking to exclude any claims that might disprove the pet theory they are peddling.
So for example suppose that Prof A has a paper published by the journal of Economics describing some fancy new statistics technique. The journal publishes the paper because it is a journal of techniques not policy.
Suppose then that the paper contains a conclusion that black is white on the basis of this new statistical technique. Advocates for the B=W theory then peddle the paper in the blogosphere and it is peddled on Wikipedia.
Since the theory is clearly a crank theory no journal thinks it worth rebuttal. The cranks then refuse to allow any negative comment on the crank claim because there is none in scholarly journals - but the paper is torn to shreds in the blogs. -- Gorgonzilla 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a question about a map showing language distributions. The author has apparently used several language map books to make an image of the distribution of the German language (and dialects), pre-, and post- ww2. Se these two discussions
Does this constitude synthesis forbidding the use in wikipedia? -- Stor stark7 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The author has apparently used several language map books I would like to add that the author didn't present to us only language map books as his source, but rigged voting results(ignoring such facts as moving Germans to the region of voting or the fact that different nationalities besides Germans have voted for Germany), allegations against Polish state, data that comes from war situation when German military was present in Poland. All of this contradicting scholary sources indicating much more smaller presence in Poland by German military(including Reich statistics which aren't likely to downplay it). There is no clear source for the image and inclusion of emotional attacks against Poland in the text given as "source" seems to indicate POV. -- Molobo 17:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to dredge up the past, but SlimVirgin seems to have been making a WP:Point when she (?) added the Chicago Manual of Style example to the article (which looking at the edit history was not an uncontroversial change). The example is taken directly from a dsipute in which this user was involved at Talk:Norman_Finkelstein#OR. (Note, I was also involved in this dispute and opposed SV's point of view). Regardless of who was right, it was surely inappropriate for this user to edit the policy while citing it in the dispute, so I ask that the inclusion of this example (and the strict interpretation of OR which it illustrates) should be reconsidered (and of course accepted if there is a consensus in its favour). Cadr 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's fine so long as the addition of "black is not white" does not "advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose," as the policy says. On Finkelstein, one of the editors was trying to argue that someone was or was not guilty of plagiarism (I forget which way round it was), which was the problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I think is another good example, one that I'm currently wrestling with myself, because I'd like to add it to a page I'm working on, but it would be OR to do so. I'm writing about Rudolf Vrba, an Auschwitz escapee who brought news of the camp to the Allies in April 1944. His report was not distributed widely enough or fast enough, and as a result (he argues), the Jews in Hungary continued to board the trains taking them to Auschwitz, believing they were going to be resettled, not killed. Vrba, backed by some scholars, says if they had known the truth, they would have run, hidden, or fought back. Other scholars say this is false and that Vrba's information would have made little difference if it had been distributed earlier, because the Jews did already know about Auschwitz, and even if they didn't, they probably wouldn't have believed it and wouldn't have acted on the information. That's the basic debate.
Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel has talked about his experience as a Hungarian Jew of being taken to Auschwitz, and has said: "The last transport left the station on a Sunday morning. ... It was less than three weeks before the Allies' invasion of Normandy. Why did we allow ourselves to be taken? We could have fled, hidden ourselves in the mountains or in the villages. The ghetto was not very well guarded: A mass escape would have had every chance of success. But we did not know." [6]
This is clearly relevant to Vrba's point and backs it up, and I would like to add it. But to do so would be original research, because Wiesel has never commented on the Vrba controversy, and no historian has ever mentioned Wiesel's statement in relation to that debate. Therefore, for me to decide to synthesize these two accounts would be my POV and my OR. It is this kind of research that the "no novel synthesis" rule seeks to avoid. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
But it depends on what "A" and "B" are. The way it is written now seems to be essentially banning all independent use of human reasoning capability. This is, I think entirely unworkable, and I agree with Cadr that the main issues with this are going to come down to the NPOV rule, not the NOR rule. john k 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
But the parts I quoted don't say that it's only when they're trying to "advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose." It says that this is true in all situations. Which was my point. john k 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Suppose X is an advocate of an ethical and political philosophy based on evolutionary psychology. X is not one of the foremost advocates of such a philosophy (though he has published a couple of articles in reputable journals), so there is no critique specifically addressing his work which can be cited. However, in the exposition of his ideas, it would not be NPOV to fail to mention that his philosophy is somewhat controversial. It would be appropriate to cite more general critiques of moral philosophies based on evolutionary psychology and briefly explain how they apply to his ideas, without taking a stance on whether these critiques were correct. This would appear to violate "[the]...precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about." The word "precise", especially, is getting in the way of writing a good, informative article. WP:OR should not be a catch-all policy as it is at the moment -- we ought to exercise our judgement in deciding where source-based synthesis is appropriate. To my mind, it's appropriate when it doesn't violate NPOV, or introduce patently nonsensical arguments. Cadr 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For editors to propose new definitions of established terms on talk pages, and to edit the article according to these new definitions, violates the "provides" clause in spirit and in practice. Thus, I've changed "provides" to "provides or presumes." Timothy Usher 06:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a question about a concrete implication of the NOR policy. On a page about Anti-X[nation]-ian sentiment, would it be OR to add, in the form of examples with quotes and short comments, links to Internet sites, forums, books etc. which, according to the editor, manifest that sentiment?-- 85.187.44.131 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if collecting these statements and classifying them as X-ophobic (a classification which others might dispute) isn't, respectively, a kind of "field work" and a kind of "original analysis" of primary source material? -- 85.187.44.131 15:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the reply. I kept silent, because I was waiting to see if anyone else would like to comment. In case you're interested, the page I was wondering about was Anticroatian sentiment (sic! bad spelling for technical reasons). Thanks once again. -- 85.187.44.131 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What happens if someone starts a stub giving the bare details, and contributors between them add more, creating what is in effect Original Research? Jackiespeel 16:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Can it really be labeled as Original Research if the majority of wiki users accept it and only a small minority, such as one stray admin, does not agree with them?.....I believe that original research was set up so that one wiki user would not put ideas that have no basis. In Real Life, the rule is that if enough people accept it, it becomes a law or the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Hawk ( talk • contribs)
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
As a bit of a test, I have listed 9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny for deletion. It is a self-published video promoting the author's crank theory about whacky 9/11 conspiracies. The Wikipedia article editors of the page have provided a long, detailed synopsis of the video, which (IMO) (may now be relegated to edit history) serves primarily to promote the video and its theories. It is not otherwise sourced. So, is a synopsis of a self-published (Internet-published, in this case) crank video encyclopedic? If it is, may I load up all my home videos on the Internet and write pages about them :-) -- Gnetwerker 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This part of WP:NOR came up in an AFD: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy"
It's being claimed that it means that if wikipedians can't agree on the notability or reliability of a single source, that source should be included in the article anyway, and the article should note that wikipedians don't agree on its inclusion. I believe that is misreading the above, since such an interpretation would violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. I think the above means that when there is a difference of opinion about a source that the information in that source should be compared to what other sources say and that the differences between those sources should be addressed in the article. Part of the policy was left out when it was quoted in the afd, which reads in full: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view." Шизомби 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
However, an additional interpretation is the section does mean that in those rare cases of a strident disagreement between Wikipedians over the legitimacy/ reliability of a source, the portion of an article that is based on such a source might include a disclaimer ("an account of the controversy"), such as, "The legitimacy of the source for the following section is disputed". This would be no more a violation of "Avoid self-reference" than putting an "Original Research" or "NPOV" tag on sections of articles in dispute. (Note that "Avoid self-reference" itself is a style guide and not a policy, and likely needs to be cleaned up, too.)
Both of these views, IMHO, are appropriate, and not mutually exclusive; but in any event, the particular section being cited should be clarified with more direct language.— Leflyman Talk 07:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the warning at the top of the page to make clear that "changes" do not include grammatical corrections, links, clarifications, or examples. As I hope I've made clear, I do not agree with this policy, but I am deferring to those more experienced than I. In any event, my view is that bad policy clearly stated is better than ambiguous bad policy. When the main page is unblocked, the statement there should be changed too. Ragout 05:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
In the course of editing the top-of-page notice, I eventually realized that it is not the same as the main policy page notice. So I'm going to edit the talk page notice to make it consistent. I think there needs to be a very strong argument for having two different notices. Ragout 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Right after I wrote this, I noticed that SlimVirgin had edited the top-of-page notice that appears on WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. The intention seems to be to discourage edits to the policy pages. Since this was done without discussion, I reverted it too. Ragout 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, on April 22, SlimVirgin changed the 2nd sentence of the top-of-page notice from this :
to this:
And this was done while both WP:NOR and WP:V were protected! Ragout 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This is my first day here so I can't be too terribly demanding, but I really must at least ask the question after reading this policy regarding what qualifies as "reputable."
"...Does it have a large or very small readership?...does it have a large, permanent staff?...If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls 'reputable'."
While I certainly agree that fact-checking and responsible publication practices are essential to take any paper seriously, this doesn't mean there must be a "large, permanent staff" to do so. Ever heard of I.F. Stone? There are many publications that told the truth during the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as well, should they be ignored because the New York Times was beating the war drums at the time?
Such examples are particularly poinant regarding smaller-scale matters in local communities. With the national, state and regional press naturally ignoring what can often be bitter and brutal political and economic battles in rural areas, who are we supposed to turn to for research? Sometimes the one or two established daily newspapers in the area both get it wrong, are we to assume they are always right just because they have the cash flow and discount newer or smaller publications don't?
I hope the established folks here don't take this the wrong way, but as someone who is starting up a community paper, it'd be nice to see the open source and free-thinking community on the Internet be a little more open to research that isn't churned out by media conglomerates which more and more tend to shy away from the kind of real investigative journalism that makes history. Especially in small communities such as Humboldt County, the alternatives are few, but we are just as deserving to have our history recounted.
"where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and"
should read
"where an article (1) makes descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and"
-- SGBailey 13:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The policy should explicitly state that just because someone put something in an article without a citation, it doesn't automatically mean it's "original research." You would be amazed at the number of people on Wikipedia that don't understand this. I had an arbitration case against me that accused me of original research, and the ruling was against me and I was put on probation. But, the arbitrators never even bothered to request sources for ANY of my edits. I was ready to supply sources for any edit that was questioned, but, they never bothered. They either just didn't care to take the time to check if my edits were indeed original research or they just didn't understand the policy. I'm always careful to enter in information that I can present a source for if someone requests it. This shouldn't happen to anyone else. Please mention in this article that not attaching a source to an edit does not automatically "original research." Do not claim or convict someone of "original research" without requesting sources for their edits. Thanks. RJII 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think everyone has cooled down, so I am unprotecting. I urge anyone who wants to make a substantive edit to discuss it here first. If there is a violation of 3RR by more than one person in the next couple of days, I think it should be protected again. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Why was the mention that there is no policy requirement to cite a source deleted? This is a true statement. It needs to be clarified that it's wrong to assume something is original research without requesting a source. An unsourced statement may well not be original research. Most sentences in Wikipedia ARE unsourced, but are not necessarily original research. RJII 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This is very similar to the "no need to cite" discussion above, but that seems more oriented to cases were a person has citations but they don't see it necessary to put it up. I want a clarification on when the information in the article falls far below the "research-bar" and is just information. For example, if you work at Microsoft and happen to know that the new version of Windows had been given the in-house nickname "skyway" and you wanted to put that information on the entry, would you have to cite it? You didn't do research, you are the person people would goto for research. Nor is this the sort of thing that would be published in a "peer-reviewed" journal. This is a far-cry than the crack-pot physics theories wikipedia is trying to rule out by this policy. What if you worked with a philosopher who had an entry on wikipedia (as Susan Haack has an entry, a woman who is currently my prof) and you happened to know her middle-name? Or nick-name in the department? That sort of information is likely never to be published anywhere to be cited. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to need such citation to be allowed. What I am arguing for is an Original information exception to the No original research policy. This is for information that is too "small" to be research and information that the poster of the information might be an adequate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atfyfe ( talk • contribs)
SV, you are incorrect in your quick RV comment about tertiary srouces. Wikipedia contains a number of 1911 Britannica articles that are out of copyright. These are Tertiary sources (just like Wikipedia). Tertiary sources out of copyright can be included. In no stretch of the imagination does copying a tertiary source make it a secondary source. -- Tbeatty 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a level of abstraction between copying a (out of copyright) tertiary source and citing it for a fact. I would much prefer that we stick to the former and avoid the latter. -- Mmx1 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
We cannot say that sources are not required, only to say later that they are. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you ae mixing up two issues. First, I personally am against using encyclopedia artiles as sources, NOT because they violate NOR (they do not) but bcause I think it is just silly or one encyclopedia to use another encyclopedia as a reference. If the other encyclopedia is so good, why should people com here and not go there? Moreover, what makes that encyclopedia any good is that it is based on real esearch; so should we. Second, what is the specific status of 1911 Bitanica aticles here? I suggest that they are not sources in the sense of this policy. When Wikipedia started out it had few articles and great ambitions. One way to bridge the gap is to ceat stubs - otherwise crappy articles, really just placeholdes for future, real articles. Since 1911 EB is public, we in efect used it to create stubs. In other words, no one usede the 1911 EB as a source for an article, the original and entire 1911 EB article was used as a place-holder. As we work, I think most would agree we need to rewrite all these EB articles, and replace them with good up-to-date articles. Until we do that, someone using Wikipedia can at least read the 1911 article. Using 1911 means we have far fewer gaps than new and groing encyclopeida would normally have. That is all. It is not a real article, or a source for an article, just a stop-gap place-holder, a temporary thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I need help at Earth Day. There might be some original research involves and the page needs a neutral third person to check it. __earth ( Talk) 03:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What does this section have to do with this policy? Hyacinth 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
1. It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See " What counts as a reputable publication?" and " Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable. john k 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this recently added sidebar {{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}} appropriate in a policy page? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to briefly summarize this surprising policy and its blatant contradiction with copyright policy, as I see it (please see Wikipedia:Copyrights):
One: No new, previously unpublished material is allowed. Fine. Strange, but fine.
Two: If a contributor writes a new article (or adds new text to an existing article), based on previously published materials (books, magazines, webpages, newspapers, etc.) then almost invariably a self-appointed vigilante will appear, will decide that such material is, must be, in violation of such "copyrighted" reputable publications, and will delete or slash it, and altogether cripple it miserably.
This is no invention, it's a fact that happens too often in Wikipedia. Wonder how much traffic is devoted just to battles consisting of removal and replenishment of materials in articles. I also wonder how, despite this seemingly perennial confrontation, has Wikipedia managed to reach the astounding number of a million-plus articles. Amazing.
Can someone please help clarify this confusion? AVM 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Mnemonic#RfC:_How_should_WP:V.2C_WP:NOR.2C_and_WP:CITE_be_applied_to_unsourced_examples_of_first-letter_mnemonics.3F. The article contained about seventy-five unsourced examples of "first-letter mnemonics," probably representing a mix of well-known but uncited mnemonics, unpublished orally transmitted folk culture, and original creations. Should the WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR policies be interpreted as allowing such material, on the basis that it is self-verifying (i.e. anyone can see by inspection that the initial letters of "Kinky People Can Often Find Good Sex match those Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species, and the source of the mnemonic is of no practical concern)? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion in Wikipedia talk:External links about whether or not original links can constitute original research. Wikipedia:External links lists, among links to avoid:
However, I was under the impression that WP:NOR only applied to the actual content of articles. Having read it along with WP:RS a bit more carefully, I understand that exterior webpages about something that hasn't been talked about in reliable sources can also constitute original research. Is that right? How could we make things clearer on Wikipedia:External links?
(This is pretty much a copy of what I posted on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources) Flammifer 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The discussion of what constitutes new synthesis or analysis in this article seems to me to be far too broad, and doesn't contain any caveats. Let's repeat it here:
Is "A and B, therefore C" really only acceptable if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article? This would seem to suggest that A=An undisputed fact about the subject of the article + B=a dictionary definition of a term defined as "Something possessing characteristic A" cannot be put together to form C="The subject of the article is B", unless somebody has specifically said "The subject of the article is B".
If applied strictly, this policy could be used to exclude virtually any material which is not direct quotations from a secondary source. Every time we paraphrase something, we can be accused of conducting original research "Sure you've shown sources that say that X was born in Finland and has an ethnically Finnish name and his first language was Finnish and served as President of Finland, but it's original research to say 'X is Finnish' because you can't find a source which uses those words." I think we'd all recognize that such an argument is ridiculous, and that saying "X is Finnish" is not original research. But the current wording of the policy seems to support such a view, or at least not to rule it out.
As I write, I realize that an earlier statement, apparently trying to say the same thing, is even worse:
This way leads to insanity and complete unworkability, I think. It has the same problems as the quote I discuss above, but is even broader, in that it apparently doesn't actually go to new synthesis or analysis, but to any presentation of facts in the article. For instance, if an article on the Byzantine Empire is offering a sourced statement about the Seljuk Turks - say, what area they originated from - this statement would have to be excluded unless we can find a source which discusses this fact in relation to the Byzantine Empire. This is ridiculous on its face. At the very least, it should say "Any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic under discussion." An article may (briefly) deal with subjects that are only peripherally related to the topic of the article. It is completely ridiculous to demand that any statement about such peripherally connected subjects must be sourced with sources that are directly about the subject of the article.
I'll add, as I think others have in the past, that the prohibition on new synthesis is ridiculous. As I think others have previously pointed out, new synthesis is exactly what an encyclopedia does. The principal meaning of "synthesis" is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language "The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole.". Any article consists of synthesis, and the prohibition on new synthesis would mean that we couldn't have any material on wikipedia. I don't even find the philosophical definition of synthesis as "deductive reasoning" to be terribly problematic. Deductive reasoning is often misused by annoying people, but that doesn't change the fact that, given valid premises and valid operation of deductive reasoning, any conclusion of deductive reasoning is a priori true. The problem with people using deductive reasoning is that they generally use it wrong - they either operate based on invalid premises, or else make conclusions that aren't justified by the premises. Banning deductive reasoning would, again, prevent us from doing virtually anything on wikipedia, because any kind of paraphrase involves the use of deductive reasoning. We ought to be very careful about displays of "deductive reasoning," but the way to defeat the problems posed by POV-pushers claiming things are "simple facts" derived through "deductive reasoning" is not to ban the use of what is essentially a basic tool of human reasoning, without which it is completely impossible to write an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article is explicitly a work of synthesis, in that it is taking various sources and combining them into a whole. If we can only put together sources which some existing secondary source has already put into a coherent whole already, we are completely useless.
What we really intend to ban here is new analysis. The kind of "synthesis" which seems intended to be banned here seems actually to be analysis disguised as synthesis.
A final comment, which is that these particular parts of the article seem to have been at least partially derived out of disputes over articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. "Tough cases make bad law," says the old adage, and I think it applies here. When it comes to a subject that raises very strong emotions on both sides, there are bound to be issues where policy comes into question. I think it would be best not to base our general policies on issues arising out of such things, because the result is bound to turn out extreme, as I think it has in the case of the WP:NOR policy as it stands today. It is particularly troubling that the sole example of original research in the article is actually a direct quote from one such dispute, with the names changed. I think what is needed on this page is to kind of go back to basics and figure out what is not original research. The current definition would seem to define most of wikipedia as original research, in that it contains new synthesis. john k 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Recently there's been some strife regarding a group of pages that relate to the discussion on Age of consent. The sub pages (eg. Age of consent in Australia and Oceania for sex) list the laws pertenant to the subject with a brief discussion of what they mean.
My question is, does citing Law clasify as original research? At university we were always told under pain of death two things; First - don't plagiarise; Secondly - no original research. In order to satisfy these two points we had to always cite our sources. This meant pointing to both the Law itself (caselaw and legislation) and pointing to reputable discusions of said laws.
Has there been a position set on this at WP as yet? -- Monotonehell 07:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
See two edits here and please clarify, should original research be allowed to make something as these two say, NPOV or accurate or both? Or should wikipedia have original research if an article has no reliable sources except those that editors say are innacurate and NPOV? Some claim original research applies to only "It introduces original ideas" and not to requiring reliable sources as citation. DyslexicEditor 10:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I use this edition of Time magazine, featuring articles on Harry Dexler White as any other secondary source? Time Archive Stor stark7 19:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the problems with No Original Research is that it is often used by cranks seeking to exclude any claims that might disprove the pet theory they are peddling.
So for example suppose that Prof A has a paper published by the journal of Economics describing some fancy new statistics technique. The journal publishes the paper because it is a journal of techniques not policy.
Suppose then that the paper contains a conclusion that black is white on the basis of this new statistical technique. Advocates for the B=W theory then peddle the paper in the blogosphere and it is peddled on Wikipedia.
Since the theory is clearly a crank theory no journal thinks it worth rebuttal. The cranks then refuse to allow any negative comment on the crank claim because there is none in scholarly journals - but the paper is torn to shreds in the blogs. -- Gorgonzilla 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a question about a map showing language distributions. The author has apparently used several language map books to make an image of the distribution of the German language (and dialects), pre-, and post- ww2. Se these two discussions
Does this constitude synthesis forbidding the use in wikipedia? -- Stor stark7 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The author has apparently used several language map books I would like to add that the author didn't present to us only language map books as his source, but rigged voting results(ignoring such facts as moving Germans to the region of voting or the fact that different nationalities besides Germans have voted for Germany), allegations against Polish state, data that comes from war situation when German military was present in Poland. All of this contradicting scholary sources indicating much more smaller presence in Poland by German military(including Reich statistics which aren't likely to downplay it). There is no clear source for the image and inclusion of emotional attacks against Poland in the text given as "source" seems to indicate POV. -- Molobo 17:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to dredge up the past, but SlimVirgin seems to have been making a WP:Point when she (?) added the Chicago Manual of Style example to the article (which looking at the edit history was not an uncontroversial change). The example is taken directly from a dsipute in which this user was involved at Talk:Norman_Finkelstein#OR. (Note, I was also involved in this dispute and opposed SV's point of view). Regardless of who was right, it was surely inappropriate for this user to edit the policy while citing it in the dispute, so I ask that the inclusion of this example (and the strict interpretation of OR which it illustrates) should be reconsidered (and of course accepted if there is a consensus in its favour). Cadr 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's fine so long as the addition of "black is not white" does not "advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose," as the policy says. On Finkelstein, one of the editors was trying to argue that someone was or was not guilty of plagiarism (I forget which way round it was), which was the problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I think is another good example, one that I'm currently wrestling with myself, because I'd like to add it to a page I'm working on, but it would be OR to do so. I'm writing about Rudolf Vrba, an Auschwitz escapee who brought news of the camp to the Allies in April 1944. His report was not distributed widely enough or fast enough, and as a result (he argues), the Jews in Hungary continued to board the trains taking them to Auschwitz, believing they were going to be resettled, not killed. Vrba, backed by some scholars, says if they had known the truth, they would have run, hidden, or fought back. Other scholars say this is false and that Vrba's information would have made little difference if it had been distributed earlier, because the Jews did already know about Auschwitz, and even if they didn't, they probably wouldn't have believed it and wouldn't have acted on the information. That's the basic debate.
Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel has talked about his experience as a Hungarian Jew of being taken to Auschwitz, and has said: "The last transport left the station on a Sunday morning. ... It was less than three weeks before the Allies' invasion of Normandy. Why did we allow ourselves to be taken? We could have fled, hidden ourselves in the mountains or in the villages. The ghetto was not very well guarded: A mass escape would have had every chance of success. But we did not know." [6]
This is clearly relevant to Vrba's point and backs it up, and I would like to add it. But to do so would be original research, because Wiesel has never commented on the Vrba controversy, and no historian has ever mentioned Wiesel's statement in relation to that debate. Therefore, for me to decide to synthesize these two accounts would be my POV and my OR. It is this kind of research that the "no novel synthesis" rule seeks to avoid. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
But it depends on what "A" and "B" are. The way it is written now seems to be essentially banning all independent use of human reasoning capability. This is, I think entirely unworkable, and I agree with Cadr that the main issues with this are going to come down to the NPOV rule, not the NOR rule. john k 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
But the parts I quoted don't say that it's only when they're trying to "advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose." It says that this is true in all situations. Which was my point. john k 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Suppose X is an advocate of an ethical and political philosophy based on evolutionary psychology. X is not one of the foremost advocates of such a philosophy (though he has published a couple of articles in reputable journals), so there is no critique specifically addressing his work which can be cited. However, in the exposition of his ideas, it would not be NPOV to fail to mention that his philosophy is somewhat controversial. It would be appropriate to cite more general critiques of moral philosophies based on evolutionary psychology and briefly explain how they apply to his ideas, without taking a stance on whether these critiques were correct. This would appear to violate "[the]...precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about." The word "precise", especially, is getting in the way of writing a good, informative article. WP:OR should not be a catch-all policy as it is at the moment -- we ought to exercise our judgement in deciding where source-based synthesis is appropriate. To my mind, it's appropriate when it doesn't violate NPOV, or introduce patently nonsensical arguments. Cadr 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For editors to propose new definitions of established terms on talk pages, and to edit the article according to these new definitions, violates the "provides" clause in spirit and in practice. Thus, I've changed "provides" to "provides or presumes." Timothy Usher 06:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a question about a concrete implication of the NOR policy. On a page about Anti-X[nation]-ian sentiment, would it be OR to add, in the form of examples with quotes and short comments, links to Internet sites, forums, books etc. which, according to the editor, manifest that sentiment?-- 85.187.44.131 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if collecting these statements and classifying them as X-ophobic (a classification which others might dispute) isn't, respectively, a kind of "field work" and a kind of "original analysis" of primary source material? -- 85.187.44.131 15:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the reply. I kept silent, because I was waiting to see if anyone else would like to comment. In case you're interested, the page I was wondering about was Anticroatian sentiment (sic! bad spelling for technical reasons). Thanks once again. -- 85.187.44.131 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What happens if someone starts a stub giving the bare details, and contributors between them add more, creating what is in effect Original Research? Jackiespeel 16:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Can it really be labeled as Original Research if the majority of wiki users accept it and only a small minority, such as one stray admin, does not agree with them?.....I believe that original research was set up so that one wiki user would not put ideas that have no basis. In Real Life, the rule is that if enough people accept it, it becomes a law or the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Hawk ( talk • contribs)