Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 39

Discussion about images
Hi, I started a thread about original images 3 days ago at the OR noticeboard, but not many comments by the OR experts have been given, and there seems to be much more traffic here. Please have a look at that thread as questions about the meaning of the policy and its global implications are being raised. Thanks NJGW (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize this is a silly thread because it has been answered so many times in the archives and seems pretty clear (to me) in the policy, but can some outsider at least go say as much at the thread above, and maybe make the policy text more explicit about what is allowed as far as pictures of non-famous people/things (for which there may be no sources to back-up but do simply illustrate something covered in an article's text)? NJGW (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

revisions to SYN
Colin and I (and now Martin) started discussing revisions to the synthesis section, above. basically we were considering broadening the wording to incorporate other situations (such as people drawing conclusions from multiple quotes from the same author) and maybe incorporating some of the No Original Logic points. so I'm opening this section so that we can discuss it in detail. more later, but if anyone wants to start the ball rolling... -- Ludwigs 2 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that much of the SYN section applies equally if facts A and B come from one source, and that source does not connect them to come to conclusion C. If A and B come from separate sources, then they are unconnected, but they may also be unconnected or only weakly connected within one source. Where there is a connection, then editor judgement is required to work out if conclusion C is explicitly supported by the source or is a trivial consequence of the connection (for example a source clearly listing the six Scottish cities as a set would adequately support the statement "there are six Scottish cities" even if the source didn't say "six"). So, I wonder if there's a simple wording change to SYN to either state: Thoughts? Colin°Talk 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources in this regard, could refer to multiple unconnected statements from the one actual source
 * Replace "multiple sources" with "multiple unconnected statements from one or more sources".


 * I wonder of the Scottish cities example is an example of the obvious kind of material that can be included in an article with out sourcing ... the 1+1=2 situation. (olive (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I guess I misunderstood the example. My thought was, if a source discusses Scottish cities in some context, and there happens to be six, the editor can say there are six Scottish cities in this context as the source indicates . The editor is in effect counting up the cities, and the actual counting doesn't have to be sourced.
 * For example if in a source on oranges the source describes oranges as orange, and then the source also describes different kinds of oranges, the editor can count up the oranges discussed and say these six kinds of oranges are orange according to this source. Just a clarification mostly for myself I guess :o)
 * Olive: the only problem with that is that a list of six Scottish cities might mean that there are six Scottish cities, or it might mean that there are ten Scottish cities, but four (for whatever reason) weren't listed. -- Ludwigs 2  20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrt Scottish cities. I deliberately chose an uncontroversial subject. Synthesis would be involved in that example, if there was no source giving a definitive list of all Scottish cities, but the editor had collated six sources that each said "X is a Scottish city". It might also be problematic if, as Ludwigs2 indicates, the author hadn't connected them with a clear "These are the full set of Scottish cities" indication, and there was doubt over whether the set was really complete. BTW: recent FLC of company acquisitions is the real-world example I'm drawing on. Colin°Talk 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the revisions are easy enough. again, all that needs to be done is break up the confusion between sources (meaning authors) and sources (meaning publications).  something like this, maybe?  (changes put in red)

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple statements to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the statements cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the publications used are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if statement A is published by a reliable source, and statement B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to support or imply statement C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.[2] It does not matter in this regard whether the statements come from multiple authors or from a single author.
 * I'm resisting the urge to copyedit a bit. there's some ugly grammar in this section, but people seemd to get annoyed with me when I copyedit policy - lol. -- Ludwigs 2  20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the change from "the sources cited" to "publications used" is needed or good. People think of "publications" as the whole book or journal rather than individual articles or chapters or paragraphs. I think the first "multiple statements" needs to say "multiple unconnected statements". If the author connects them, then this probably isn't SYN and needs to be tested to see if the edit "goes beyond what is expressed in the sources". Lastly, I'd replace "multiple authors or from a single author" with "multiple distinct sources or one source". The authorship isn't relevant and may confuse the issue when sources have multiple authors (which is typical for scientific or medical journal articles). Colin°Talk 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It does matter in this regard whether the statements come from multiple authors or from a single author. If six cities are selected by a reliable source, that selection is made by the source and is not original research. Similarly, if the reliable source juxtaposes a series of statements in a way that advances a position, the synthesis is done by the source, and is not original research. Novel synthesis arises when different sources are put together to advance a position. The situation of selecting statements to create a new synthesis is one of misrepresenting the position of the original source, cherrypicking statements to advance a position not made by the original author(s). . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * novel syntheses can also arise when an editor takes several statements from a single author, and uses them to conclude that the author said something else (e.g. 'John said A' and 'John said B' and 'A+B implies C' therefore 'John meant C' - unless John said somewhere that he meant C, we shouldn't make that conclusion). -- Ludwigs 2  21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, I've stayed out of this for a long time (that's known as win-win.) I still find it absurd to forbid logic.  Let's say Joe Smith lives in Denver, CO.  Someone, somewhere claims that Joe Smith is not eligible to vote in Colorado because of his residence.  In Wikipedia an editor responds that Joe Smith lives in Denver, Denver is in Colorado, therefore his place of residence does not disqualify him from voting in Colorado.  The NOL policy would forbid that statement.  The Wikipedia editor would have to go find some published source that makes the same conclusion in order to put it into Wikipeda (according to the proposed restriction.)  No harm is done to anything by a Wikipedia editor stringing together that residents of voting age in Colorado may vote in Colorado, Denver is in Colorado, Joe Smith lives in Denver, therefore Joe Smith is not forbidden by his residency from voting in Colorado.  That is not "original research."


 * Also, the concept of "original logic" seems to be genned up out of nowhere (or form a more colloquial source that has an anatomical point of origin reference) just for this prohibition. If someone gathers premises and then makes a conclusion from them how is that conclusion (that logic) "original"?  The gathering of premises may indeed have an "original" character and it is surely true that such a gathering could be done cunningly and dishonestly in order to advance a position - but if that's the case then it is the cunning and dishonesty that is at fault.  Forbidding logic to thwart those who are cunning and dishonest is massively misdirected.


 * The example isn't perfect. The idea expressed is not fatally tied to the example. Minasbeede (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, yeah, this is definitely a thorny issue. the problem is really one of assumptions rather than logic proper.  just to use your 'Denver' example, yes: it's clear that someone who lives in Denver also lives in CO, and can therefore vote in CO.  but it starts to get itchy when you extend it farther. for instance, someone who can vote in CO can also smoke cigarettes (since voting age is the same as smoking age), and we might then conclude that Joe Smith can smoke cigarettes because he lives in Denver, which (though logically valid) creates a very misleading SYN about residents of Denver by implication.  the whole thing, really, revolves around making premises transparent to all readers, so that they can properly contextualize the statements we make.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. But it's the circumstance, the specific example you give (and of course all other similar examples) in which the problem lies.  Forbidding logic to avoid misleading edits is too blunt an instrument.  If bad assumptions are used to make an edit (and in that edit to reach a questionable conclusion) then the solution seems to be to remove the edit (or at least remove the bad assumptions.)  The actual flaw in the editor who has committed the offense would seem to be an overriding insensitivity to the resolve of Wikipedia to not be misused to falsely advance a specific position on a controversial issue.  Not all who use logic are engaged in such a practice.  Use of logic only becomes a problem in murky areas.  The proposed "solution" is to throw out logic in all cases, to throw it out everywhere, to avoid its misuse (or apparent misuse, or possible misuse) in articles that touch on conflict or controversy.  Even in those cases it is the misuse of logic (perhaps by selecting false premises) that is the flaw, not logic itself.


 * Top this off with what is very often the reality in Wikipedia: such rules are cited and used mostly in the context of a partisan for a position removing material contributed by a partisan of a conflicting position. The goal isn't the improvement of Wikipedia, the goal is to provide a tool that can be wielded as a sword.  (This last paragraph surely deserves to be analyzed - and corrected if wrong.  Or discussed.  In an article it would be flagrantly beyond OR.) Minasbeede (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No disagreement - a rule that banned logical deduction entirely would cause more troubles than it would solve. that being said, though, I do think there needs to be some sort of guideline outlining where logic goes overboard.  I've seen too many examples of editors writing erroneous conclusions based on implicit assumptions they maybe don't even know they have, and defending them to the death.  it's bad when it's an editor with outrageous beliefs, and in some ways it's worse when it's an editor with mainstream beliefs (because the latter will find any number of people who will help defend that sketchy set of assumptions).  -- Ludwigs 2  19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We agree, I think. I will admit it is far easier for me to say "provide some sort of guideline" than it is for me to provide a draft of such a guideline.


 * Is this a fair description of the situation? Edits are done which are a form of synthesis and which appear to some editors to be improper within Wikipedia.  While the discussion centers on the use of synthesis (which those who find such edits to be improper want to totally ban) almost exclusively the edits which give rise to objection both advance an idea with no citation and advance an idea which itself is objectionable (to those raising the fuss, at least.)  I'm not uncomfortable per se with finding such things objectionable.  I'm not uncomfortable at all with objecting, on NOR policy grounds, to synthesis that amounts to a major leap - and may be (probably usually is) an extension of logic beyond the obvious (and "obvious" can be after-the-fact, after the logic is shown.)  What I am not comfortable with is the total exclusion of all logic because sometimes it (or something with the appearance of being logical in structure) goes too far.  If I say that because A lives in Denver A likewise lives in Colorado that is pretty obvious.  The purists would forbid that logical conclusion.  It seems to me that they either forbid it because they want to have an ironclad set of rules for Wikipedia (and value the rules over the product) or because they want such a rule to exist so they can use it to reject other just-as-obvious logical conclusions because they object to the conclusion in those cases.  They want an easy-to-apply rule that ignores the merits of the synthesis, ignores the degree (some synthesis is really pretty trivial) of the synthesis.  I can agree that at least some of the time the material they wish to challenge deserves to be challenged - and removed - but I don't agree that because some material is flawed that an outright ban on logic is appropriate.  Broadly, Wikipedia falls in the category of intelligent discourse.  Rejecting logic restricts intelligence.  That is not neither necessary nor is it beneficial. Minasbeede (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we do agree, yes, but be careful not to straw-man the other proponents here. the people arguing for this kind of change strike me as both intelligent and reasonable (as do the opponents), and I don't think that they'd really advocate the total abolition of logical deduction.  my sense of the roots of this effort is that it stems from a certain frustration with debates where one (or some) editors (1) don't appear to see that they are making a logical leap, and (2) get offended that someone might suggest that they are, leading to circular, fruitless, and sometimes heated discussion.  there are times when it would be nice to be able to apply a somewhat stricter form of reasoning than is normally necessary.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I continue to think that NOL should precede SYNTH which is a special case of logic going beyond the source. No one advocating for NOL is against editors being logical or using logic to summarize their sources.  The point of NOL would be to remind editors that any inferences or deductions should be explicit or implicit in the source; they should not contribute their own inferences or deductions.  I think this is more basic starting point for building and explaining rules regarding SYNTH and PSTS.  Regarding multiple statements by the same author, I think that is a case where editors can get a clearer view of what one expert is saying and may properly seek to summerize multiple sources (same author) in a way that is not a violation of SYNTH precisely because it is the same author and therefore it is easier to follow the logic of the author (even across sources) to summarize his or her general viewpoints.--SaraNoon (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said, but we are discussing a rule, are we not? There has to be sensitivity to how the rule would be applied by all, the intelligent and reasonable and the others alike.  Perhaps they (the I and R) do not advocate the total abolition of logical deduction but what they (and I) have failed to do is to draw the proper line.  I concur with the notion that the real problem is that of some editors making improper logical leaps.  As to the nature, success, and temperature of the discussion I can offer little of hope other than the observation that well, yes, discussions in Wikipedia tend sometimes to have those problems.  Is it really likely that the proposed rule will moderate that at all?


 * I can appreciate that there are times when a stricter form of reasoning would be nice. I can charitably assume that it is such situations that stimulate the desire to have a rule that completed and utterly forbids uncited logic. My perspective is that just as logic can be abused, so can that kind of rule be abused.  Why "solve" one problem by replacing it with a problem of similar magnitude?


 * The unsolved problem is that of making the rule help clearly define when it is that a stricter rule is needed. Sure, I can see that reasonable and intelligent people might very contentedly overlook logic that is useful and inoffensive (to them.)  The problem is that of how the unreasonable (and, perhaps, less intelligent - but let's not belabor that) would use the rule.  I'd say "abuse" rather than "use," but the problem with rules is that using them is by definition not abuse.  Anyone applying a rule can smugly assert propriety. Minasbeede (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A question about WP:SYNTH
I would like to respectfully ask the long-term editors of this page a question. Please do not respond if you have only started to become fully familiar with WP:NOR by editing this page. We have a dispute about the meaning of the WP:SYNTH section. We have multiple reliable sources stating as follows: And so on, for a total of seven reliable sources, and 26 events in six states. But no single source summarizes by stating "26 events in six states." Each state's events are reported only in that state's prominent newspapers. I want the article to state, "Between 2004 and 2008, there were 26 such events in six states," and cite all seven sources properly as references. Is this a violation of WP:SYNTH? This is simple arithmetic, of the sort that any reasonably competent nine-year-old could use to convince the most hardened skeptics. If you agree that it does not violate WP:SYNTH, do you agree that this article mainspace should be edited to spell this out, so that no similar disputes occur in the future? Thanks for your review of this question. 300wackerdrive (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable Source A states that X events occurred in Missouri.
 * Reliable Source B states that Y events occurred in Ohio.
 * Reliable Source C states that Z events occurred in Michigan ... and so on ...


 * This can be described as synthesis. Aggregation of information from reliable sources to lead to a conclusion not independently described by a reliable source is original research, plain and simple. From WP:SYN:
 * "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C."
 * This would seem to directly answer your example. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey is one of the people who is editing on the article in question, and claiming that simple arithmetic violates WP:SYNTH. He has never edited on this page before and demonstrates, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of this policy. Would anyone who has actually edited on this page before today care to respond? 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't said what the 'article in question is', so I'm kind of in the dark; but from the sounds of it, you may be trying to publish a claim that has never before been published, which would make Wikipedia the first source to ever publish such a claim. This policy is trying to state that Wikipedia is not supposed to be the first place a given claim has ever appeared anywhere in print; being an encyclopedia or 'tertairy' source, it is only supposed to mirror claims that have already appeared elsewhere, and attribute them.  I know we could probably find plenty of violations to this, but we weed them out as much as possible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (After re-reading above) This is of course the strictest possible interpretation; there are plenty of articles now that say something like "Such an event has happened at least 3 times" and then provide 3 different sources proving the same. That usually isn't regarded as SYNTH.  I would have to see the specific case in question to comment further, but we do have to be careful not to authoritatively state that an event has happened 26 times, when it could have been wrong and no other source before us has ever compiled such a list. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For some context, 300wackerdrive is referring to the article on ACORN, which the account was recently blocked for disruptive edit-warring on. But be that as it may, I'd like the answer to this question as well. While I disagree with his interpretation, it would be nice to have some outside input. -- Good Damon 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It may would be permissible to create a table with a cite for each state and each source. But adding a total at the bottom of the table would be an act of original synthesis.  I know that seems overly strict, but to a mathematician a sum, an average, and a weighted average based on the population of each state are all "obvious."  This is why any new mathematical reinterpretation of facts (even a simple sum) could arguably be OR.  While in noncontroverial articles it may not be an issue, that you are asking this here suggests that you are running into opposition from other editors.  In such cases, it is advisable to back off and state the facts without any sums.  Leave it to the reader to pull out a calculator, if he or she cares.--SaraNoon (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Any attempt to include all the facts in that manner, whether in a list or otherwise, would immediately be reverted by these partisan editors with a claim that it violates WP:WEIGHT, which is perhaps the most subjective and easily malleable of all policies. What do you suggest in this situation, SaraNoon? The partisans have constructed a perfect Catch-22. Any attempt to include all of the facts is opposed as a WP:WEIGHT violation; any attempt to summarize them is opposed as a WP:SYNTH violation; so they have successfully created a situation where there are no facts allowed at all. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who doesn't care a bit about ACORN, but is familiar with WP practice and policy, here's my take about this edit. I think that the use of "26 states" there does run afoul of our best practices, since the sources are all about specific incidents. The only reason I can see to use the number 26 is to make an implicit point about how widespread the issue is supposed to be – but in that case we should have a source to reference for the claim that the problems are widespread. I would think that there are such sources around, that talk about ACORN in general rather than just specific state investigations (for example the RNC could be used as a source). It isn't the act of adding up to get 26 that is a problem, it's the implicit use of that total to make the argument about the issues being widespread. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have myself been in instances in which I wanted to make a similar summary comment but felt like doing so would be a violation of wp:synth. I think we need to be cautious. TimidGuy (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A 2-week old SPA who has edited on no subject other than this, blocked twice in the past seven days already for edit warring on this article and now edit warring again, coming with the premise that the article is a "whitewash" by "partisan" editors, etc., because it does not treat the "vote fraud" with enough specificity, is not conducive to reasonable discussion about what should be in an encyclopedia article. The editors at that article have decided to treat the matter in summary style based on the best sources, and have resisted attempts to synthesize summaries about the organization as a whole based on disparate news reports over the years.  This being an election year with the usual tension between one party trying to register sympathetic new voters and the other trying to purge the election rolls, there are partisan sources on both sides that engage in off-Wikipedia synthesis.  That's only useful if those sources are reliable, neutral, and meet weight requirements, because the partisan sources twist and misrepresent things excessively.Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, GoodDamon and Scjessey are all partisan edit warriors, who have been steadfastly trying to suppress information about an ongoing FBI investigation of these criminal activities by ACORN workers. There's no indication that any of them has ever edited Wikipedia talk:No original research before today. Would a few veteran editors who have edited this page before today weigh in? 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a text-book WP:IRONY, ha.  Grsz  Review!  17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough with the personal attack nonsense. The three of us are established long-term editors who have edited the encyclopedia for years on a variety of subjects - and have tangled with you here on this account, and if you have used other accounts likely on those too.  It is okay perhaps to take the discussion here but this is an extremely minor application of the policy and you have no right to try to control the discussion as a matter of forum shopping.Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Til Eulenspiegel. And a table or list won't help if there's still an indication that the set is complete. The idea that there are exactly 26 events is unsourced and novel. The comparison between the events in the seven sources to say they are equivalent and non-overlapping and so safe to group and sum is also unsourced and original. And then you introduce a date range, which further complicates the sourcing since the date ranges for the sources would have to match. The end of your range (2008) isn't over yet, so the statement itself seems premature. It is not just a case of simple maths. The fact that no single source has made that point is a warning sign on whether WP should be in the business of making that point. BTW: editing policy pages is not an indication of wisdom in their application. Some of our best editors who best understand policy are seldom involved in writing it. Try to avoid discussing poor editor behaviour on policy pages, please. Colin°Talk 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that putting together various sources to provide a total is synth, particularly in this instance where the sources are news sources of varying reliability due to likely partisan stances, and absence of a source does not mean absence of an issue in the area covered by that source. Any table would have to make it clear that these are only sources that are readily available, and there might be other sources, and would have to present all notable views in a fully attributed way while avoiding undue weight to one view or another. . . dave souza, talk 17:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with dave souza. This is more than just simple arithmetic.  Here, rather, the number 26 obtains special significance via the synthesis that did not exist in the original sources, resulting in something controversial.  I think there are some situations where you could add numbers from different sources and report the sum, but this isn't one of them. CO GDEN  18:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well... The 300wackerdrive account has been blocked again. I'd like to thank everyone for responding to this and giving insight on synthesis and whether or not this qualifies as such. Despite being raised by a disruptive account, I feel it was a valid question and I'm glad to have a better understanding of what Wikipedia regards as synthesis. -- Good Damon 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 37. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The original question was tilted towards an answer that this is permissible synth. I encourage posters to always reveal the conflict that has brought them to policy discussion, if any, for the sake of transparency. As to whether this is OR, I think it would be better if phrased "at least 26", provided that the reliable sources actually list 26 obviously distinct states (and thus do not overlap) - this accounts for incompleteness and future growth. Dcoetzee 03:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * as Til and dave so excellently said above, it's not really the number 26 that's at issue, it's the fact that the figure is being used to make an implication that's not present in the sources themselves. It might be better, for instance, to list the number of court actions (most likely 6 - one for each state - with multiple suspects in some cases).  or maybe contextualize it by noting the size of the organization (26 means one thing in an organization with 30 people, but it means something entirely different in an organization of 30000).  -- Ludwigs 2  04:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Some concerns with this page, and proposals
I know that there are many people who have been active on this page for many months, and I have not. I say this because I want to make it clear how important this policy is to me. Many of you may not have been around but there were times when I editing constantly on a daily basis to defend this policy. My point is only that i am passionately committed to this policy and only wish for it to be effective.

That said, there have been some changes in the policy over the past year - and changes in how Wikipedians have been applying the policy - that deeply concern me. I see this policy as the main force for intellectual integrity here. But this can often be at odds with creativity. I do not think the two have to be in conflict. If they are in conflict I take the NOR side, no question. But it seems to me that the policy has been made so strong and ironclad that it ends up being counterproductive.

I am in no rush, I am not asking for any changes to be made to the policy immediately. But i do want to lay out some specific concerns and proposals and see if others agree with me and if we can refine my proposals or work out compromises that will restore some balance without undermining the heart and soul of the policy.

Here is what I suspect happened: after many edit wars well-intentioned editors made changes to this policy to prevent future such conflicts. I appreciate that effort but i think it is misguided. It means that people will end up applying policies literally, as a substitute for good judgment. My view is different: I think we can never write the perfect policy that will prevent all problems. I think policies should guide good judgment, but never substitute for good judgment. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't we already have WP:IAR as the backup to support good judgment if the policies that generally work are insufficient/inappropriate for a particular instance of improving Wikipedia? -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know of no case where anyone was able to use WP:IAR against WP:NOR to any effect in an edit conflict. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this not an example of the smug assertion of propriety I mention below? IAR, it would appear, can never trump the strict application of any rule.  If something is proper and ought to be allowed then that would seem to have to be covered by the applicable rule.  (Perhaps the IAR philosophy could guide those trying to edit the rules to make them less subject to being the tool of those who would be over-strict in their application.   That's easy for me to say...) Minasbeede (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this, a review of changes is always a good idea. As you'll guess, my primary interest is in editing articles, and care is needed to bring full and careful scrutiny of any changes. Not sure that there is a problem, but worth considering. . . dave souza, talk 12:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable versus Verified
This used to be an important distinction. It meant that upon request one should be able to produce support. it did not mean that every claim needed a citation. Right now the policy states, "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." You know, this is the standard in peer-reviewed journal articles but not in other encyclopedias. And I think it is too rash and stringent. I propose replacing this with a three part section - if others are sympathetic we can work on the wording collaboratively: I think this is more reasonable, provides flexibility. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All content added must be verifiable. this means that it must be possible to trace it to a reliable source.  It does not mean that the article necessarily provides the source.
 * If an editor adds content without providing a source, and the addition is uncontroversial, there is to need to tag it. If other editors however find the edit controversial, they have a right and duty to ask for and assess the source
 * If you add content and you have the source handy, you might as well just go ahead and add it immediately.


 * this is not acceptable in my view. We don't need flexibility, it breeds inaccuracy. There is already a lot of junk written in this encyclopedia, this will just encourage more. If there is no verifiable source provided the information should ultimately be deleted, 'controversiality' has nothing to do with it. It seems the current practice is to allow time for some form of verification to take place. Deletion generally may not take place immediately, therefore tags should be used accordingly. If the original editor, or successive editors, fail to provide sources after a reasonable period has passed, there should be no issue with removing the material. If an editor is knowledgeable enough to make an assessment regarding the accuracy of unsourced material, but does not have a citation at hand, it would be appropriate to tag the material. Slrubenstein mentions somewhere above that wiki is not like other encyclopedias, everyone can contribute, in my view it is precisely for this reason that leaning towards policy rigidity, rather than flexibility, will lead to better articles being written (though a case by case assessment is still valid). A peer review methodology makes for a better encyclopedia, information should be vetted, and instilling this kind of ethos in the general reader is healthy. Yes, some argue that given enough time everything will improve, incrementally, but in the mean time the crap will still be in place, and that simply undermines the encyclopedia. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about this proposal for medical articles. It sounds to me that it's in some opposition to WP:MEDRS.  In medical and scientific articles, short of causing a lot of editing work, every claim needs a citation, or we're going to have medical articles that make all kinds of unverified claims.  So, I'm personally going to disagree here.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even JAMA, NEJM, and the Lancet publish articles that makes claims that have no source. The highest standard in the top journals is to provide citations for claims that are controversial or not well-known and well-understood.  I fail to see why we should have a higher standard for our articles on medical topics, and I definitely do not understand why you think that the standards for articles on medical topics should be applied to ALL wikipedia articles. "I'm concerned about this proposal for medical articles."  But this is a policy for every article at Wikipedia, not just medical articles.  It should provide clear guidelines, but be flexible; if we cannot count on the judgment of editors to figure out how to improve an article, the project is a failure regardless of our policies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While that may be true, the AMA & MMS journals are primarily read by academics and trained professionals keeping up with the development of knowledge in their field. While the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to protect the uneducated from harm, doing harm by failing to put claims in their proper context (when that proper context can only be determined from the sources from where the claims come) would be pretty irresponsible. John Nevard (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to putting in sources. And I have no objection to this policy encouraging source-based research.  And I have no objection to the policy setting forth the conditions when one must provide a source.  I object only to a one-size fits all or shotgun kind of approach that simply says all content for all articles must always be sourced.  This policy needs to distinguish between situations where editors are free to decide, situations where editors must decide but conforming to certain guidelines, and situations where there is no debate, it is absolutely required. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be making two mistakes: first, you seem to think that the standards that apply to one set of articles must apply to all articles, which I disagree with, and you you seem to think that if the standard does not exist in a policy, it therefore does not exist at Wikipedia. This flatly contradicts the whole idea of consensus-based editing in which editors working on an article decide how to make the article better.  If you are working on an article and the editors agree that a claim needs a citation, you do not need any policy to enforce that; the community of editors has the final say.  You simply explain on the talk page why this needs a citation, and take the appropriate editing.  We do this all the time. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, I do not see why you think that my provision, that controversial claims require sources, is not adequate to meet your objection. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what SLR is saying, but I think it is overly permisive. We need to make it very clear that if there is any doubt about a statement, a source needs to be added.  We want to encourage editors to do good research before they add material, and discourage them from adding material of the "I remember reading about this somewhere... so I will add it, even though I don't have the source handy" type of statement. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, "I read this somewhere" is fine for correct and noncontroversial statements. With experience, editors learn which claims need to be pre-emptively sourced. But an editor with actual knowledge in an area is certainly welcome to edit articles using that knowledge, provided that she can provide sources if/when they are requested. And even sourced claims have to be evaluated based on other editors' overall knowledge of the topic. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, as it is the spirit of the policy as was intended in the first place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Joss, you agree with what I wrote, or aht Blueboar and CBM say? Blueboar, are you flat out rejecting my proposal - or suggesting some middle-ground wording?  I welcome alternate proposals. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle with what Slrubenstein is saying, and disagree with Blueboar. We can't forget one of the basic principles upon which Wikipedia was founded, which is that if you post something that isn't perfect, that's okay, because somebody else can come along and fix it. There is value in getting un-cited, draft-quality text up on the Wiki so that other editors can collaboratively edit and add citations. Many times, editors know something is verifiable, but just don't yet have the citation. In that case, maybe somebody else knows a good citation, and it would be more efficient for somebody else to add it. If we require people to do all the research and compile all the citations before writing a single sentence on Wikipedia, that defeats one of the collaborative advantages of a Wiki. If uncited material is incorrect or unverifiable, then somebody else can fix that, too. If something might not be verifiable, but that can't be determined for certain, then you tag it. CO GDEN  16:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * SLR, I am not outright rejecting... I just think you go a bit too far. My point is that we want to encourage editors to do good research before writing articles, and to double check the stuff they think is correct before they toss it in an article. I do agree that we want flexibility and that the standard is that information be verifiable as opposed to actually verified. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks... before we go further... please note that while we are discussing lossening up the requirements (or returning them to looser language), there are discussions going on at WP:V that are actually moving that policy in a tighter direction (See: WT:Verifiability#Strengthening a bit). Whatever we do, we need to coordinate between our different policies... and not have them conflict. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's always some level of uncontroversial content that can be left without citation, but more referencing is a good thing. While Slrubenstein's proposed wording states the obvious, there's a danger that the wording could give aid to those trying to assert that claims are "obvious", and arguably shift the onus to provide sources away from those adding or keeping information. Blueboar is right about good research, and improving quality means finding good sources rather than arguing to justify unverified wording. . dave souza, talk 12:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverse the order of sources
Currently, we first describe primary, then secondary, then tertiary sources. i see the logic here, it is obvious. Yet it has reguarly caused confusion and conflict. This is signalled by the vague metaphor of "geing close" - I understand it, I just do not think it provides the clarity we need. Although at times I have added examples of sources to the lists 9and don't want them deleted) I have also argued that what determines the nature of the source is not its form or content but how it is used.. This is why a source can be primary or secondary, depending on the context.

here is my proposed solution: reverse the order of presentation:

More specifically:
 * Tertiary sources draw on secondary sources in order to provide a comprehensive account of a topic. Typical examples include review essays, such as Annual Reviews or Encyclopedia Brittanica
 * Our policy: Wikipedia strives to be a superb tertiary source. Since Wikipedia does not want to be derivative or duplicate other encyclopedias, tertiary sources are often of limited value for Wikipedia research. Annual Reviews and Encyclopedia Brittanica articles often provide extensive bibliographies that are valuable tools for identifying important secondary sources, and therefore of great use to Wikipedia editors. Nevertheless, these and other tertiary sources do not necessarily have the same content policies as Wikipedia and for this reason should not be viewed as authoritative. However, some encyclopedias and other tertiary sources, such as Annual Reviews, have signed articles, and often articles that explicitly promote the author's own views. In this sense, a tertiary source can also be viewed and treated as a secondary source.


 * Secondary sources rely on primary sources to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Some secondary sources, for example many scientific publications, often include original data and are thus also primary sources.


 * Our policy: Wikipedia articles can include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims (1) only if such claims come from a reliable, verifiable source and (2) the point of view is clearly identified and accurately represented. The conditions that apply to the use of primary sources also applies to the use of primary source material included in secondary sources.


 * Primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.


 * Our policy: A Wikipedia article or section of an article can employ primary sources only if the source is used (1) only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) never to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Obviously this can all be rewritten, but my point is that it is actually easier to explain what we mean by a primary source after explaining a secondary source (a primary source is anything a secondary source seeks to interpret, explain, analyze, synthesize) - can you think of better ways to express this? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a position on reversing the PSTS order, but we could use more examples of a tertiary source. We're focusing pretty heavily on Brittanica, and most people won't know/agree on what a "review essay" is.  Why not something like "dictionaries, other encyclopedias, almanacs, atlases, textbooks, and review essays"? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The ideas in this one section (reversing order) sound very thoughtful and workable to me; while I also agree with OM on the other sections above and below, that perhaps it would not be wise to weaken our current citation policy from the high standard it has developed into. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we should work on each proposal independently. I am glad two people think this is a good idea.  As examples of sources I relied on an earlier version of NOR but if there are Wikipedia guidelines that provide other examples, we can certainly add them.  For me, the main point is that what the relationships among these types is really functional, not categorical; that a tertiary source draws on secondary sources; that a secondary source draws on primary sources.  Some people find it hard to define the boundary between primary and secondary sources - this is because a text can be used to learn about how people interpret another text (and thus be secondary) or can itself be an object of interpretation (and thus be primary); explaining the types of sources in terms of functional relationships rather than differences I think clears up this confusion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A reversed order such as that Slrubenstein suggests might make sense. But I think it makes even more sense to do this in conjunction with a slight simplification and "dumbing down" of this section, because I don't think most "lay" Wikipedia editors really understand what we're trying to do here, and we really don't need to make this too theoretical.  When you get down to basics, the gist of this section is the following:
 * editors should not cite other encyclopedias or dictionaries;
 * any analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation, or evaluation of a source must be verifiable to a different source than the one being scrutinized; and
 * any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge should be able to verify that a source directly and straightforwardly supports each statement in a Wikipedia article, without any additional analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation, or evaluation.
 * This could be a bit wordier, of course, maybe incorporating most of the language of Slrubenstein's suggestion above (but without attempting to explicitly and rigidly classify sources, because we don't really need that level of theory and detail). Then we could give a number of examples that will apply the above principles in a concrete way. CO GDEN  17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As always, I agree completely with what COgden just said :) But as long as some people think we need rigid classification, I think Slrubenstein's suggestion of a) putting things in reverse order and b) the structural separation of definition and "our policy", are both imminently sensible ideas.
 * I think the "tertiary source" stuff is too verbose though. What we want can be summarized in a sentence or two, i.e. that it is not a good idea to cite an article in a general encyclopedia without also having the necessary expertise to weigh the merits of that article (more on this in the next two points). This does not however apply to to material distilled (and signed!) by authorities in their field (e.g. collegiate text books and specialized encyclopedias), which are and always will be more valuable than reams of argumentative secondary sources.
 * The argumentation against tertiary sources (which I essentially agree with) is extraordinarily weak, and we should not be going there. We don't want to tell editors what makes a source less authoritative, editors need to know what makes a source more authoritative. And that is the business of WP:SOURCES, not WP:OR.
 * And, were we to explicitly tell editors not to use tertiary sources, we would a) contradict point #1 of Sources of Wikipedia policy, and b) telling editors that they have they have to have the necessary expertise to a) get the secondary sources, and b) weigh their merits, and c) distill the mass of literature themselves. While requiring editors to have expertise before they mouth off would be great in principle (and much appreciated by me), it does not reflect the current state of affairs in which the vast sweating mass of editors have no expertise in the area that they are upchucking on.
 * But all this has nothing to do with WP:OR. Every kind of source can be abused, and every kind of source is being abused as we speak. Abuse -- irrespective of source "kind" -- is what we want to inhibit. Distinguishing between kinds of sources does not get us there. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(Comment on my talk page.) Minasbeede (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to any blanket statement asserting that "tertiary sources are often of limited value for Wikipedia research", as it could not be farther from the truth. While some tertiary sources (often used because of online accessibility) can be problematic (dictionaries, for example, are often used as a crude tool for original research), many teriary sources are invaluable for avoiding original research and appropriately determining the neutral point of view such as textbooks and scholarly review literature. I believe the problem with tertiary sources is limited to a small subset (dictionaries, encyclopedias), while the majority of them are not only quite useful but highly desirable as sources. Vassyana (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not disaggreeing at all with Vassyana's point, but just to note that dictionaries (and some specialist "encyclopedias", better described as compendiums) are not well characterised as "tertiary sources". A good dictionary (oed.com for example) does not summarise secondary sources on the meanings of words.  It presents an original synthesis of an editors definition supported by verbatum quotations of usage.  This dictionary is better considered to be a "primary source", or more specifically, a reproduction of primary sources.  Read a good dictionary - you'll not find much in the way of commentary or analysis, or much other evidence of secondary source material.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The language discouraging tertiary sources caught my attention. Most editors seem to characterize dictionaries as tertiary, so I was just going with that. I do agree, however, with your characterization of dictionaries. Vassyana (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Topical textbooks and specialized topical encyclopedias, which tend to summarize multiple secondary sources in their articles, quite commonly are invaluable sources the weight of which shouldn't be diminished in the policy page. Such tertiary sources have proven to be an important tool in arriving at NPOV when multiple secondary sources offer different perspectives or contradict one another. And often such sources provide a perspective that reconciles seemingly divergent secondary sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to remind people that my proposal is just to reverse the order. If anyone agrees with that but doesn't agree with the wording I have here - well, just change the wording!  The wording I provided here is just an example, Vassyana, if you don't like it change it or ignore it, the proposal is the order. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the reversed order. A progression, to put in one way, from "you are here" to "what we mainly rely on" to "root material" seems appropriate and logical. Vassyana (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bring back the apple pie exception
Letting people know what are fair exceptions is important. For many years the policy included:


 * In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

The above statement stopped a lot of escalating and pointless arguments in their tracks, and ought to be put back in.


 * Again, per WP:MEDRS and what I've observed in a number of medical articles, I'm going to have to disagree. Remember, there are editors who think that HIV does not cause AIDS, and write it as if it's common knowledge.  And I think I'd argue with you what is Apple pie.  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I agree with you. But one size does not fit all.  The problem with this policy is that too many people have generalized from various specific situations - over-generalized.  People working on medical articles have plenty of ways of responding to anyone who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS.  OrangeMarlin, are you deliberately being contentious, or do you miss my point?  I have made it clear that I advocate a policy that enables editors to demand a source when the edit is controversial (in the view of the editors working on the article).  Surely this covers all the cases you are talking about.  My point is, what if you have a page where someone makes an edit and a diverse range of editors - including you - all think yes, this is common knowledge, well-established.  In these situations, other encyclopedias, even top peer-reviewed journals, do not require citations.  Yet this policy is written to require citations in all cases.  This is just a bad way to write a policy.  Editors who work on articles should have some discretion.  We need to encourage well-informed editors working in good faith to work these things out, to decide what facts belong, what views, how an article should be written, you can't have policies dictating all these things.  Did you see me anywhere write that "we should prohibit all use of citations?"  Your response seems to suggest that you think I am prohibiting.  But the lack of a prescription is not the same thing as proscription.  I think that making it clear that controversial claims need to be verified with reliable sources.  How does this not address your concern? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Slr, there are people I'm very contentious with, but you aren't in that group, and you know it. I'm quite insulted by your response, and therefore will no longer engage in this discussion.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OrangeMarlin, I am genuinely sorry if what I wrote insulted you, and apologize for the contentious tone. I regret it.  I admit that I feel frustrated because I am trying to acknowledge your concerns (which you present as specific to medicine) and am trying to explain my motives and intentions more clearly.  I made the proposals in good faith because I think there have been changes to the policy over the past year that are counterproductive, but my main intention was to open up a dialogue, not close it.  I certainly would not want you to stop participating in these discussions.  I will back off and avoid th page for a few days, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is any exception, it would have to be for some topic on which there are primary sources, but no other kind. I can't think of any example offhand, but surely there would be some. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about apple pie, but current events seems a reasonable exception, for example. I support bringing back this bit of policy. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not follow Til Eulenspeigel's point. If secondary sources exist, we can use them.  But that does not mean we must use them.  It depends on how they are being used, and why. I see no problem, for example, with using a primary source as a source for what the primary source says.  Only if, and I know this is a big and important if, what the primary source says is a point of contention as there are competing interpretations (and like I said this is a big if, it happens a lot), must we use secondary sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would split the difference here ... if a primary source and a secondary source both say the same thing, I would not say we must use the secondary source, but I would say we should use the secondary one as secondary sources are preferred. Obviously, if something is only said in a primary source, we can use that... with all the usual caviats and conditions as to no going "beyond the source". Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I wanted to say... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The main point of this Policy ...
... is that editors cannot hide behind sources to promote their own explanations, interpretations, analysis, or synthesis. We can accomplishing this without requiring citations for every fact added. I hope we all agree on the "main point" of the policy and use this as a point of reference for improving it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though my issue would be medical and science articles, I really think citations make a better article. When I read an article here, I read the citations to confirm what is being said.  I then read the source, or I fix the article, hence my contributions are in some very strange articles (I believe I edited 4 Non Blondes because I was trying to remember the name of one of their songs, didn't like the article, and made a whole bunch of edits based on a couple of sources I dug up).  I think, though I'm not quite sure, your proposals weaken the quality of the articles, especially for medical and science articles.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with this: citations seem a necessary step in creating a good article. My students use WP, and I encourage their use, but caution them that the "right" way to use it is to get the overview from the article, then move on to the sources, and use these when writing the final paper. Of course, most articles don't meet the standard of including good sources, but that's a different issue--the ideal should remain that the best sources are provided.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "hide behind sources". One important role of sources is to back up the opinions expressed by editors who do know what they are talking about. On the other hand, we have the principle of undue weight that allows us to reduce the prominence given to sources that do not reflect the consensus view in their area. Specifically, what sort of editing are you referring to when you talk about hiding behind sources? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Orangemarlin and Anthon.Eff, I agree that sources are good, I do not however agree that the best policies are prescriptive and detailed. I think a good policy clearly prohibits, and encourages, but should leave a range of freedom for editors to work out what is best on a case-by-case basis. Think of my argument as the argument "pro choice" - pro-choice doesn't mean every woman must have an abortion, that a woman cannot have a baby, it means that she makes the decision in consultation with others she trusts. My point is not about citations, it is about policy. I agree with you in substance, I just think that the specifics and degree to which an article has citations should be up to the people collaborating on the article, who know the topic and literature on it best. Otherwise we end up with a one-size-fits-all policy, like this one, which actually does not fit all articles. I really do agree with you, I just think that one can proscribes original research without prescribing all edits to have a source. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As you say, "the specifics and degree to which an article has citations" in practice falls to "the people collaborating on the article", who are much more constrained by each other than by policy. But policy provides an ideal, and the ideal seeks to maximize the usefulness of WP and to facilitate cooperation among editors. Remove the ideal of citations, and not only will WP be less useful to students, but also edit disputes will be harder to resolve. The editors who think HIV doesn't cause AIDS are fairly easy to dismiss, but there are some topics (such as those in which members of different ethnic groups square off), where the issues are much more complex and the truth much harder to discern. It would not be wise, in those cases, to give license to editors to enter unsourced statements just because they "know" the statements are true. Without a "one-size-fits-all policy" who will decide when citations are needed and when they are not?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anthon.Eff, then the text should say ":this is an ideal," not that this is proscribed, a requirement. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I was unclear. Editors already make the decisions about the degree to which an article has citations. It seems that you just want the policy statement to reflect current practice. I say that the role of policy is not to make norms explict, but to set forth the ideal (which is seldom fully achieved in practice). To reduce the importance of citations in the statement of the ideal, would be to dilute the importance of sources, and this is not a good thing, both for quality of articles and for dispute resolution. Perhaps I could better understand your point if you could give a specific example of an article where the proposed changes would have led to an improvement.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Slr, I'm going to have to stand by my point that it needs to be a requirement, especially for science and medical articles. And are we going to make an exception for WP:BLP? Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OrangMarlin, please do not bring in red-herrings. You know perfectly well that BLP is dictated by the BLP policy.  This policy could be completely different or not even exist and biographical matter would still be regulated by the BLP policy.  I have made no proposal to change BLP, so why are you introducing this except as a diversion?  To respond to your real point, okay, are you admitting that this may not be the case for non medical articles?  I ask because as written the policy does not say this is required for medical articles, which is the position you are defending, it says it is required of all articles.  It sounds like you are proposing a counter-proposal, to ammend this to say that sources are always mandatory only for medical articles.  Is this what you are proposing? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To respond to CBM, I am not sure how to answer your question. I thought this is the one thing we all agreed NOR was at its essence about. How else do you interpret the proscription against SYNTH? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just that "hide behind sources" is new language, and I don't know quite what it means or connotes. I do agree with your statement "We need to encourage well-informed editors working in good faith to work these things out, to decide what facts belong, what views, how an article should be written, you can't have policies dictating all these things." In the end, the only way to tell what is original research, and what is original synthesis, is to be broadly familiar with the sources in an area. It can't be determined by looking at a single source. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, what I mean is people using sources to forward their own POV, but claiming that the POV is in the sources. If the POV really is in the sources, that is fine.  But the editor has violated SYNTH when the sources actually do not explicitly make this argument and the editor is just combining sources to make his or her own argument, that is what I mean by "hiding behind" - I am not proposing this as language for the policy, just making a general point about what I think is most important because I think some less important stuff have crept in and we are acting as if they are essential to the policy when they are not. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that citations make a better articles. By citations I mean the reference to published sources, not quotes. Excess quoting (or close paraphrasing) hurts the article.
 * And of course idealiter sources should not be used to further one POV but it is hard to clearly distinguish when this is done and when not. The main policy for ensuring NPOV remains NPOV. NOR merely intends to keep WP from floating into outer space, with editors just writing their opinion. NOR in itself does not prevent POV, it doesn't even ensure accuracy (as I recently found out in a conflict when a certain, usually considered RS, newspaper which totally mispresented factual events - not opinions but facts - was used.)
 * The line between presenting the information included in the sources and SYNTH is a fine one. We don't want SYNTH but neither do we want a mindless copying of the sources.
 * Doing away with the requirement for sourcing will not be doing any good. Str1977 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 While the policy comes into play most obviously when dealing with pov pushing, the obening statement assumes bad faith, and it's much more important to take the positive approach that each of us has to take care to avoid presenting our own knowledge or opinions, instead we have to research the subject and summarise faithfully the information and analysis presented by the best sources that we find in that research. It's a good discipline, and one that experts or creative writers sometimes think is too alien to their way of working. There's no need to assume that these people have bad intentions, it's more about explaining this essential difference between Wikipedia and other outlets for information. Thus historians are used to researching and citing primary sources to reach their own original analysis, we have to summarise a published analysis. . dave souza, talk 13:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't think Slrubenstein's statement above is necessarily wrong, but that's not how I would phrase it, and it's too narrow. Really, the point of this policy is that Wikipedia editors can add nothing to the article that is not already in a reliable source--be it facts, raw data, interpretations, analyses, or syntheses.  It doesn't matter what it is: if it's new, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  Not everything has to be cited from the get-go, but somebody should be able to go to a library or a reliable website and find a reliably-published work that directly, straightforwardly, and non-controversially supports every statement in a Wikipedia article. CO GDEN  19:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of sandboxes for policy/guideline pages
There presently is an ongoing discussion at MfD Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox about the use of sandboxes for policy/guideline pages. Since No original research is the only policy/guideline page that I could locate having a sandbox, it would help if you would comment at the MfD on the use of sandboxes for policy/guideline pages. Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  19:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Protest
I protest that this policy is holding WP back and requires imediate amendment to shift importance onto the inclusion of information of truth, fact and reality rather than published, biased, mass media sources which are innapropriate. Additional policy must be provided for unpublished source of information such as observation, testing, etc. See discussions on verifiability, notability and reliable sources for more information and further discussion. Nick carson (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, your protest is noted, Veropedia is thataway. This policy stops editors from introducing unsourced information, analysis or synthesis, the question of "Truth" comes under WP:V, and the same principle applies. We summarise the best available verifiable sources, that's what WP does, and it's hardly holding us back. . . dave souza, talk 11:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assure you unsarcastically, that's a great summary of WP policy. Are you aware of the notable material that is excluded due to current policy structures? They could be amended so that such information is included. Nick carson (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While our core polices could be amended, I can assure you that they won't be. These are the fundamental principles upon which Wikipedia is based.  They are not going to change in the way you wish.  If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, you are free to go and edit at some other wiki.Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, dave souza just explained that two comments prior to yours. What is it about progression, improvment and amendment that several WP editors don't understand? I'd be happy to explain. It's not a matter of my personal opinion or wether or not I like or dislike these policies, they need to be improved upon, not just in this case but in future cases as well. Need I mention the result of lack of recent amendment in the case of this outdated amendment in the US constitution. Nick carson (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick, you have yet to explain why you think this "progression, imporvement and amendment" is needed. Unless you can give us a very good reason for us to overturn our core policies... there is no point in continuing the conversation. Blueboar (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking thi dicussion is better had at WP:V or RS. Nick carson (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes... best to continue it in one place... WT:V is probably best. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

can a single sentence from a single cited source be SYN?
Vide Talk:Joe the Plumber where a RfC now exists on this issue. The cited source states "'Joe the Plumber really isn't a plumber,' said Thomas Joseph, business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, whose national membership has endorsed Obama. " (a Washington Post article, to be sure).

One editor says it is SYN to include the entire sentence because " There are numerous facts in that single sentance, and none of the "facts" or any analysis actually links the Union endorsement to anything about "Joe the Plumber" - the topic of this article, hence including the statement about the Union endorsement is WP:SYN - urging the reader to make a connection/analysis/conclusion not explicit in the original source."

The RfC states "There is a dispute about whether the should include information about the Union endorsement of Obama. One side says the Union endorsement should be included because it is in the source and we do not get to pick and choose information from a Reliable Source. The other side says the source does not make any overt connection between the Union's endorsement and "Joe" not completing the Union program, therefore including the information about the Union endorsement is off topic as it leads readers to draw conclusions not explicit in the source material - a violation of WP:SYN. "

The question remains -- can a single explicit statement in a source be viewed in esse to be WP:SYN? Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, A single sentence cited to a single source can be SYN... if the cited source does not support what the sentence says. In this case things are more complicated.  The sentence combines two bits of information... 1) That Thomas Joseph said "Joe did not complete the Union program", and 2) that the union endorsed Obama.  The first bit of information is supported by a Washington Post article.  The second, however, is unsupported... the Washington Post article does not mention the union's endorsement.  That statement needs to be cited.  And assuming that the endorsement statement can be cited, then we would end up with a single sentence cited to two sources... clearly have a SYN situation. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had hoped to have people comment who have not been editors on the topic. Iterating comments you have meade elsewhere is unlikely to get such comments. The Washington Post quote definitely does show the union endorsement. That is why it is in quotation marks supra.  Thus saying "the Washington Post article does not mention the union's endorsement" is a very difficult position to maintain.  Collect (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Collect, I am not sure what you are referring to by "Iterating comments you have made elsewhere"... I only edited the Joe the Plumber article after you posted this question here ... and none of my edits were to the section of the article that contained the statement in question.
 * In any case, I read the Post article very carefully, and did not find any mention of the union's endorsement... if I missed it, I appologies... perhaps you could point us to where it is? Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Go to the first page of the WP article. It is there. As quoted. Your post here came after your posts in JtP, so I was unsure whether it was this page which led you there, or that page which led you here.  Collect (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This page led me there. I will check the souce again... perhaps I missed something. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, and appologize. I did not see that the Post article had two pages. I only looked at the second page. You are absolutely correct... it is right there in the source... and thus this is NOT a WP:SYN issue.  Sorry. I have corrected my comments at the RFC at the JtP page. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your gracious comment. Collect (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Would not in any case have been synth. It is the very definition of two facts that are included in one sentence and yet not synthesized. Had his membership not been cited, the citation of the quote should have gone after "Mechanics," and before "whose", i.e. "'Joe the Plumber really isn't a plumber,' said Thomas Joseph, business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics,(cite) whose national membership has endorsed Obama.(fact-date)" And if that isn't MoS, then sorry, but it would then be currently wrong. Anarchangel (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Economic freedom
Small edit war started because of this so I would appreciate if some more experienced users could comment on the issue on the noticeboard. -- Vision Thing -- 12:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded on article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- Vision Thing -- 08:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Index of Economic Freedom, both its own page and inclusion in other pages, is grounds for a brand new Wikipedia rule, as it might be difficult to delete it on the grounds of WP:FRINGE; I imagine that the Flat Earth hypothesis gained some followers in its day. A creation from whole cloth of the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, it is contested as little more than a listing of countries from the most wealthy/least communist to the poorest/most communist, whereupon it is discovered that -awe and respect!- the countries at the top turn out to be rich and their business unrestricted by regulation and unfettered by the shackles of social spending, thereby proving that the Index is a valuable economic indicator. I am really not exaggerating, no matter how preposterous it sounds; check it out yourself. Anarchangel (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Law and Synth
-deleted on the grounds of synth- The bill, SB 177, would have permitted concealed weapons in banks, bars, colleges, and other public places.-Alaska Statute 11.71.900 as it was to be amended by SB 177- -AS 11.71.900 Definitions Includes definition of 'school grounds' used by SB 177- Governor Tony Knowles' Senate Journal entry announcing his veto of SB 177 mentioned the opposition of, among other parties, the City of Wasilla.-Alaska Senate Journal Notes veto of SB 177-

If it is possible to discuss what a proscribing law does not proscribe without empirical observation, I should very much like to know how that could be achieved. In this particular case, I am aware of the possibility that AS 11.71.900 may have included a prohibition against carrying guns in colleges, before SB 177, but I felt that the possibility that Alaska first banned guns in colleges, and then decided woops, we left out grade schools, was just too unlikely.

If a solution to this proposition cannot be found, and I am not just completely wrong for some other reason I am unaware of, I propose that the article be amended to include such empirical observations as good practice. Anarchangel (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, first thing's first, reformat your comment. It's hard to tell what the added text was.  Perhaps you could provide a direct link to the diff?
 * Secondly, if I'm reading the disputed text right it was likely removed because of the last sentence which used multiple separate and non-overlapping sources. When you combine several events into one point (for lack of a better term) it becomes synthesis.
 * Simply explaining what the law does shouldn't be an issue, provided that you can translate Legalese<->English properly and accurately summarize it. Most states have a "projected impact", "effect if passed", or a similar plain-English explanation for all bills that are part of their legislative process; if you use that as a reference when explaining the law it will be far less likely for your edits to be interpreted as original research. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 07:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas, such does not support the claims made. (vide discussion in Talk:Sarah Palin) Collect (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy
This is incorrect, and needs to be changed.

Maps are designated as reliable universally for geographic sourcing. Most third-party maps are compiled from other data and are not researched on the ground.

Also, the UC Berkeley source cited for this policy's definition does not support the definition at all. It simply states that some maps are primary sources. The sentence that most likely was used to back this up states "Catalogs include books, government documents, maps, videotapes, sound recordings, music scores and many other types of materials." - We know that not all books are primary sources. We know that not all videotapes and sound recordings are primary sources either. So why should maps be treated any differently?

I think this says it best: User_talk:DGG/Archive_21_Oct._2008 "maps are edited products prepared by authorities on the basis of survey data or aerial photographs. The raw survey data or photographs are the primary data; the maps are secondary as renderings and interpretations of that. They have high authority and can be referred to, as they universally are in geography as reliable sources. DGG (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)"

There have been some recent issues regarding the use of maps on WP:FAC articles, and I think that the issue needs to be resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, neither of the sources used to cite Wikipedia's definition of primary sources supports the classification of all maps as primary sources. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused by this. If maps are not to be allowed as sources, what could possibly be used in lieu? Or is this headed towards potentially disqualifying a class of articles from inclusion in the project? 23skidoo (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. That is my concern - that roads articles can be potentially disqualified from inclusion by this criterion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. Whether or not the definition excludes various articles from FA status should be irrelevant; working from that premise is patently a biased approach. I googled "map" and "secondary source" and found this (PDF; HTML version available thru Google), which says that maps are primary sources, since they are "actual data". But that's only one source... You really need a set of authoritative definitions, with examples. In short, you need to make a trip to your local library. And no cherry picking! Ask your librarian for the very best sources of info. Cheers, Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 08:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that you need to cite a more authoritative approach than the public library / college library website (I think I know where that one is! anyway random tangent), as frequently the definitions are for classification of their own stuff only. (Heck, look at the UC Berkley website cited...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, your statement is correct, but I wasn't taking any position on the actual answer to the question. I was taking a position on the means of finding the answer. Two points: First, authoritative sources should be brought to bear on the question. Second, you're the one who raised the issue, so the ball is kinda in your court. You're sorta the one who needs to go to the library and find the answers. That's all. :-) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that while some places do cite maps as primary sources, it appears to be related to citing maps in the fields of history and social studies-related fields. I think the broader question is whether maps should be allowed in the citation of the field of geography. --Rschen7754 (T C) 11:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can I ask some closely related questions that approach this issue in a slightly different way?
 * If maps are not allowed to be used as sources on wikipedia, what would be the advantages and what would be the disadvantages of this? What would be gained by imposing this restriction, and what would be lost?
 * If maps are allowed to be used as sources on wikipedia, what would be the advantages and what would be the disadvantages of of this? What would be gained by allowing them and what would be lost by allowing them?
 * The reason I think it might be more fruitful to at least also consider these very practical questions is that the discussion seems to be becoming more like a discussion of some abstract principles, when in fact, the actual practical consequences for each general decision need to be made much more central to the discussions in my opinion.  DDStretch    (talk)  12:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec, undent) Not exactly. The question is whether or not maps are primary sources.
 * If maps are primary sources, then they should not be used to provide the bulk of material for any article. That's because primary sources cannot be used in that way. Primary sources can be used, albeit very sparingly, as additional info: direct quotes, etc. But the real problem for the Roads WikiProjects is that maps provide a majority of the info, or at least a very substantial minority, in some articles. If maps are primary sources, that's not an acceptable practice. According to a very strict definition, such articles should either be deleted, or (more mercifully, perhaps) greatly stripped of all info that came from the maps. In either case, the article would stand no chance of being FA, and very little chance of being GA.
 * However, if maps are secondary sources, then all is hale and well in Road-WikiProject Land, the sun is shining, the sky is clear, and look out FA and GA, here we come. :-) So the task ahead of you is this: you need to find some very, very authoritative sources that say that maps are secondary sources.
 * I hope you find them! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that maps traceable to aerial or land surveys are clearly secondary sources. Maps prepared to show boundaries are not, however, universally reliable except to show how the preparer of the map wished to show a boundary. Thus a map of China prepared for the government of China may not show the same boundaries as one prepared for another nation (such as India). Such maps then become "primary" I suppose.  Collect (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maps can be primary, secondary and even tertiary (in the form of a reference atlas). The potential for OR lies in how you use the map and what you are using it to support.  Citing a map to say that the US state of Mississippi lies to the west of the US state of Alabama is not OR.  Using a map to support a statement that, "due all the place names ending in "-ton", Mississippi must have been settled by Saxons" would be OR.  The grey zone is saying something along the lines of: "Town A lies aproximately 12.3 miles NNE of Town B"... since the accuracy of that measurement will be impacted by the scale of the map. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) The maps are used to describe roads. The entire stretch of a road, for many miles.
 * This is gonna sound... perhaps.. well, I'm gonna hafta say that what you and I think doesn't matter in a question this important. We need proof that they're secondary sources. But LOOK OUT: A thought occurred to me! Could government maps be in the public domain??? Private maps, forget it, you're out of luck. But government maps? You need to look into this. Too bad ElCobbola is gone! but I'm sure you can find out. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum to my above comment: OPh, but even if they are PD, you're still gonna hafta be very careful how you use them. As Blueboar said, you might quickly run into OR problems. :-( Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Public Domain" may not be the issue (it refers to copyright). Maps which are "public records" can be referred to but only for material clearly evident in the record (see all the discussions about what public records can be used, including the fact that SYN and OR issues arise if you wish to make a deduction from multiple records, or make a deduction not absolutely evident in a sengle record ). And most states do have maps of state highways. Most towns have, somewhere, official town maps, but they are not necessarily easily accessible. One could therefore say "(this map) shows the boundary between Moldania and West Durangia to be the Ambival River" but not that the boundary "is" that river. I think this is how the policy works. And one could say "The Ambival River flows from the Alps to the Indian Ocean" if that is what the map shows and there is no easier way to show that fact. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a source that discusses maps as source material. "A map might be primary or secondary source. A map created in 1558 is a primary source for that time; a map created today, showing who occupied what land in 1558 is a secondary source." I think it is safe to say that the maps we're using in road articles are secondary sources.  And incidentally, DGG who you quote above supporting maps as secondary sources, is a librarian (with an MLS from Rutgers).  And in response to Ling.Nut, looking for proof that maps are secondary sources, I think "proof" would be a stretch, but consensus should be a reasonable standard.  I would be interested to see an argument that a modern road map used as the basis for a description of a roadway is anything other than a secondary source.  -- Mwanner | Talk 14:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Proof is indeed a poor word choice, and consensus is better, but it would have to be informed consensus, not just the consensus of whoever is participating in this forum. More specifically, it would have to be a good sample of authoritative sources. And again, if we can determine that maps are primary oops secondary sources or PD, we need to pin down the OR question as well. Essentially, we're talking about entire articles that spend a great deal of time merely describing and discussing the contents of a map. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could argue that even if we wanted to get picky, and call the maps primary sources, then the Road articles are clear examples of where WP:IAR can and should be applied. It betters to project to allow the use of maps as the predominent sources in those articles.  I would not say the same thing for a history article or an article on politics. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to invoke IAR. We've got several sources saying that maps are secondary sources in the context used here (and another is at "A map of “Ghost Towns and Gold Mines of Idaho” first published in 1977 that you found in your local book store. Primary or Secondary? Secondary: Maps can often be primary sources, but this map was created many decades after the era being researched.")  At this point, it seem to me that the onus is on anyone who wants to argue that maps as used here are primary sources.
 * And consider: an aerial photograph or satellite map is a primary source-- it is unedited data. So is raw GPS data. So is a surveyor's map. Maps based on such primary sources are secondary-- the data has been interpreted, edited, labeled, reviewed, etc.
 * The OR question is another matter, but it seems to me that it is no more challenging than any other use of secondary sources. If I read a history, and accurately condense it and add it to an article here, that is not OR.  Likewise if I read a map and summarise it for an article here, that is not OR.  It is only when one starts developing novel theories or ideas that one enters into the realm of Original Research. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. As with anything, if you go beyond the source your statement can become OR (even citing secondary sources)... but if you stick to accurately summarising the source you should be fine. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

All this sounds like primary source paranoia to me—too many otherwise experience Wikipedia editors seem to have a knee-jerk "Oh noes! Primary sources!" reaction. There is nothing inherently wrong with using primary sources, as long as they are used correctly. Blueboar put it well above, using a map for plainly visible facts is fine, but any speculation as to why anything on the map is the way it is is OR. The reason WP:OR states that articles "should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources" is not because primary sources are prohibited, but because primary sources cannot be used to support the interpretation and analysis of the subject that should form the core of a typical Wikipedia article.

Since you mentioned issues at FAC, I checked New York State Route 73 which is currently at FAC, in particular the "Route description" and "Designation" sections complained about by a reviewer there. IMO, both are fine. Route description is an ideal use of a primary source, as everything in there is directly visible from a primary source and there is no interpretation going on there. Someone could attack it for being unnecessary detail or for lacking information on why the road goes that way, but there's nothing wrong with the sourcing as it stands. Designation is similarly fine, as the only parts that are interpretation rather than mere description are sourced to a New York Times article rather than a map. It's not original synthesis to compare two maps and describe the differences (FWIW, the example at WP:SYN is more an example of poor writing, undue weight, and possibly POV pushing than actual original synthesis). While someone could make a legitimate complaint that there should be more interpretation or analysis as to why the changes were made (which would require non-primary sources, of course), I again see nothing wrong with sourcing as written. Anomie⚔ 15:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The data from which maps are prepared is a primary source, such as aerial photographs, or a list of checkpoints. Google maps makes a perfect demo: the street views photos and the aerial view are primary sources--the maps view is a secondary sources prepared from them and from other sources. The maps themselves are prepared by interpreting the data, by cartographers and cartographic technician and computer programs, and provide not picture of the terrain, but an interpretation of it. How can something representing nature by conventional man-made symbols be regarded as a primary source? Maps need further interpretation of course, as any source does--not everything on them can be taken as face value. One needs to understand how to read maps, to understand the degree of interpretation put into maps of any particular nature. There are of course interesting intermediate cases, such as maps prepared by putting names onto a n aerial photograph (a photomap)--some human being assigned a name. DGG (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand... some old historic maps (ie maps made a long long time ago) might be considered a primary source. For example, using the 1811 Commisioner's Plan of New York City as a source for a statement as to how that city was planned and grew.
 * As I said above, some maps are primary sources, some are secondary sources, and some are tertiary surces. As long as we stick to what any given map obviously depicts, and avoid adding our own interpretations or analysis  of what the map depicts, then it is fine to use them as a source. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and since we aren't likely to use an 1811 map for a highway article, we should be just fine. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the key here is to define what kinds of maps are primary and secondary. We are kidding ourselves if we think that the maps made by the US Army, for example, are not political. Those maps use politicized names for places (e.g. Myanmar vs. Burma). All such choices reflect a particular point of view by the mapmaker. I would most certainly consider US Army maps primary sources, for example, since they are developed for a specific purpose by the people using them (e.g., war). It doesn't get more primary than that. Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but we're talking about the primary/secondary source question. Obviously, a secondary source may be unreliable for any number of reasons, but it is still a secondary source. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I illustrated what I thought would be a primary source. Awadewit (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think people can figure it out. Why single out maps at all... just treat them like any other source. Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a GIS Analyst, my opinion (which likely doesn't carry any weight), pretty much agrees with most of what has been stated above. Maps are secondary sources.  They are second hand information derived from a primary source.  Case in point aerial photography would be an example of a primary source.  The USGS creates Digital Raster Graphs based on these aerial photos to create a symbolized representation of the surface.  People in my field use aerial photography to create derivitave data such as wetland coverage, road networks, building footprints, etc...all of which would be a secondary source.  For the purposes of the Roads project, maps are secondary sources.  This is just my opinion, and for full disclosure I am a former editor of the USRD project, but haven't been in a few months, so my vested interest and bias in this project is minimal. Cheers.  Strato | sphere  06:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, it was stated above that historical maps are primary sources. How old does something have to be for it to qualify as a historical map? Awadewit (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't really age per se that makes a map a primary source, which is "a source of information [...] that was created at the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described" (think of Lewis and Clark's maps). But if I walk a portion of the Appalachian trail, tracking it with a GPS, and then load a map of that track on Wikipedia, that map is clearly a primary source (not to mention Original Research), even though it was made yesterday. But in general, older maps are more likely to be primary sources than are newer ones, since, in general, newer maps are based on multiple older ones.  It is the compiling of information from multiple sources that creates secondary sources.  So, for instance, combining satellite imagery and place names from earlier maps results in a map that is a secondary source. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have to disagree. Most of the newest maps are based on raw, unpublished satellite data (thus are primary sources), whereas many of the older maps were compilations of even older published map data (thus are secondary sources).  In the past, one cartographer could not put together a map by himself, and generally had to use older sources, whereas nowadays, cartographers can plug all the raw satellite data into a computer and print out a new, primary source map. CO GDEN  20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Satellites only provide the raw data for some of the lines on maps. That data has to be combined with information from other sources to provide the place names, road names, political boundaries, etc., etc.. It is that process of combining data from multiple sources that makes a modern published map a secondary source. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Only if the older data is published data, which it typically isn't. The first presentation of unpublished data is the primary source for that data. CO GDEN  09:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the general consensus is, It is not an issue if maps constitute original research, so much as the application of maps as sources. With that, it seems the best way forward is to have guidelines on when it is vs. is not ok to use maps as sources. For example, in my work I have used maps for sources for distance, location, elevation, proximity, and approximate dates on when something was built. I definitely agree that, especially in the WP:USRD wikiproject, maps have been misused as sources, especially Google Maps. It has been proposed that WP:HWY or WP:USRD come up with such guidelines, would that be acceptable to everyone?Dave (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that should be our concern here, at least yet. I'm a firm believer that policy follows practice, not vice versa, and also in avoiding instruction creep.  We are not omnicient or smart enough here to codify, in a vacuum, when you should and should not use maps in all circumstances.  Lets let WP:HWY and WP:USRD work this out in a first pass, and if those guys arrive at what seems to be a Wikipedia consensus, we can review it here and see if their insights have general applicability Wikipedia-wide. In the meantime, we are well served by the basic, general rules of NOR, which are (or should be) simple and straightforward. CO GDEN  20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One general conclusion we probably can draw is that something like Google Maps is not a reliable source.  But that's not an NOR issue.  We should discuss that at WP:V, not here. CO GDEN  20:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute! Where did "Google maps is not a reliable source" come from?  Also, what is the basis for "maps have been misused as sources, especially Google Maps" (Dave).  The only place Google Maps occurs in this discussion is a comment from User:DGG who states that they are valid secondary sources.  What did I miss here? -- Mwanner | Talk 21:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, it is really that difficult to stay on topic? Back to the subject, I agree that we should let WP:HWY and WP:USRD come up with some map usage guidelines. If they seem to be useful elsewhere, we can incorporate them into policy. Otherwise, I think this is really a non-issue. Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, most of the discussion above has little to do with OR. It seems to me that the OR issue for the roads folk is relatively simple-- extracting distances from maps smack of OR.  Almost anything else one would be likely to do with maps in road articles seems to me to be straightforward usage of a secondary source.  Whereas using maps in history articles seems far more fraught with OR traps for the unwary.  -- Mwanner | Talk 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Maps can be considered orginal research by the way the article is read. If the article is FOO road is a long road in FOOville and talks about the road without any sourcing other than a map of the road, then it's a problem. With maps and if they are a reliable source, that's a different discussion that should be mentioned there, not here. Secret account 21:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly is it original research to read a map so as to state that FOO road passes through FOOville? -- Mwanner | Talk 21:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the detail of the article quote the "talks about the road", i just used FOO road as a stupid example, should have clafified it better. Secret account 21:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I still don't follow. If I use a map to say that NY Route 86 starts in Paul Smiths, NY and passes through Gabriels on its way to Saranac Lake where it joins NY 3, etc, etc., that's simply reading source material and using the information contained in it, like reading a book and summarizing the contents.  I think measuring distances creeps into OR territory-- the info isn't immediately there, in the source (unless it actually states distances in text).  But the rest seems like simple usage of a source document. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think Secret is talking about articles such as Grove Lane, Leeds: "Grove Lane is a street in Leeds LS6, connecting Headingley and Meanwood. It is about 3/4 mile long and crosses Meanwood Beck." I think the point is that maps are not normally proof of notability. ("It appears on 12 different maps of Leeds, so it's clearly notable!") --Hans Adler (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the opinion about Google Maps being misused comes from those articles that are written ONLY with Google Maps as a source for the route description. For a counter example, M-28 (Michigan highway) uses the MDOT map in addition to the Rand McNally atlas to source details about the routing. Both give variations of the same info on where the highway is routed. MDOT's map shows where highways are also part of the individual Great Lakes Circle Tours, but Rand McNally shows the National Forests. Other basic details are sources to a map that graphically shows the traffic counts (which could have been given as a table) and various tour guides for information on landmarks along the highway.

Other articles, some of which I've written, don't have the variety of sources used. A Google Map gives the same information as the MDOT map does, on a different scale. While the MDOT map is approximately 26" x 29" on paper for all of Michigan, a Google Map has an infinite variety of scales, from a whole country down to just a city. The level of detail it can provide is very useful. The pitfall is that it's easy to base all of the route description on that single map, even to the point of making it a mundane turn-by-turn set of directions. On some highways of a shorter length, that level of detail is appropriate, say Capitol Loop which is less than 3 miles in length running through downtown Lansing, Michigan on state-maintained streets. The trick is mixing in other information so that the WHOLE description doesn't rely on the same map. I think that's the point Dave was attempting to make.

Other question that popped up is about measurements. the MDOT map gives distances along highway segments in whole mile values. The insets will give to the tenth of a mile. I see no difference if distances were quoted from the numbers on the paper map, or the distances that Google reports to the tenth of a mile. Some usage of mileages, say limited to the junctions tables, can be good, but constant usage is the prose description is overkill. Once again, it's a matter of balance. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification, IMO Google Maps is a reliable source. IMO, It is appropriate for specific details (such as distances, elevations, etc.) I don't see how using a map to source distance is OR any more than using a DVD player to source a timestamp for an event in video footage, or a table or chart in a book to source a trend.


 * My criticism is more what Google Maps is used to source. Some USRD articles use Google Maps as THE source for a route description, both minute detail and general information, which IMO is inappropriate, and frankly leads to boring articles. Dave (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to post the same thing: if the map has a scale or other distance indicators, it's not WP:OR to use that to measure distances. In general it's not OR to state a fact that is plainly apparent to any generally educated reader of the source. That also means that if you have a map dated 1940 not showing a road and a map dated 1950 that does show it, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of either map, it's not OR or SYN to use those two maps to state "The road was constructed between 1940 and 1950".
 * As for using Google Maps to source a route description, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it from a WP:OR standpoint. It may be poor style, uninteresting, undue weight, and/or travel guide material, but it's not OR. Anomie⚔ 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, I see I'm missing the background to a lot of these points. Let me say, then, that I think that
 * maps, by themselves, don't confer notability sufficient to justify an article.
 * That measuring distance on a map and calculating a distance therefrom smacks of OR, but I, personally, wouldn't worry about it much (i.e., I have done it myself, and wouldn't revert someone else doing it, but I'm not sure how strongly I would try to defend the practice if called on it).
 * That taking mileages from Google maps is, somewhat, iffy. While the google map itself is a perfectly reasonable secondary source, the directions that it gives strike me as primary-source-ish. Also, distances between two points taken from Google should be careful to specify that they are road-miles (or miles via a given route), not air distances. (This is an issue more for city/town articles than road articles.  I do object to a town article giving its distance from another place in road-miles without specifying as such (and preferably using air-miles instead), but for road articles I suppose road-miles is exactly right.)
 * But it almost seems that we have general agreement on the primary issues? -- Mwanner | Talk 23:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only times I've used Google for distance calculations are cases similar to M-553 (Michigan highway). The highway has been extended since the last update of the MDOT Control Section maps in 2001. Since the northern extension wasn't a state highway in 2001, MDOT didn't give a length for that section. The article should not imply anything but road mileage, not air mileage from that source. Now, what about other highways whose lengths are calculated directly from control section lengths, given to the thousandth of a mile and merely added together? Simple arithmetic isn't OR, and reading a length given as a numerical value off a map is no different than reading the same number out of a table. I agree though that not all maps are primary sources, and not all uses for maps are problematic. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) As I posted on the Roads WikiProject: when y'all are done, I am really hoping someone will put together a subpage (or a subsection of WP:OR) on this particular subject. It would cover the question concisely but thoroughly, including links to some authoritative sources to buttress its conclusions. That way, if the issue comes up at GA or FA, no one needs to mumble "well, we agreed". They can point to a crisp, one-stop-shopping treatment of the issue(s) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Someone please start a subpage off WikiProject Roads already and move the discussion there. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is lacking in specificity. Maps can be primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, or even worthless propaganda. A USGS map is a primary source. A map in an encyclopedia or similar tertiary source is also a tertiary source. It's no more possible to create a blanket categorization of maps than it is to decide whether all text is primary or secondary. It appears that this thread started in regards to road maps, and the discussion might be more fruitful if it were limited to that specific topic. 00:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How should the wording of this policy be changed? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's possible that we should split it into (1) sources that provide raw information, (2) sources that provide analysis, and (3) sources that provide summaries (conveniently primary, secondary, tertiary). Maps are sources that provide raw information.  They are not literally primary sources, but they have all the same pitfalls as a primary source and should be used only for uncontroversial information that cannot reasonably be cited from an analytical ("secondary") source.  "Primary sources" is the common lingo that we understand, but where the rubber meets the road is how and when it is appropriate to use a source, and maps, like directories and charts (all technically "secondary" or "tertiary"), are vulnerable to editor interpretation and the pitfalls that came with it.  SDY (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any need to complicate things by invoking source classification theory. A map can be a primary, secondary, or tertiary source, depending upon the fact being cited, and the average Wikipedia editor (and even the elite Wikipedia editor) can't be expected to reliably apply the concepts of "primariness" and "secondariness," and in any event, making such classification tells us nothing about original research. This is not a fruitful theory to hang the policy.


 * I think the better approach is just to address the problems head-on. For example, from the WP:NOR perspective, we care about the following things:
 * Any interpretation of the maps must be straightforward, and evident on the face of the map, without any novel or nonobvious measurement or manipulation. Rather than inferring novel insights from a map, you must instead find another map or text that provides that insight directly.  You may make obvious and straightforward inferences, however, such as the fact that one city is north of another, or is within a particular political boundary, or is at a particular latitude.
 * In making inferences from maps, you may not use a controversial methodology, or a methodology that leads to more than one possible inference. For example, you may not measure high precision distances on a map with a ruler if two editors could plausibly measure the distances differently.
 * From a WP:V perspective, there are also further considerations:
 * Unless there is no other source available, you should only cite maps that have been published in a permanent form, that either exist in a library or have been archived on the internet for reference by future generations. For example, the map data presented at Google Maps is subject to change, and a map cited today may not be the same map accessible at Google Maps 10 years from now.
 * Any map you cite in a Wikipedia article should be subject to reliable fact-checking and/or peer review.
 * From the WP:NPOV perspective, we care about the following:
 * Any propaganda or cultural biases on the map must be presented neutrally and called out, if necessary.
 * CO GDEN  09:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that most wikipedia editors really cannot properly apply source classification, you're right. But does that really mean that we should not expect them to be able to? This really isn't a debate suitable for here, however - more something to ponder. Regarding your suggestions on the use of maps, I think you have a pretty good set of simple suggestions. LinaMishima (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SDY, finally an editor who understands the differences between sources properly! I think you're spot on with regards to what maps and other directories are, and that only 'uncontroversial' (a person of normal education can quickly verify) facts should be cited from them. However, I do disagree with the implication that an analytical source would automatically be better to cite this information from - in terms of correctness, the original source used is generally better, unless the analytical source somehow adds more value (eg, when talking about what a book contains, the original book itself is the best most accurate source, unless further details of the analysis are then to be immediately used). But with respect to maps, most analytical sources would contain far greater depth on a subject than can be gleamed from a map alone (however the map acts to verify the integrity of some of the statements within those sources). LinaMishima (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Given all of the above... I have removed the word "maps" from the list of things that are considered primary sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a contributer with the USRD wikiproject who has a pet peeve with the overuse of Google Maps, I'll volunteer to throw up a proposed guideline for the use of maps. However I have comittments for the rest of the week, and may not get to it until next week. Dave (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be better to have a generalized "use of unanalyzed information" instruction that uses maps as an example. There are massive discrepancies in understanding of what can and cannot be done with primary sources (the usual misunderstanding being that they cannot be used at all).  I don't think a new guideline is necessary, just an essay that explains how the various existing policies interact (the "spirit of the law") when dealing with these kinds of sources.  SDY (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a great idea, actually, and the best solution to the problem. I think this is very much needed. LinaMishima (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got a very primitive draft of a proposed policy at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox. Dave (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

editor-created Maps
A side issue... sometimes a map is not being used as a source in an article, but as an illustration of what is discussed in the text. This is especially true in geographic and history articles. Unfortunately, few published maps (ie a map that comes from a reliable source) are in the public domain. Now... Per WP:NOR, we allow our editors to create their own images to illustrate their articles... but this often leads to heated arguments over OR (does the self-created map contain OR?) and NPOV (does the map push a particlular POV or bias?). So, as long as we are on the topic of maps... we should probably address this issue as well. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To help people understand this issue and the arguments raised by both sides, do you have any examples of such maps and the discussions regarding them? LinaMishima (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to many of the maps that accompany the road articles here at Wiki, my opinion on the matter is as follows: most maps are made using GIS information which is a secondary source derived from aerial imagery or survey information.  This means they are using published data to illustrate a subject.  Users with the technical acumen and resources to utilize GIS to create map images for use in the wiki is no different from someone taking a table of data and dropping it in Excel and making a graph for upload.  Strato | sphere  15:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not talking about the road articles (although I suppose my question could apply to those)... for the most part I am talking about maps used in articles on various nations, and geographic regions... and especially "History of..." articles.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have an example of an editor created map... the issue of whether a specific set of maps were biased came up at RSN recently (see WP:RSN) and there was some discussion at to whether editor created maps could be used instead. As this issue is based upon WP:NOR I thought it best to ask about the issue here, and get some clarification.  As I read the policy, creating an original map to illustrate what is stated in the text is not OR, as long as it acurately reflects what is stated in the text (which should be based upon reliable sources).  Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would Image:New York Central Railroad system map (1918).svg be a good example of an editor-created map? --NE2 23:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me. The key is whether the map is simply illustrating something stated and accurately sourced in the text, or is being used as a source. If the former, there is no problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * People are creating their own maps and using them as sources? I can see citing the GIS data, for instance to reference the name of a rail junction to the BTS data, but...no. You don't make something and then cite it as a source. --NE2 01:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a draft policy ready at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox. Proposing policy is a new arena for me. Can someone more experience provide input on what is next? Dave (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your draft is not really talking about editor created maps... but using maps created by others as a source in an article. there is a slight difference.  In any case, the first step towards proposing a new guideline or policy is to get feed back from others.  This can be done by posting a "Feed back needed for proposed new guideline" message at various policy and guideline pages (I would post it at WT:V, WT:NOR, WT:RS for a start).  Ask people to comment and make suggestions.
 * Once you have incorporated these initial suggestions into your draft, the next step is to move it from your sandbox to article space, and tag it as a proposed guideline. Notify the Village Pump and other forums. After that it is sort of out of your hands... if people like it, it will be eventually be marked as a guideline.  If not, they will either continue to work on it until it gains concensus, or they will reject it. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Project space not article space.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This doesn't strike me as a terribly important issue. Where it might be an issue, I think it could be best solved using common sense on a case-by-case basis.Calamitybrook (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

types of sources
In October I made several proposals. All met with major objections except one: that it made more sense to reverse the order in which we describe the three kinds of sources. Everyone involved in the discussion agreed it was a sensible idea. Vessyana had a minor objection and in consultation with V. we made appropriate changes. I have just made the change to the policy. I was careful not to delete or change any content, only to reorganize the section. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Everyone at the time was very encouraging. if anyone is new to the discussion and doesn't see the logic I'd be happy to explain it again but i would ask people to take sone time and see if they can get used to it ... I really think it will help newbies get the idea more easily. That's my main intention. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of the section at all, but that's a different discussion. Regarding the edit itself, I would suggest re-bolding the "primary/secondary/tertiary source" text in the bullet points, and revising the "Our policy" part of the tertiary bullet (it's a bit too long, IMO). The "difference" between the types of sources from a WP:OR perspective is supposedly that you can only describe and summarize what is in primary sources, you can't analyze or interpret them. But you can't actually analyze or interpret secondary or tertiary sources either, you can only describe and summarize the analysis and interpretation they already contain. WP:N's need of secondary sources is unrelated to this policy, and WP:SPS is a WP:RS issue. Besides which, which kind of source something is in any particular circumstance depends as much on how it is used in that circumstance as anything else. IMO, the section should be moved out to an essay. Anomie⚔ 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa, this seems to be far more than just a re-ordering of content, just giving it a once over in fact there have been some significant changes made to language with addition and omissions in all three source topics. If you wouldn't mind, please provide a link to the discussion where it was agreed to make all the content and language changes that you did. Thanks Tmore3 (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

hereSlrubenstein  |  Talk 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't say that I agree with some of the rewriting that's going on here. First, what is the point of inverting the primary, secondary list? Secondly, there's a lot of repetition. Third, there are some points (maybe new, maybe not so new, I didn't look) that make no sense, or that actively contradict the policy or other policies.


 * I removed these sentences in the meantime: that secondary sources may be used only if "the point of view is clearly identified and accurately represented."


 * What does that mean? What if there is no identifiable POV? Who is to decide whether there is?


 * And (2), I also removed, "The conditions that apply to the use of primary sources also applies to the use of primary source material included in secondary sources."


 * That's false, unless I've misunderstood it. What does it mean? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think (2) is refering to quotations... IE, the cautions that apply to a primary sources do not go away simply because you found it quoted in a secondary source.  Any conclusions, interpretation or analysis of the quote needs to be those of the secondary source, not your own. Blueboar (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re quotes -- that's not what it says though. And re: your last point -- yes, but that's true of facts too, not just interpretations. Secondary sources don't always offer interpretations. They are just people who are one step removed. And if they interpret a primary source in a way we don't like, well, tough, surely. Or have I misunderstood? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 23:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that reversing the order makes more sense; this was discussed in othe past and after a couple of weeks discussion everyone agreed. As to the content - well, in making my change I strived to include content that was there before (i.e. this morning). For example, the (2) on primary material found in secondary sources was there before I made my edit. I am not defending it, only explaining that it was not introduced by me. I kept it under the assumption that it had been added after discussion and a consensus was reached. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On tertiary sources paragraph I kept the general format for now but went ahead and reverted the content changes. As a general comment I can appreciate a goal of trying to make the section more user friendly but have to say I think I would prefer the previous version from a content and aesthetic perspective of being able to digest. I also am not clear as to the benefit of the sources being ordered the way that they are, to me Primary, Secondary and Tertiary makes sense because it follows this chain of information gathering. Primary being square one, secondary reporting on that, tertiary culling mainly from secondary.  If an order change must be made and I don't know that it should I would say Secondary should be put first simply for the value it has in seeking to source article content. Tmore3 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking good...! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see the benefit of reversing the order. There is a logical progression from primary to tertiary, but not the other way round. A primary source is close to an event and writes about it. A secondary source, at least one step removed from the event, picks up what the primary has written, and reports or analyses it. A tertiary source (a general reference work such as Wikipedia) gives a brief overview of the whole situation.


 * To start with the third one means we explain who uses primary and secondary sources before we've even explained what they are.


 * Also, I removed this sentence, which seems false: "Some secondary sources, for example many scientific publications, often include original data and are thus also primary sources." A secondary source doesn't become a primary source simply because it includes original data. Most secondary sources will include original data at some point, even if only the occasional quote. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 00:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people think that the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are categorical. And i conceed that sometimes, maybe many times, it appears this way. but sometimes it doesn't, which leads to perenial debates here about hat is and is not a primary or secondary source, and confusion among newbiews. There is another approach to explaining the differences between these kinds of sources: they are different not becaus they are fundamentally different things but becuause they are functionally different. My viw is simple: thee is no such thing as a primary source except in relation to secondary and tertiary sources. Without having an understanding of secondary and tertiary sources, the concept of primary source ii smeaningless. i think it makes much more sense to explain PST sources in terms of how they relate to one another, than to try to define each one "in its own terms." Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and what every editor is most familiar with, let's start with that. Tertiary sources like Wikipedia are built out of secondary sources and any newbe can understand this and thus understand why we define secondary sources a certain way. Once they understand what a secondary source is, we can say "secondary sources are based on primary sources" and can then explain primary source sin a way they can understand. I think this is much more simpler and user-friendly than what we had before ... and it does not require us to change our policy at all (Tmore3 made some changes and while I am not sue I agree with all of them, I do not strongly object ... I would like to know what Vassyana thinks, and others). We had a discussion and everyone agreed. i am sorry, Slim, you were not around for that discussion, but several editors in good faith were in favor of the change. Can I ask you to give it a couple of weeks, try to get used to it ... you may end up seeing my point once you are used to it. Or, like Tmore3 you may accept my basic change but see cause to revise the content. Or you may conclude I am dead wrong. But I am trying to think outside of the box. Over the past years PST has been a persistent bone of contention. Sooner or later someone contests it, we have a big debate about it. I have this idea: changing the structure 9the order) may resolve people's doubts and thus put an end to debates over the contexnt. maybe i am wrong but no one has ever tried this approach.  Can we try this approach for a few weeks and just see how it works out? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * for what its worth, i don't see a major problem with this, and support it apart from two things: the original text on tertiary source should remain and I would make a slight change here:"Our policy: Wikipedia articles cannot include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims unless (1) such claims come from reliable, verifiable sources and (2) the point of view expressed in the sources provided is clearly identified and accurately represented." In terms of the issue of accurate representation, I would personally like to see more use of footnotes for the purposes of providing relevant text excerpts, it provides added value to a citation and offers a quick means to verify the relevance, and appropriateness of a citation. Too often I see statements that have citations pinned to them, only to find, if a page number is provided, that the statement is synthetic, misinterpreted, or simply incorrect. Semitransgenic (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I have no problem trying it out for a few weeks. I feel myself that the reason we've had such problems with primary/secondary is that our language is unnecessarily confusing, and that we ought to do what we can to speak in much simpler terms. But sure, I don't mind waiting to get a feel for the reversed order. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Semitransgenic, what do you mean by "the point of view expressed in the sources provided is clearly identified and accurately represented"? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 01:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose ideally it should be transparent to a reader - without having to check the reference - who holds the view, particularly in controversial matters. Too often seemingly pragmatic articles with cites tagged on read as if they are indisputably factual but really what we are getting is a patchwork of POV peppered with synthetic assumptions. If sentences read according to so and so...such and such it would, as far as I can see, be a better state of affairs, I suppose it depends on the subject matter, but clearly attributing statements in the text would be helpful, especially if a contextual excerpt is also provided in the foot notes. Again, not all articles will warrant this type of approach, but some really do need it. Semitransgenic (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi ST, I think the issue of when in-text attribution is needed is covered in WP:V. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's remember why we discuss Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources in this policy in the first place... To prevent the introduction of Original Research. Originally, the focus of the PSTS section was to hammer home the idea that Wikipedia should not itself become a primary source for information and ideas.  That statement went to the heart of this policy.  Having made that statement, it was felt that we needed to explain and define the term "primary source" - which, in turn, led to also explaining and defining secondary and tertiary sources.  All of this is fine, but somewhere along the line we got so wrapped up in definitions that we lost the original intent.  This has caused confusion ever since. Now, I am not saying that we should scrap the section (that is a debate which was settled over a year ago), but perhaps we do need to do more than just restructure it.
 * No matter how we order things or define them, let's take this opportunity to make sure that we tie our definitions directly back into the this policy. We need to make it clear that our editors may use all three types of sources, as long as they don't use them to introduce OR.  I think we need to focus less on what Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are, and more on how using these different types of sources can lead to OR.   Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and in fact I would go a bit further: Move the "what" out into an essay, where we can go into more detail on the definitions and differences and where we can touch on WP:N, WP:RS/WP:SPS, and other such issues without having them become part of this policy. The "how" in a nutshell is pretty simple: You can describe and summarize what's in the source (of whichever type), but you can't analyze or interpret it. It's just easier to fall into analyzing/interpreting when using primary sources, because they don't contain much (if any) analysis or interpretation of their own. And please, add a statement to the effect of "Primary sources are in no way inappropriate for use in Wikipedia as long as they are used correctly" because too many mistakenly think the opposite. Anomie⚔ 17:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is already there... Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think we need to focus less on what Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are, and more on how using these different types of sources can lead to OR." Just do both, I don't see the issue, and how can you discuss the use of sources unless you first define what the source categories are? There is a very clear reason for the categories, wiki should be written using the best sources, generally the best sources are secondary sources, this is worth noting and people should be made aware of the distinction. Moving definitions to an essay is not a good idea in my opinion. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with ST; I think we need to say here what the distinctions are, though I also think the writing could be simplified. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Insidious OR
There is a particularly insidious and subtle form of OR that often goes unseen. I wish the policy page specifically discussed such cases where, in an Wikipedia article, an editor makes a (logically sound) connection between two statements that is not explicitly made in the sources provided to back them up. Simply placing those bare statements one after the other, or adding a "however" between them becomes OR. All statements in a Wikipedia article are supposed to have a connection with the topic of the article or other statements therein, and the editor must rely on the sources to make those connections. --Thermoproteus (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this different from the synthesis already discussed? A combination of facts, whether explicit or implicit, is synthesis; but in many cases juxtaposition of facts is not synthesis. For example, "Toast is typically made in a toaster. However, in Nigeria they rely predominantly on fire pits to make toast." Dcoetzee 01:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "A" believes that "X" is false because "Y" is true.[source D] However, "B" believes that "Y" is false.[source E] (Source E does not comment on "A"s belief that "X" is false.) Is this synthesis? --Thermoproteus (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As you state it, yes, it is synthesis. However, if a third source [source F] made the connection between all of the disperate parts of the synthesis (ie if the synthesis was not an original one) we could note that. Blueboar (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Synthesis, yes. Original synthesis, no. Is "B"'s belief about "Y" in an article about "X" relevant? Possibly not, even if "A" thinks so. IMO, this whole section is trying to prove some sort of point. The essay WP:NOTOR, particularly the section Compiling facts and information, addresses this issue in detail. Anomie⚔ 04:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an unanswered question here... what is the topic of the Wikipedia article or section? Is it discussing "X" or is it discussing "Y"?
 * If the article or section topic is "X", then inserting B's view on "Y" is tangential to the point. B's view on "Y" seems to have no direct tie to A's view on "X" (only an indirect tie).  And it would be an Original synthesis if no source has linked these two views in relation to "X".
 * If, on the other hand, the article or section topic is "Y", then the fact that A and B have competing views on "Y" is both to the point and directly related. Instead of a synthesis, we are simply contrasting view points. Blueboar (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We must have different definitions then. IMO, the case cited isn't original synthesis, it just goes off on an irrelevant tangent and is potentially misleading as it may lead the reader into a logical fallacy. To be original synthesis, it would have to actually draw the conclusion "Therefore, "A"'s belief is baseless." Also, BTW, something like "Researcher "A" proved in 1989 that "X" must be false if "Y" is true.[1] However, researcher "B" has proven in 2006 that "Y" is false,[2] so the status of "X" is unknown from this data." would be synthesis, but it's a simple logical deduction and thus hardly original; the difference here is that we are dealing with statements of fact rather than opinion.
 * In the case that the article is about "Y", IMO then "A"'s belief about "X" is irrelevant to the article (because it is a consequent rather than an antecedent of "A"'s belief about "Y"). Anomie⚔ 13:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would anyone else care to comment on this case? It seems both editors here disagree on how to interpret "original synthesis". --Thermoproteus (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If a "simple" logical deduction (and I would not call Anomie's example "simple") is being made by a Wikipedia editor, and can not be cieted to a reliable source, then it is Original Research as we define it. Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While you can get simpler than "Y→¬X" and "¬Y" telling you nothing about the truth of X, you can't get much simpler; WP:NOTOR covers the issue in more detail. But by your definition you're not even allowed to say "30.5 centimeters" if the source says "12 inches", unless you can find another source that specifically points out that (in the particular case in question, no less!) 12 inches really is 30.48 cm. And that, frankly, is just insane. Anomie⚔ 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll modify my example a bit: --Thermoproteus (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "A" believes that "X" is false because "Y" is true.[source D] "B" believes that |"A"s belief that "Y" is true| is false.[source E] (Source E does not comment on "A"s belief that "X" is false. Also, suppose that the Wikipedia article's topic is self-evidently closely connected with "X", but not with "Y".) Is this original synthesis? In the previous example, "B" argues that "Y" is false, without mentioning that "A" believes that "Y" is true; here "B" argues that "Y" is false in explicit connection with "A"s belief that "Y" is true.
 * I saw your earlier example that you have since deleted (referring to this section). IMO, it's more like "A believes X is false, because A believes not-X causes Y (and Y is clearly true).[1] Most researchers, however, reject 'not-X causes Y' as Y precedes not-X by a million years,[2] proposing instead 'Z causes Y'.[3]". You are claiming the "Most researchers" sentence is somehow OR. IMO, you are POV-pushing. Anomie⚔ 13:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding my simplified example above, the purpose of the sentence – "B" believes that |"A"s belief that "Y" is true| is false. – is to discredit "A"s belief that "X" is false. Therefore, the unwritten "original" conclusion that "Consequently, this argument goes against "A"s belief that "X" is false." is implied by that statement. The second sentence clearly serves as a rebuttal of the first statement and this particular connection is not made by the sources. --Thermoproteus (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This goes back to the old debate about "directly related" or "directly refers" that we had a few weeks ago. Wherever a point is contentious, the sources should directly refer to the article topic – otherwise we get OR argumentation. I've come across many examples where editors feel, in good faith, that some information is "directly related" because "knowing this casts a different light on the matter/the opinion expressed by X/etc." And they end up inserting this info, and doing OR.
 * To give another (hypothetical) example, a respected economist predicts interest rates will fall to 1%. 10 years ago, he made an interest rate prediction that did not come true. No reliable source has commented on his wrong forecast 10 years ago in connection with his present one, but an editor insists on having a reference to the previous, false prediction in the article because it is "interesting" or "relevant". I think that is OR. What you do is you mention the economist by name, hyperlink him, and if the false prediction elicited comment, it will have been covered in his article, and readers can inform themselves of his standing there.
 * I think in all cases where there is contention, we should insist that the source establishes the connection to the article topic.
 * One other thing: If the economist is in fact not well respected but widely seen as a crackpot, then the way to address that is not by inflating the section and proving how the economist has been wrong on all sorts of other things, but by looking at whether s/he is a fringe writer and should be quoted at all at such length. (Like: What publishing houses publish his work? Does he contribute to academic discourse? Etc.) Jayen 466 12:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would call your example irrelevant to the topic and possibly against WP:NPOV (and I would agree with its removal), but I would not call it WP:OR. I also suspect the hypothetical editor claiming it's "interesting" or "relevant" is really just trying to push a POV by devaluing all opposing viewpoints. I think people just like pulling out the OR-hammer for some reason, much like they like pulling out "Vandalism" to describe all sorts of non-vandal unconstructive edits. Anomie⚔ 13:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the relevence and appropriateness of mentioning such things depends on what the subject of the article is. To continue with Jayen's example, in the article about the economist, it is appropriate to include a section on his various economic preditions and to mention the 10 year old prediction in close proximity to his recent one.  However, in an article on (say) "econimic predictions for 2009" it would not be appropriate to discuss the 10 year old prediction, as that has no direct tie to the subject matter of the article (predictions for the 2009 economy). Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad we agree on the principle. But I am not sure NPOV has traction in such a case. Believe me, the editor who wants to include the material will argue that it is necessary to include the material to adhere to NPOV and that the economist's past performance is directly related to the credibility of his present forecast. WP:SYN is the only argument that has potential traction here, and it has to be sharp, asking for a "direct reference" to the article topic. Jayen 466 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Robin Hood's Barn? WP has, as I understand it, MOS currently states that measurement conversions are proper, hence do not fall under OR in any case. We are left with a logic problem. If we knew that all editors were trained in logic, then all edits would conform to proper use of logic. A person not trained in logic may make an edit firmly grounded in logic. A result which is firmly based in logic, then, may have been made by a person trained in logic. A result not based in logic must have been made by a person not trained in logic. WP does not require editors to be trained in logic, therefore edits made by WP editors may not be firmaly based in logic, ergo the ban on OR . And the odd requirement that only conclusions and connections made within a single source can be treated as material properly in WP. I personally disagree with how this is sometimes handled, but I can see why it is handled this way. Collect (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your second "ergo" does not follow from your premises. Consider this: WP does not require editors to be trained in basic arithmetic, which means articles may have faulty arithmetic. Does that mean articles must not make use of simple arithmetic? You yourself support the use of basic arithmetic in converting units of measure.
 * Here's another example of non-OR that would be OR under your interpretation: The first print of "A" contains a passage. A later print of "A" contains the same passage with wording changed. Your definition states that it is OR to make the statement "In later prints of "A", the passage was changed" cited by the two printings of "A". It would certainly be OR to speculate on why the passage was changed without a source, but here we consider just the bare fact that it did change. To bring it closer to the original example, also consider "Early printings of 'A' stated 'X'.[A1] This was criticized as being erroneous.[B] Later printings of 'A' changed the statement.[A2]". Anomie⚔ 13:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, (responding way up above), "A" believes that "X" is false because "Y" is true.[source D] However, "B" believes that "Y" is false.[source E] (Source E does not comment on "A"s belief that "X" is false. Is this synthesis? it's not original research at all. It's merely normal comparing/contrasting of sources.  It doesn't infer any new facts that are only citable to Wikipedia.  If it went on to say, therefore, B believes that X is true, then you have OR.  I'm assuming we've already established that D and E are relevant to the topic and are reliable sources.  Perhaps this is really an argument about "undue weight".  I'd like to see what the article under debate is. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is, how does one "establish that D and E are relevant to the topic"? Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed that editors would have hashed that out before bringing it here, which may or may not be the case. I discounted that for this example so we could debate only whether an original inference was made. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actual comparing and contrasting of the sources, if I understand your point correctly, once they have been selected is not an editor task, its a reader task. Making judgments on how sources compare or contrast can and often does culminate in a synthesis of material. Its this synthesis that can create new information,ideas, and which becomes OR.(olive (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Exactly so. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to situations where we write "A said X, but B said Y", without any original analysis. The sort of thing we do all the time when sources offer differing viewpoints. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the debate was over the "human evolution" section in Raw foodism:
 * W., a primate researcher and professor of anthropology has argued that cooking is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations to cooked foods.[140][141] W. believes that cooking explains the increase in hominid brain sizes, smaller teeth and jaws and decrease in sexual dimorphism that occurred roughly 1.8 million years ago.[142][140][141] W. further states that "no human foragers have been recorded as living without cooking [...] The possibility that cooking is obligatory is supported by calculations suggesting that a diet of raw food could not supply sufficient calories for a normal hunter–gatherer lifestyle. In particular, many plant foods are too fiber-rich when raw, while most raw meat appears too tough to allow easy chewing."[140] Most other anthropologists, however, oppose W., contending that archeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East.[143] The mainstream view among anthropologists is that the increase in human brain-size was due to a shift away from the consumption of nuts and berries to the consumption of meat.[143] Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

'''I started a new section below to clarify some outstanding points. Let's continue our discussion there. --Thermoproteus (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)'''

Not "insidious OR", but there are other issues with the wording
I've thought about it for a while and there are some other problems with the disputed material in Raw foodism.


 * The question on whether humans have evolved to digest cooked food more efficiently is a reasonable one, and probably something that's been written about many times over.


 * I'm assuming nobody is disputing the changes in hominid brain sizes, etc, from 1.8 million years ago ( i.e. the beginning of the Homo genus ).


 * There is a dispute over whether cooking became widespread at this point or only 250,000 years ago.


 * The paragraph, likely without intending to, implies that if cooking was widespread 2 million years ago it must be part of our evolution, but if it was only 250,000 years ago it could not have been.


 * That's where we're running into trouble. I'm no anthropologist, but there's no reason that humans couldn't have evolved to something 250,000 years ago, or even 6,000 years ago when we started farming.  Notice how not all peoples are equally tolerant of lactose or gluten.


 * W. has good credentials. He's a professor at Harvard, and yes we have an article about him.  The theory about 1.8 million years ago appears to be recently published, and recentism explains why that's the only evolutionary theory listed in our "raw foodism" article.


 * I'm going to assume good faith and say that the "most other anthropologists" section is there only for NPOV reasons, and if we mention the novel "1.6 million years" estimate we must mention the widely-held "250,000 years" figure.


 * However by now we've gone way off on a tangent, and most of this material belongs in an article on human evolution. This section should only deal with evolution and digestion, not debates on when that evolution happened.


 * So we could maybe keep the first sentence of that paragraph but we need to go wider and include opinions from other researchers. I'm sure there are plenty who think cooking only happened 250,000 years ago but still think we've evolved to it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think this discussion should be moved to the article page Raw foodism. This page is for discussion of WP:NOR the Policy and not for discussion of specific articles.(olive (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Or at best move it to the NOR Noticeboard.Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That horse went out of the barn a few days and about 20,000 words ago. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments Squidfryerchef. Could you post this at Talk:Raw foodism? --Thermoproteus (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Insidious OR (continued)
There is a particularly insidious and subtle form of OR that often goes unseen. I wish the policy page specifically discussed such cases where, in an Wikipedia article, an editor makes a (logically sound) connection between two statements that is not explicitly made in the sources provided to back them up.

Rule: All connections made within a Wikipedia article must be made by the sources, or else the statements that are not fully connected by the sources must self-evidently be closely related to the topic of the article on their own.


 * Example 1: To illustrate my point, I was recently involved in an debate pertaining to the "human evolution" section in Raw foodism, which originally appeared as follows (diff):


 * Richard Wrangham, a primate researcher and professor of anthropology has argued that cooking is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations to cooked foods.[140][141] Wrangham believes that cooking explains the increase in hominid brain sizes, smaller teeth and jaws and decrease in sexual dimorphism that occurred roughly 1.8 million years ago.[140][141] [...] The particular stance of Wrangham's, re cooking leading to bigger human brains and adaptability to cooked-foods, has been contrasted with several studies showing that average human brain-size has actually decreased in the last 35,000 years by 11%.[144][145][146]


 * The simplified logical structure of the paragraph is roughly equivalent to:
 * "A" believes that "X" (raw food is healthier than cooked food) is false because "Y" is true.[source D] However, "B" believes that "Y" is false.[source E] Source E comments on the notion that "Y" is true, but does not comment on "A"s belief that "X" is false. Also, the Wikipedia article's topic is self-evidently closely connected with "X", but not with "Y". [source E] = [144][145][146]


 * Example 2: After some discussion on talk page, the main editor reworded the counterpoints, replacing sources [144][145][146] with [143] (diff):


 * Richard Wrangham, a primate researcher and professor of anthropology has argued that cooking is obligatory for humans as a result of biological adaptations to cooked foods.[140][141] Wrangham believes that cooking explains the increase in hominid brain sizes, smaller teeth and jaws and decrease in sexual dimorphism that occurred roughly 1.8 million years ago.[142][140][141] [...] Most other anthropologists, however, oppose [Wrangham's stance of re: cooking leading to a bigger human brain], contending that archeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East.[143] The mainstream view among anthropologists is that the increase in human brain-size was due to a shift away from the consumption of nuts and berries to the consumption of meat.[143]


 * The simplified logical structure of the paragraph is roughly equivalent to:
 * "A" believes that "X" (raw food is healthier than cooked food) is false because "Y" is true.[source D] However, "B" believes that "Y" is false.[source E] Source E comments on the notion that "X" is false because "Y" is true, but does not comment on "A"s belief that "X" is false. Also, the Wikipedia article's topic is self-evidently closely connected with "X", but not with "Y". [source E] = [143]


 * Explanation: In both examples above, I would argue that the sentence backed up by [source E] is original research. The fundamental building blocks of original research are not statements per se, but "connections", which can be stated or implied. A stated connection such as "Therefore, "A"s belief that "X" is false is false" is not the only possible "novel" connection. Here, we have the implied connection that "this adversative argument concerning "A"s belief that "Y" is true also pertains to the validity of "A"s belief that "X" is false". This particular connection is not made by the sources, nor is "However, "B" believes that "Y" is false", by itself, self-evidently closely related to the topic of the article, which is why I believe this statement constitutes original research.

--Thermoproteus (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Discuss
The key is whether reliable sources have contrasted Wrangham's theory to those of other anthropologists. If a reliable source has said "No, Wrangham's theory is wrong becuase other anthropologists say fact fact fact", then we do not have OR. If, on the other hand, it is a Wikipedia editor doing the contrasting then we are talking about OR. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where in the above is anyone saying Wrangham is wrong? Anomie⚔ 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the line: Most other anthropologists, however, oppose Wrangham... Blueboar (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Most other anthropologists, however, oppose Wrangham... refers not to "A"s belief that "X" is false, but rather "A"s belief that "Y" is true. It is stated nowhere that A"s belief that "X" is false. Lets be clear though, the fundamental building blocks of original research are not statements per se, but "connections", which can be stated or implied. A stated connection such as "Therefore, "A"s belief that "X" is false is false" is not the only possible "novel" connection. Here, we have the implied connection that "this adversative argument concerning "A"s belief that "Y" is true also pertains to the validity of "A"s belief that "X" is false". This particular connection is not made by the sources, nor is "However, "B" believes that "Y" is false", by itself, self-evidently closely related to the topic of the article, which is why I believe this statement constitutes original research. --Thermoproteus (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The cited example about cooking clearly is original synthesis, in my opinion - because it makes the (implicit) assertion that Wrangham's theory is wrong because his statement about brain size is wrong. It effectively says "Therefore, Wrangham's theory has been discredited." It is this implicit assertion that requires a source. You can argue that the editor "didn't mean to imply that" but it's important what the "typical reader" reads into the text. It could be rephrased to avoid this assertion, for example in the statement: "Although Wrangham's theory was motivated by changes in human brain size that have been contradicted by later research, the theory as a whole has not been discredited."
 * If I were to craft a rule for this, it would read something like this: If a typical reader will infer a fact or conclusion from reading a text, that fact is subject to the same rules on verifiability and original research as an explicitly stated fact. Either a reliable source should be included that supports the implicit fact, or the text should be edited to avoid the implication. Dcoetzee 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a step in the right direction. The statement "Although Wrangham's theory was motivated by changes in human brain size that have been contradicted by later research, the theory as a whole has not been discredited." does get rid of the possible suggestion that Wrangham's main criticism of raw foodism has been plainly discredited, but we are still left with the impression that Wrangham's position on raw foodism has somewhat less merit. IMHO, this is symptomatic of a greater problem: the unsourced connection indicating that the adversative argument concerning |"Y" is true| or |"A"s belief that "Y" is true| pertains to the validity of |"A"s belief that "X" is false|. --Thermoproteus (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding the statement that Wrangham is generally held to be wrong about brain size in this article on raw foodism is OR or SYN, unless the relevant source contains a direct reference to raw food, and makes this argument in direct relation to this topic. This, again, is where our "directly related" wording does not do us any favours, because editors will argue that the basis of Wrangham's theory being wrong is "directly related" to his (in their view) erroneous conclusions. But our job is not to find and describe truth, it is to reflect what reiable sources have said about raw foodism.
 * As in the other example I gave above -- if Wrangham (or any other author in a case like this) is a crackpot, only published in fringe publications etc., holding views that are widely discredited, then he should not be cited at all. If he is a bona fide author, editors should not undertake the job of rebutting him, but look for sources that do that for them, and directly refer to the article topic. If there aren't any, tough. The article on Wrangham, if he has one, will tell readers that his views on the causes of increased brain size are a minority view.
 * If anyone feels this is counterintuitive, I would like to remind them of what it says at the top of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". That feels counterintuitive, too, until you sit down and think about the implications. For contentious cases, I believe the rule stated in the first para of WP:SYN should be something like this: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion – in direct relation to the article topic, and making a direct reference to the article topic – then the editor is engaged in original research." Jayen 466 19:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support this proposal. --Thermoproteus (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to this proposal at this time? Jayen 466 00:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The policy as presently written can be used to argue against including the problematic parts of the example.  Sources were being cited which were not relevant to the article.  There's no need to include more restrictive language that will likely be misinterpreted all over the Wikipedia.  Remember, if the rules on relevance, which really belong in the essay WP:RELEVANCE and not here at all, if they get any more restrictive, it will become impossible to include background information or to merge articles.  The "original research" policy is supposed to prevent WP from publishing information that can be sourced only to WP, which is proper for an encyclopedia.  That's it.  The OR policy is not supposed to be the remedy for every dispute over article content. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't like the language I proposed myself, because it is very clumsy. And I can see the point of it being unnecessarily restrictive in innocent cases, like adding the district or country that a city is in. For example, if you are citing a Russian newspaper, that paper may not mention that Samara is in Russia, but it will still be useful to mention it for the benefit of the readers. In such a case it is nonsensical to insist that any source mentioning that Samara is in Russia should also have mentioned the article topic. I still think the principle proposed is valid, but agree it should be made clear that this only applies to contentious cases. The logic thread below, based on the "implied novel conclusion" aspect, is a great job by the way. I would almost be tempted to keep it someplace like an essay. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning media originals as sources is regarded as "Original Research"?
It has always puzzled me when someone complaints about WP:NOR violations and/or requires "reliable sources" for texts in an article about a book, a recording, or a movie. Are not these (media) considered to be the primary, foremost (i.e., reliable) sources themselves? If a movie or a book are readily viewable, say, in a Library, why should one disregard them and look elsewhere for someone's written opinions or reviews instead? To read a book, to listen to a recording, or to watch a movie, and write about what one has read, heard, or seen, should not be regarded as "original research", as anyone can verify the validity of any assertions by doing just the same: read, hear, or watch it (just IT, and no other materials). That is, by the way, one of the basic pillars of the Scientific Method: the ability to duplicate any observation anywhere, anytime, given the proper conditions. If you have the time and patience, I'd like to read comments on this policy and the WP:RS policy in view of the above reasoning. Perhaps these ought to be revised, or expanded? Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Many complaints about WP:NOR are, to put it politely, balderdash. But, while the actual albums, movies, etc are citable as sources, they are primary sources.  To establish notability for an article and to establish commentary and criticism, articles also need secondary sources such as published reviews. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It really depends on what you are trying to say when you cite the primary source. The key is that you can not make analitical or conclusionary statements about a primary source unless you can cite a secondary source that includes the same analysis or conclusion.  Thus, you can cite the album itself for the statement: "The Woodstock album contains the song Freedom".  However, you can not cite the album in support for the statement: "The song Freedom is a heart-rendering plea for social justice and an end to the Vietnam War".  The latter statement is an analytical conclusion about the song, and requires verification by a reliable secondary source that reaches the same conclusion. Otherwise it is OR. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think it's rather inappropriate to discuss this raw foodism topic on this page, as this pasg is only about basic policy. It should be entirely discussed on the Raw Foodism page. I will address some of the points discussed, there.Loki0115 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Establishing the scope of the policy: Logical proof
Example: "A" believes that "X" is false because "Y" is true.[source D] However, "B" believes that "Y" is false.[source E]


 * Where:
 * (1) [Source E] comments on the proposition that "Y" is true, but does not comment on the proposition that "X" is false or on "A"s belief that "X" is false.
 * (2) The Wikipedia article's topic is self-evidently closely related to "X", but not to "Y".

Premises:
 * (1) The example implies that the adversative argument --However, "B" believes that "Y" is false.[source E]-- which concerns --"Y" is true-- pertains to the validity of --"A"s belief that "X" is false--. In other words, the example implies the following conclusion: Therefore, if "B" is correct, "A" may be wrong.
 * (2) WP:SYN states that "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources."
 * (3) In the example, --Therefore, if "B" is correct, "A" may be wrong.-- is not in any of the sources.
 * (4) WP:SYN does not state that an implied novel conclusion is not a novel conclusion.
 * (5) An implied novel conclusion is a novel conclusion.

Conclusion:
 * --However, "B" believes that "Y" is false.[source E]-- is original research as per WP:SYN.

--Thermoproteus (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree... original research per WP:SYN Blueboar (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are we still on this? OR was the least of the worries about that section we were debating.  That paragraph would be problematic even if we published original research.  Nobody is going to make changes to policy based on this; this debate belonged on WP:NORN from the beginning.  Anyway we've figured out what was problematic about the article, why are we going back to predicate calculus instead of simply bringing our findings back to Raw foodism? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Raw foodism case was meant as an illustration of the above logical example, which is not intended to change policy, but to clarify its scope. --Thermoproteus (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I don't understand about the origin of this debate. Your account has only been editing for a couple of weeks.  Why do you assume problems of this sort are pervasive on Wikipedia? Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree as per Blueboar above. Now, what is required to rescue the statement ""B" believes that "Y" is false" from the realm of OR in an article on X? A direct reference to X is required. For example: ""B" believes that "Y" is false and that, therefore, beliefs about "X" that are based on the assumption that "Y" is true are false as well". "Directly related" alone does not cut it, because there is, at least in vernacular parlance, a "direct relationship" between "Y" being, in fact, false and assumptions based on "Y" being true therefore being wrong. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, existing policy can already handle this situation, actually in three or four different ways: Say we have an article about X.  Mr. A believes X is false because Y is true.  There's a debate in the scientific community about whether Y is true or not.
 * We can already exclude the mention of Y under the more literal interpretations of the "directly related" rule in NOR. Sources that debate the truth of Y don't mention X, so they aren't relevant to the article.  That's the simplest one to argue, but I'm not a big fan of having rules of thumb on relevance as offical policy, and those who want Y can always question how direct does "directly related" mean.
 * We can also exclude Y based on a combination of the NPOV and BLP policies; if Y is a minority view, then NPOV demands we include arguments against Y. But if the arguments against Y can be read as unfair to Mr. A, then BLP demands we not argue against Y, so the best option is to leave Y out of the article.
 * We can also point out that some readers may interpret the rebuttal of Y as an argument that X is true. That's a fallacy.  But unlike the predicate calculus, we don't have parentheses in the prose to tell the reader what goes with what.  So you could use an intrepretation of SYN, or just an argument about logic without regard to OR, that the wording is problematic.
 * Another reason why it's problematic is that while we have a source that says Mr. A thinks X is false because Y is true, and we have debates over the truth of Y, we do not have an independent source that says "Y implies not X", and we don't have any source at all that says "not Y implies X". The disputed paragraph certainly seems to suggest "!Y->X", i.e. that if humans began cooking only 250K years ago and not 2M years ago, then that must mean humans are still constitutionally predisposed towards raw foods, which I don't think any of the sources suggest, and which in my opinion is false or unprovable.  While it's always debatable whether SYN covers ideas that are merely suggested in an article vs. statements that are explicitly written (one way to slice that is to ask if someone could cite our paragraph to get "!Y->X"), you could use either a "deletionist" interpretation of SYN or an argument on the logical flow of the paragraph without invoking the OR policy at all. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting)Boolean logic is the way of thinking at work here. The mathematics is sometimes called Boolean Algebra(calculus?) In the example above there is only a real problem if both Mr. A and Mr. B are of equal authority and weight. Since in real life this is almost never the case this problem will almost never come up. Thus it's a moot point. However assuming that the issue does come up. Expert A thinks y=1 ==> x=0 Expert B thinks that Y=0  Therefore either x=1 (always) or x=0 (always) or there is some condition on y.  Some context in which expert B thought that Y=0. Then the logic gate looks more like..

Expert A thinks y=1 ==> x=0, Expert B thinks z=0 ==> y=0

Now here is where things get tricky. Does an editor writing the conclusion that (A thinks y=1 ==> x=0)AND(Expert B thinks z=0 ==> y=0) ==> X=0 if z=0? The way it is written here it sounds like a complex bit of thinking and I can see why one would say sure it's OR. However I ask you all to look at this same problem in a more simple way. Just talking about regular old arithmetic kind of math.

If expert A writes y=x, then expert B writes x=z, is it original research to conclude that y=z? (consider that A can even equal B. That is they can be the same expert writing in two different compositions.

IMO such a thing is a judgement call. :-? We should not take great leaps synthesizing data and such. But on the other hand drawing the common sense conclusions like x=z AND z=y ==> x=z=y ==> x=y is necessary for writing a reference work like this encyclopedia. --Hfarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The question that I keep going back to is this: what is the subject of the article or section in question? If the article or section is about x (or expert A's beliefs about x), then what Expert B thinks about y is tangential to the subject. To raise it is WP:SYNT. If, on the other hand, the article is about y (or Expert A's beliefs about y) then again Expert B's comments on y are to the point and not SYNT. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So you say that if Experts A and B are both writing about the same topic then it is not synthesis but if they aren't then it is.
 * Where I see that becomming tricky is in a scientific article. For example, an article about String Theory.  One editor will write something about String theory, making reference to a work that is not about string theory but is about general relativity. They are a physicist and they know that the aspect of GR that they used the source on is pertinent to string theory (which is partly a theory of Quantum Gravity, and GR is all about gravity.)  However to a lay reader those two things are totally separate.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK... to run with your String Theory example... what we would be discussing is the statement: "Expert A says string theory is true because General Relativity is true; however, Expert B says General Relativity is false (with no comment on String Theory)."  Ignore the acutal science for a second... let's just look at the logic.   I am saying that we would not have a synthesis situation in the article on General Relativity, but we would in the article on String Theory.  In the GR article we would be appropriately contrasting two statements about GR (Expert A = GR is true, Expert B = GR is false)... but in the context of the ST article we do not have an approptiate contradition (Expert A = ST is true, Expert B = no comment).  Instead we have an implied synthetic conclusion: (A believes ST because GA) + (B not believe GA) = implied (B must disagree with A about ST as well).  Now, the question is whether we can lay out this implied synthetic statement or not.  That depends on whether there are reliable sources that have layed the synthetic logic out for us, or whether the logic is original to Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you say is true in terms of the accepted logic gate in use here. It works so well that you deduced
 * "(A believes ST because GA) + (B not believe GA) = implied (B must disagree with A about ST as well)." A string theorist would say they believe ST because of how well it's results match GR.  But B...Einstein would not have liked string theory because he did not like any of quantum mechanics such as it was when he was alive (citable fact).
 * As impressive as that is there is a fundamental flaw in that logic as it is applied to science. One scientifc topic does not exist in an isolated vacume from another.  Findings from disparate fields often serve to verify or falsify theories.  Things that don't seem connected at all. Then there is the fact that some works are of foundational significance, that is much of the rest of science is based on them being true.  Even if they are not strictly about the same topic.  Like Thermodynamics, Quantum mechanics, and General Relatvity all deal with very different things but if your science contradicts one of those look out.  They all have to be taken into consideration.
 * Perhaps a more compelx conditional logic should be employed?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, moving it beyond scientific specifics... The logical flaw in the implied conclusion is that, for all we know, Expert B might very well agree with A in believing that x is true, but for a different reason than A states. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes very good so we do need to apply a more complex logical system to this. Let me think about this. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK here is an Image of a logic diagram I think expresses how I think this works. let's discuss it. Both expert A and B are equal in all respects as are the citations. The logic basically boils down to this... We write in the article "Expert A's research (or belief) is that X is true if Y is false (as well as the converse). Expert B's research (or belief) is that Y is always false.  Therefore X may not always be true.

Since I like physics examples and can't help myself. Consider this situation. Steven Hawking wrote of black holes evaporating, and used math that assumed that space-time was continuous, Others have since published work just as authoritative that says space time is not continuous. (See:Hawking radiation) for an example of this kind of logic at work.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While Wikipedia has acknowleged that basic logical deductions (such as adding numbers) do not count as OR violations, if we have to draw out a chart to explain how a lodgical synthetic deduction works, then I would contend that it is far from being basic. The ultimate question here is: who is making the deduction?  If a reliable source makes the deduction, then there is no problem with including it in our articles... but if the deduction is being made by a Wikipedia editor then it should be considered WP:SYNT.
 * Let us take the new example... if we want to say "Steven Hawking wrote of black holes evaporating, and used math that assumed that space-time was continuous, others, however, say space time is not continuous. ".  To know if this is OR or not, we first need to ask... what is the topic of the article or section where we want to add this statement statement?
 * If the topic is space-time, then we are contrasting two opposing opinions on space-time (Hawking = continuous, others = not continuous). The mention of black holes is essentially irrelevant (it is mearly the context in which Hawking assumed continuousness and has no impact on his opinion that space-time is continuous).  It is not OR, within the context of the space-time article to contrast these statements.
 * If the topic is black-holes, then we have a different situation. Since the other scientists do not mention black holes, we are implying a conclusion... that the other scientists disagree with Hawking about black holes.  In this context we do have a synthesis.  We would need a reliable source that discusses Hawking's views on black holes evaporating and the other scientists' views on black holes evaporating, and ties both to their views on space-time continuity.  To do so without such a reliable source is OR... within the context of the black hole article. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose things look complex if you are not used to the symbols. Basically the diagram has the following components.  Two logical propositions X and Y and two experts A and B.  Then there is an OR gate (the Boolean Logic operation OR not the abreviation for Original Research).  The OR gate gives a true if either one expert or the other says true.  But there is also the wikipedia policies WP:NOR and WP:undue which require that we still mention expert B's contrary opinion.  But we crucially do not conclude that X is always true.  Only.  We caution the reader that X may not be true because of the view of expert Y.  The only thing in that diagram is first order elementary logic + wikipedia policy.


 * You write of black holes and space-time as if they were totaly different things. Any physicist and any number of a million reliable sources will tell you that a black hole is nothin but a region of space time.  This is how that example illustrates the type of situation we often find ourselves in.  I think wikipedian's are drawn to what we know best.  So we go to a page about a particular topic and find ourselves surrounded by experts on that topic.  To them some things will be totally clear simple connections.  To the non experts or those who are uninitiated a clear connection will sound like total WP:OR


 * wait a second. We are as WP editors deciding just what is OR and what is not.  Drawing that diagram is merely a step in formalizing just what kind of logic is allowed or not.  What comprises what WP:NOTOR.  If writing expert A disagree's with expert B therefore expert A may not be right is OR.  Then lets change it from wikipedia encyclopedia to wikipedia annotate bibliography.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no... we are not deciding what is OR and what is not. The policy does that for us... if someone else makes the connection between two things, it is not OR.  If a wikipedia editor makes the connection, it is. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Yes. According to the consensus interpretation of what is and is not OR. NOTOR  All the logic diagram above does is break down the process of "Compiling facts and information" into those logical steps that you must perform in order to do that when two sources disagree.


 * Please explain just how writing. "expert A disagree's with expert B therefore expert A may not be right is OR?"


 * This answer has broad implications for writing about anything controversial. In a case like that there are planty of experts who will see the exact same facts X and Y and totally disagree on them.  --Hfarmer (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (preliminary note: first, I would challenge the entire "therefore..." part of the sentence on NPOV grounds, since singling out one party and saying that the disagreement means that they might not be right is not neutral... the fact that two experts disagree does not tell us who is right or wrong, mearly that they disagree. But to focus on the OR issues...)
 * The statement might or might not be OR, depending on what the context is... what do Expert A and Expert b disagree about, and what are we saying Expert B may not be right on? Even if we omit the "therefore", including a statement that "expert A disagree's with expert B" might or might not be OR... it depends on the context of the disagreement.  Just what do these experts dissagree about, and how does the disagreement relate to the topic of the article or section in question?  If the disagreement directly related to the article or section topic, then there is no OR in noting that these experts disagree... But if the disagreement is tangential to the topic it might be OR to note it (that would depend on whether a reliable source has noted the disagreement within the context of the topic, or whether it is a wikipedia editor who is making the connection).  Let us take a very broad example:
 * In an article about apples noting the fact that two experts disagree about apples is clearly not OR.
 * In an article about bananas noting the fact that two experts disagree about apples may or may not be OR... that depends on whether a reliable source has discussed their disagreement over apples within the context of the topic of bananas.
 * A harder situation would be whether it is OR to discuss the disagreement over apples in an article on Fruit. Here we need to examine our sorces very carefully... What are the details of the disagreement over apples entail.  Are the details univerally applicable to all other fruits?  Has that universality been established by a reliable source?  In what contexts have we raised the issue of the dispute in our article... What if we discuss the dispute over apples in a sub-section, so that we can discuss it without implying that it relates to all other fruits.
 * What I am getting to is this... The same statement can be OR in one article, and not OR in another article. It depends on the context in which you are including the statement. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Example of original synthesis
The Inflation article includes a discussion of the Gold standard, as the Gold standard has been proposed as a means of controlling inflation. However, most mainstream economists oppose a return to the gold standard. Reasons include: inability to use monetary policy, vagaries of gold mining arbitrarily changes the money supply and inflation rate, and more technical arguments about the effect on exchange rates and Balance of payments during trade surpluses or trade deficits. These criticisms are all sourced and discussed on the page about the Gold Standard. However, most of these sources discussing these problems refer directly to the gold standard, not to inflation, i.e. they discuss why a gold standard is a bad idea, not why its a bad idea to use a gold standard specifically to control inflation. They do not belong in the article about inflation; the only appropriate sources are those that talk about how the gold standard is good at controlling inflation. --Thermoproteus (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Draft proposal for a more comprehensive and explicit "original synthesis" rule
Statements verified by sources which do not refer to the subject-matter of the article nor to topics related by definition to the article subject are deemed to constitute original synthesis when such statements clearly imply and logically entail non sourced, noteworthy conclusions about a "topic" related to the article subject, or when such statements evidently suggest, but do not logically entail, non sourced favorable or unfavorable assessments about that that particular "topic".

--Thermoproteus (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose While the logic presented is sound, adding such a restriction would afford no encyclopedic benefit. A discussion about what is logically sensible should be resolved within the context of the article's talk page. Jeff Carr (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

November Update
Content policy and style guidelines WP:Update is done for November. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary Sources - arbitrary break

 * Actually the current verbiage is almost impossible to figure out about use of primary sources.  I would actually prefer that any statement using "original research" (actually a misnomer in most cases - it is closer to "deductions based on primary sources") be balanced with alternative explanations based on the same primary sources, and allowing the reader to weigh the likelihood of each set of deductions.  Does this mean an article might have contradictory sentences right next to each other? Yes.  It would, however, allow some common-sense deductions into articles where they are currently waved away with the magic incantation of "original research."  I, of course, apologize if such a position is totally improper to hold.  Collect (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) What follows is what I said earlier, but that somehow went under. Its a tighter version on Phil's "General fix" suggestion and doesn't have some of the terms that have since been objected to.
 * Sourced statements must be easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge beyond what is necessary for basic comprehension of the cited source. For example, a Wikipedia editor writing about a novel may provide plot summary, but ought not engage in significant readings of themes and subtexts. Such interpretation must come from a source other than the novel itself.

As Phil points out, the present text is really quite bad. But that's the product of exactly whats going on here again, i.e. weighing each word as if it were not in the end all in the eye of the beholder anyway. So, realistically speaking (and in accord with Occam's razor), the solution is to use the least number of words possible. I've gone first, and with a few more suggestions perhaps we can pick out the best phrases in each one and get it just right? -- Fullstop (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For fiction (one small subset of the whole issue), perhaps "Statements must not rely on specialist knowledge of the subject to be understood and verifiable from the sources cited. A Wikipedia editor writing about a novel may provide, for example, a plot summary of a novel, but not any other interpretations of the novel when using the novel as a source." Even shorter <g>. Collect (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like that either - the privileging of plot summaries as a special form of interpretation is silly, and distorts what works of fiction are. As Gayatri Spivak says, novels are not gossip about imaginary people. By treating plot summary as the only thing that can be indisputably gained from novels, we implicitly identify it as the clearest and most important part of novels. This is part of why our coverage of fiction sucks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Fullstop's version, which is preferable to my own. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to Fullstop's wording (I disagree with Collect's version in that, sometimes you do have to have a specialists knowledge of the subject to understand a cited source. We trust our editors to do their best to explain what the source says to those of us without such knowledge)... but how does this relate to the fact that, in practice, plot summaries are assumed to be sourced to the original work, so we don't require our editors to actually give a citation for them? Are we now saying that a basic plot summary needs to be explicitly sourced with an inline citation to the book?  Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so - I don't think this touches the de facto assumption that summaries of a source are sourced to that source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine... second question: What constitutes a "significant" reading of a theme and subtext? More important... what constitutes an insignificant reading? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * An insignificant reading would be one that a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge beyond what is necessary for basic comprehension of the cited source would find to be easily verifiable. A significant reading would be one that fails that test. As a practical matter, that test would be judged by the local consensus of editors working on the article, most of whom are likely to be reasonable, educated persons. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose my problem is what does "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge beyond what is necessary for basic comprehension of the cited source would find to be easily verifiable" actually mean? Does it not open up a huge area of uncertainty by saying some specialist knowledge may be required in some cases, and have the material be acceptable?  I can foresee thousands of lines on Talk pages discussing whether too much specialist knowledge is needed -- and so I would think having a bright line makes sense.  Collect (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And that begs the question: where do we draw the line? At the moment, we draw the line clearly (even if arbitrarily): simple plot summaries are OK... everything else isn't.  If we want to move that line, we need to figure out where to move it to. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced we need it to be a bright line that is easily checkable against an objective standard. We shouldn't pretend that writing an encyclopedia is easy, and that a simple statement of a rule can adequately reduce the issue to the point where there's not going to be any debate and everything is obvious to everyone.
 * Writing an encyclopedia is hard. We cannot write a policy that makes it easy, or that removes debate. Yes, there are applications of this policy that will be debated, at great length. That's good. Some things should be debated at great length.
 * I don't think we're going to get anywhere by trying to finely and exactly place the line on the talk page of a policy page, and then hoping it magically works out so that our exact placement of the line works on 2.6 million articles. What we can do is set up the principles for what the line is, and propose an understandable test for where the line is, and let the editorial process work out the tricky bit of connecting the policy to any given one of the 2.6 million articles.
 * But we really shouldn't be acting as though we can precisely set the line here. We can't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree (of course). We have seen how well WP works with vague guidelines. Collect (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And we've seen far more often the idiotic decision making that comes from rigid rules-based processes. I would rather be indecisive then be pre-committed to a wrong decision on an article I have never even looked at. I mean, the question of "what does a given text definitely mean, and what is open to debate in it" is a massively complex question. You want a one sentence answer to it that applies to all texts. You're not going to get one. It doesn't exist. The question is, do you want to give one that you know is going to be wrong in a lot of cases, or do you want to try to shape the individual debates that have a chance of actually coming to the correct answer? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil... when you say: I mean, the question of "what does a given text definitely mean, and what is open to debate in it" is a massively complex question. I fully agree... that complexity is why we do not allow editors to introduce their own thoughts about what the text means, they should only discuss what secondary sources say it means. As soon as you get into what you think something means you are venturing into OR territory.
 * I actually agree with the sentiment that being vague is not always bad (it echoes WP:The rules are principles, which I often point to)... but in this particluar instance, I also disagree. In this instance we have an existing bright line that seems to work well for the vast majority of editors.  That bright line fits both practice (what is actually done in our articles) and theory (what we would like done).  Perhaps not perfectly, but well enough.  Phil and his laughing collegues may think the current wording is "idiotic" (they are entitled to their opinion)...  but it works; I think it works better than any of the proposals that have been put forward.  I am not convinced that there is a need to change it. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The line fails abysmally for fiction topics and for philosophy and humanities research topics, and is the single biggest reason why our coverage in these areas is a steaming pile of shit. The line does not work. The line is a fucking joke.
 * In the further spirit of your calling my explanations bullshit, incidentally, your first paragraph is a pile of sophmoric and meaningless drivel, and if that is your understanding of the process of reading, you should stop editing this policy entirely, as your views are so horrifically worthless as to be a detriment to discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By way of my not apologizing for the harshness of the above, let me note that it is phenomenally insulting to have an explanation of the problems of interpretation be labeled "bullshit," and then to be expected to sit through and take seriously a statement like "As soon as you get into what you think something means you are venturing into OR territory." This from someone who, mere hours ago, was insisting that we can transparently say what the description of the Council of Elrond means, and what it means is straightforward summary! The incoherence of the definition of "describe," "interpret," and "meaning" is staggering. Clearly these are all very different things in your mind, but you've yet to make anything resembling a step towards explaining these differences. That such a lack of clarity would be expressed so condescendingly, and would look at the issues raised by decades of scholarship in this area and say "Eh, my half-formed opinions are better" is breathtaking. The systemic bias against the humanities in Wikipedia's policies is unfortunate, but one can at least look at how they came about and understand how it happened. The unerring support for that state of affairs, however, is inexcusable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No offence taken... tit for tat. That said... we obviously are speaking different languages here. I do find that saying "During the Council of Elrond, it is decided that Frodo must take the Ring to Mt. Doom and destroy it" is a straitforward descriptive summary of a scene in LOTR... Where does it say anything about what that particular scene means. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I am being a spoilsport. The council decided that the entire Fellowship would head to Mordor -- it was only after Boromir tried to get the ring that Frodo left alone to go to Mordor <g>. See why I feel a slight move from the current line, but still maintaining a new line, makes sense? Collect (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Blueboar: would you prefer "exegesis" instead of "significant reading"? Or "close reading"? Or "literary criticism"? I would hope not. Phil's "significant reading" is a satisfactory catchall, and not so jargon-esque that it itself needs interpretation. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fullstop... no, I would not prefer "exegesis" or any of your other terms. But that does not remove my problems with "significant reading".  I don't find it a satisfactory catchall (as it will lead to confusion and argument over whether a reading is significant or insignificant... confusion and argument that do not exist under the current wording).
 * As to Collect's comment... fine, I will restate: I find the statement "During the Council of Elrond, it is decided that the Ring must be destroyed" to be a simple descriptive summary of a specific moment in the plot of LOTR.  Where does that sentence say anything about what that moment means? Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as the moment exists only as a sequence of words, you are by nature declaring what those words mean when you describe them. Short of simply quoting what Tolkien wrote, any description is a claim about the meaning of the words. This is not a trivial process either, as it involves deciding exactly what sort of novel The Fellowship of the Rings is. My earlier statement about deciding the reliability of the narrator is important here - yes, I agree, Tolkien provides us with a reliable narrator. But not all novels do - even those that offer third person narration. Ender's Game springs to mind as one that has a third person narrator who is, while not strictly speaking unreliable, at least duplicitous in key ways, opting to withhold information and obscure details. Equivalent scenes in Ender's Game where the adults are reaching decisions are far less straightforward than Tolkien's council of Elrond. So when we decide that Tolkien's narrator is reliable, we are already engaging in a process of reading that is more sophisticated than simply defining words and stringing them into a sentence. (For more on this, I advise looking at Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction, which is one of the earliest and most transformative study of narrators and the issues involved in them. It's a 1950s book, and far from any sort of post-modernist or post-structuralist approach - it is as mainstream, bland, and unassuming a work of literary theory as exists. But it reduces to rubble this sort of approach, and rightly so.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is that some novels require some degree of interpretation in order to discuss their plot. I have no problm with that.  However, in those circumstances, we need to cite a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, and not interject our own interpretation.  That is the heart of WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying all novels require the work to decide what sort of narrator we have. Deciding that a narrator is trustworthy is no less a decision than deciding that a narrator is unreliable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is where you lose me... Most people don't determine whether the narrator is reliable or trustworthy. The vast majority of fiction works have trustworthy and reliable narrators and anyone can outline the basic plot of these works without worrying whether the narrator is trustworthy. They can discuss the plot without any interpretation.  Yes, there are a few exceptions, there are novels where the author is playing a literary game and has made his/her narrator unreliable or untrustworthy... when this occurs, we need to avoid interjecting our own analysis and interpetations (no matter how obvious we think that analysis and interpretation is) and stick to what reliable sources tell us. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of fictional works don't have trustworthy and reliable narrators. At least, not fully. This was the observation Booth made in Rhetoric of Fiction - that narrators are actually complex and tricky far more often than we give them credit for being. You'd be hard-pressed to say that Ender's Game has an unreliable narrator as such. But there are definitely moments where the book actively obscures what's going on - generally revealing it later. I would say that the vast majority of fiction involves at least some level of obscurity or manipulation on the part of the narrator. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would point out, as an addendum to the previous, that there is no standard by which any work of fiction with a first person narrator can be said to have a fully reliable narrator. To read any first person narration is to grapple with the question of why the narrator is telling the story and what biases they are introducing. And that's just on the face of it - third person narration is far from universally reliable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is... any comment about why X occures in a novel or what X occuring in the novel means needs to be sourced to reliable secondary source. The only thing that we allow editors to say without citation is that X occurs in the novel (because it is presumed to be cited to the primary sources, ie the novel itself).  This holds true for other articles relating to other accademic diciplines as well... in history articles, we can say that X occured on Y date cite a primary source, but as soon as we start talking about why X occured on that date, or what X occuring on that date means, we have to refer to a reliable secondary source.  The same is true for science articles, articles on music, or any other topic. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of a thread derail, would you be so kind as to define "meaning" in the context of that reply? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I use the standard definition... for example: Meaning: noun, 1 a: the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport 1b: the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import 2: something meant or intended : aim <a mischievous meaning was apparent> 3: significant quality ; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance <a glance full of meaning>4 a: the logical connotation of a word or phrase 4b: the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase.
 * Is there some other definition of the word "meaning" that you have been using? Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is declaring the outcome of the Council of Elrond not "the thing that is conveyed by language" then? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, I am probably applying the second, and third definitions more than the first and fourth Although 1a and 4b. are not completely off.  What I am getting at is this: while we can discuss the fact that "During the Council of Elrond, it is decided that that ring must be destroyed" without citing a secondary source, if we want to go further and discuss any meaning (#3 used here) this fact has to the book or the characters, we need to cite a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Let's limit ourselves to 1a though - which is the definition that I think causes us the problem. Because it does encompass any claim about literature, so saying we can't discuss what a work means does rule out 1a. So will you at least grant that, as it stands, the language rules interpretations and descriptions of meaning on the level of 1a, which is not something we actually intend? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

More break
After reading through the discussion, I would have to be strongly opposed to either alteration for a number of reasons, but the most glaring one I see being that it unintentionally or otherwise gnaws away at a fundamental and clearly stated need for editors to utilize reliable secondary sources for inserted content. Keeping with your earlier example, you stated it is widely known in this particular work, the narrator was being deceptive. My response to you would be if the content has some truly encyclopedic value to it, it should not be entirely that difficult in obtaining a reliable secondary source that supports it. Using a primary source to include content that is anything other than purely descriptive, is Original Research no matter how "obvious" you think your interpretation may be. Tmore3 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would it "not be entirely that difficult" to obtain a secondary source that says something obvious? Most people do not generally view publishing glaringly obvious facts about literature to be a particularly worthwhile pursuit. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent a chunk of the evening reading Jacques Derrida and John R. Searle's exchange in Limited Inc. regarding speech acts and interpretation. It's a great read, and I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic. In any case, reading it after debating this for much of the day vividly brings to the fore how far into the weeds we are with this policy at present.

The short form is that there is virtually nothing that can be taken for granted about what it means to read, or about what meaning (including the basic question of plot) can be taken as obvious. The question is unsettled, contentious, and complex. Wikipedia, in this policy, holds to a very, very old-fashioned view that has gone far out of repute. We're wrong here.

Generally Wikipedia has opted to punt instead of taking doctrinal stands on things like this. It's what the community of editors and consensus model lets us do. We need a better solution than we have. I see three basic options.


 * 1) Ban primary sources outright.
 * 2) Lift all restrictions on interpretation.
 * 3) Revert to a flexible social model that trusts the good intentions of editors to come to adequate conclusions.

Number one is, to my mind, clearly unacceptable, and furthermore pointless, since it is not as though the reading of secondary sources is any less complex. Indeed, secondary sources often require a higher degree of expert knowledge.

Number two is even worse than number one.

This, to my mind, leaves number three - which is basically a variation of the method we employ for dealing with the problem of not wanting to require sources for obvious statements - the line in WP:V that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This hedge of "challenged or likely to be challenged" is not well-defined, but provides an essential protection.

We need to craft a similar for for this issue of citations and primary sources. Because what we have now is worse than nothing - a standard that is actively discredited. I think the language proposed above by Fullstop does the job. But I'm open to other suggestions. Regardless, the status quo here is indefensible. We simply cannot continue to have a policy that actively holds to such a discredited standard.

I am tagging the relevant section with a dispute tag for the time being. A solution here needs to be found. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * number three is what we currently have, seems to work fine, I don't see the issue, it also explicitly states: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Changing the wording of the paragraph in question would be an arbitrary measure, so why bother. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As it stands, we try to distinguish between plot summary and other sorts of readings, and create a "description vs. interpretation" division. Both of these are solutions that take a side in the discussion of what reading is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Phil, can you give us a few examples of an interpretive statement that you think should be either left unsourced, or sourced to the primary source... statements that currently require a secondary source? Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The example in my initial presentation of The Yellow Wallpaper - requiring a source for the observation of the narrator's reliability is a pointless exercise. There is a level of connections between two works that I think are, at the very least, in a threshold where we should be able to discuss them - for instance, both the series premiere and series finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer feature a scene with the same four characters, a similar subject of conversation, and virtually the exact same line as the last line. Observing a link between these scenes is non-problematic. Outside of fiction, when you get to philosophy articles, there are some serious problems. There is no way to write a decent article on [Jacques Derrida]] without relying heavily on summarizing Derrida's own work, even when that work becomes extremely difficult. This is because the secondary sources that exist for Derrida are generally either just as difficult as Derrida, sub-par summaries of Derrida, or criticisms of Derrida. So at best, using secondary sources, we end up writing a summary of Derrida's thought based on sources that have all the problems of interpretation as the primary sources, but are fully removed from what we want to summarize. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another example springs to mind - the genre of literary forgery, the most notable example of which is Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote. Is it original research to note that Pierre Menard is a fictitious person? The current policy points towards yes. It shouldn't be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of Derrida, the whole issue of "specialist knowledge" arises with a vengeance - and I would suggest the idea that "some specialist knowledge may be required" is a slippery slope indeed. Going back to Elrond <g> (only because this has been used in the past in this colloquy), the question Blueboar poses, if I read him correctly, is how would we deal with "Frodo, not knowing of Boromir's intended treachery, agrees to set off to Mordor with the rest of the Fellowship"?  It does not require "specialist knowledge" to know of the ensuing plot device, but it is not dealt with directly in the narrative.  Collect (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Collect... If you were to add this sentence to a plot summary of LOTR, I would most certainly object and ask for a secondary source... For one thing, the plot of the story contains no indication that Boromir intends treachery when the Fellowship sets out. The idea that Boromir might be planning some treachery does not begin to enter the plot until a later point in the story. Secondly, Boromir's intent at any given point is a quite debatable issue... I could argue that his intent is honorable through out, but the Ring twists his desires to such an extent that his honorable intent is over-ridden. Hence the agony he feels once he realizes what he has attempted to do.  Of course, my analysis is completely Original Research... As would be your analysis that Boromir intends treachery. Both are our own personal understandings of what is going on below the surface plot of the story.  The entire point of this policy is that we are not supposed to include our own personal analysis of things... no matter how rational and obvious we think our analysis might be. We are not supposed to include our own original research... Instead, we discuss the analysis of others... ie reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Logic like that is what leads to overly verbose scene by scene plot summaries. And it's wholly unnecessary. I think this badly misrepresents accepted practice, and is a terrible standard. I agree that a statement like the one Collect makes is forbidden by the current language of the policy, but it seems to go on regularly and uncontroversially in article space. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a slippery slope - but as we can see in Derrida, it's slippery no matter which way you try to go on the slope - forbidding specialist knowledge is no more likely to avoid unfortunate conclusions. But your Frodo example is another instance of the sort of routine problem that arises. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the specific area of fiction, I think it is clear that we allow for interpretive claims to move the description of the plot from an in-universe to an out-of-universe writing style in order to enhance clarity of the work. The Frodo example is a perfect example where such a claim is rational, another I would state is Memento (film) in which, per the actual work, the main character's motivation is only known in the last 5 minutes of the film, but in an OOU approach, it is much clearer when the plot is unwound.  Such interpretations, as long as they are simply to help unweave the narrative for the purposes of style, seems fine.  Further interpretations (the Buffy example) are not exempt from otherwise being considered original claims that need to be sources.  --M ASEM  15:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I worry that this actually commits a huge, systemic NPOV violation, though. That approach centralizes plot summary as a sort of primary level of reading. It necessarily focuses our articles on plot. One of my favorite quotes from literary criticism, which I've used before, is Gayatri Spivak's observation that novels are not gossip about imaginary people. By deciding that plot elements are obvious and summarizable, but that other stuff isn't, we situate plot and narrative as the center of what fiction is. That's... bad. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's what we should be doing as an encyclopedia. Unless a work has received additional analysis or insight from reliable sources (as, say, most of Shakespeare's works), all that we should be focused on in presenting a work of fiction is the "facts" - the fundamental plot, characters, and those aspects, and other facts related to the work's release.  We cannot be the equivalent of Cliffs Notes for works of fiction, in fact, we need to be much less than that.  The Buffy first/last episode scene comparison is exactly the type of thing that may be readily obvious to a viewer, but from the standpoint of an encyclopedia, the statement that those scenes are equal has no relevance -- unless, as part of an analysis on Joss's writing or the series overall states that reuse of imagery was a common element, and citing this example as one point.  Which of course removes the issues since we have the secondary source.  When you step back from having the interest in a particular bit of fiction and consider that this is just another topic as part of a large encyclopedia, its obvious that we have to limit ourselves to using primary sources only to establish plot aspects and little else and avoid any extrapolation that does not help to provide the plot in a coherent, concise style. --M ASEM  16:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I think that's an NPOV violation - it makes all manner of assumptions about what literature is. John Searle has argued that "sentences are precisely the realizations of the intentions," and thus that there is not a meaning that is hidden or layered - that claims like the Buffy claim are simple facts. The idea that one would need to appeal to Joss is similarly a POV - that authors should matter in interpretation is not uncontroversial. The idea that the plot is any different from any other sort of interpretation is controversial. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would consider that any further analysis of a fictional work's plot beyond summery is immediately "original research" - that is, it is creating a thought that was not explicitly stated or clearly indicated from the work itself, and since WP should not be the first publisher of original thought, we cannot include it based only on the primary source. If someone else (a reliable source) says it, great, we can go into that.  But even if an author has the best intentions of writing a story that is mean allusion to some other source, and no one picks up on that even though it is clearly obvious from the work, we cannot be the ones to state that.  That's not to say that if the author comes along himself and, even with WP:SPS concerns, comments on his own work in a source, then we can pull that in and use that to avoid the OR aspect.
 * Or taking another route, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a worrying concern if you let some cases through but not others. Again, to the Buffy example, it may be clearly obvious down to the gait, timing, etc., that the finale scene duplicates the pilot scene.  I will tell you right now that if you let that through without a source and rely only on the primary source, then you are going to have a rash of editors saying scene A from work X is inspired by scene B from work Y because "they both wore the same shirt" or some similar nonsense like that.  I know, the Buffy case is much much stronger, but if you weaken where primary sources should only be used, you are going to end up with a lot of sections that look like this.  Now, I'm not saying that all cases of this are bad.  Let's say that the finale Buffy scene had them walk and say the same lines, then one character commented, "Doesn't this feel like deja vu?" or something to that extent.  At that point, as the plot itself denoted that it was duplicating something from before, and we're free to make that connection to the pilor.   (Many new-run Doctor Who episodes make these connections based on non-visual, stated lines from the episodes).  The key is here is that we are not only using the primary source, but we can also state the quote directly instead of relying on the interpretation of visual events.  Obvious for purely written works this is not so much an issue, but still need to avoid even obvious statements that are left unstated by the author - if a character ends up on the last sentence in a mortal situation, we cannot just say "he dies" at the end even if that's the obvious intent. --M ASEM  16:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. But it seems like we both agree there's something that can be observed about the Buffy scenes uncontroversially. Even if it's just a description of the scene, and the statement "a similar scene appears in The Harvest," I do not think that would actually be problematic, do you? At the very least, isn't this in the realm of things we should be able to discuss and come to a consensus over in the specific instead of ruling on at the level of absolute policy? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you're saying, but to make that call is, to me, stepping over this line between what is allowable interpretation and what is synthesis. I think part of it is the fact that the scenes come from to distinct parts of the work (separately by being written and filmed 6+years apart).  Even if the scenes occurred in the same work, written and filmed at the same time, I'd be hesitant to call that out, not because it would be clear in this case, but because without a strong statement from the primary source (quoted text) or from secondary sources, it sets an example to allow the type of generalizations that newer editors love to jump on when they get their feet wet.  These observations are not bad - but they also are not encyclopedia as they will end up bordering on trivia. --M ASEM  17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I need only point out that<ul><li>a) if "confusion and argument [did] not exist under the current wording" we wouldn't be having this discussion,</li><li>b) the tasseographic notion "significant reading" will lead to argument over what constitutes "significance" should be permitted to be proven true or false. Blueboar contends that it is true. So, I contend that it is false (devil's advocate); so lets find out who is correct, eh?</li></ul>I say,... enough bullshit already; either prove it (or allow it to be proven) or shut the fuck up. This is perfectly true for all sources, irrespective of whether they are primary/secondary or even direct revelations from God. The fact is ... mis-citation/mis-quotation of sources -- which is (effectively) what constitutes 'pedia OR -- applies to all sources. "Interpretation", "analysis" and all the words that are being pedantically -- and interminably -- argued about here are semantically irrelevant because -- no matter how one cuts it -- failing to parrot sources also results in a violation of WP:V. Given WP:V, the entire p/s/t idiocy is completely superfluous, and any reduction of the verbiage (and any improvement of the pitiful prose) in that section will automatically reduce the degree by which that section distracts from the message of both this policy and of WP:V. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) In response to Semitransgenic's observation that the section has a disclaimer that notes that the section's description of p/s/t is moot, and consequently that " Changing the wording of the paragraph in question would be an arbitrary measure ... These observations are spot-on. But, under those conditions we might as well remove the section altogether. Such a motion has been made numerous times by those who wish to improve the standards of quality of the 'pedia, but that motion is continuously hijacked by those who -- for reasons never stated -- cling to it for dear life.
 * 2) In response to Blueboar's augury prediction that "significant reading" will " lead to confusion and argument over whether a reading is significant or insignificant... confusion and argument that do not exist under the current wording "...
 * 1) Continuing Phil Sandifer's observaton that WP:V says " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. "...
 * I completely agree with Fullstop's last paragraphs... but unfortunately (as a look at the archives of this page shows) any propsal to remove PSTS will be met with solid opposition. Wikipedia works on consensus, and unless something dramatic has changed, there are too many people who see a need for PSTS. A consesus to remove it is highly unlikely to form.  Feel free to try again, but don't get your hopes up. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * the point above regarding the applicability of WP:V to all sources I totally agree with but users should be aware of PSTS distinctions, and it should be made clear why primary sources are weak and secondary sources are strong, why tertiary sources might suffice but are not ideal,  this can be done plainly and clearly, it's pretty straight forward, and the disclaimer covers other eventualities. No one is going to cite this stuff verbatim in an attempt to settle a sources dispute, consensus building deals with that using the various channels available. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not cut the whole of PSTS. All I want is to remove the flawed attempt to define particular types of interpretation, instead deferring explicitly and wholly to community consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil, the problem is that what you are calling "a flawed attempt to define particular types of interpretation" is community consensus. Community consensus was why the bit about allowing plot summaries to be sourced to the primary source (ie the work of fiction itself) was put in the policy in the first place. Not too long ago, we did not include anything about plot summaries... we added it because there was a community consensus to do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I am saying that it is a grave problem if the community has actually empowered itself to settle a decades long dispute in literary theory. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So to clarify, consensus should be embraced when it supports what you want but cannot not be trusted when it disagrees with your particular point of view. Tmore3 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say, more accurately, that consensus cannot overrule NPOV. Wikipedia's explicit policy should not be to embrace a particular view in this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not overruling NPOV... NPOV talks about views that are published by reliable sources... If your view on a particular aspect of work of fiction is published, then of course we can include that view in our article on the work (taking into account Undue Weight). Your objection seems to be that you want to express your own unpublished views... ie your Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant on the level of policy. By cementing a particular definition of what is and is not a valid interpretation, we also cement a particular view of what literature is and how it works. That's a systemic NPOV violation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) actually, this point Blueboar highlights about consensus approving plot summaries in articles, it's not a development I would have approved, and I would rather not see this type of article on wikepedia, the same goes for articles that are essentially patchworks of web based primary sources, most are clearly WP:OR, and have NPOV issues, but they seem to stay under the radar a lot of the time. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this gets at one of the reasons the primary source restrictions are so problematic. I think that at least some of the articles you're talking about (I'd have to see specifics to make a specific claim) are things we want to keep. We have to be careful to avoid the fallacy that published information and important information are synonyms. In a lot of areas, there's a large body of orally transmitted knowledge that is very fundamental, but so fundamental as to not be worth publishing. This is especially true in the humanities, where textbooks of basic concepts are not common. (It is less true in the sciences, where textbook compendiums of basic knowledge are commonplace.)


 * Publication is a commercial process. By tying our content too heavily to publication, we risk replacing a compendium of knowledge with a compendium of what it is profitable to publish. Now, for our purposes publication has a wealth of obvious advantages, and the oral tradition a wealth of dangers. However we cannot pretend that the full extent of crucial knowledge on a subject and the full extent of knowledge published in reliable sources on a subject are equivalent sets. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)
 * @Blueboar: as far as this policy is concerned (to be distinguished from WP:PLOT talk), the fiction bit was not added "because there was a community consensus to do so", but because you-know-whos could not be (expected to be) moved to modify the existing material. This "don't fix, but add" paradigm is terrible, and has led to that many-headed hydra that is psts. Hence the ifs/buts/howevers/shoulds/mays/when-the-moon-is-in-fourth-phase pussyfooting.
 * @Semitransgenic: yes, of course users should be made aware of what constitutes a desirable kind of source. But...
 * [A] making users aware of what constitutes a desirable kind of source is guideline material (which psts de-facto is) and
 * [B] what does that have to do with a policy that applies to all sources?
 * -- Fullstop (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Further (to Blueboar), yes, we aren't going to be able to get rid of psts as long as its counter-productive effects are not recognized. But at least we can (and should) try to mitigate the damage. Which includes not arguing about whether "significant" is quantifiable. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * mmm, all sources are not equal, look a the recent debacle surrounding the use of primary sources in the Scientology article. Some topics simply cannot be covered using anything but secondary sources, other topics can get by on weaker sourcing, perhaps becasue they are further down the controversiality scale, but, all articles should ideally be supported with secondary sources, and, if you accept the perspective of some on wikpedia, it's only a matter of time before they are. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * come to think of it, do we have a tag to call attention to primary sourcing issues in an article? could be useful. Maybe will see a time when it's not a question of finding cites, but instead a situation where it's time to improve the sourcing in existing articles by replacing primary with secondary. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing OR with RS.
 * 1. the selection of sources, including the establishment of merit, is the subject of RS policy, not OR.
 * 2. OR governs the (mis-)evaluation of sources, not the selection thereof. Any source -- regardless of kind, origin, subject, age, audience, or merit -- can be mis-evaluated, and OR policy is to inhibit that abuse. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well put. And I would add to that, it is far easier and more accurate to judge whether an evaluation is a mis-evaluation practically - that is, on a case by case basis - than to try to pre-judge entire categories of evaluations. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * not confused at all, if you find an article that has no sources, it has to viewed as OR, weakly supported articles are often OR, and it's not becasue someone intentionally mis-evaluated something, even if what is written could be considered somewhat accurate, without sources, or with few sources, or weak sources, it simply has to be considered it is potentially OR, it's up to the editor who entered the material to prove otherwise by providing verifiable sources. Mis-evaluation relates more so to the creation synthetic content. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While a lack of sourcing is a good warning sign that an article may contain Original Research, OR really has nothing to do with how much or how little the article is sourced... rather it has deals with how accurately the wording of the article reflects what reliable sources say. Even a sourced statement can be challenged as being OR, if the statement does not accurately reflect what the source says. This is what Fullstop means by "mis-evaluation" of the sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "OR really has nothing to do with how much or how little the article is sourced" the first paragraph of the policy states explicitly that: Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. If an editor adheres to this, content will most likely be properly sourced, therefore the accuracy of said content should be self-evident. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you tag unsourced statements with or or with fact? 'Nuf said. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on the statement. Sometimes it is appropriate to tag it with one, sometimes with the other, sometimes with both. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly the policies are related - however nothing that NOR prohibits that is in the realm of "no source exists" is not also prohibited by WP:V. WP:V thus functions as a sort of first line of defense. Certainly by the time we get to PSTS, we are talking about stuff that is sourced, and are thus, as Fullstop points out, we are talking about evaluation of sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Even More Break
PSTS section is far from superfluous and I agree with editors who want to keep it as it is. Changing wording to explicitly allow editors to interpret sources would open Pandora's box and in the long run cause much more damage than good. -- Vision Thing -- 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has said anything about allowing editors to interpret sources. Doomsday predictions about opening Pandora's box do not apply. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I correctly understand Phil's original comments on this (see way up above), he is suggesting exaclty that... he feels that we already allow interpretation when we allow basic plot summaries, and he thinks we should allow more interpretation. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments, more accurately, are that we already allow interpretation when we allow primary sources to be used in any sense beyond quoting them directly, and that the attempt to define what is prohibited by using the word "interpretation" is thus doomed. And that, by extension, we need to figure out how to define that line in a way that is meaningful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, you think we drew the line in the wrong place, using the wrong criteria. But the upshot is that you want to allow for more interpretation. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you drew the line, period. I don't think the line is in the wrong place, as it's not anywhere. The line is meaningless. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Phil is right that there's already an "obvious" level of interpretation with primary sources. When someone is summarizing a political speech or debate, you have to interpret what is or isn't important. This already leads to huge debates on political articles, with one camp saying "but that's an actual quote of what he said", and the other camp saying "yeah, but that's undue weight on a quote to promote/denigrate that politician". When someone is summarizing a film, characters don't actually say "I'm angry!" But you can make a pretty elementary level of analysis and say "yeah, the woman who is yelling and red in the face and smashing things is probably angry, and she's probably angry about what happened in the last scene when she caught her boyfriend cheating". Interpretation of sources, especially primary sources, has always been a challenging part of writing an article. But I think the best solution is to leave our policy as is. Why? Because the policy basically works, and consensus fills in the gaps. If there's no consensus for that interpretation of the primary source, then we research the reliable secondary sources to figure out which interpretations are "mainstream". And if we can't find RSS, then we remove it, and replace it with an interpretation that's more acceptable to everyone. Randomran (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that if there is one thing that we have overwhelmingly learned on Wikipedia, it is that allowing overly harsh policy because nobody would ever be foolish enough to interpret it literally is a recipe for things going very wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * are you getting post-modern on us and referring to WP:CONSENSUS? :) -- Fullstop (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Randomran's remark, "...consensus fills in the gaps." - It would be better if the editors that comprise a consensus are informed as well as possible before giving their opinions, or at least have a well explained guideline to refer to if needed. A consensus that is based on a misunderstanding of guidelines is destructive, so it is very important to explain a guideline as well as possible. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the guideline is particularly unclear at this point. But I definitely share your concern for clarity. Can you point me to an example where people have misinterpreted an unclear part of the guideline, and its harmed an article or a discussion? Randomran (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but my remark was regarding NOR in general and not intended to lead to a digression that might involve extensive discussion of particular cases. In my experience and in my opinion, I have felt that NOR has been misused but whether it was in fact misused I am not 100% sure. In other words, I haven't found that the NOR guidelines were sufficiently clear for me to determine that, so I feel that it is a problem.


 * May I add that footnote 2 in WP:NOR is the type of improvement in clarity that NOR needs, in my opinion. To just say what can't be included in the Wikipedia isn't enough. There needs to be more statement about what can be included and what NOR does not apply to, like the situation in footnote 2. Furthermore, one should consider the intent of the originators of NOR. I think they intended that NOR be used to exclude questionable material from the Wikipedia. I don't think that they intended that NOR be used to exclude contributions "that are non-controversial and easily reducible to elementary deductive logic", to use the words of footnote 2. I think this principle of inclusion is important and should be kept in mind in these discussions.


 * I'm sorry for interrupting the train of thought of this discussion, so please continue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be comfortable adding footnote 2 to the body, perhaps as part of WP:SYN. It actually just came up at a recent discussion at an article talk page. As a general rule, if it's being contested, then it's probably not as obvious as you thought. But if there's a general consensus that the interpretation is obvious and uncontroversial, then we don't need to be strictly confined to specific statements in the research. Randomran (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm way off the mark, but this game console article is in my view currently a good example of an OR excursion, it's informative but, I see no secondary sources used to support the historical survey; maybe its true, but who knows? without verifiable sources it could be fantasy, even if there's a good chance it isn't, but is that how an article should be written? based on a chance it's accurate, when in actuality only a specialist could verify the factuality of any of it (the 'main' content forks are not well cited either, apart from Game Boy). And this leads to something I'm not very clear on, the outline of an article, decisions regrading headings, particularly if there is a chronology and key events are to be outlined, shouldn't all of this reflect extant historical surveys in published sources? and if it doesn't, isn't the very act of creating a structural outline for an article an interpretative act in itself, therefore potentially OR? can someone make sense of this for me please? Semitransgenic (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What you describe would be OR if you could not find that same material in any of the article's references but to your second point let's say there was a citation that was verifiable but you noticed an event listed in the source that was not in the article, there's nothing that would prevent you on that point alone from including that event as well. Quoting selections from a primary source is not original research, it's using those selections to prove your own unpublished point of view that is.  Tmore3 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. But that doesn't really answer my question. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, simply writing about something (anything) involves some level of editor interpretation, as soon as you do more than quote you are to some degree interpreting it... the key here is whether that interpretation is novel or not... does it present "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation and ideas"; or "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". Does it stick to the source?  Are you mearly paraphrasing what the sources say, or are you creating something new and unique?  It is Original research? Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * that's all very clear, and acceptable, but this still does not address the question regarding the creation of a structural outline, should it or should it not reflect an outline that can be found in a secondary source, and if no such outline of the subject matter exists, then isn't the creation of one OR? For some topics there will be multiple sources that will have corresponding outlines, the key areas will be well covered, therefore it will be easy to decide on section headings, the main points will be clear, but again, if no source can be found that has surveyed a particular subject area then surely the article should not exist. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be OR or it might not be OR, it depends how you structure it... if the outline essentially follows the structure of sources then it isn't OR... if it diverges enough from the sources to the point that it constitutes a novel way of looking at the topic, then would be. It also depends on whether you are following a standard structural model (for example, outlining the topic in historical or alphabetical order) or devising a unique structure. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think an outline or structure is WP:OR so much as it is a Wikipedia convention. for game articles, we typically have a section on development, a section on reception, a section on gameplay, and a section on plot. It's not like that's how reliable secondary sources organize it. Organization is probably best done by consensus. Yeah, perhaps organizing two different thoughts from two different sources together in the same paragraph verges on an original idea, but I wouldn't exactyl call it WP:SYN. I think it's up to a consensus of editors to figure out when we've crossed that line by identifying a controversial grouping of ideas. Randomran (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)
 * Re: Semitransgenic's Maybe I'm way off the mark, but this game console article is in my view currently a good example of an OR excursion, it's informative but, I see no secondary sources used to support the historical survey.
 * To make it absolutely, unambiguously, emphatically clear: There is no relationship whatsoever between kind of source and OR excursion . An article can have exclusively primary sources and have no OR whatsoever. An article can have exclusively secondary sources and be littered with OR.
 * That "History" section in the Handheld game console article is OR not because it doesn't use secondary sources, but because the section is titled "History", and the first subsection is titled "Origins". But none of the sources discuss history or origins of the consoles, and are instead all about individual products/companies. The OR occurs in that articles chaining -- e.g. A came before B -- when no one has previously made such connections. This has nothing to do with primary/secondary source distinctions. If a product pamphlet -- unquestionably a primary source -- said product X was a follow-up of product Y, then there would in fact be no OR for the chain X to Y, even though it is a primary source saying so.
 * OR means saying something that has not been said before! It is then *ORIGINAL*. Something is obviously not ORIGINAL if someone has said it before, and it does not matter at all where that something was previously said. The where of that something is an issue for RS, for OR.
 * OR is disallowed on Wikipedia because writing something ORIGINAL can potentially turn an article into a primary source. "According to article X on Wikipedia" cannot be allowed to happen. That is the ONLY extent for which primary/secondary distinction is related to NOR policy.
 * I am absolutely, completely, utterly shocked that an editor trying to discuss OR policy does not know these absolutely basic facts about OR and NOR policy, and instead continues to muddle NOR with RS, V and NN. Is the policy doc so bad that it has come to this? -- Fullstop (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that 100% Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what we're discussing anymore. Are we agreed that WP:OR is fine exactly the way it is? Randomran (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not. Right now the policy declares an utterly meaningless line that leads to foolish applications. The interpretation/description division needs to go. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * re:fullstop. shocked are you? Thanks very much but yes, I know the meaning of the word original, the muddle is in your mind. I think you completely miss the point and at the same time clearly elaborate on exactly the point I was trying to raise; but also fail in answering the question I asked, I really get the impression there are editors here who don't actually read the posts at all and would rather condescend. That's not very helpful. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)