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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Someone should point out that the theory of no original research, here displayed, is unpublished or, that is, is synthetic original research or a novel idea. However, what I just wrote was such as well, and thus should be by this law removed. It's just funny; I'm not being a dick.-- Tyler Nash 08:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This policy is extremely text-oriented. Am I to understand that calling Boston City Hall to get the current population or names of the current city council members, etc., is not allowed as it this would not be a "published" source? It is arguably verifiable, whether or not WP:V thought to include anything besides print. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of phone calls vs text, but of paper vs electonics. Many things have been around for years on the Internet, and are well-known within certain communities of experts, but have no paper version. There are theorems in mathematics called "folk theorems" since they are known but not actually written down anywhere.
Jimbo said this: The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.
It seems to me that the Instruction Creep has gone way beyond this. Experts in a field, by no means self-selected cranks, are not allowed to discuss what they know. Gene Ward Smith 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Longest Streets in London was a list of named roads, sorted by length by Wikipedians into a ranked list. It had no references. It survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London and was then reduced to its present form: only two roads with length references. Clearly the sorting (and more particularly the implied claim of longest, second longest) constituted “original research” if anyone wanted to be picky (and some people were picky!). I tried to set a good example by adding [2] a long road with a length reference.
This was twice deleted in good faith and with discussion Talk:Longest_streets_in_London#WP:NOR
Now, I’d be delighted to discuss over a pint of beer whether my reference was satisfactorily verifiable: I think it was. However, I find the “NOR” argument very difficult. I looked at a street atlas to see where the road went; I looked in a reference book to see it was constructed as a whole; I looked it up on Multimap (which confirmed the starting and finishing points); and I used Multimap to work out its length. Certainly this was a synthesis of published information but it was Multimap doing the length synthesis (at my request and in a way verifiable by Wikipedians).
As a footnote: I failed to find the length of Western Avenue either by using Google for a non-dynamic text reference or by using reference books. Could this be the “undisputed fact for which no reliable source could be found” which SlimVirgin has been seeking all this time :-) Thincat 13:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this rule of no original research make wikipedia a parasite on published material? And doesn't it also mean that wikipedia can only cantian knowledge worthy of commodification, that is, capable of 'making money'? And doesn't wikipedia claim to trust its editors, in a manner similar to Rabelais' retreat, where the only rule is do what you will ("Good Faith") assuming that the participants will naturally make the right choice? What if an argument can be supported in and of itself, that is, an argument that is not factual but theoretical? Do concepts not stand on their own logical power and not on the name of their author, or, rather, can they not be verified by being read?-- Tyler Nash 07:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be correct too. Certainly, the questions were a way to challenge the policy. This was obvious. In my situation, it is natural that I do not like any repression of opinions. -Lumière 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
This section uses the popular vague meaning of "theory" which commonly leads to misunderstandings about the status and meaning of scientific theories. I propose that the first paragraph should be expanded along these lines:
The second paragraph seems fine. ... dave souza, talk 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Revised by dave souza, talk 13:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning the proposed Wikipedia:Fringe theories here... though it would need work too. Esquizombi 13:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I wrote an article on this book, and included a synopsis. Then someone wrote comments on that, so I told him that was original research. Upon which he said that my writing a synopsis also constitutes original research. But as I understand it that is called 'source-based research'. Not sure though. Could an 'expert' (whatever constitutes that :) ) comment on this?
And while you have a look, could you give your input on whether in a synopsis (in a section with a header that identifies it as such) one should include in almost every sentence that that is 'according to the book' (or something similar)? DirkvdM 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
1. Is this a primary or secondary source?
May one use reference to his conclusions or quote what he says?
2. Is this a primary or secondary source?
The President's Economic Mission to Germany and Austria, Report 3, March, 1947
May one use the text just as if it were an ordinary book?
3. Is this a primary or secondary source? Obviously primary I would assume? http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box32/t301h06.html
May one use reference to possible conclusions or quote what is said from such a letter? May one collect a bunch of such letters and present them with a conclusion?
4. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_3_transcript.pdf
I assume whatever applies to no.3 also applies to this (no.4)?
All four examples come from "reputable" sources, and are published so everyone has access to them. Stor stark7 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but does that imply that on can interpret or analyse secondary sources? And, supose I have used text from a secondary book that states an opinion, can I then also add a quote from one of these primary sources to corroborate that opinion? Stor stark7 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice the comment in the project page on theories. Given that Wikipedia has a good deal of scientific content, it is worth keeping in mind that scientists mean something very different by 'theory' than common use of the word. Hence 'its only a theory' would to most folks mean that an idea lacks veracity. But scientists speak still of the theory of gravity, and we should think twice about jumping from windows if we doubt the veracity of that theory. In short: 'theory' in science implies consensus. Cheers! Dmccabe 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
In the age of pay per use or restricted access internet a source may be available to many but not all. For example lots of 16th Century books are available to students and scholars at most major universities via Early English Books Online ('EEBO). However, the price of this service and its limited interest means that it is not open to everyone. If I cite a 16th century book available from EEBO is this original research. 1) The book quoted has been published (if only in the 1500s) and 2) the source is available to anyone with a University pass. They are therefore verifiable but not by everyone.
Let's say, I make a call to an authority, record the conversation, and then upload the .ogg (maybe to WP, maybe to Wikisource). Does that satisfy the need for verifiability? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archival materials is attempting to make an exception to WP:V and WP:NOR for material held in an institutional archive. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
JA: Re:
[policy in a nutshell|Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any novel synthesis thereof that is designed to advance a position.]
JA: That last mutation by SlimVirgin, I imagine soon to be reverted, has the effect of confounding NOR with NPOV. My brief experience in WikioPolis already tells me to be very wary of doing any more of that. Jon Awbrey 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This mutation is the result of this edit.
I personally find the addition "that is designed to advance a position" very useful in the context of no original research. It will help editors in distinguishing the case of a synthesis that respects the position of the sources that it reports, which is not original research, and a synthesis that is really original research. To clarify, I would add "new" in front of position. What I mean is that organising the content of sources requires some kind of synthesis, some kind of research, it is a valuable new contribution to the literature, but yet it is not original research. -Lumière 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
After this other edit, I had a second thought about the value of SlimVirgin's proposed mutation. I think there is still a problem with the proposed version because it says that a novel synthesis of the sources is not allowed, which is nonsense because we have to provide such a novel synthesis to report on these sources in a well organised manner. I really think that the criteria should be that the novel synthesis does not advance any new points. Also, the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" without the "new" in front of position is useless because any synthesis advance a position. It looks ackward. -Lumière 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, the "In a nutshell" version ends with, "...that is designed to advance a position." This clause is unnecessary and doesn't appear to have a basis in the policy itself: advancing a position is not a requirement for an addition to be considered Original Research. Thus, I have removed it; if someone has a strong reasoning for it to remain, please revert with explanation. — Leflyman Talk 19:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In your A and B and C example, consider that A, B and C are sourced material and advance the same position in different ways. If I design a synthesis of A, B and C, my objective is to advance this same position. This is not original research, but yet your wording considers that it is original research. It is wrong. -Lumière 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That is incorrect. There can be no plagiarism of cited facts. It's a fundamental principle. Please note that there are tons of 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica articles that are copied exactly. The key is the citation, not the original synthesis. Plagiarism is also an academic standard that is not part of Wikipedia policy (i.e. plagiarism is not forbidden). Wikipedia is concerned with copyright violations but that is not the same as plagiarism. All wikipedia entries should be cited (therefore not plagiarized) and factual (therefore not plagiarizable). -- Tbeatty 05:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin on the proposed principle, but not on the proposed wording. The proposed wording does not convey the proposed principle. As a proof, three editors failed to understand the proposed principle from the wording, and two of them were already totally in agreement with this principle, but yet failed to see it in the proposed wording. -Lumière 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In your example, A and B and C advances the positions that are advanced in A and B and C. If A and B and C are sourced, this is not original research. So, something can advance a position and yet not be original research. In your example, A and B therefore C is original research if it is a new position that is not contained in the sources. Otherwise, if this logic is contained in the sources (i.e. if it is not new), it is not original research. -Lumière 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that, somewhere in the policy, not in the nutshell statement, I would add an exception to the above rule: if the logic A and B therefore C is very natural, so natural that no one could attribute C to himself given that A and B are known without making a fool of himself for trying to get credit for the obvious, then C should not count as original research as long as A and B are sourced. Otherwise, the rules are too rigid and will prevent reasonable synthesis. It is only if A and B therefore C is significant or controversial that it counts as original research. This is the same logic that makes us accept articles such as apple pie and current events that are a synthesis of primary sources. -Lumière 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I just realised that my problem with the proposed wording of the policy in a nutshell is that I consider that a synthesis of published material, even if this synthesis is unpublished, is not original research as long as it does not include any unpublished analysis, evaluation or interpretation of this material. Therefore, my proposal would be
or even simpler:
There is not even a need to mention "synthesis" because it is not where the problem lies. -Lumière 03:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If we don't qualify synthesis and thus exclude all syntheses, we exclude even simple combination of material that is not OR, which is non sense. If we only qualify synthesis with "designed to advance a position" (i.e. that violate NPOV), then we allow syntheses that violate NOR, which is also non sense. I propose that we qualify synthesis with all aspects that violates NOR as well. I will qualify synthesis with "advance a position, create new unpublished connections, new unpublished interpretations, etc.". The exact wording does not matter to me. The main point is that we should not just exclude syntheses that advance a position (i.e. that violate NPOV), but also the syntheses that violate NOR by creating new connections, etc. -Lumière 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Rfc = Request for comments, and I don't think it means request for my comments. I will help to see if we can get more outside comments. Thanks -Lumière 02:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The original version of the policy in a nutshell before the dispute was:
One problem with this original version is that it implies that every WP article is original research because a WP article is a new synthesis of the material that is contained in its sources. This modification, which is mainly the work of SlimVirgin, was an attempt to simplify the sentence, but it also had to deal with this problem. The solution proposed by SlimVirgin to solve this problem was to add the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" after "synthesis (of published material)". The reaction of other editors was not favorable (see #Confounding_NOR_and_NPOV), but SlimVirging explained his point in the following way:
However, the addition of the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" did not really solve the problem because all WP articles are syntheses, and these syntheses or articles are, of course, all designed to advance a position. I checked carefully the policy and asked myself what kind of syntheses are not allowed. The first phrase in the policy that answers this question is:
My interpretation of this phrase is that a synthesis should not advance anything new. Note that, as pointed out by SlimVirgin, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. Therefore, it is fine to have a novel synthesis. The requirement is that this (novel) synthesis should not contain any new narrative or historical interpretation. More simply, it should not advance any new position. Therefore, I proposed this small modification, which just added "new" in front of "position". It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this revert. I also tried this other edit. It was not as good as my previous solution, which only added "new" in front of "position". It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this other revert.
However, I maintain that my first proposal (expressed in this small modification) is perfectly in accord with the policy, as described in the words of Jimbo Wales. Can someone explain to me why SlimVirgin insists to revert a wording that is in accord with the view of Jimbo Wells? The "new" (meaning "non verifiable") that I proposed to add in front of "postion" is important. For example, there is no problem if the synthesis advances an historical interpretation, as long as this interpretation is verifiable (not new). -Lumière 06:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that, IMO, when we say that a synthesis advances a new (unpublished) position, we mean that it includes new unpublished material. Here "material" includes theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments or ideas, or any evaluation or interpretation thereof. Therefore, the part "novel synthesis (of published material) that advances a new position" is redundant (but perhaps useful for clarity) because it is already taken care of in "unpublished material". -Lumière 07:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This edit reverted SlimVirgin. The result after this edit is:
However, it does not solve the problem. What needs to be considered is the fact that every WP article promotes a novel (unsourced) synthesis of published material. Is it so hard to understand that it makes no sense to require a source for the synthesis as a whole? It is not the synthesis (the WP article) as a whole that must be sourced because, of course, unless it is a copy of another encyclopedia article, such a source does not exist. We need to specify what exactly must be sourced in the synthesis. The answer is simple: whether it is part of a synthesis or not, we must always provide a source for any theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas, or any interpretations or evaluations thereof. -Lumière 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The "nutshell" does not deal with specifications as to what must be sourced; it attempts to be a short description of what should not be included in articles. For sourcing, we refer people to Verifiability policy.— Leflyman Talk 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: As this appears to have become a nongermane referendum on (in effect) whether Lumiere should be allowed to edit here, I suggest that the following discussion, as well as the pertinent parts of the archived "Authority is not a concept in..." be moved to a sub-page, rather than cluttering a policy page.— Leflyman Talk 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Leflyman, your edit slightly changed the meaning of the policy. You wrote: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas; nor may they promote any novel synthesis of published material, without a verifiable source."
If it had a source, it wouldn't be novel. Also, articles may not contain any novel synthesis, whether or not it's promoted. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that this may be a semantic distinction: "novel" does not necessarily mean "never seen before" but generally means "new" (from which the word is etymologically derived). It also has the nuanced meaning of "unusual or different" (as per the American Heritage Dictionary). A novel synthesis can certainly have a verifiable source; and likewise, articles may contain new syntheses so long as they can be verified. However, the reason for my including "promote" is in reference to your previous addition "that is designed to advance a position." Promoting is by definition advancing a position. I would be fine with replacing "promote" with simply "include" or "contain", as I am of the opinion (stated well above) that the NOR nutshell doesn't need to be mixed with NPOV.— Leflyman Talk 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice that an edit war is taking place on an official policy page. Instead: before making changes, consensus should be reached! Thus I revert the body of the article to the last version by KillerChihuahua (3 March). If this continues, the article will need to be protected. Please make sure to reach consensus about improvements before editing. Harald88 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, the policy in a nutshell was added on february 10, 2006. (See this edit.) Only four editors, SlimVirgin, Leflyman, Jossi and myself, edited this important addition on the main policy page. I cannot find any discussion in the talk page, except the recent one, which resulted in no consensus at all. I imagine that it has been intensively discussed somewhere and a consensus was obtained before it was added, but I don't know where. -Lumière 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. |
The article now qualifies that that applies insofar as "that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". But I remember that that has been subject of recent debate as well; I'll now check if this hasn't been meddled with, as "advance a position" doesn't appear to originate with Jimbo. Harald88 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[copied from personal pages to here where it belongs]:
[To Katefano:] Hi, I saw that you undid my removal of an erroneous addition on a policy page without commenting. Likely you didn't understand what happened. Anyway, please use the Talk page instead of edit-warring, thanks! Harald88 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
There are many articles on Wikipedia which consist primarily of a synopsis of a work of fiction, or contain as a major component a synopsis of such a work. These articles then proceed to use that work as a primary source to state a variety of conclusions about the work in question. This raises questions such as:
I would argue that almost any plot synopsis that goes on for more than a paragraph or two falls into the category of synthesis, and that direct observation of a fictional work should not be sufficient sourcing for Wikipedia, as it is not source-based research, but (in the case of a fictional work), original research. -- Gnetwerker 23:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there is still quite a problem here. If a small, unreviewed film comes out, we can say: "the film appears to take place in New York", or "the film depicts the life and times of a journalist", but in the absence of a WP:V source, can we say "the film is a condemnation of pickle-eating"? I would think that the last statement (chosen in example for its absurdity) would be a clear violation, even if the film quotes a character as saying "I hate pickle-eaters!". To place this in a less-absurd context, this comes up in Wikipedia pages about fiction, where someone will write "Bingo's sword was crafted in elventimes by the Goofoffindor, and has the properties ...", and in WP pages on non-fiction opinion pieces, where someone will write "Maynard's film exposes the dark conspiracy linking pickles and elven swords". I would think that all classes of such statements deducing facts or opinions from a larger fictional or opinion-based context would be impermissible. -- Gnetwerker 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a detailed follow-up of the discussion a little higher on this page.
Synthesis, Dictionary.com: 1a. The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole.
The recently added "nutshell" states that "Articles may not contain [...] any new [...] synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas."
Obviously this is what any Wikipedia article does and should do; and I now see that already Lumiere had pointed this out.
Despite that both of us pointed this out, Slimvirgin (with unmotivied support from Katefan0) insists on keeping it in the policy... What now? Harald88 20:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Synthesis can also mean deductive reasoning: from Webster's New World Dictionary: 4. in philosophy, deductive reasoning, from the simple elements of thought into the complex whole, from cause to effect, from a principle to its application, etc. I assumed that this was the sense in which the word was used. I would think that the policy would prohibit all forms of deductive reasoning. Lumiere is using a much too narrow definition, and probably not the one intended by the policy author. -- Gnetwerker 20:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A few months ago this was the lead, and it's much better:
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.
Happily it's still there... Harald88 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that as pointed out above. And I now undid the deletion of a few weeks ago by Leflyman, also for reasons now exhaustively explained. This doesn't mean that I disagree with him that "to advance a position" is a bit awkward; but a qualifyer is definitely needed. And I already gave some suggestions for alternatives. Harald88 21:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Although recently introduced with some reason, the expression "to advance a position" seems to overlap with NPOV, and is IMO a bit awkward; see also earlier discussions. I think to have found an improved phrasing, more to-the-point and easier to understand: Replace it by "to advance a new idea". Harald88 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The phrase "to advance a position" is similar to the phrase "to push a viewpoint", and this is the subject of NPOV. It is true that NPOV says that we should describe all point of views without ascerting their truth, etc., which perhaps could be interpreted to mean that we should not "advance a position", but this is the NOR policy in a nutshell, not the NPOV policy in a nutshell. The right qualifier here is to advance a new idea, a new interpretation, etc. -Lumière 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It's almost correct, but any unpublished analysis is OR, whether or not it advances a position. It's only the synthesis the phrase is meant to refer back to. Also, it shouldn't be "designed to" because it's not the intention that matters. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I have sprotected this article (not the talk page) because of edits by an AOL anon. I have no idea exactly what the edit conflict consists of here, but the anon is simply doing a blanket revert of everything, including various minor formatting and the Greek interwiki link. It's not acceptable to revert all users' prior contributions in order to, in effect, assert unilateral ownership of an article, see Wikipedia:Ownership. Leaving a message on this user's talk page is not possible because AOL anon IPs specifically don't have one. -- Curps 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The AOL anon refers to and seems familiar with talk page discussion, but there are no talk page contributions from that IP range. Is this a case of registered user dropping down to an anon IP in order to circumvent 3RR? -- Curps 07:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Because this part of the policy confuses some editors, I've put up an example that hopefully clarifies it. [3] SlimVirgin (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"Editors often 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 in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."
I propose the following paragraph change to reflect the statements made above and to bring clearity to the issue of synthesis:
-- Northmeister 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Following a discussion in a FAC then an RFC the following proposal has been organized. Obviously if you have an alternative proposal, please voice it, and vote no matter what if you have an opinion. Basically the proposal includes 3 slight alterations to allow archives to be used as source on Wikipedia provided that additional information is included in the citation to prove the archives existence, public accessibility, and reliability. Staxringold 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
As it appears, with no clear reason, that the NOR page has been undergoing some unusually high activity in the last couple of days, might I suggest it be put under semi- temp protection by an admin, to let the parties work out what their disagreements with wording might be? It seems that the flood-gates to word-tinkering got opened-- if one can make such a wacky metaphor-- and everybody's wading in with their own changes. Mea culpa: I got drawn into the policy tweaking game with my own silly alterations, but would rather see a stable policy page than the edit-fest we've got going now. So what d'ya say, gang: why not first try to figure out and come to agreement on "the big problem" (if there is such a thing here) before making lots of new mini-problems? My feeling is NOR's not really broke, so it doesn't need all that much fixing.--
Leflyman
Talk 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Community can you see what has happened here? Slimvirgin has pursued a policy of now calling me a Larouche sympathizer in other words making accusations without warrant, rather than discussing this topic with civility. Will Beback who has been accused of "wiki-stalking" and "harassment" by myself and a host of other users, has also engaged in personal attack and misreprensentation of facts per his above statements. He is engaging here based soley on disrupting a legitimate discussion with matters outside of that discussion. Rather than discuss the points, both editors are resorting to name calling and personal attacks on other users bringing arguments from other pages here against Wikipedia standards. We do not need or want this. All that is needed is a consensus to emerge on definitions and on clarity issues. Civil discourse is called for and collaboration. Wikipedia is not a oligarchy, it is not an exclusive club nor a democracy...it is a collaborative effort that builds through consensus of the community...especially policy changes, that Slimvigin is attempting without consensus, thus my recent edit to clarify her edits, and to prevent abuse by such individuals as Will Beback above, who engage in abuse often. See the discussions, since he brought them up at American System page and now at Laissez-faire. -- Northmeister 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin made a simple ad hominem attack, nothing more. And in addition, her characterization of Northmeister as a "LaRouche sympathizer" is false; Northmeister is a supporter of Patrick Buchanan and Theodore Roosevelt, both of whom are anathema to LaRouche, who regards them as Neo-confederates. I pointed out, correctly, that SlimVirgin has a documented history of making self-serving edits to Wikipedia policy pages. This is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, unlike the personal attacks of SlimVirgin and Jayjg. -- HK 20:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin proposes: "Editors often 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 in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."
As I read it, this rules out the structure: <topic-sentence, supporting-fact-1, supporting-fact-2>, since the topic sentence would be a new point C, a "synthesis". To be concrete, here's an adaption of paragraph from a recent Featured Article. "Slowly, [the runner] rose to the top. In 1938, she ran her first world record. At the European Championships in Vienna, she won the bronze. Many observers expected her to do well at the upcoming Olympics." So we have some facts about races won, collected together to make a new point: she "rose to the top." There is no citation given for the claim "rose to the top." I think this is perfect acceptable, but I understand SlimVirgin's proposal to rule out this paragraph structure, which is very common in Wikipedia. Ragout 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Northmeister, I understand the words you write, but they do not make sense to me. You make a series of points - some valid, some not - but seem to think that they have anything to do with SlimVirgin's edits. They do not. Slimvirgin has not changed the policy at all. She has deleted nothing of substance, she has not added anything new, nor has she changed anything. What she added was nothing more than a clarification, explaining what is already in the policy.
In fact, any edit that changes the policy must take into account the many conversations that went into this policy, and must be held up for general discussion for some time. But Slim's edit is not of this sort. It is just a clarification of the existing policy. That is a whole other thing - editing for clarity without changing substance. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
A few days ago, the NOR policy said "cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Nothing more was said to define "directly related." Now that a dispute has arisen over the meaning of "directly related," SlimVirgin has added extensive language to support one particular interpretation.
These are not examples! They're new language, attempting to narrow the concept of "directly related." SlimVirgin and some others obviously think they know what "directly related" means, but I and a number of others have a different and broader interpretation. You shouldn't be making such a major change without more discussion and consensus. Ragout 07:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ragout, Slimvirign is not adding anything to the policy. She is merely clarifying it so there is less room for misunderstanding. The policy makes it clear that editors cannot introduce their own synthetic claim into an article. Quoting a definition of plagiarism (for example) from a source that does not say whether or not this definition is applicable to a particular case, and then saying (in the article, explicitly or implicitly) that this definition does apply to a particular case, is a synthetic claim. It violates our policy. It violates it today, it violated it last week, it violated it last month, it violated it last year. Slimvirgin's edit does not change this, one way or the other. It merely clarifies it.
Ragout, I suggest you establih a record of valuable contributions to Wikipedia before trying to change our policies. Presumably you came here because you want to help build an encyclopedia. Why not turn your energies in that direction? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
-- 1010011010 17:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Everyone please stop messing with the policy page until a consensus is arrived at. It's not helpful, and it's arguably detrimental, to have one of the primary policy pages changing nuance every 20 minutes. Regardless of who is right or wrong here, it is especially important to follow proper consensus-building methods on the talk page; otherwise, the entire concept of "Wikipedia policy" is weakened. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Northmeister, just because you do not understand what the consenseus is, does not mean there is none. You should defer to all the editors who have been here for a while, when they tell you what the consensus is. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit wars are bad enough on actual articles. But when it comes to a policy page, they are virtually inexcusable. I urge warring editors to do two things: first, take a few days to discuss the underlying issues and specific proposals on the talk page, and actively seek out the views of well-established long-term editors (we all know that the ideal is for people to edit articles on topics they are knowledgable about. With policy pages, the topic is Wikipedia and obviously the people who have been most active over a long period of time are the most knowledgable about Wikipedia). Second, take a break from editing this policy page altogether and focus on actual articles. Policy pages should never be as active as substantive article pages, and besides, it is the encyclopedia articles that this project is all about. I urge people who are relatively new to Wikipedia to focus on contributing to actual articles and take time to understand the Wikipedia community and its policies by working on real articles, and return to the question of policy later. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm really proud of you guys and all the edits you've "achieved", but if your incapable of arguing the details and specifics of the issue, it's a sad commentary on Wiki, rather than a feather in your respective hats.-- 1010011010 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of absurd, let's take a look at the two sides in this debate about what policy really means:
The latter group is insisting the former group doesn't understand Wikipedia article content policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
666, SlimVirgin's edit simply explains a word that has been part of the policy for a very long time: no synthetic claims. This is by no means a novel argument. A synthetic claim is one that makes a new connection between two different points, which is precisely what SV is addressing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
SLR: Virgin has gone beyond that and claimed that points A & B cannot even be cited unless by someone else in a secondary source, whether a synthesis is advanced or not. That is a too rigid application of a formal rule with absurd consequences. It is also in disharmony with other portions of the policy. -- 1010011010 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You are ignoring my point. You just suggested that some synthetic statements can be allowed. The question is, who is proposing to change the policy. Some people accuse SlimVirgin of trying to change the policy. But it is you who are trying to change the policy. My point is simply that the policy has for a very long time stated that synthetic statements count as original research and are not allowed. SlimVirgin is simply applying this principle. Those who accuse her of trying to add a new policy are wrong. It is you and others, who are arguing that some sythetic statements should be allowed, who are proposing to change the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not ignoring your point, I am rejecting your erroneous claims. A published source is verifiable, period. It doesn't matter whether that source itself uses published sources or not, provides citations or not. These facts do not bear on whether or not the source is verifiable. A verifiable source that makes a claim about plagiarism in regards to the topic of the article is relevnt. A verifiable source that makes a claim about plagiarism but not concerning the topic is verifiable, but not relevant to the article. For an editor to use that source to make a claim about the topic of the article is to make a synthetic claim, which violates NOR. If you honestly do not understand this, then just take a break from this, make good faith efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, trust experienced editors when they tell you you are violating policy, until you have figured it out. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
(For some reason, the above text was removed without comment by SlimVirgin. I'm going to guess that it was an edit error, so I've restored it.) 14:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Since KillerChihuahua hasn't been quick to respond to my question, I'd like to take some pressure off him by opening it up to the floor. If anyone else (except Jayjg) would like to respond, feel free. I'd just like a clear answer. Alienus 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
(reduce)Clarification of phrasing is not change to the policy. Grammar edits are not change to the policy. This [17] which includes all edits made by SV on Apirl 11 and April 12, is not a change to the policy. It is one minor clarification, a link, and an added example to illustrate the policy. No change. Example added. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
William Connolley has unprotected the policy page. Given that this is a policy page, and the number of reverts, I think page protection was warranted to allow for a cooling down. And I think people need more than 25 minutes. Given that this is a policy page and doesn't really need constant attention anyway (I mean, it is not like an article that people are constantly adding new information to), I see no real cost to protecting it for a couple of days. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I reprotected it because a 3RR block only addresses one user's violation of a policy, whereas on this talk page we are confronted with a large number of editors, some well-established and some new, arguing over a point that is at the very heart of the policy. Given that policy pages should usually change at a glacial rate, I think it is reasonable to protect this page for a few days. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What can we do about articles that are inherently original research (such as the article on Nose picking) or articles where no regular sources exist, except empirical evidence and indivdual statements (i.e. Emo (slang)? Can they be exempt from this policy?-- The i kiro id ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/Àµ/òb) 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
ikiroid, are you serious and sincere in your question? If so - thn I would simply ask you to read the NOR policy as it is written, as the policy explicitly addresses the issue you raise. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. If you think jpgordon is being unhelpful, perhaps you do not know what the word "helpful" means. If you do not see how the apple pie article, or current events articles, exemplify the principle, then you may want to sleep on it and read those articles again with a fresh mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
So where do articles like the hotly-debated FAC Stargate (device) fall? There exist no secondary sources, the article is based on observation, inference, and deduction from the fictional source material. It is my opinion that it fails both tests above: needing to watch ~ 100 episodes of a dreadful TV show does not qualify as "easily verifiable", and the detailed reconstruction of the operation of these mythical devices is "analytic, synthetic, interpretive", etc. Enquiring minds wish to know. -- Gnetwerker 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
ikiroid, you are right that there are some articles that do not comply with this policy, and there are also some articles to which this policy does not easily apply. I believe that, realistically and practically, there are twu issues here. First, the fact that there maybe many articles that do not easily fit with this policy is a function of the fact that Wikipedia has such an tremendous variety of articles, far more than any other encyclopedia. As with law in the real world, policies here have to be applied with some common sense. If a topic is utterly uncontroversial and editors agree that it is relatively accurate, then there is simply no need to compare it against this policy. Policies become increasingly important as (1) the subject matter becomes increasingly controversial and (2) the gulf between popular perception and belief and views of established experts increases. With controversial topics, NOR is a crucial policy for maintaining the quality and integrity of the project. With topics about which there is a good deal of expert puplished literature that diverges from popular conception (think of the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) NOR is also a crucial policy for maintaining quality and integrity. If you have an article that is uncontroversial (i.e. there is no debate as to the accuracy or quality of the article), NOR is not at issue for the simple fact that no one makes it an issue. Policies and their proper application only come into play when there are disputes. Now, one would be wise to try to follow policies as rigorously as possible, in order to avoid or protect against potentil controversy. Even so, what is important is that people get the spirit of the policy. This brings me to the second important issue. Policies, by definition, are relatively abstract. No useful policy will ever explicitly address all possible cases. Wikipedia counts on editors in good faith trying to live up to its ideals, which are expressed (but never perfectly or completely) in our policies ... the actual words are approximations of the spirit. I think it is reasonable and understandable that as editors become more experienced writing good articles, collaborating with others, learning from mistakes (e.g. when other editors say that you are not complying with NOR or NPOV or another policy), as you become more experienced your own judgement of how to live up to the spirit of these policies will develop. It will be easier for you to avoid controversy or to intervene constructively when there is conroversy among other editors. We all expect a learning curve (in ourselves as much as in others) here. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus, it isn't a very good idea to say user accounts are stupid an cliquey when 1) you have one and 2) everyone here has a username. We have usernames so we can give the contributors an interactable identity, so they are not some disembodied intellectual flotsam like an IP address, whom we can't equate an identity with. Your respect on wikipedia will sink like a lead balloon if you seek to criticze the whole wikimunity.-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbǵ parlar) 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
But you should try to listen to everyone's opinion.-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbǵ parlar) 02:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Before you get to far in identifying this edit count cabal , I think everyone needs to revisit some fundamental principles from Jimbo's page:
Now look at the current locks on these pages and the complaints about low edit count users contributing to wikipedia. Consensus is what the objective is, not edit count ruling class or admin ruling class. And read the third one again. Go to User:Jimbo_Wales for more information. -- Tbeatty 05:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here
prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue
with people for fun.
Tbeatty is throwing in a red herring. No one here has disputed, or is disputing, the fact that anyone can edit and editors should be bold. This is simply not the issue. The issue has to do with what happens when editors come into conflict. Conflicts have to do with whether a given edit is right, NOT with whether someone has a right to make an edit. When it comes to encyclopedia articles - and note, the policies and guidelines including statements about being bold and newbies are welcome refer to encyclopedia articles, many conflicts have to do with content and it is self-evident that an editor who is less knowledgable about the topic (whether partical physics or the battle of the bulge) should defer to an editor who is more knowledgable. Anyone who rejects this out of hand in my opinion is not committed to writing an encyclopedia. The openness to newbies comes from our acknowledgment that someone who starts editing the partical physics page tomorrow could very well know far more about particle physics than anyone else who has been working on that article, even people who have been working on it for years. So what about when we move to Wikipedia: pages (i.e. not encyclopedia articles, the ones that Jimbo is referring to in the passages Tbeatty quotes)? What happens when there is an edit conflict? It only makes sense that, as with particle physics, the person who knows less should defer to the person who knows more. The only difference between this and the particle physics article is that when it comes to Wikipedia: special pages, th subject matter is Wikipedia itself (thus, the "Wikipedia:" before the page name). Obviously someone who has been here for a long time and who has made a huge number of edits knows more about Wikipedia than a newbie. This is a special case, and different from the encyclopedia articles that constitute the bulk of this project and to which our policies refer, where a newbie can certainly know more than an experienced editor. Anyone who doesn't see this is clearly someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia very well. As to people who raise concerns about elitism, they are entirely misplaced. It is not elitist to say that someone who knows more about partical physics is better qualified to comment on the content of the partical physics article than someone who knows less or (like me) nothing. If you fel discriminated against because you know nothing about partical physics you can easily remedy this situation by learning a lot about partical physics. Likewise, if you do not understand Wikipedia very well, you can remedy the situation by sticking around, making a lot of different kinds of contributions, doing a lot of edits, in short, taking the time to gain experience, and giving others the opportunity to judge you, and taking the time to grow in response to other's judgements. In regular English we call this "learning." Anyone can do it, and it is not elitist. It is a sine qua non for an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Just in case it's not clear what's going on here, with all the flying back and forth, we have a bunch of new accounts and two accounts associated with the LaRouche movement trying to undermine tnis policy completely. Here is the diff to Northmeister's changes. He is trying to add that original research, including editors' personal views, may be added to articles so long it's not a "POV expression" of those views and so long as there's consensus to do so on the article talk page. His new version reads (emphasis added):
[Original research] also excludes POV expression of editors': personal views, political opinions, and personal analysis or interpretation of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold against the consensus of editors working on that given article. Further, original research includes any unpublished synthesis of published material that does not directly relate to the topic at hand and is meant to support an argument that consensus of editors working on any given article does not support. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, synthesis of related sources, or arguments published by Wikipedia must hold to a consensus of editors and be verifiable through published sources both online and in print.
The rest of his edit barely makes sense.
The intro to WP:V and WP:NPOV says of NPOV, NOR, and V that: "The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." I suggest we add that sentence to this page too when it's unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Part of the reason he changed this was because of my above discussion, so you may want to read that too.-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbǵ parlar) 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
1010011010 says he does not find the Apple Pie example to be helpful. I also find it a strange example of an article likely to be based solely on primary sources. I looked at the current Apple Pie page. As I expected, it's interesting, somewhat scholarly, and cites a number of sources, including secondary sources. I was puzzled, until I realized that the experienced editors were still living in the dark ages of 2003. They probably had in mind an early version of the page, when the Apple Pie article really was just a collection of well-known facts.
So my proposal is to change:
A few more comments regarding the blind spots of the experienced editors. When 1010011010 raised this issue, SlimVirgin responded "Please stop posting to this page." Someone else (who has otherwise been civil and responsive) said "you may want to sleep on it and read those articles again with a fresh mind." I found these responses to be wrong-headed for two reasons:
1. A good way to craft a policy understandable to new editors is to listen to the reports of new editors, when they say that don't understand certain points.
2. If you have to "sleep on it," before understanding an example, it's probably not a very good example. Ragout 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The existence of a debate on an important Wikipedia policy was recently reported on the main mailing list. What is the uproar about and why is this page protected? Loom91 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
How about figuring out examples everyone can agree on before trying to agree on more abstract wording? (WAS 4.250) 4.250.132.93 09:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the way the NOR policy is to be interpreted. Assume that the person X has written the book Y and that there is a wiki article on the person X. Is one permitted to write that "in the book Y, X writes about/discusses/claims the subject/statement Z" solely based on the actual book Y, or does one have to cite a scholarly source devoted to the person X and his/her work Y?
In other words, can the book Y be used as a primary source (even though the primary sources listed in the article don't include books) or do you have to use a secondary source that says that the book Y does indeed treat the topic / include the statement Z?
-- 85.187.44.131 14:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both for the explanations. Now, my interest in the hypothetical situation that Ziz Guy mentioned is purely theoretical, but - I suppose that if it's an article about a person, living today, who has made the absurd claim that Earth is flat, then the article should include this statement even if no one has bothered to repeat or rebut it, right? -- 85.187.44.131 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I don't want to engage in the debates you're having here, and I have no ambition to deal with this page, but I have to say that the policy as it is described now isn't very clear and that's why I needed to ask for clarifications on the talk page. Before I asked my question, I was almost 50% sure that using the book Y as a source about the person X or about the book Y itself would be original research: currently, the article doesn't mention that books can be used as primary sources, not even about themselves, and it's obvious that they are secondary sources only in relation to the facts they state (and only if they are scientific works), not in relation to themselves or the authors. Saying that "in his book 'The new military humanism', Noam Chomsky states that USA is an imperialist state .." etc. etc., "in the Kama Sutra, zoophilia is described as a - {quote}..." etc. etc., that "in the poem "'Evgeny Onegin', Alexander Pushkin describes life in Russia .. " or that "in the libretto of the musical 'Chess', the character Freddie is a mean-spirited grand chess-master who ..." etc. etc, based solely on these books, would seem to be original research in the fields of ... err, Chomsky-ology,.. historical sexology .. and literature, because the respective works obviously aren't secondary sources about scientific facts, but the policy page doesn't mention that they may be used as primary sources either. Generally, it seems to me that the formulations in the policy page are suited to deal with natural sciences and with permitted statements about facts, but not with permitted statements about statements. -- 85.187.44.131 12:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I know what I've "got", and to what extent the point I have made has something to do with the debate that you are having. What I was suggesting was that perhaps somebody should add "books, essays etc." to the list of types of primary sources, for cases when the article is supposed to give info about the book/essay itself or about its author. I haven't given this much thought, it's just that it seems to me that the policy currently prohibits something that I feel is normal practice and that also you guys told me was permitted. Maybe I'm just missing something and interpreting the text of the page in a wrong way? If so, I would be glad to learn. -- 85.187.44.131 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this clause is that editors will use NPOV as a justification for OR. For example, doing a Google search or a Wikipedia word count on an article is clearly Original Research. Yet, if the editor claims that it is not "advancing a postiion" but is merely a NPOV presentation of generated facts, how will NOR be enforced? It seems it leaves a lot more wiggle room for editors to generate data in an attempt to provide what they perceive as neutrality. This is not the role of an encyclopedia. The example I'll give is on the Criticism of Wikipedia page where a non-published rebuttal is made to a published criticism using an internal analsyis of articles. IT is clearly OR. But if the new wording is allowed, does that mean editors are free to create their own statistics under the guise of a neutral presentation? I think it is bad and the phrase needs to be deleted or NPOV edit wars will break out over what should be NOR edit wars :). -- Tbeatty 05:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
THis is exactly why you can't give a NPOV out on Original Research. That's exactly why a POV test like "arguments that appears to advance a position" shouldn't be part of the Original Research pillar. If Original Research doesn't advance a position, it is still original research and should fail the test of inclusion. -- Tbeatty 20:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Null and void page exists now - original page before April 10th is official - to wit: The wikipedia policy page NOR which is not suppose to be edited in a manner to change policy without community consensus, which [ edits on April 10th did], is now protected under an altered version. The original version can be accessed by all, and is the official version, until discussion, collaboration, and or a Straw Poll determines consensus. Hence, no editor is bound to adhere to the changes as the changes were made in violation of policy - regardless of what some editors keep writing about this - it is as clear as the State of Texas is big! :) That said, I propose an official RFC on this matter be conducted to determine consensus, and I insist any editor abused by the 'new' langauge inform Arbcom or the Mediation cabal of such abuse and of the violation made per policy changes without consensus. The original Version is different quite so from the one now protected which is a false version not confirmed by consensus and should as I stated be considered null and void for all intent and purposes of Wikipedia - as the proper procedure was not followed to change the wording which changes policy! As the opening box states:
As it calls for consensus, thus, no one is obligated to follow reconstructed policy without editor's consensus. -- Northmeister 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I make a motion for an RFC on this matter to resolve consensus; as I stated above. Once consensus is formed then we will have a better notion of how to go forward. I will post no further here for two weeks other than this official protest of following a policy that has been changed against consensus support. None of this or any of the above heated discussion would of occured if the procedure listed above was followed, just for the record. Once consensus is reached I and I am sure others will follow the community's will regardless of outcome. Thank You. -- Northmeister 02:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Please take it to RFC and no personal attacks. Posting complaints in the talk page won't really help. I think you are correct and would love to comment on it, but the rants don't help convince. Where is the RFC? can you post the link?-- Tbeatty 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that a group of experienced editors are discussing restrictions on who can edit the policy page.
In my view, the edit-warring on WP:NOR could be most effectively dealt with if editors would take the trouble to demonstrate consensus before making changes. I know that many editors insist that clarifications and examples do not constitute "changes" and so can be made without discussion. But this undermines the legitimacy of the policy (since, at most, only those with extensive experience can know if the changes really do have consensus). Further, this view opens the door to "clarifications" contributed by anybody without discussion, again inviting edit wars. Unless editors start building and demonstrating consensus before extensive edits, I predict the edit-warring will continue, and restrictions on who can edit the policy will surely be needed (again, jeopardizing the legitimacy of the policy).
SlimVirgin's recent changes took less than 6 hours (!) to go from conception to incorporation into the policy, hardly enough time for discussion. I am quite pleased about my role in forcing editors to demonstrate consensus (even if it did have the appearance of insiders rallying together against outsiders rather than a genuine meeting of minds). I see this talk-page discussion as healthy, not a "mess," and I'm only sorry it didn't take place before SlimVirgin contributed her "clarifications." Ragout 03:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I find it alarming that policy pages can be changed so easily to directly bolster an editor's argument in an edit war. 6 hours is not a discussion, it's a coups d'etat. SlimVirgin has been pushing a particular interpretation of NOR to disallow certain material at the Israeli settlement article. She has met with considerable disagreement with her interpretation, even by editors who did not think the material was suitable for the article, bit did not agree that it was Original Research. This particular edit war directly concerns SlimVirgin's views regarding Synthesis of published material. I urge the community not to allow WP policy pages to become a mockery where admins make changes to bolster their position every time they get into an edit war. See Talk:Israeli settlement#Julius Stone. I certainly take this comfort: If SlimVirgin is taking the trouble to change the policy pages, perhaps she finally realized that the policy did not support her interpretation. Thank you.-- AladdinSE 12:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not ignore a discussion, I introduced my own distinct concern. I pointed to an article Talk discussion I believed concerned editors should read in furtherance of the respectability and reliability of policy pages. As to the possibility that I might have misunderstood the subtle and more complex NOR policy, anything is possible. I have shown in the past that where I am convinced in rational discussion, I concede openly and give closure to the matter. I do not slink off without comment as I have seen others do. Also, when I make a mistake, I make a public apology, as you know. I do not turn Wikipedia disputes into personal contests of will, or disrespect and neglect the discussion process, again as I have seen others do. Also, I hope I have more to offer in a serious discussion that to link and re-link to policy pages and in a most condescending fashion tell my colleagues to read them again and again, as if I and my allies were the only intelligent creatures capable of such simple cognition.-- AladdinSE 11:54, 17 April 2006 (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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Someone should point out that the theory of no original research, here displayed, is unpublished or, that is, is synthetic original research or a novel idea. However, what I just wrote was such as well, and thus should be by this law removed. It's just funny; I'm not being a dick.-- Tyler Nash 08:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This policy is extremely text-oriented. Am I to understand that calling Boston City Hall to get the current population or names of the current city council members, etc., is not allowed as it this would not be a "published" source? It is arguably verifiable, whether or not WP:V thought to include anything besides print. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of phone calls vs text, but of paper vs electonics. Many things have been around for years on the Internet, and are well-known within certain communities of experts, but have no paper version. There are theorems in mathematics called "folk theorems" since they are known but not actually written down anywhere.
Jimbo said this: The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.
It seems to me that the Instruction Creep has gone way beyond this. Experts in a field, by no means self-selected cranks, are not allowed to discuss what they know. Gene Ward Smith 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Longest Streets in London was a list of named roads, sorted by length by Wikipedians into a ranked list. It had no references. It survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London and was then reduced to its present form: only two roads with length references. Clearly the sorting (and more particularly the implied claim of longest, second longest) constituted “original research” if anyone wanted to be picky (and some people were picky!). I tried to set a good example by adding [2] a long road with a length reference.
This was twice deleted in good faith and with discussion Talk:Longest_streets_in_London#WP:NOR
Now, I’d be delighted to discuss over a pint of beer whether my reference was satisfactorily verifiable: I think it was. However, I find the “NOR” argument very difficult. I looked at a street atlas to see where the road went; I looked in a reference book to see it was constructed as a whole; I looked it up on Multimap (which confirmed the starting and finishing points); and I used Multimap to work out its length. Certainly this was a synthesis of published information but it was Multimap doing the length synthesis (at my request and in a way verifiable by Wikipedians).
As a footnote: I failed to find the length of Western Avenue either by using Google for a non-dynamic text reference or by using reference books. Could this be the “undisputed fact for which no reliable source could be found” which SlimVirgin has been seeking all this time :-) Thincat 13:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this rule of no original research make wikipedia a parasite on published material? And doesn't it also mean that wikipedia can only cantian knowledge worthy of commodification, that is, capable of 'making money'? And doesn't wikipedia claim to trust its editors, in a manner similar to Rabelais' retreat, where the only rule is do what you will ("Good Faith") assuming that the participants will naturally make the right choice? What if an argument can be supported in and of itself, that is, an argument that is not factual but theoretical? Do concepts not stand on their own logical power and not on the name of their author, or, rather, can they not be verified by being read?-- Tyler Nash 07:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be correct too. Certainly, the questions were a way to challenge the policy. This was obvious. In my situation, it is natural that I do not like any repression of opinions. -Lumière 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
This section uses the popular vague meaning of "theory" which commonly leads to misunderstandings about the status and meaning of scientific theories. I propose that the first paragraph should be expanded along these lines:
The second paragraph seems fine. ... dave souza, talk 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Revised by dave souza, talk 13:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning the proposed Wikipedia:Fringe theories here... though it would need work too. Esquizombi 13:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I wrote an article on this book, and included a synopsis. Then someone wrote comments on that, so I told him that was original research. Upon which he said that my writing a synopsis also constitutes original research. But as I understand it that is called 'source-based research'. Not sure though. Could an 'expert' (whatever constitutes that :) ) comment on this?
And while you have a look, could you give your input on whether in a synopsis (in a section with a header that identifies it as such) one should include in almost every sentence that that is 'according to the book' (or something similar)? DirkvdM 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
1. Is this a primary or secondary source?
May one use reference to his conclusions or quote what he says?
2. Is this a primary or secondary source?
The President's Economic Mission to Germany and Austria, Report 3, March, 1947
May one use the text just as if it were an ordinary book?
3. Is this a primary or secondary source? Obviously primary I would assume? http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box32/t301h06.html
May one use reference to possible conclusions or quote what is said from such a letter? May one collect a bunch of such letters and present them with a conclusion?
4. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_3_transcript.pdf
I assume whatever applies to no.3 also applies to this (no.4)?
All four examples come from "reputable" sources, and are published so everyone has access to them. Stor stark7 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but does that imply that on can interpret or analyse secondary sources? And, supose I have used text from a secondary book that states an opinion, can I then also add a quote from one of these primary sources to corroborate that opinion? Stor stark7 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice the comment in the project page on theories. Given that Wikipedia has a good deal of scientific content, it is worth keeping in mind that scientists mean something very different by 'theory' than common use of the word. Hence 'its only a theory' would to most folks mean that an idea lacks veracity. But scientists speak still of the theory of gravity, and we should think twice about jumping from windows if we doubt the veracity of that theory. In short: 'theory' in science implies consensus. Cheers! Dmccabe 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
In the age of pay per use or restricted access internet a source may be available to many but not all. For example lots of 16th Century books are available to students and scholars at most major universities via Early English Books Online ('EEBO). However, the price of this service and its limited interest means that it is not open to everyone. If I cite a 16th century book available from EEBO is this original research. 1) The book quoted has been published (if only in the 1500s) and 2) the source is available to anyone with a University pass. They are therefore verifiable but not by everyone.
Let's say, I make a call to an authority, record the conversation, and then upload the .ogg (maybe to WP, maybe to Wikisource). Does that satisfy the need for verifiability? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archival materials is attempting to make an exception to WP:V and WP:NOR for material held in an institutional archive. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
JA: Re:
[policy in a nutshell|Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any novel synthesis thereof that is designed to advance a position.]
JA: That last mutation by SlimVirgin, I imagine soon to be reverted, has the effect of confounding NOR with NPOV. My brief experience in WikioPolis already tells me to be very wary of doing any more of that. Jon Awbrey 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This mutation is the result of this edit.
I personally find the addition "that is designed to advance a position" very useful in the context of no original research. It will help editors in distinguishing the case of a synthesis that respects the position of the sources that it reports, which is not original research, and a synthesis that is really original research. To clarify, I would add "new" in front of position. What I mean is that organising the content of sources requires some kind of synthesis, some kind of research, it is a valuable new contribution to the literature, but yet it is not original research. -Lumière 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
After this other edit, I had a second thought about the value of SlimVirgin's proposed mutation. I think there is still a problem with the proposed version because it says that a novel synthesis of the sources is not allowed, which is nonsense because we have to provide such a novel synthesis to report on these sources in a well organised manner. I really think that the criteria should be that the novel synthesis does not advance any new points. Also, the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" without the "new" in front of position is useless because any synthesis advance a position. It looks ackward. -Lumière 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, the "In a nutshell" version ends with, "...that is designed to advance a position." This clause is unnecessary and doesn't appear to have a basis in the policy itself: advancing a position is not a requirement for an addition to be considered Original Research. Thus, I have removed it; if someone has a strong reasoning for it to remain, please revert with explanation. — Leflyman Talk 19:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In your A and B and C example, consider that A, B and C are sourced material and advance the same position in different ways. If I design a synthesis of A, B and C, my objective is to advance this same position. This is not original research, but yet your wording considers that it is original research. It is wrong. -Lumière 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That is incorrect. There can be no plagiarism of cited facts. It's a fundamental principle. Please note that there are tons of 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica articles that are copied exactly. The key is the citation, not the original synthesis. Plagiarism is also an academic standard that is not part of Wikipedia policy (i.e. plagiarism is not forbidden). Wikipedia is concerned with copyright violations but that is not the same as plagiarism. All wikipedia entries should be cited (therefore not plagiarized) and factual (therefore not plagiarizable). -- Tbeatty 05:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin on the proposed principle, but not on the proposed wording. The proposed wording does not convey the proposed principle. As a proof, three editors failed to understand the proposed principle from the wording, and two of them were already totally in agreement with this principle, but yet failed to see it in the proposed wording. -Lumière 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In your example, A and B and C advances the positions that are advanced in A and B and C. If A and B and C are sourced, this is not original research. So, something can advance a position and yet not be original research. In your example, A and B therefore C is original research if it is a new position that is not contained in the sources. Otherwise, if this logic is contained in the sources (i.e. if it is not new), it is not original research. -Lumière 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that, somewhere in the policy, not in the nutshell statement, I would add an exception to the above rule: if the logic A and B therefore C is very natural, so natural that no one could attribute C to himself given that A and B are known without making a fool of himself for trying to get credit for the obvious, then C should not count as original research as long as A and B are sourced. Otherwise, the rules are too rigid and will prevent reasonable synthesis. It is only if A and B therefore C is significant or controversial that it counts as original research. This is the same logic that makes us accept articles such as apple pie and current events that are a synthesis of primary sources. -Lumière 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I just realised that my problem with the proposed wording of the policy in a nutshell is that I consider that a synthesis of published material, even if this synthesis is unpublished, is not original research as long as it does not include any unpublished analysis, evaluation or interpretation of this material. Therefore, my proposal would be
or even simpler:
There is not even a need to mention "synthesis" because it is not where the problem lies. -Lumière 03:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If we don't qualify synthesis and thus exclude all syntheses, we exclude even simple combination of material that is not OR, which is non sense. If we only qualify synthesis with "designed to advance a position" (i.e. that violate NPOV), then we allow syntheses that violate NOR, which is also non sense. I propose that we qualify synthesis with all aspects that violates NOR as well. I will qualify synthesis with "advance a position, create new unpublished connections, new unpublished interpretations, etc.". The exact wording does not matter to me. The main point is that we should not just exclude syntheses that advance a position (i.e. that violate NPOV), but also the syntheses that violate NOR by creating new connections, etc. -Lumière 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Rfc = Request for comments, and I don't think it means request for my comments. I will help to see if we can get more outside comments. Thanks -Lumière 02:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The original version of the policy in a nutshell before the dispute was:
One problem with this original version is that it implies that every WP article is original research because a WP article is a new synthesis of the material that is contained in its sources. This modification, which is mainly the work of SlimVirgin, was an attempt to simplify the sentence, but it also had to deal with this problem. The solution proposed by SlimVirgin to solve this problem was to add the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" after "synthesis (of published material)". The reaction of other editors was not favorable (see #Confounding_NOR_and_NPOV), but SlimVirging explained his point in the following way:
However, the addition of the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" did not really solve the problem because all WP articles are syntheses, and these syntheses or articles are, of course, all designed to advance a position. I checked carefully the policy and asked myself what kind of syntheses are not allowed. The first phrase in the policy that answers this question is:
My interpretation of this phrase is that a synthesis should not advance anything new. Note that, as pointed out by SlimVirgin, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. Therefore, it is fine to have a novel synthesis. The requirement is that this (novel) synthesis should not contain any new narrative or historical interpretation. More simply, it should not advance any new position. Therefore, I proposed this small modification, which just added "new" in front of "position". It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this revert. I also tried this other edit. It was not as good as my previous solution, which only added "new" in front of "position". It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this other revert.
However, I maintain that my first proposal (expressed in this small modification) is perfectly in accord with the policy, as described in the words of Jimbo Wales. Can someone explain to me why SlimVirgin insists to revert a wording that is in accord with the view of Jimbo Wells? The "new" (meaning "non verifiable") that I proposed to add in front of "postion" is important. For example, there is no problem if the synthesis advances an historical interpretation, as long as this interpretation is verifiable (not new). -Lumière 06:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that, IMO, when we say that a synthesis advances a new (unpublished) position, we mean that it includes new unpublished material. Here "material" includes theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments or ideas, or any evaluation or interpretation thereof. Therefore, the part "novel synthesis (of published material) that advances a new position" is redundant (but perhaps useful for clarity) because it is already taken care of in "unpublished material". -Lumière 07:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This edit reverted SlimVirgin. The result after this edit is:
However, it does not solve the problem. What needs to be considered is the fact that every WP article promotes a novel (unsourced) synthesis of published material. Is it so hard to understand that it makes no sense to require a source for the synthesis as a whole? It is not the synthesis (the WP article) as a whole that must be sourced because, of course, unless it is a copy of another encyclopedia article, such a source does not exist. We need to specify what exactly must be sourced in the synthesis. The answer is simple: whether it is part of a synthesis or not, we must always provide a source for any theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas, or any interpretations or evaluations thereof. -Lumière 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The "nutshell" does not deal with specifications as to what must be sourced; it attempts to be a short description of what should not be included in articles. For sourcing, we refer people to Verifiability policy.— Leflyman Talk 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: As this appears to have become a nongermane referendum on (in effect) whether Lumiere should be allowed to edit here, I suggest that the following discussion, as well as the pertinent parts of the archived "Authority is not a concept in..." be moved to a sub-page, rather than cluttering a policy page.— Leflyman Talk 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Leflyman, your edit slightly changed the meaning of the policy. You wrote: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas; nor may they promote any novel synthesis of published material, without a verifiable source."
If it had a source, it wouldn't be novel. Also, articles may not contain any novel synthesis, whether or not it's promoted. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that this may be a semantic distinction: "novel" does not necessarily mean "never seen before" but generally means "new" (from which the word is etymologically derived). It also has the nuanced meaning of "unusual or different" (as per the American Heritage Dictionary). A novel synthesis can certainly have a verifiable source; and likewise, articles may contain new syntheses so long as they can be verified. However, the reason for my including "promote" is in reference to your previous addition "that is designed to advance a position." Promoting is by definition advancing a position. I would be fine with replacing "promote" with simply "include" or "contain", as I am of the opinion (stated well above) that the NOR nutshell doesn't need to be mixed with NPOV.— Leflyman Talk 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice that an edit war is taking place on an official policy page. Instead: before making changes, consensus should be reached! Thus I revert the body of the article to the last version by KillerChihuahua (3 March). If this continues, the article will need to be protected. Please make sure to reach consensus about improvements before editing. Harald88 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, the policy in a nutshell was added on february 10, 2006. (See this edit.) Only four editors, SlimVirgin, Leflyman, Jossi and myself, edited this important addition on the main policy page. I cannot find any discussion in the talk page, except the recent one, which resulted in no consensus at all. I imagine that it has been intensively discussed somewhere and a consensus was obtained before it was added, but I don't know where. -Lumière 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. |
The article now qualifies that that applies insofar as "that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". But I remember that that has been subject of recent debate as well; I'll now check if this hasn't been meddled with, as "advance a position" doesn't appear to originate with Jimbo. Harald88 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[copied from personal pages to here where it belongs]:
[To Katefano:] Hi, I saw that you undid my removal of an erroneous addition on a policy page without commenting. Likely you didn't understand what happened. Anyway, please use the Talk page instead of edit-warring, thanks! Harald88 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
There are many articles on Wikipedia which consist primarily of a synopsis of a work of fiction, or contain as a major component a synopsis of such a work. These articles then proceed to use that work as a primary source to state a variety of conclusions about the work in question. This raises questions such as:
I would argue that almost any plot synopsis that goes on for more than a paragraph or two falls into the category of synthesis, and that direct observation of a fictional work should not be sufficient sourcing for Wikipedia, as it is not source-based research, but (in the case of a fictional work), original research. -- Gnetwerker 23:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there is still quite a problem here. If a small, unreviewed film comes out, we can say: "the film appears to take place in New York", or "the film depicts the life and times of a journalist", but in the absence of a WP:V source, can we say "the film is a condemnation of pickle-eating"? I would think that the last statement (chosen in example for its absurdity) would be a clear violation, even if the film quotes a character as saying "I hate pickle-eaters!". To place this in a less-absurd context, this comes up in Wikipedia pages about fiction, where someone will write "Bingo's sword was crafted in elventimes by the Goofoffindor, and has the properties ...", and in WP pages on non-fiction opinion pieces, where someone will write "Maynard's film exposes the dark conspiracy linking pickles and elven swords". I would think that all classes of such statements deducing facts or opinions from a larger fictional or opinion-based context would be impermissible. -- Gnetwerker 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a detailed follow-up of the discussion a little higher on this page.
Synthesis, Dictionary.com: 1a. The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole.
The recently added "nutshell" states that "Articles may not contain [...] any new [...] synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas."
Obviously this is what any Wikipedia article does and should do; and I now see that already Lumiere had pointed this out.
Despite that both of us pointed this out, Slimvirgin (with unmotivied support from Katefan0) insists on keeping it in the policy... What now? Harald88 20:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Synthesis can also mean deductive reasoning: from Webster's New World Dictionary: 4. in philosophy, deductive reasoning, from the simple elements of thought into the complex whole, from cause to effect, from a principle to its application, etc. I assumed that this was the sense in which the word was used. I would think that the policy would prohibit all forms of deductive reasoning. Lumiere is using a much too narrow definition, and probably not the one intended by the policy author. -- Gnetwerker 20:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A few months ago this was the lead, and it's much better:
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.
Happily it's still there... Harald88 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that as pointed out above. And I now undid the deletion of a few weeks ago by Leflyman, also for reasons now exhaustively explained. This doesn't mean that I disagree with him that "to advance a position" is a bit awkward; but a qualifyer is definitely needed. And I already gave some suggestions for alternatives. Harald88 21:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Although recently introduced with some reason, the expression "to advance a position" seems to overlap with NPOV, and is IMO a bit awkward; see also earlier discussions. I think to have found an improved phrasing, more to-the-point and easier to understand: Replace it by "to advance a new idea". Harald88 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The phrase "to advance a position" is similar to the phrase "to push a viewpoint", and this is the subject of NPOV. It is true that NPOV says that we should describe all point of views without ascerting their truth, etc., which perhaps could be interpreted to mean that we should not "advance a position", but this is the NOR policy in a nutshell, not the NPOV policy in a nutshell. The right qualifier here is to advance a new idea, a new interpretation, etc. -Lumière 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It's almost correct, but any unpublished analysis is OR, whether or not it advances a position. It's only the synthesis the phrase is meant to refer back to. Also, it shouldn't be "designed to" because it's not the intention that matters. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I have sprotected this article (not the talk page) because of edits by an AOL anon. I have no idea exactly what the edit conflict consists of here, but the anon is simply doing a blanket revert of everything, including various minor formatting and the Greek interwiki link. It's not acceptable to revert all users' prior contributions in order to, in effect, assert unilateral ownership of an article, see Wikipedia:Ownership. Leaving a message on this user's talk page is not possible because AOL anon IPs specifically don't have one. -- Curps 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The AOL anon refers to and seems familiar with talk page discussion, but there are no talk page contributions from that IP range. Is this a case of registered user dropping down to an anon IP in order to circumvent 3RR? -- Curps 07:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Because this part of the policy confuses some editors, I've put up an example that hopefully clarifies it. [3] SlimVirgin (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"Editors often 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 in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."
I propose the following paragraph change to reflect the statements made above and to bring clearity to the issue of synthesis:
-- Northmeister 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Following a discussion in a FAC then an RFC the following proposal has been organized. Obviously if you have an alternative proposal, please voice it, and vote no matter what if you have an opinion. Basically the proposal includes 3 slight alterations to allow archives to be used as source on Wikipedia provided that additional information is included in the citation to prove the archives existence, public accessibility, and reliability. Staxringold 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
As it appears, with no clear reason, that the NOR page has been undergoing some unusually high activity in the last couple of days, might I suggest it be put under semi- temp protection by an admin, to let the parties work out what their disagreements with wording might be? It seems that the flood-gates to word-tinkering got opened-- if one can make such a wacky metaphor-- and everybody's wading in with their own changes. Mea culpa: I got drawn into the policy tweaking game with my own silly alterations, but would rather see a stable policy page than the edit-fest we've got going now. So what d'ya say, gang: why not first try to figure out and come to agreement on "the big problem" (if there is such a thing here) before making lots of new mini-problems? My feeling is NOR's not really broke, so it doesn't need all that much fixing.--
Leflyman
Talk 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Community can you see what has happened here? Slimvirgin has pursued a policy of now calling me a Larouche sympathizer in other words making accusations without warrant, rather than discussing this topic with civility. Will Beback who has been accused of "wiki-stalking" and "harassment" by myself and a host of other users, has also engaged in personal attack and misreprensentation of facts per his above statements. He is engaging here based soley on disrupting a legitimate discussion with matters outside of that discussion. Rather than discuss the points, both editors are resorting to name calling and personal attacks on other users bringing arguments from other pages here against Wikipedia standards. We do not need or want this. All that is needed is a consensus to emerge on definitions and on clarity issues. Civil discourse is called for and collaboration. Wikipedia is not a oligarchy, it is not an exclusive club nor a democracy...it is a collaborative effort that builds through consensus of the community...especially policy changes, that Slimvigin is attempting without consensus, thus my recent edit to clarify her edits, and to prevent abuse by such individuals as Will Beback above, who engage in abuse often. See the discussions, since he brought them up at American System page and now at Laissez-faire. -- Northmeister 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin made a simple ad hominem attack, nothing more. And in addition, her characterization of Northmeister as a "LaRouche sympathizer" is false; Northmeister is a supporter of Patrick Buchanan and Theodore Roosevelt, both of whom are anathema to LaRouche, who regards them as Neo-confederates. I pointed out, correctly, that SlimVirgin has a documented history of making self-serving edits to Wikipedia policy pages. This is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, unlike the personal attacks of SlimVirgin and Jayjg. -- HK 20:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin proposes: "Editors often 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 in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."
As I read it, this rules out the structure: <topic-sentence, supporting-fact-1, supporting-fact-2>, since the topic sentence would be a new point C, a "synthesis". To be concrete, here's an adaption of paragraph from a recent Featured Article. "Slowly, [the runner] rose to the top. In 1938, she ran her first world record. At the European Championships in Vienna, she won the bronze. Many observers expected her to do well at the upcoming Olympics." So we have some facts about races won, collected together to make a new point: she "rose to the top." There is no citation given for the claim "rose to the top." I think this is perfect acceptable, but I understand SlimVirgin's proposal to rule out this paragraph structure, which is very common in Wikipedia. Ragout 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Northmeister, I understand the words you write, but they do not make sense to me. You make a series of points - some valid, some not - but seem to think that they have anything to do with SlimVirgin's edits. They do not. Slimvirgin has not changed the policy at all. She has deleted nothing of substance, she has not added anything new, nor has she changed anything. What she added was nothing more than a clarification, explaining what is already in the policy.
In fact, any edit that changes the policy must take into account the many conversations that went into this policy, and must be held up for general discussion for some time. But Slim's edit is not of this sort. It is just a clarification of the existing policy. That is a whole other thing - editing for clarity without changing substance. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
A few days ago, the NOR policy said "cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Nothing more was said to define "directly related." Now that a dispute has arisen over the meaning of "directly related," SlimVirgin has added extensive language to support one particular interpretation.
These are not examples! They're new language, attempting to narrow the concept of "directly related." SlimVirgin and some others obviously think they know what "directly related" means, but I and a number of others have a different and broader interpretation. You shouldn't be making such a major change without more discussion and consensus. Ragout 07:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ragout, Slimvirign is not adding anything to the policy. She is merely clarifying it so there is less room for misunderstanding. The policy makes it clear that editors cannot introduce their own synthetic claim into an article. Quoting a definition of plagiarism (for example) from a source that does not say whether or not this definition is applicable to a particular case, and then saying (in the article, explicitly or implicitly) that this definition does apply to a particular case, is a synthetic claim. It violates our policy. It violates it today, it violated it last week, it violated it last month, it violated it last year. Slimvirgin's edit does not change this, one way or the other. It merely clarifies it.
Ragout, I suggest you establih a record of valuable contributions to Wikipedia before trying to change our policies. Presumably you came here because you want to help build an encyclopedia. Why not turn your energies in that direction? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
-- 1010011010 17:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Everyone please stop messing with the policy page until a consensus is arrived at. It's not helpful, and it's arguably detrimental, to have one of the primary policy pages changing nuance every 20 minutes. Regardless of who is right or wrong here, it is especially important to follow proper consensus-building methods on the talk page; otherwise, the entire concept of "Wikipedia policy" is weakened. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Northmeister, just because you do not understand what the consenseus is, does not mean there is none. You should defer to all the editors who have been here for a while, when they tell you what the consensus is. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit wars are bad enough on actual articles. But when it comes to a policy page, they are virtually inexcusable. I urge warring editors to do two things: first, take a few days to discuss the underlying issues and specific proposals on the talk page, and actively seek out the views of well-established long-term editors (we all know that the ideal is for people to edit articles on topics they are knowledgable about. With policy pages, the topic is Wikipedia and obviously the people who have been most active over a long period of time are the most knowledgable about Wikipedia). Second, take a break from editing this policy page altogether and focus on actual articles. Policy pages should never be as active as substantive article pages, and besides, it is the encyclopedia articles that this project is all about. I urge people who are relatively new to Wikipedia to focus on contributing to actual articles and take time to understand the Wikipedia community and its policies by working on real articles, and return to the question of policy later. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm really proud of you guys and all the edits you've "achieved", but if your incapable of arguing the details and specifics of the issue, it's a sad commentary on Wiki, rather than a feather in your respective hats.-- 1010011010 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of absurd, let's take a look at the two sides in this debate about what policy really means:
The latter group is insisting the former group doesn't understand Wikipedia article content policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
666, SlimVirgin's edit simply explains a word that has been part of the policy for a very long time: no synthetic claims. This is by no means a novel argument. A synthetic claim is one that makes a new connection between two different points, which is precisely what SV is addressing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
SLR: Virgin has gone beyond that and claimed that points A & B cannot even be cited unless by someone else in a secondary source, whether a synthesis is advanced or not. That is a too rigid application of a formal rule with absurd consequences. It is also in disharmony with other portions of the policy. -- 1010011010 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You are ignoring my point. You just suggested that some synthetic statements can be allowed. The question is, who is proposing to change the policy. Some people accuse SlimVirgin of trying to change the policy. But it is you who are trying to change the policy. My point is simply that the policy has for a very long time stated that synthetic statements count as original research and are not allowed. SlimVirgin is simply applying this principle. Those who accuse her of trying to add a new policy are wrong. It is you and others, who are arguing that some sythetic statements should be allowed, who are proposing to change the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not ignoring your point, I am rejecting your erroneous claims. A published source is verifiable, period. It doesn't matter whether that source itself uses published sources or not, provides citations or not. These facts do not bear on whether or not the source is verifiable. A verifiable source that makes a claim about plagiarism in regards to the topic of the article is relevnt. A verifiable source that makes a claim about plagiarism but not concerning the topic is verifiable, but not relevant to the article. For an editor to use that source to make a claim about the topic of the article is to make a synthetic claim, which violates NOR. If you honestly do not understand this, then just take a break from this, make good faith efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, trust experienced editors when they tell you you are violating policy, until you have figured it out. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
(For some reason, the above text was removed without comment by SlimVirgin. I'm going to guess that it was an edit error, so I've restored it.) 14:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Since KillerChihuahua hasn't been quick to respond to my question, I'd like to take some pressure off him by opening it up to the floor. If anyone else (except Jayjg) would like to respond, feel free. I'd just like a clear answer. Alienus 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
(reduce)Clarification of phrasing is not change to the policy. Grammar edits are not change to the policy. This [17] which includes all edits made by SV on Apirl 11 and April 12, is not a change to the policy. It is one minor clarification, a link, and an added example to illustrate the policy. No change. Example added. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
William Connolley has unprotected the policy page. Given that this is a policy page, and the number of reverts, I think page protection was warranted to allow for a cooling down. And I think people need more than 25 minutes. Given that this is a policy page and doesn't really need constant attention anyway (I mean, it is not like an article that people are constantly adding new information to), I see no real cost to protecting it for a couple of days. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I reprotected it because a 3RR block only addresses one user's violation of a policy, whereas on this talk page we are confronted with a large number of editors, some well-established and some new, arguing over a point that is at the very heart of the policy. Given that policy pages should usually change at a glacial rate, I think it is reasonable to protect this page for a few days. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What can we do about articles that are inherently original research (such as the article on Nose picking) or articles where no regular sources exist, except empirical evidence and indivdual statements (i.e. Emo (slang)? Can they be exempt from this policy?-- The i kiro id ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/Àµ/òb) 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
ikiroid, are you serious and sincere in your question? If so - thn I would simply ask you to read the NOR policy as it is written, as the policy explicitly addresses the issue you raise. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. If you think jpgordon is being unhelpful, perhaps you do not know what the word "helpful" means. If you do not see how the apple pie article, or current events articles, exemplify the principle, then you may want to sleep on it and read those articles again with a fresh mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
So where do articles like the hotly-debated FAC Stargate (device) fall? There exist no secondary sources, the article is based on observation, inference, and deduction from the fictional source material. It is my opinion that it fails both tests above: needing to watch ~ 100 episodes of a dreadful TV show does not qualify as "easily verifiable", and the detailed reconstruction of the operation of these mythical devices is "analytic, synthetic, interpretive", etc. Enquiring minds wish to know. -- Gnetwerker 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
ikiroid, you are right that there are some articles that do not comply with this policy, and there are also some articles to which this policy does not easily apply. I believe that, realistically and practically, there are twu issues here. First, the fact that there maybe many articles that do not easily fit with this policy is a function of the fact that Wikipedia has such an tremendous variety of articles, far more than any other encyclopedia. As with law in the real world, policies here have to be applied with some common sense. If a topic is utterly uncontroversial and editors agree that it is relatively accurate, then there is simply no need to compare it against this policy. Policies become increasingly important as (1) the subject matter becomes increasingly controversial and (2) the gulf between popular perception and belief and views of established experts increases. With controversial topics, NOR is a crucial policy for maintaining the quality and integrity of the project. With topics about which there is a good deal of expert puplished literature that diverges from popular conception (think of the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) NOR is also a crucial policy for maintaining quality and integrity. If you have an article that is uncontroversial (i.e. there is no debate as to the accuracy or quality of the article), NOR is not at issue for the simple fact that no one makes it an issue. Policies and their proper application only come into play when there are disputes. Now, one would be wise to try to follow policies as rigorously as possible, in order to avoid or protect against potentil controversy. Even so, what is important is that people get the spirit of the policy. This brings me to the second important issue. Policies, by definition, are relatively abstract. No useful policy will ever explicitly address all possible cases. Wikipedia counts on editors in good faith trying to live up to its ideals, which are expressed (but never perfectly or completely) in our policies ... the actual words are approximations of the spirit. I think it is reasonable and understandable that as editors become more experienced writing good articles, collaborating with others, learning from mistakes (e.g. when other editors say that you are not complying with NOR or NPOV or another policy), as you become more experienced your own judgement of how to live up to the spirit of these policies will develop. It will be easier for you to avoid controversy or to intervene constructively when there is conroversy among other editors. We all expect a learning curve (in ourselves as much as in others) here. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus, it isn't a very good idea to say user accounts are stupid an cliquey when 1) you have one and 2) everyone here has a username. We have usernames so we can give the contributors an interactable identity, so they are not some disembodied intellectual flotsam like an IP address, whom we can't equate an identity with. Your respect on wikipedia will sink like a lead balloon if you seek to criticze the whole wikimunity.-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbǵ parlar) 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
But you should try to listen to everyone's opinion.-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbǵ parlar) 02:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Before you get to far in identifying this edit count cabal , I think everyone needs to revisit some fundamental principles from Jimbo's page:
Now look at the current locks on these pages and the complaints about low edit count users contributing to wikipedia. Consensus is what the objective is, not edit count ruling class or admin ruling class. And read the third one again. Go to User:Jimbo_Wales for more information. -- Tbeatty 05:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here
prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue
with people for fun.
Tbeatty is throwing in a red herring. No one here has disputed, or is disputing, the fact that anyone can edit and editors should be bold. This is simply not the issue. The issue has to do with what happens when editors come into conflict. Conflicts have to do with whether a given edit is right, NOT with whether someone has a right to make an edit. When it comes to encyclopedia articles - and note, the policies and guidelines including statements about being bold and newbies are welcome refer to encyclopedia articles, many conflicts have to do with content and it is self-evident that an editor who is less knowledgable about the topic (whether partical physics or the battle of the bulge) should defer to an editor who is more knowledgable. Anyone who rejects this out of hand in my opinion is not committed to writing an encyclopedia. The openness to newbies comes from our acknowledgment that someone who starts editing the partical physics page tomorrow could very well know far more about particle physics than anyone else who has been working on that article, even people who have been working on it for years. So what about when we move to Wikipedia: pages (i.e. not encyclopedia articles, the ones that Jimbo is referring to in the passages Tbeatty quotes)? What happens when there is an edit conflict? It only makes sense that, as with particle physics, the person who knows less should defer to the person who knows more. The only difference between this and the particle physics article is that when it comes to Wikipedia: special pages, th subject matter is Wikipedia itself (thus, the "Wikipedia:" before the page name). Obviously someone who has been here for a long time and who has made a huge number of edits knows more about Wikipedia than a newbie. This is a special case, and different from the encyclopedia articles that constitute the bulk of this project and to which our policies refer, where a newbie can certainly know more than an experienced editor. Anyone who doesn't see this is clearly someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia very well. As to people who raise concerns about elitism, they are entirely misplaced. It is not elitist to say that someone who knows more about partical physics is better qualified to comment on the content of the partical physics article than someone who knows less or (like me) nothing. If you fel discriminated against because you know nothing about partical physics you can easily remedy this situation by learning a lot about partical physics. Likewise, if you do not understand Wikipedia very well, you can remedy the situation by sticking around, making a lot of different kinds of contributions, doing a lot of edits, in short, taking the time to gain experience, and giving others the opportunity to judge you, and taking the time to grow in response to other's judgements. In regular English we call this "learning." Anyone can do it, and it is not elitist. It is a sine qua non for an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Just in case it's not clear what's going on here, with all the flying back and forth, we have a bunch of new accounts and two accounts associated with the LaRouche movement trying to undermine tnis policy completely. Here is the diff to Northmeister's changes. He is trying to add that original research, including editors' personal views, may be added to articles so long it's not a "POV expression" of those views and so long as there's consensus to do so on the article talk page. His new version reads (emphasis added):
[Original research] also excludes POV expression of editors': personal views, political opinions, and personal analysis or interpretation of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold against the consensus of editors working on that given article. Further, original research includes any unpublished synthesis of published material that does not directly relate to the topic at hand and is meant to support an argument that consensus of editors working on any given article does not support. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, synthesis of related sources, or arguments published by Wikipedia must hold to a consensus of editors and be verifiable through published sources both online and in print.
The rest of his edit barely makes sense.
The intro to WP:V and WP:NPOV says of NPOV, NOR, and V that: "The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." I suggest we add that sentence to this page too when it's unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Part of the reason he changed this was because of my above discussion, so you may want to read that too.-- The i kiro id ( talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbǵ parlar) 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
1010011010 says he does not find the Apple Pie example to be helpful. I also find it a strange example of an article likely to be based solely on primary sources. I looked at the current Apple Pie page. As I expected, it's interesting, somewhat scholarly, and cites a number of sources, including secondary sources. I was puzzled, until I realized that the experienced editors were still living in the dark ages of 2003. They probably had in mind an early version of the page, when the Apple Pie article really was just a collection of well-known facts.
So my proposal is to change:
A few more comments regarding the blind spots of the experienced editors. When 1010011010 raised this issue, SlimVirgin responded "Please stop posting to this page." Someone else (who has otherwise been civil and responsive) said "you may want to sleep on it and read those articles again with a fresh mind." I found these responses to be wrong-headed for two reasons:
1. A good way to craft a policy understandable to new editors is to listen to the reports of new editors, when they say that don't understand certain points.
2. If you have to "sleep on it," before understanding an example, it's probably not a very good example. Ragout 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The existence of a debate on an important Wikipedia policy was recently reported on the main mailing list. What is the uproar about and why is this page protected? Loom91 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
How about figuring out examples everyone can agree on before trying to agree on more abstract wording? (WAS 4.250) 4.250.132.93 09:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the way the NOR policy is to be interpreted. Assume that the person X has written the book Y and that there is a wiki article on the person X. Is one permitted to write that "in the book Y, X writes about/discusses/claims the subject/statement Z" solely based on the actual book Y, or does one have to cite a scholarly source devoted to the person X and his/her work Y?
In other words, can the book Y be used as a primary source (even though the primary sources listed in the article don't include books) or do you have to use a secondary source that says that the book Y does indeed treat the topic / include the statement Z?
-- 85.187.44.131 14:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both for the explanations. Now, my interest in the hypothetical situation that Ziz Guy mentioned is purely theoretical, but - I suppose that if it's an article about a person, living today, who has made the absurd claim that Earth is flat, then the article should include this statement even if no one has bothered to repeat or rebut it, right? -- 85.187.44.131 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I don't want to engage in the debates you're having here, and I have no ambition to deal with this page, but I have to say that the policy as it is described now isn't very clear and that's why I needed to ask for clarifications on the talk page. Before I asked my question, I was almost 50% sure that using the book Y as a source about the person X or about the book Y itself would be original research: currently, the article doesn't mention that books can be used as primary sources, not even about themselves, and it's obvious that they are secondary sources only in relation to the facts they state (and only if they are scientific works), not in relation to themselves or the authors. Saying that "in his book 'The new military humanism', Noam Chomsky states that USA is an imperialist state .." etc. etc., "in the Kama Sutra, zoophilia is described as a - {quote}..." etc. etc., that "in the poem "'Evgeny Onegin', Alexander Pushkin describes life in Russia .. " or that "in the libretto of the musical 'Chess', the character Freddie is a mean-spirited grand chess-master who ..." etc. etc, based solely on these books, would seem to be original research in the fields of ... err, Chomsky-ology,.. historical sexology .. and literature, because the respective works obviously aren't secondary sources about scientific facts, but the policy page doesn't mention that they may be used as primary sources either. Generally, it seems to me that the formulations in the policy page are suited to deal with natural sciences and with permitted statements about facts, but not with permitted statements about statements. -- 85.187.44.131 12:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I know what I've "got", and to what extent the point I have made has something to do with the debate that you are having. What I was suggesting was that perhaps somebody should add "books, essays etc." to the list of types of primary sources, for cases when the article is supposed to give info about the book/essay itself or about its author. I haven't given this much thought, it's just that it seems to me that the policy currently prohibits something that I feel is normal practice and that also you guys told me was permitted. Maybe I'm just missing something and interpreting the text of the page in a wrong way? If so, I would be glad to learn. -- 85.187.44.131 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this clause is that editors will use NPOV as a justification for OR. For example, doing a Google search or a Wikipedia word count on an article is clearly Original Research. Yet, if the editor claims that it is not "advancing a postiion" but is merely a NPOV presentation of generated facts, how will NOR be enforced? It seems it leaves a lot more wiggle room for editors to generate data in an attempt to provide what they perceive as neutrality. This is not the role of an encyclopedia. The example I'll give is on the Criticism of Wikipedia page where a non-published rebuttal is made to a published criticism using an internal analsyis of articles. IT is clearly OR. But if the new wording is allowed, does that mean editors are free to create their own statistics under the guise of a neutral presentation? I think it is bad and the phrase needs to be deleted or NPOV edit wars will break out over what should be NOR edit wars :). -- Tbeatty 05:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
THis is exactly why you can't give a NPOV out on Original Research. That's exactly why a POV test like "arguments that appears to advance a position" shouldn't be part of the Original Research pillar. If Original Research doesn't advance a position, it is still original research and should fail the test of inclusion. -- Tbeatty 20:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Null and void page exists now - original page before April 10th is official - to wit: The wikipedia policy page NOR which is not suppose to be edited in a manner to change policy without community consensus, which [ edits on April 10th did], is now protected under an altered version. The original version can be accessed by all, and is the official version, until discussion, collaboration, and or a Straw Poll determines consensus. Hence, no editor is bound to adhere to the changes as the changes were made in violation of policy - regardless of what some editors keep writing about this - it is as clear as the State of Texas is big! :) That said, I propose an official RFC on this matter be conducted to determine consensus, and I insist any editor abused by the 'new' langauge inform Arbcom or the Mediation cabal of such abuse and of the violation made per policy changes without consensus. The original Version is different quite so from the one now protected which is a false version not confirmed by consensus and should as I stated be considered null and void for all intent and purposes of Wikipedia - as the proper procedure was not followed to change the wording which changes policy! As the opening box states:
As it calls for consensus, thus, no one is obligated to follow reconstructed policy without editor's consensus. -- Northmeister 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I make a motion for an RFC on this matter to resolve consensus; as I stated above. Once consensus is formed then we will have a better notion of how to go forward. I will post no further here for two weeks other than this official protest of following a policy that has been changed against consensus support. None of this or any of the above heated discussion would of occured if the procedure listed above was followed, just for the record. Once consensus is reached I and I am sure others will follow the community's will regardless of outcome. Thank You. -- Northmeister 02:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Please take it to RFC and no personal attacks. Posting complaints in the talk page won't really help. I think you are correct and would love to comment on it, but the rants don't help convince. Where is the RFC? can you post the link?-- Tbeatty 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that a group of experienced editors are discussing restrictions on who can edit the policy page.
In my view, the edit-warring on WP:NOR could be most effectively dealt with if editors would take the trouble to demonstrate consensus before making changes. I know that many editors insist that clarifications and examples do not constitute "changes" and so can be made without discussion. But this undermines the legitimacy of the policy (since, at most, only those with extensive experience can know if the changes really do have consensus). Further, this view opens the door to "clarifications" contributed by anybody without discussion, again inviting edit wars. Unless editors start building and demonstrating consensus before extensive edits, I predict the edit-warring will continue, and restrictions on who can edit the policy will surely be needed (again, jeopardizing the legitimacy of the policy).
SlimVirgin's recent changes took less than 6 hours (!) to go from conception to incorporation into the policy, hardly enough time for discussion. I am quite pleased about my role in forcing editors to demonstrate consensus (even if it did have the appearance of insiders rallying together against outsiders rather than a genuine meeting of minds). I see this talk-page discussion as healthy, not a "mess," and I'm only sorry it didn't take place before SlimVirgin contributed her "clarifications." Ragout 03:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I find it alarming that policy pages can be changed so easily to directly bolster an editor's argument in an edit war. 6 hours is not a discussion, it's a coups d'etat. SlimVirgin has been pushing a particular interpretation of NOR to disallow certain material at the Israeli settlement article. She has met with considerable disagreement with her interpretation, even by editors who did not think the material was suitable for the article, bit did not agree that it was Original Research. This particular edit war directly concerns SlimVirgin's views regarding Synthesis of published material. I urge the community not to allow WP policy pages to become a mockery where admins make changes to bolster their position every time they get into an edit war. See Talk:Israeli settlement#Julius Stone. I certainly take this comfort: If SlimVirgin is taking the trouble to change the policy pages, perhaps she finally realized that the policy did not support her interpretation. Thank you.-- AladdinSE 12:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not ignore a discussion, I introduced my own distinct concern. I pointed to an article Talk discussion I believed concerned editors should read in furtherance of the respectability and reliability of policy pages. As to the possibility that I might have misunderstood the subtle and more complex NOR policy, anything is possible. I have shown in the past that where I am convinced in rational discussion, I concede openly and give closure to the matter. I do not slink off without comment as I have seen others do. Also, when I make a mistake, I make a public apology, as you know. I do not turn Wikipedia disputes into personal contests of will, or disrespect and neglect the discussion process, again as I have seen others do. Also, I hope I have more to offer in a serious discussion that to link and re-link to policy pages and in a most condescending fashion tell my colleagues to read them again and again, as if I and my allies were the only intelligent creatures capable of such simple cognition.-- AladdinSE 11:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)