Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 46

Letters in a publicly available archive
Can I use letters in an archive left by a former congressman, but not (to my knowledge) published by any secondary source in an article? The archive is here. I will be quoting directly from the letter, without interpretation. Here's the diff.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This certainly should be allowed, and if any policies currently appear to disallow it, we need to prune them back to the point of reasonableness again. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They are primary sources... So use them with the same cautions and care that should be applied to any primary source. Otherwise I don't see a problem. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave in the two I put in, but as I am retiring very shortly now (just cleaning up final business), doubt there will be more.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about "original research"
Looking through my old edits of videogames related pages, I have noticed that several of them have been reverted due to this original research, apparently because I didn't specify a valid source. How do you exactly categorize things as original research? Is it always original research, even if it could be backed up by, possibly, hunreads of people who have noticed the same thing? Do I every time have to prove my "original research" with a screenshot, or other kind of media related to the game? Even if I do that, how do I prove it to some uptight go-by-the-book "wikinazi" that it is a reliable source, when it's in a place like ImageShack instead some highly-regarded university-level textbook, or some other of these rather ridiculous examples on the project page? Thank you. --80.223.127.229 (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's often difficult to say "in general" what is or isn't original research. If something has been noticed by hundred of people then most likely a reliable source exists about it, but then again maybe not. Perhaps if you could provide some examples of edits that have been reverted, you could ask for advice on the original research noticeboard. Laurent (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll do that. --80.223.127.229 (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A bolder proposal
Get rid of this ridiculous policy. --86.138.52.77 (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A bolder response: Absolutely not.  Zoo Fari  21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness, the fetishes are getting bizarre. --86.138.52.77 (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy of Systematically Excluding Views of "Tiny Minorities" is a mistake
The Wikipedia page currently says:
 * If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. (extracted from article page as of 8/5/2009)Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

But I disagree. Sometimes one person can be right and everybody else wrong. Sometimes the lone odd-ball opinion is worthy of inclusion into an article. This opinion exists. Somebody thinks its true. And it may be right. We can never presume it's wrong. There have been numerous times in history when majority opinion was WRONG -- Newton's world was later reverted by Einstein -- Ptolemy's "planets revolve around the earth" was WRONG and later changed to Copernicus' "planets revolve around the sun". Wikipedia's policy, if it had been in force in the Middle Ages, would have excluded Copernicus and Einstein. What serves the growth of knowledge is a place where all opinions can duke it out, compete for validity, and in this battleground and in the firestorm of debate, the toughest ideas win out. But the competition is free and fair and MUST BE OPEN TO EVERYBODY even the lone wolf idea, otherwise we may miss out. And I think it's fair to label the "tiny minority" opinion as only being held by a tiny minority and give it very little weight in an article; but to exclude it entirely is a mistake.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Put another way -- excluding "tiny minority" opinions violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The exclude-the-tiny-minority policy assumes majority (and substantial minority) views are the ONLY OPINIONS WORTH REPORTING. This is highly POV. It makes Wikipedia a house organ for mainstream opinion.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Suppose it's the 1300s. You're interested in how planets move. You search the Wikipedia page (assuming it existed) but there's no mention of Copernicus's earth-revolves-around-the-sun policy. Why? He's a "tiny minority". He got excluded. He's been muted by Wikipedia's exclusion policy regarding "tiny minority" opinions. Now, my question is -- did YOU, the person trusting Wikipedia for learning about a particular topic, get a fair and balanced and accurate assessment? No - you got garbage.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I strongly urge editors to reconsider this highly biased exclude-the-tiny-minority view policy, and instead make it possible (in some situations) to include it, but it's fair to label it as being held by only a tiny minority, and it's fair to give it very little weight in an article. Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * It's a long-standing part of policy, Tom, both here and at NPOV. By NPOV, we mean that we include majority and significant-minority opinions in articles. We don't give space to views that hardly anyone holds. Having said that, tiny-minority views may have enough reliable sources that we can create a separate article on them. Everything on Wikipedia has to rely on reliable published sources, and we try to represent views in rough proportion to how they're represented in the relevant literature. We reflect the published world; that's all we do. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom... your hypothetical 1300s version of Wikipedia would not include Copernicus's theory for one simple reason... Copernicus wasn't born yet. But that is a nit-pick... you are probably correct to assume that the 1544 version of Wikipedia (the first year after publication of the theory) would have excluded it as being a tiny-minority viewpoint.  However your objection to this exclusion forgets one important factor... things change over time.  By 1550 we probably would have an article on the Copernican theory (although we would probably be debating over whether to label it Fringe or not).  Why was it ok to exclude it in 1544 and not in 1550?  Because in those interviening years more people began to discuss the theory and accept it.  It had stopped being a tiny-minority view and had become a significant-minority view (and after Galileo, it became quickly a majority view).
 * Wikipedia reflects the state of things at this moment in time. The fact that something is excluded now does not mean that it will be excluded forever.  Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By 1550, we'd have had an article on Copernican theory with the pseudoscience infobox at the top, complete with bitter edit warring and blocks. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in 1550, consensus would have supported having a "HERESY" infobox ... but the bitter edit warring and blocks would have definitely been going on. :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be an interesting project if someone tried creating a Wikipedia using 1550 sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Or an article on Copernicus as if in the 1550 Wikipedia. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, you wrote: "We don't give space to views that hardly anyone holds" then "Having said that, tiny-minority views may have enough reliable sources that we can create a separate article on them". Well, which? (By the way, I like your handle-name.) Is it fair to say you're on the fence about this issue? But let's suppose there's a minority-of-one person (Emerson coined this excellent phrase I think) who happens to hold the right view on an important subject, but there's only one reliable source. The current policy kicks him/her out of the stadium -- he or she gets no ink, no press. Is this right? I don't think the fact that just because the majority or significant minority doesn't believe such and such is sufficient grounds for killing off a possibly valid view. On those rare occasions when the oddball is right, everybody loses. And just because it's a "long-standing part of policy" to exclude the minority-of-one, that doesn't make it right -- slavery was legal for much of human history, but that doesn't make it right.Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Blueboar wrote Wikipedia reflects the "state of things at this point in time" (I like your handle name too, Blueboar!) Well, when the oddball is excluded, Wikipedia doesn't really reflect the true state of things; rather, it reflects the majority or significant minority view. By the way, this is typically a very democratic (somewhat American) presumption -- Tocqueville writes about it. (And, by the way, thanks for correcting the Copernican dates -- so I'm off by a few centuries!)Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * I'm not calling for a big change in Wikipedia policy; rather, all I'm suggesting is that the wording be changed so that the minority-of-one views are not systematically, automatically excluded for the vapid reason that only one person holds them. Rather, I fully agree with Wikipedia policy to give the MOST WEIGHT to the dominant views (majority & significant minorities) but I think editors should be able to include a lone opinion if they feel there's particular merit, and clearly they can label this view as being held by a tiny minority, and give it very little ink, which seems fair. But excluding it systematically is wrong.Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Please allow me to add another consideration. Please notice that the major criterion of inclusion into wikipedia is notability confirmed from reliable sources. Further, "notability/verifiability" does not mean "truth" (in wikipedia). If a minority view, while disagreed, but gained a wide attention, it goes into wikipedia. If nobody cares, so does wikipedia. (I am sure there are some articles in wikipedia about some claims made by some prominent scientist, but without wide support.) Within the analogy with Copernicus, (although I don't know exact chronology) he might well got himself even into Wikipedia-1544, if his clash with church have led to some noisy acts, such as anathema, ban, public disputes, whatever. Mukadderat (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mudadderat wrote "If nobody cares, so does wikipedia." Well, we're not talking about a situation in which nobody cares, but rather somebody cares, or more exactly, one-body cares, a lone "tiny minority" opinion. But you're presuming that the lone minority-of-one is a "nobody", and I think this is an incorrect presumption. And I think the issue of "notability/verifiability versus truth" is somewhat of a tangent to the subject (and more complex -- the terms are more bound up in each other than is plainly evident, although I think I sense what you're trying to get at). Regardless of what we're talking about here, whether it's verifiability, notability, or truth, the general model of human learning should be a marketplace of competing ideas in which nobody holds a monopoly on truth (or whatever you call it), but that the process of debating, thinking, freely participating, of ideas competing for validity -- this process should be never-ending. And in this process, if the process is fair, then the best ideas win out, usually, over time, but ideas which win are themselves subject to further challenge, and may in time be proved wrong. But for this process to work, it should be possible for all ideas (theoretically) to have some kind of chance at gaining ground in the marketplace; and it's fair to give widely-held ideas the most ink. But systematically excluding any ideas for whatever reason is a mistake. And I don't think it serves Wikipedia's interests to serve as a house organ for the majority/significant minority view.Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

The principle that we follow the sources rather than the truth is not because we don't care about the truth. It's because Wikipedia is written by a large number of people who tend to disagree with each other about what the truth is and get into fights. Consider a book written in 2007 about cold fusion, 9/11, Gödel's theorems, evolution, scientology, or any other topic like this, containing novel claims and ideas not found elsewhere and subsequently ignored by the general and expert publics. If you can devise a mechanism by which a bunch of mostly anonymous mostly non-expert editors with very different ages and backgrounds can agree whether the content of such a book is just nonsense that is not even worth considering, or whether it happens to be the truth – if you can do that, then you have not just solved a fundamental problem of Wikipedia but you have also earned yourself a place in the history of science. In the meantime, we need to approximate the truth using a few simple rules that actually work in practice and keep the disruption to a tolerable level. Hans Adler 09:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed – I usually use the word "correctness" for that reason. In the cases where we do agree that some claim is incorrect, we don't leave it in the article just because it purports to be verifiable. We either remove it or rewrite the article so that the impression left on the reader is correct.


 * This also points to an issue with the term "verifiability". Usually this term is used to describe citing a particular sentence to a particular book. But "verifiability" also entails keeping the paradigm and organization of our articles in sync with the overall the paradigm and organization of contemporary literature on a topic. So, when someone announces what they think will be a paradigm shift in a field, we wait until that shift actually materializes in the literature before we rewrite our articles to take account of it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hans Adler, you're saying Wikipedia is a difficult place to try to resolve competing agendas, that the current Wikipedia policy works, so let's not change it and, if I read you right, you're suggesting the muting-tiny-minorities policy is reasonable for practical grounds because it keeps bickering within bounds -- you're worried any change to policy will result in mayhem, inability to resolve conflicts, chaos. Am I reading you right? Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * But I'm not proposing a major shift in policy. I agree the highly impressive Wikipedia model often works despite the odds, and I generally like the way things work. But I'm saying that the policy of systematically-muting-tiny-minority voices because they're only held by a tiny minority -- that policy is mistaken. I do not think minority voices have some kind of right to be heard; they're not wheel-chair bound difficulties slowing down the Wikipedia majority-opinion bus. But I think it should be a judgment call, by editors, whether to include them or not, that's all. And I think, for the most part, in most cases, that minority-of-one opinions will be excluded, and rightly so.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * And CBM, your statement sounds like you identify your opinion with the majority's opinion which is right because it's the majority's opinion ("where we do agree that some claim is incorrect... we either remove it or rewrite the article...") (bold added for emphasis). And whether we use terms like "verifiability" or "notability" or "correctness" or "truth" (Stephen Colbert's "truthiness"?), aren't we all talking pretty much about the same things? I bet some Wikipedian editors will pride themselves by commenting on their sense of distinctions between these terms, but these ideas are bound up with each other in subtle ways, and aren't as clear-cut as we'd like.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * If this issue of Wikipedia's censorship of tiny minorities sounds abstract, it's concrete for me. I'm an independent thinker who read extensively over decades into philosophy, history, economics, law, politics, war, economics, religion. I crafted a tough terrorism prevention strategy called "Common Sense II" with a book on Amazon. Parts of my strategy are highly controversial -- for example, I call for identifying all movement of people and things in public but for this publicly trackable information to be protected with strong privacy fences -- highly controversial stuff. (if interested in a free .pdf copy -- find my email address on Amazon "profiles" under my name thomas wright sulcer). I think my ideas are right. But I'm a tiny-minority, if that. When I tried to put an article on my book on Wikipedia, it was deleted in a week. No original research. Self-promotion. And now, being a Wikipedia editor, I see some of the reasons behind this decision (many I agree with), but at the same time, from my philosophy background, something is amiss here.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Suppose, for sake of argument, I'm like Copernicus. Suppose I'm right. Suppose the majority view of "America's strategy to prevent smuggled nuclear bombs is the best possible strategy" is wrong. Suppose, further, for sake of argument, that terrorists will smuggle nuclear bombs into selected cities in the next ten years and detonate them. (A possibility, but remote -- "World At Risk" report suggests likely attack will be biological -- trucks spewing anthrax; 50% chance by 2013, this report says; sorry if I'm bringing anybody down here). Given this scenario (which you'll admit is a possibility, won't you, or do you know what's true because you think your views are the majority's views and the majority's views are always right?) -- does it make sense to exclude my tiny-minority held opinion? Suppose New York or Washington or London is blown apart by a smuggled nuclear bomb ten years from now. Surviving Wikipedia editors can post a nice article about this. Would you feel it's morally right to deny readers a possible terrorism prevention strategy when their lives are in danger?Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Suppose, for sake of argument, I'm wrong. I'm a crank, quack, fool. My views are flawed. There was a mistake in my reasoning, a flawed assumption, and I goofed (hey I'm human). But consider that my stupid-strategy STILL has value, because it questions the majority view, triggers thinking, and results in a better understanding of why the majority view is right. Thinkers, reading my strategy, have to defend the majority view, and in this process of defending it, arrive at a fuller, deeper sense of what this "truth" is. Readers may recognize these arguments are straight out of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Either way, right or wrong, smart or stupid, "correct" or "incorrect", human knowledge advances when there are chances for ideas to fight, to test each other, to vie for attention and respect. And it doesn't matter whether we're talking about a newspaper article, democratic debate, or an encyclopedia article. This principle applies in all of these situations (including in our own minds when we're trying to decide what's right.) And, to a large extent (and here's where I bet we'll all find agreement) that the proper way for ideas to fight is to gain adherents -- the ideas with the most believers win -- and this is consistent with the whole sense of democracy, and there is a LOT of validity to this position. Still, any policy to systematically squelch tiny-minority ideas for the ONLY reason that they're only held by a tiny-minority, that is, the ideas MUST be invalid because they're only held by a tiny minority, is a mistake. It's censorship. It's highly POV. It's the majority's POV. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * I am not saying I have some right to have my tiny-minority view on Wikipedia because I'm a tiny-minority; rather, it should be a judgment call, that if editors feel that some view has merit, that they can include it in an article at their discretion, and rightly label it as a "tiny-minority" opinion, and trust readers to decide for themselves what to think. (And, I have an issue with Wikipedia editors being anonymous too -- the anonymity policy is a mistake, and editors should be credited for their contributions within articles, but that's another discussion.)Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * I propose Wikipedia policy be: trust judgment by editors (and, as part of their judgment, they can use the minority status as one reason to exclude something if they choose). Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
 * Tom, you are entitled to your opinion. However, the idea that tiny-minority opinions (which usually translates to: a minority of one) do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia is a concept that has strong community consensus... it is repeated in one form or another in most of our core policies.  Feel free to continue to argue your case, but don't expect change any time soon. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I have no illusions that anything will change. If you care to examine your reply, you'll notice that you didn't respond to the logic of my argument or any of the points I made; rather, your message says, in effect, this is what the majority of Widipedia editors think, we feel strongly about this choice, and that's that. Forget logic; ditch reason; dismiss my comment as a rant, perhaps. It's intellectual bullying. I encourage you to become more of a seeker of truth rather than a spokesperson for the crowd. Your comment is further confirmation to me that Wikipedia is the mouthpiece of majority opinion and, in my view, it's not as neutral as it thinks it is, but biased towards muting minority-of-one most-likely-wrong but-possibly-right views, not fully open to opposing viewpoints. And while Wikipedia usually is right, it may sometimes be as wrong as acid rain. That said, I still like Wikipedia, despite its mistaken policy on this one issue.Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
 * Nobody is asking you to forget logic and ditch reason... in fact, the reason so many people here support this policy is EXACTLY because it is logical and reasonable. If you fail to see that, or deny it, that's your right, but it's not like we're going to change things to try to make a tiny minority happy just because they present themselves as being somehow possessors of ultimate truth on the topic. Most people running around claiming they know the truth and are dedicated to the truth aren't: they are just dedicated to assuming that whatever they believe must be true. We go with what the experts say. If you want your own say and want to contradict the experts, get a blog or something. If that minority viewpoint has merit eventually it won't be a tiny minority view anymore and then we can include it. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DreamGuy, it's not about "making a tiny minority happy"; rather, my issue is with excluding any one view for the ONLY reason that it's a minority view. I think everybody benefits by having discussions and debates where ideas can compete based on a number of factors, including their general acceptance, merit, relevancy; but Wikipedia arbitrarily, necessarily rules out minority-of-one ideas. It's censorship. With this policy, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot, in my view. Like Blueboar, I don't feel you addressed my arguments; you're saying Wikipedia's policy is "logical and reasonable" and that's that, and you don't explain much more than that. (Can you?) What you don't see is how Wikipedia lessens itself with this policy. It's like having a "US Open tennis tournament", claiming ANYBODY can compete, but Wikipedia isn't really an open tournament; rather, it's rigged for majority or significant minority views, and it's possible that the tournament doesn't reflect the best tennis players -- it's not a truly fair tournament, not truly open. And, like America, like Wikipedia, like democracies generally (as Tocqueville noted) I don't see much thinking going on in any of the replies here; rather it's echoing the party line, the majority view, because we all know, of course, the majority is always right.Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * One has to distinguish between minority views in general and "tiny" minority views. For example, wikipedia will cover the minority viewpoint that vaccines cause autism, and the minority viewpoint that super-recursive algorithms are actually algorithms. The "tiny" minority views that we do not cover are those that have such small prominence that even mentioning them gives them more weight than they warrant. For example, suppose that some person wrote a book arguing that penguins migrated from Mars to Earth in the year 15 CE. Unless there were some other reason to discuss that theory, the mere fact that one person has espoused it in print is not enough for us to include it in our articles. That sort is the sort of thing that "tiny minority" refers to. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying including a minority-of-one viewpoint should be a judgment call by editors, and not an arbitrary Wikipedia policy of systematically excluding all minority-of-one views (which, for me, borders on censorship). And I think in almost all situations, editors will rule against including a "teensy minority" (sorry I have to get cute here) viewpoint, such as your excellent penguins from Mars migration example. And it's perfectly fair for editors, making a judgment call, to use the fact that only one person holds this view as a suitable reason for kicking it out of Wikipedia. But there may be situations when a judgment call by editors suggests including a teensy-minority view, despite its lack of acceptance by others. Example -- Copernicus. So I'm thinking Wikipedia should change the wording of the policy to allow for the occasional exception. I'm not proposing a big shift by any means. And I can see your point about "more weight than they warrant" -- the image of penguins from Mars is now stuck in my brain.Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Tomwsulcer wrote "the process of debating, thinking, freely participating, of ideas competing for validity -- this process should be never-ending". That's true, but it's not to say that the appropriate venue for such debate and competition is an encyclopedia. This is a place where lay people should be able to go to get an up-to-date summary of the consensus view of a topic, plus significant minority vies. It is not the place for specialists to debate, for new theories to be proposed or advanced, or opinions to be swayed. These activities are for (variously) peer reviewed journals, the popular press, interest group publications, etc. This is not about censorship, but rather about mission. Bongo matic  03:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See my proposed revision in the next section.Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

A list of people
I've been updating, rediting and compiling information on St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School, Jordanhill. It was recently assesed and one of the suggestions made, and one that is completely sensical, is that I get a list of previous head teachers. Where though, as such a list does not exist on the internet, nor in a book. The only way to do it is to ask the current headteacher to provide a list (or some similar method). Firstly, does this count as 'original research' and secondly, if yes, is this one of the cases it is permissible? Would it have to be put on a website (even the school's website) for it to be allowed? Many thanks in advance. Pacman100 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this would be Original research. I am of mixed minds beyond that.  Do other school articles list their former heads? In other words, is it standard practice for articles on secondary schools to list their head teachers? (personally, I hope not... unless the heads were notable in their own right... but that is just my take on it).  If it is standard practice, and given that this is very non-controvercial material, I would say you could invoke WP:IAR and simply mention them without citation. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A Request for Comment dealing with interpretation of WP:SYN could use some outside eyes
This request for comment [] deals with the interpretation and application of WP:OR (particularly WP:SYN) leading to NPOV issues and could use some outside eyes and voices. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"The origin/history of X is obscure/unknown/shrouded in mystery/not well documented," etc.
Sometimes when we write articles on topics that are obscure or simply never the subject of much scholarly interest, there is no real history that can be found—no origin, no date of invention, no identifiable coming to fruition period, and so on. I deal with this a lot in writing article on billiards topics; whole games where the history is obscure. This presents a thorny problem from a comprehensiveness standpoint. We naturally expect from an encyclopedia article a a timeline, a beginning and an end, details and date of invention, etc. When confronted with such murk, and after an exhaustive survey of sources has failed, the next best thing is detail the obscurity itself, with some formulation in the vein of those I have headlined this thread with. But what do you do when you can't even find a source to back up that claim of obscurity? To my mind, stating "The history of X is not well documented", and all other versions of that sentiment, is original research unless actually verified by a reliable source. It is not uncommon in my experience to find that even that negative statement cannot be sourced—at least not directly. The only way around this is to engage in a necessarily self-referential appeal to the lack of documentation you have encountered, either in text or in a footnote, and that is what I am on about in this thread. Specifically, what is the community's take on such self-referential statements and are they just simply original research? The test case I want to raise, is exploding cigar. What is in the article now was only possible from exhaustive research, finding a tidbit here, and another there. There is no history I can find, and I have looked hard. When I took this to good article nominations a year ago, I got the comprehensiveness call, and I explained that I had not found a history to include despite looking. I withdrew the nomination pending a second look (see the article's good article review page for deeper context). I recently finished reviewing every single hit on Google books and news; all results from Ancestry.com's vast newspaper archive, as well as other digital sources such as Chronicling America. So I just added this to the article in lieu of a history:


 * During the early- to mid-20th century, exploding cigars were a popular practical joke device, frequently advertised and mentioned in newspapers of the era . Despite their popularity, the history of the exploding cigar's development is not well documented, including how, where and when they first appeared.
 * Is the above text and citations just unreserved original research that should be removed?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the problems is that the statement is cited to a search engine result... which is not a reliable source. Tweeking the input gives you different output.  For example... did anyone search for alternative terms other than "exploding cigar"?  Perhaps "Practical Joke" and "Cigar"... As to your specific question, to say that the origins of something are not well documented / obsure / unknown etc, you need a source that says the origins are not well documented / obsucre, etc.  If no one has commented on this fact, then neither should we. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (by the way... I found this article that gives a plausible origin for the exploding cigar.... no comment on whether it is accurate or not) Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can use that source 'but I did forget to search patents! I will try that. As for search engine results, that's not what were here about. I ellipsed it in the first citation, but these are not search engine results, they are a review of the results found by search engines, i.e., I looked at each of the results; many hours of reviewing. I still think it may be overtly original research, most pertinently because no matter how much you search, there may be one dusty volume sitting on a shelf in some library which contains five chapters on the origin, but the search engine result is not what's being cited. I'll chalk you up for one on the side of that it's pure original research though. In any event, as I stated, this is the only alternative I can even see that can even attempt to bridge the gap when you can't find a source for even the statement that the origin is obscure. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is... you (a wikipedia editor) conducted the review and included a comment about your results in the article. That comment is OR.  If no source talks about the origins of exploding cigars, then neither should Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I understand your point and stated it in the OP. I am in 95% agreement and wanted to see what others thought.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting question. But I'm still unclear as to how results produced by a search engine would constitute "original" research. (I'm not talking about this specific case, but in general.) The results are completely objective and out of the editor's control, other than the inputted elements (as noted); the results can be dated on a particular day, and the first page of the results (up to a hundred hits on Google) could even be archived at WebCite. This seems about as far from "original" as anything I can think of. How is this different from, say, giving a list of journal articles as a bibliography for an article? That's a much more subjective process, and can easily be manipulated to skew toward the editor's own views; and yet such a list can be amended by another editor to reflect other POVs. In the same way, if a second editor feels that the search elements were themselves skewed or faulty, that can be corrected, or an alternative snapshot provided. I guess I'm admitting to having resorted to this at least once. If something seems to me self-evident as "common knowledge", but an adversarial editor with what I consider a minority viewpoint disagrees, it's hard to prove quantitatively (i.e., what's 'minority?) without some search engine results. Even if this discussion takes place on a Talk page, and this search engine process leads to a consensus as to what the article should contain, how's that any different from citing the search results on the article page, in terms of "originality"? You've only concealed the process from readers who don't care to participate in editing, or casual readers who wouldn't think of using the Talk page.
 * I think what I'm saying is that on some level "originality" is related to "neutrality"; so aren't the Wikipedia gatekeepers who oppose "originality" really trying to keep out unverifiable opinion and truth claims? This always confuses me, especially when editors delete factual statements without producing contrary claims. I just think Wikipedia (from a philosophical or epistemological standpoint) sets up "originality" as a straw man, when the problem is POV and scholarly method. Fortunately the policy on "synthesis" shows progress, because it used to be that if you tried to avoid both "synthesis" and "originality" as defined, you were left with plagiarism or a blank page.
 * Having looked at exploding cigar, I think Wikipedia is lucky to have editors who will produce such completely delightful articles, which do indeed require "exhaustive research, finding a tidbit here, and another there." Surely we don't have to discourage diligent editors like Fuhghettaboutit? Editors who utilize methodical research methods to produce entertaining, informative articles like this? Can't we just be vigilant about libel, hoaxes, personal agendas, and incompetence? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Cynwolfe on this. I think it is very easy to misconstrue WP:NOR. In a sense, every time we build an article from multiple sources (rather than parroting a single source) we are on one level doing "novel synthesis" and "original research", but this is not the type of sythesis and research that policy forbids.  I think the way around the conundrum is to not outright state in the article prose that the origins are unknown, but to say something more like "of apparently obscure origin", and the like, with a footnote explaining that no sources for the origin have been found to date by Wikipedia editors.  The fact that this is a self-ref is irrelevant, since citationspace is not articlespace proper; we routinely add notes with regard to specific source citations, about where and when they were accessed by our editors and in what format, even sometimes about how reliable they may be. Even the   in citation templates is a self-ref, since it refers to the date at which the editor who put it there, i.e. the date at which Wikipedia as a publisher of information, accessed the cited work. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, those two are OR. But the article is well done, so I suggest that Fuhghettaboutit first publish it at an RS where original research is welcome. Then publish it here, citing that publication as your source. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Revised Wording regarding "tiny minority" censorship issue
Here's the current wording of Wikipedia policy:
 * If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.[8]Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Here's a proposed revision (changes in italics):
 * If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it almost certainly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. (Rare exception: when a strong case can be made for inclusion, but even then, consider putting it in an ancillary article.) Wikipedia is not the place for original research.[8]Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

This is a minor change, a tweaking of policy at best. But it allows the judgment of editors in rare exceptions to include a tiny-minority view (teensiest minority view?) IF they can make a strong case for inclusion. Plus the revised wording protects Wikipedia from charges of bias and censorship.Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Not needed... in those very rare occasions where a "strong case can be made for inclusion", editors can invoke WP:IAR. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is needed... Critics attacking Wikipedia will point to this written policy to prove WP is biased towards majority opinion. Critics won't think to mention WP:IAR (since they're not as sharp as you, Blueboar.)Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
 * It isn't so much that we are biased towards majority opinions, rather we are biased against tiny-minority opinions... intentionally so... for all the reasons that were given to you above. The only Critics will be those who want to push their tiny minority views. We can live with that quite happily. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't needed. I agree with Blueboar, we are biased against tiny-minority opinions and we don't need to give them something else to argue about. We don't have to worry about the critics, or if we do, certainly not about this issue. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I think strong consensus is against inclusion (even though I still disagree). I'll follow WP policy. No minority-of-one opinions. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer


 * Think of it this way: WP is not a place to right great wrongs; articles need to reflect RS opinion, not a wikipedia editor's opinion (i.e. not the "strong case" than a wikipedia editor might plead for). -- Fullstop (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Press releases
I see no mention of press or news releases in the list of primary items in WP:PRIMARY. Are they there and I missed them? Or should I add it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These tend to be a grey area... certainly a press release by an individual would be a Primary source, but what about press releases from organizations? Material from organizations have always fallen through the cracks at Wikipedia... they are sometimes considered SPS, and sometimes are not; their webpages are sometimes considered primary sources, but sometimes not.  Is a press release from a governmental agency a primary source?  Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that was certainly my assumption: a press release from any organization -- public or private -- is not vetted by any external group for accuracy. It's delivered to media with the expectation that it be factual, though. Interesting: I just assumed that an organization's internally generated media -- either website or news release -- would automatically be primary. I gather there's nothing automatic about it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They can be veted extensively by internal editors, however. It really depends on the organization in question.  Which is probably why we don't mention them in the policy itself. People don't like policies that say "It depends".  Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A press release is SPS by definition. It is certainly a source about what a person or org says about themselves or their opinions about others. They are generally not useful as RS about other people and things - if the press release contains vetted facts by some other RS, use that RS instead.
 * They can be RS though, for instance a gov't dep't issues a press release that says "This road project was done 15% under budget because the contractor, Joe's Acme Pavement, used a new paving machine from Big Manufacturer." This says several things that would be RS in several places:
 * The road project came in under budget, fact could be used on the road article if it has one.
 * Joe's Acme Pavement, if they have an article, it sources their ownership of the machine, and that they are a gov't contractor.
 * Big Manufacturer, or the machine they make, sources that their machine gets used, etc.
 * OTOH, if the Lawn Liberation Front issues a press release that they have removed the sod from a local golf course, it would only be RS for the claim, not as fact, even if the sod was removed.
 * And gov't dep't aren't all that either, if the N Koreans said their new Type Long Dong Missile flew 2500 miles, I'd wait for the Japanese or the Pentagon before quoting it as fact, rather than claim...

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * A press release isn't de facto self-published. The White House does not "self-publish" its press releases, for example. They are primary sources, but not self-published ones. The latter typically refers to one guy in his basement churning out his latest opinion with no legal or editorial oversight. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what definition you are using for "self-published" that does not include press releases? I would think that press releases are the epitome of self-published sources, as they are written and published with no external review or control. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A self-published source is one with no editorial or legal oversight. The reason we require reliable sources as a project is that we can't afford to do our own research, pay for an editorial board, hire our own lawyers, buy our own libel insurance. We therefore use sources who have all these things, in the hope that that process has weeded out bad material. That includes primary sources (e.g. press releases from the White House) and secondary sources (e.g. articles in The New York Times about those press releases).


 * When we use sources that do not have any of the above, we take a big risk, editorially and legally. Therefore, we severely restrict their use. A typical example of a publisher who has none of the above would be one guy who produces a blog from his home. Or me, writing this post. Those are examples of what we mean by "self-published source," as the policy on self-published sources indicates: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know about our sourcing policies. I am only trying to understand your comment "The White House does not 'self-publish' its press releases, for example.", in light of the White House page where press releases are published.


 * I have never seen "legal oversight" as a requirement (WP:SPS doesn't mention it, or define "self-published source" at all). Are you saying that if I publish my own book, but have a lawyer look at it first for libel, the book is no longer self-published? There is certainly no external editorial control over companies' press releases. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I am saying that a self-published source is someone who publishes without editorial and legal oversight -- "oversight" is a key term here, meaning that someone can tell you "no, you're not allowed to say that." If you're trying to pin down a strict definition of "self-published," you won't find it, because it's fuzzy round the edges, but the thrust of the term implies no oversight i.e. no-one standing between you and publication. As with this post from me now -- I want to publish it now, and I do publish it now: that's the essence of self-publication. The further a source strays from that framework, the less "self-published" it is. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is it that tells the White House what they are and are not allowed to say in their press releases? Who stands between them and the publication of press releases on the White House website? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An entire battery of staff&mdash;legal, political, and editorial&mdash;and a strict editorial process, ensure that no single person or tiny group gets to publish exactly what it wants, whenever it wants, using the name of the White House. The president himself is subject to it. It is the same with every professional organization in the world. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So: if I write a book, hire a large staff to vet it, but pay all the press expenses myself on the press I own, the book is no longer self published? That's a stretch. We cannot count internal editorial policies when deciding if something is self published; they count as part of the "self". What matters is external editorial control. For example, the author of a journal article does not control the editor of the journal, much less the referee. The White House controls itself and its staff, without external control, and so even if there is internal approval for a press release, it is still self-published. It would be hard to think of a reasonable situation where a self-published work does not have the internal support of the organization that publishes it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Press releases are no different than any other kind of source. There is no OR as long as the source is regurgitated with fidelity / is not misrepresented. But not violating NOR is not a carte blanche. A statement could still violate RS. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (to CBM) According to your argument, every article published by The New York Times, and by every other news organization functioning independently in a democracy, is "self-published," because not controlled "externally." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought about that some yesterday, and came to the conclusion that the problem is that our policy page is not clear that some self-published sources (e.g. New York Times articles by their own staff) are OK while others (books put out on vanity presses) are not. But it seems to matter what the topic of the source is. A NYTimes article on the NYTimes itself is again the sort of self-published source that we have to be skeptical about, because we cannot presume that the NYTimes is an objective source about themselves. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is another reason why I have long thought that NOR goes off track in discussing source typing (in terms of Primary, Secondary and Teriary) instead of appropriate source usage and misuse. There are so many examples of where the distinction isn't clear.  But I know that is a dead horse, so never mind. Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The distinction is pretty clear.


 * Self-published means there is no one standing between you and the page.there is no one standing between you and the page. You want to publish something, and that's what you do. You don't have to argue with a copy editor, have the lawyer say he refuses to sign off on it, worry that you won't be covered by your libel insurance, have the boss say, "god, no, you can't say that." Self-published material means you want to publish X and you do publish X, either by yourself (as with this post here by me) or by paying a vanity company.


 * The closer a source is to that model, the more likely it is to be a self-published source. It's a fuzzy concept, so there are going to be hard cases, but in the almost five years I've been editing Wikipedia, I've not encountered a single example where I couldn't quickly and easily decide whether something was self-published.


 * A primary source, on the other hand, is an entirely different concept, which we've discussed many times, so I won't rehash it here in detail. But the two ideas &mdash; self-published and primary &mdash; have nothing to do with one another. If I'm directly involved in an incident and write a book about it that is published by Random House, the book is a primary source about the things I have direct knowledge of, but is not self-published. If I've studied an incident I have no direct knowledge of, and write a book about it that no one will publish, and have to publish it myself, it's a self-published secondary source. Wikipedia would use the first, but not the second, except in very limited circumstances: we do prefer secondary sources to primary ones, but we strongly dislike self-published sources, primary or secondary.


 * The example mentioned earlier, a White House press release, is a primary source, when writing about material it's directly involved in, or where it represents those directly involved, but clearly isn't self-published, because the White House employs ranks of professional people answering to the chief press secretary to make sure it doesn't publish nonsense. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... what about the Legal Notice section of a newspaper... this is a regular section of a newspaper that contains what are effectively press releases from the court or an attorney (announcing, say, a forclosure sale). Is that primary or secondary?  Or what about the Obituaries... some are written by staffers, but others are submitted by the public... so is the obit pabe a primary or secondary source?  Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The author of a White House press release is the White House itself, and there is nothing that stands between the White House and publication – if they want to publish something, that's what they do. There is no other entity beyond the author (which is the White House itself) that prevents them from publishing whatever they want. If you want to say "self-published sources by non-professional authors" or "self-published sources that have not been vetted by a lawyer", then that's another thing. But an IBM press release, a General Motors press release, a White House press release, are all "self-published" based on the plain meaning of those words. They are written by, attributed to, and published by the same entity. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as the White House qua author; there are professional people who work for the White House who write things. As I said earlier, your argument means that everything published by the New York Times is self-published. It's not an argument that's sustainable. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If I cited a White House press release, the author I would list is the White House (same for a Ford press release). This is not a system where an independent author writes something and then submits it for review; rather it is a system where the entity itself (White House, Ford) decides what it wants to publish, writes it, and then publishes it. You are right that this makes many NYTimes article self-published as well; if our policy page might suggest not to use these articles because they are self-published, it's just an error in the policy page. But there is a difference with some NYTimes stories: they have a byline, unlike press releases, which are authored collectively by the organization that releases them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A New York Times editorial with no byline is not self-published, not when it's about other issues, and not when it's about itself. Not ever. That's simply not part of the definition of "self-published" by any reasonable standard. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Published by the same entity that produced the content" is a perfectly reasonable definition of "sef-published". Moreover, the definitions you have proposed – such as "there is no one standing between you and the page" – also apply, because there is nobody else standing between when the NYTimes publishes something they have produced themselves. But the situation is even more clear for press releases than news stories. Actually, a newspaper editorial with no byline is a perfect example of a self-published source, since the content by convention represents the opinion of the publication itself, and there is nobody else who controls what the publication itself puts on its editorial page. In terms of "self-publication" alone, this is no different than if I write up my own opinion and photocopy it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at an example of something that is not self published. When I write a journal paper, I have no idea if it will ever be accepted. There is no expectation that editors or referees will look upon if favorably, or that they will work with me to get it into a publishable state. They may reject it with no explanation at all. Thus, when a paper does get accepted, readers have some confidence that there has been a neutral, genuine review of the suitability of the paper. This cannot be assumed for things like press releases, SEC filings, advertisements, editorials, etc. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Okay, if you really are arguing that a New York Times editorial is a self-published source, then you've produced your own reductio ad absurdum. (Plus, you don't understand the process involved in publishing editorials.) By your standards, pretty well everything is a self-published source.


 * I can only repeat: "self-published" = no professional editorial oversight. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I take "self-published" to mean what it says: something published by the same entity that authored it, with no other editorial oversight. Nothing in the term "self-published" refers to internal editorial oversight (since that's part of the "self"). So a large company can self-publish things just as well as an individual person. Yes, this means that many news stories are self-published; I don't see why that actually makes much difference. Your argument seems to suggest that a company's SEC filings are not "self-published", leading to the question of who else is doing the original publication. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
 * I too think that press releases are self-published. A press release is merely the written variant of announcements from a press officer or a publicist.
 * This does not imply that self-published sources (like press releases) are necessarily unreliable. For example, a press release that says a company was founded on such-and-such date is (probably) a reliable source for that snippet of information. But it would not be a reliable source on (say) a claim that it was the inventor of the wheel.
 * I suppose one could say that a degree of scepticism and background knowledge is necessary when dealing with truth claims (in any kind of source), but this is probably especially applicable when an organization/person is talking about itself (as in a press release). -- Fullstop (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blue sky
This may sound like I'm deliberately creating a ridiculous question and thereby disrupting Wikipedia, but I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Would looking up at the sky to see if it was blue and then saying it was blue on Wikipedia be original research? Someone the Person (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No... but that is more because there are so many reliable sources that say the sky is blue that it is accepted common knowledge. In most other cases personal observation is considered OR. Blueboar (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Picking up the gauntlet: What if a source says the sky is black with specks of glittery thingies? Or that a "red sky at night is a sailor's delight"? How do these jive with the "accepted common knowledge" that the sky is blue?
 * As we know, if challenged, the proponent of "the sky is blue" has to provide a source that says so in context.
 * Thus, the answer to " Would looking up at the sky to see if it was blue and then saying it was blue on Wikipedia be original research? " would be: Yes, WP:NOR policy applies to that too.
 * My two cents. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There once had been something sometimes referred to as the "apple pie exception"; see e.g. Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion/Archive 4. Шизомби (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Whose argument is it?
I came here after discussion with SLR about the definition of antisemitism and whether it is being applied consistently. Through this discussion I am coming to realize that it would be a synthesis violation for me - as a contributor - to conclude that a double standard was being applied if one man criticized all Jews for something (but was not called anti-semitic) while another man was called anti-semitic for making precisely the same criticism. I gather that what seems like putting 2 and 2 together is not permitted by our NPOV and OR policies.

However, if a contributor discovers a reliable published source which puts 2 and 2 together like that, then their argument may be included (quoted or summarized) in the relevant article. Suppose we find something like this:


 * Professor Bea Al Fayer of the Vanderbilt Theological Institute said: "Amos and Hosea criticized the entire ancient nation of Israel for being faithless and said that the ancient Hebrews deserved to have their nation destroyed as divine punishment. Yet, when Sun Myung Moon wrote the same thing in his Divine Principle, Rabbi Rudin said that Moon's remarks prove that Moon is anti-Semitic. Clearly, this is a double standard.

Assuming Al Fayer is prominent enough to have his views mentioned, then we could cite his reasoning, right?

The reason I am asking this is partly because I want to be sure I am not making a conflict-of-interest mistake by inadvertently making our article biased in favor of Sun Myung Moon, in response to his opponents. (I've been a follower of his for 32 years.)

The other reason is that if I can get a clear understanding of when and where arguments must be attributed, it will help a lot of us write more clearly and with less bias on politically charged controversies in the environmental and life sciences. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on 'events' for primary and secondary sources?
"Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event" and "primary sources are sources very close to an event", we are told here. Is there meant to be an implication that this distinction does not apply to sources used in articles about theories, movements, populations, techniques, inventions, patents, formats etc etc? I wouldn't bother to ask except that the use of that word in this policy does not seem to be helping in a current discussion at Talk:Office Open XML. --Nigelj (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right that the present wording is aimed more at historical articles and not so much at technical articles. Regarding the specific issue of OOXML, it will probably be more productive to evaluate sources in terms of potential for bias and self-interest rather than in terms of primariness and secondariness. If you would like someone uninvolved to help mediate that discussion, let me know. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Carl. If there's anything you can think of to help move things along at OOXML, please do join in. I wonder if we can get a more general word or phrase into this policy too. --Nigelj (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look through the OOXML page and leave a comment. Changing the wording here would be difficult, and is not really worth the effort, since we are always free to evaluate sources for an article in whatever way is most appropriate for that article. The advice here will be relevant to some articles more than to others. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * it will probably be more productive to evaluate sources in terms of potential for bias and self-interest rather than in terms of primariness and secondariness ... well said. We should add something link it to the policy... suggest:
 * When it comes to original research, it will probably be more productive to evaluate sources in terms of appropriate and inappropriate use than in terms of primariness or secondariness. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

United Nations and synthesis
Observing the example here about the United Nations, I went to look at the real article. The first sentence in the body of that article is: "Following in the wake of the failed League of Nations (1919-1946), which the United States never joined, the United Nations was established in 1945 to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems. ". This single sentence seems to contain numerous inferences of a similar sort. Some points:


 * 1) Did the LoN fail because the USA did not join it? (Note that the USSR also did not join until too late.)
 * 2) Did the LoN fail because the UN superseded it? (Note that the dates overlap.)
 * 3) Is this a case of WP:SYN? (Note that there are no inline citations.)

My impression is that WP:SYN is currently a counsel of perfection of little practical value. I suggest that you try deconstructing a real article such as United Nations and seeing if you can make it a model of what you're trying to achieve. It would be better to point to such a real worked example than an artificial one. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is simple to resolve... the fact that the US did not join the Leage of Nations is a bit of historical detail that should not even be in the first sentence of the UN article. It might even be too detailed to merit mentioning in the lede paragraph. The first sentence of any article should simply tell readers what the subject is. I would suggst something like "The United Nations is an international organization, established in 1945, with the goal of maintaining international peace and promoting cooperation in slolving international economic, social and humanitarian problems." (and even this may be overly wordy). Blueboar (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of OR for combining objective sources
Hi everyone. I have an issue with a guideline listed on the College and University Article Guidelines that deals with OR, and I thought some people here may want to weigh in. To summarize, there is a guideline that states "Refactoring rankings (71st nationally according to the source, but 2nd among colleges in the state) to boost the score constitutes original research and is not permitted, and I feel that it is not actually OR. This is a very precise, technical argument I'm making: I agree completely that many statements like the one quoted are written to advance a point of view or agenda, and thus are not permissible under WP:NPOV; however, I contend that the combination of two objective, verifiable pieces of information if presented in a neutral way is not OR and is therefore permissible. For example: So I want to make clear what I am asking: In the opinion of you, the editors and admins interested in OR policy, is an objective and neutrally-worded statement that is based on a combination of two objective and verifiable pieces of information OR (and if so, should it be)? I highlight the "objective and neutral" part because I agree that the same info, if worded in a way to promote an agenda, is POV (and likely COI). -Nicktalk 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The US News national ranking list includes each university's ranking and each university's US state. If I sorted the list by state and wrote in an article: "According to US News, University X is the highest-ranked national university in State X," I don't see how that is not inherently verifiable and therefore not OR.
 * Similarly, the US Census publishes its data in a large list of incorporated places (cities, towns). It is common practice to review this data and sort by state, allowing us to write "Milwaukee is the largest city in the state of Wisconsin." The Census may not publish a list of cities broken down by state, but one can make an objectively verifiable statement by combining the verifiable population figure with the verifiable state in which the city lies.
 * One more example: The Forbes list of wealthiest Americans lists, in order, the richest people in America. If we looked at the list and verified the gender of each person listed, we could state that "Person X is the wealthiest woman in America, according to the Forbes list." Again, I contend this is useful information and is not OR.
 * I think what you are talking about does qualify as OR. In essence, by refactoring a ranking list on your own, noticing something, and commenting upon it in Wikipedia... you are making Wikipedia the first place of publication for that information. You are noticing something that no published source has commented upon.  That is OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH at 23:22, 27 August 2009
Below is essentially the same new version of WP:SYNTH that was in WP:NOR on 23:22, 27 August 2009, which was reverted. The examples that are currently in WP:SYNTH would have still been easily accessible through a link at the end of the first paragraph of SYNTH in this new version at that time. This improvement to WP:SYNTH was possible since there was a page  created a month and a half ago that contained the examples  at the time when the new version below was added and during the month before.

== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. For examples see Original synthesis at Wikipedia:No original research/Examples.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis&mdash;it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No comments? What a shame. This is an excellent version that is a size that makes for better reading and communication. All that was done was to replace the bulky samples with a link to them on another page. I think it is a mistake to have most of WP:SYNTH filled with examples since it obscures the main idea of the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
If people want to make substantive changes, could they please propose them here first? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about that change makes it substantive? It's a great effort to remove a giant block of needless text that has no substantive content. Frankly, it's rather confusing, and belongs in an essay. "Here comes the original synthesis" indeed. If you don't have an objection beyond "you can't change anything until you check if someone can think of an objection at the talk page", then just don't revert.    M   02:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an excellent example of WP:SYNTH, you'll need to find consensus to either remove it or replace it. Dreadstar  ☥  02:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have still been easily accessible through a link at the end of the first paragraph of SYNTH in this version of WP:NOR, until it was removed from the main part of No original research/Examples very recently by this edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rich Farmbrough's points ("Remove the Smith Jones example per WP:POL because one example is enough. Also it is an example discussing sourcing which can confuse") are perfectly valid. What exactly does it illustrate that isn't already clear, and which justifies 4 extra paragraphs and 300 extra words? I can't see anything, but if you do please let us know.    M   02:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These are excellent and longstanding examples. I can't imagine the policy would be better off by removing them; quite the opposite, in fact. Also, I see no consensus for making these major changes to longstanding policies. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jayjg.  JN 466  00:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Smith-Jones example is an example of bad logic. It doesn't serve to show that synthesis to prove a point is improper in Wikipedia (I think such synthesis is improper), it just shows how bad logic can be misused to "prove" something that it doesn't prove.  We moderns are at a disadvantage when it comes to logic: we aren't educated in the various forms of syllogism nor in the various logical fallacies.  It seems to me to be a grave error to use an example of bad logic as a claimed example of why synthesis in general is improper.  If the use of logic is appropriate for a topic then I suggest that any proper synthesis that helps further understanding within that topic is not just valid but is desirable.  "Proper" synthesis would be synthesis that follows valid logic and which is based on well-accepted premises.  I can appreciate that some would think this can go to far.  I'd welcome examples that show "going too far"  (with the provision that the example not really be an example of invalid logic masquerading as valid logic.) Minasbeede (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, what makes this synthetic is the use of disperate sources (neither of which supports the conclusion) to back the logic (whether faulty or not). The correct/incorrect use of logic is a seperate issue. If the conclusion was cited to a reliable source (one that used the same sources to reach the conclusion), it would still be faulty logic, but it would no longer be a WP:SYNT vio. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As Blueboar points out, the Smith/Jones example shows the use of reliable sources to synthesize an argument not present in any of the sources. It happens all the time on Wikipedia, which is why a good example like this is needed to point out why it is against policy to do this kind of synthesis. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here can give the link to a diff where they, or anyone else, have used the  Smith/Jones example to clarify SYNTH for another wikipedian. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob, I believe you've tried to remove this example earlier this year, and there was no consensus for doing so, after very lengthy discussions on the topic. Has something changed since then? Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if this is a good example. Does it need to be here? Can it be stated just as well in three sentences? Could someone please state what rule it is supposed to illustrate? For example, the rule "don't vandalize" might have the example "Jones posts swears and deletes large blocks of content, so Smith temporarily blocks her". What exactly is the rule behind this section?   M   21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "No original research" is a policy that is difficult to understand, so examples are required to clarify. The policy on vandalism, a concept actually much easier to understand, is filled with examples of what is and isn't vandalism. A more comparable policy is WP:NPOV; not surprisingly, it also contains examples, see for example ASF, ASF, WP:GEVAL. Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would question your first sentence that implies it is a good example. I don't know of any evidence from actual use, that would indicate that it is a good example, or that any of the people here have found it good enough to use in their discussions with less knowledgeable wikipedians, to help clarify Synth. And if someone here did use it, were they successful in clarifying Synth, with the Smith/Jones example, for another wikipedian. That's why I made the request above, " Perhaps someone here can give the link to a diff  where they, or anyone else, have used the  Smith/Jones example to clarify SYNTH for another wikipedian. Thanks."  --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob, pointing to WP:SYNTH is enough, since it contains the examples. Jayjg (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"What exactly is the rule behind this section?"
User:M, to answer your question directly "What exactly is the rule behind this section?", there is no agreed upon rule. Although, several attempts have been made in the past to establish a clear definition of the synthesis rule, no consensus has been reached. However, most users here have agreed on a set of examples that serve to illustrate the rule:.

1. Everyone agrees that:


 * Editors should build an article by summarizing the sources available on the topic of the article. Any information added should therefore be based on reliable sources that present this information in direct connection with the article subject.

2. However, some find that definition too restrictive and deem it necessary to add an exception:


 * In some cases, supplementary information from generic sources that cover a broader subject area than the specific article topic may be deemed to add value to an article, in order to clarify places, people or things mentioned in the article (WP:PCR). For example, an editor might want to add a detail from a reliable source that describes the historical context in which the subject of an article lived, even though the cited source does not mention the article subject.

3. Among those who agree with that exception (2), there are some who believe that the exception itself requires an exception:


 * Any information that advances a position or point of view with respect to the article topic must be based on a source that presents this information in direct connection with the article topic.

4. And among those who agree with this exception (3) to the exception (2), there are some who believe that it also requires an exception:


 * Any information that advances a position or point of view with respect to the article topic must be based on a source that presents this information in direct connection with the article topic, unless the information represents a mainstream view which is contrasted with a fringe or pseudo-scientific claim within the article. According to WP:PARITY, if a claim is fringe, it will likely not have been made in a reliable source; so we can reference a blog or a website that criticizes that claim; we don't necessarily have to find a reliable source that debunks it, which is sometimes hard to find. In those exceptional cases where a fringe claim is published in a reliable source without any reliable rebuttals or when a fringe claim is made in a non-reliable source without any rebuttals at all, we can rely on WP:IAR and add a rebuttal. Editors should, however, resist the temptation to add their own explanation of the discrepancy between the mainstream view and the fringe view. An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing the related facts in juxtaposition.

I hope this is helpful. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind, of course, that 3. is basic policy (not an exception to an exception) while 4. is a clear and obvious violation of WP:NOR, and there are no "special exceptions" for WP:V just because we really, really, want to rebut a fringe argument. As has been said many times before, if David Icke claims that George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth II are reptilian humanoids, we don't bother to counter by saying "However, Bush and Elizabeth are, in fact, fully mammalian." Jayjg (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed... and if we did add such a counter statement, two minutes after adding it the line would look like this:
 * "However, Bush and Elizabeth are, in fact, fully mammalian. "
 * (and good luck finding a reliable source that actually supports that). :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not replace the examples with this?    M   20:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because this is too simple an example, and suffers from WP:V issues as well. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a general comment on the use of the phrase "too simple an example". Please be careful not to exclude the interests of beginning editors who aren't familiar with the concept of Original SYN. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Original images and license
The section makes reference the "GFDL or another free license". Perhaps the reader should be directed to Image use policy. I also think the Creative Commons should be explicitly mentioned. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH - why does this section exist?
The edit war over the WP:SYNTH examples reminds me that I’ve always been confused by WP:SYNTH and why it exists as part of policy. The section starts out with “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” I'm thinking “Why isn't this reduced to a more general rule such as 'Do not reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?'” What's special about synthesis of multiple sources that's not covered under the more general rule?

My confusion deepens when I see the the first example. It's a single sentence about the UN and 160 wars that's entirely out of context and seems to bear no relationship at all to “RS A, RS B, synthesis C” that was used in the section lead.

The second example has paragraph with two sentences that presumably are based on one, maybe two RS. It just says “The first paragraph was properly sourced.” It’s a better example in that it shows sourced material followed by a WP:OR conclusion. However, I don’t see this as a direct example and clarification of “RS A, RS B, synthesis C.” It is a good example of “RS A, synthesis or conclusion B” but not “RS A and RS B synthesized into C.”

I'm guessing the WP:SYN section got added as someone must have wikilawyered their way around the more general "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below." (the below links to WP:SYN). --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no... the SYN section was developed quite a while before the line you quote was added. The section was created to tell editors not to include what they see as logical conclusions... conclusions based upon reliable sources, but not actually made by any of the sources they cite.   The examples are there to show that this is not always easy to detect (in part because the conclusions often are logical). We probably should have called the section "No original logic" instead of "Synthesis". Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if Mark Kupper's guess was off the mark, his point is valid. Renaming it to "No original logic" sounds sensible, but doesn't quite address his point. The general 'Do not reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources' would cover "No original logic" too. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we could easily remove the A+B=C sentences. That's sometimes what SYN is, but not invariably. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that helped a lot. While it seems redundant I now see that it's necessary to have a section like WP:SYN as there are some who will argue that logical conclusions are not "original" research.


 * The use of the word "synthesis" still bugs me a little but I found it is correct. It turns out there's a lesser used definition of synthesis. It's in the World Book Dictionary as the very last entry and is "according to Thomas Hobbes, Isaac Newton, and others, deductive reasoning." Thus "synthesis" can cover an editor derived conclusion or deduction, even if the article is based on one RS. I can't say I'm comfortable with needing to use a definition that only shows up in the largest dictionaries but I can't think of a better word at the moment. I'm going to follow this with the current lead paragraph, save the edit, and then immediately edit the lead to a proposed version. Use the history/diff to see the changes.


 * Do not combine material from one or more sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C, regardless of how logical it may seem. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same conclusion in relation to the topic of the article.


 * The tweaks are minor but would then cover synthesis from one source. I changed that last "argument" as while it's the correct word it seems to link better with the earlier use of "conclusion" in the paragraph. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 08:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think of getting rid of A+B=C? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 08:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's late for me and I can't think of a clean way to replace it. I like how it's showing that we have a reliable source(s), synthesized conclusion, and then restating that it should not be done. I'll sleep on it and will see if a wording comes to mind that has less emphasis on synthesizing multiple sources vs. deductions or conclusions from a single source. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 08:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I see the problem and hopefully the solution or the road down which the solution lies. The focus in the present language is wrong. We don't care whether material is from one source or multiple sources for purposes of original research, but we do care that items of information are being combined to form a conclusion regardless of whether the data (and never the datum) is taken from a single source or multiple sources. The information is always going to be multiple items thereof and that's where the plural comes in. The restatement above goes some way to clear up up but still keeps the focus in the latter half on the plurality of sources rather than on the information in the sources. I think this resolves the problem (among other tweaks, note the changes from by sources to in sources)"Do not combine items of information (facts, opinion, etc.) from a source or sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly reached in the source or sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published in a reliable source, and B is published in a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if one or more reliable sources have published the same deductive chain and result in relation to the topic of the article."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(Here's my 2 cents.) Perhaps the simplest way is to just modify the first sentence of the first paragraph in WP:SYNTH: == Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by a ny of the source s. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. In this way, we remove the implication that this applies only to the case where the two facts are in different sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a version that does not use A, B, C. I also moved the concluding paragraph up and reformulated the first example so that it shows the source sentence first and then the synthesis.

== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==

Care must be taken to not form arguments or conclusions that are not explicitly stated by a source. A synthesis of published material that advances a new position constitutes original research. Stating an argument or conclusion in an article is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same position in relation to the topic of the article.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. example commented out per feedback.--Marc Kupper&#124;talk 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not include the second example here. If we use it, then does not need rewording as it's an example of a deliberate synthesis where the first example could be accidental but it also shows why citing the sources is valuable. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 09:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need to retain the point about combining multiple sources, which is the essence of SYN. Also, you changed the example. Could we please not involve the examples in discussing the way the introduction is written?


 * As the intro to that section is written at the moment, what do you see as the problem with it? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's not perfect talk page etiquette but I've commented the modified example out from my previous post. Using strikeout on the large block was too distracting. We can include plural sources by replacing "a source" in the first sentence with "sources." Would that work?  One thing I don't like about my own rewording is that it's does not have a strong statement about "logical conclusions are OR." That got weakened as I was trying to work in both synthesized arguments and conclusions. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your latest proposal. I actually complained about the current wording of the policy over a year ago; but no luck changing it back them. Asking that "A and B, therefore C" come exactly from one publication/source is unreasonable. In fact, this particular requirement is ignored by large swaths of our Mathematics articles for a good reason. By observing the current policy you'd have to commit a copyright violation (wrt. derivative work) by copying entire lines of reasoning "as is" since you're technically allowed to make only superficial wording changes. Your proposal is much more reasonable, in that A, B, and C may come from different sources as long as all are germane to the article's topic. I also like that you put it in words, instead of syllogisms. Pcap ping  15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More problematic, is that some make a synthesis from different sources that use the same terminology with different meanings. Something like A=>B (source 1), B=>C (source 2), therefore A=>C (no citation), when the two sources don't mean the same thing by B. I've not seen this often, but I've seen some occurrences. Might be an example worth adding in the examples part, but it might be overkill as well given that it's rare. Your proposed phasing still prohibits this practice. Pcap ping  15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think an example is important as some people have difficulty understanding the description of synthesis. Chillum  15:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that one, or even more examples are needed, but the defitintion of "syntehsis" here should not be given in syllogism, since you can't cover all aspects that way. Pcap ping  15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparison

 * I personally found the A, B, C wording to make the concept very clear. While the new wording does cover the basic concept I don't think it explains it as well as the old wording. The idea of synthesis has been very difficult for some editors to understand in my history of dealing with people. Perhaps it will not be an issue with examples. Chillum  16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The old wording is confusing because the A-B-C part actually imposes an additional restiction not found in the 1st sentence of the current policy. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." only implies that you need a citation for each of A, B and C; it does not imply that you need a citation for "A and B implies C". The difference is significant. Pcap ping  16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the new wording (or just the 1st sentence from the old), does allow syllogisms like: "The sky is blue" (cite 1), "the Sun is hot" (cite 2), therefore "an elephant is a mammal" (cite3); you can easily "fix" this (as a syllogism, not as a meaningful article) by replacing therefore with and. But I don't think the "SYNT" part of the policy was meant to prohibit NONSENSE. That's a different issue to me than "improper synthesis". Pcap  ping  16:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My point here is that even the current WP:SYNT doesn't prohibit this article: "The sky is blue (cite 1). The Sun is hot (cite 2). An elephant is a mammal (cite3)." because no attempt to present one statement as a conclusion of others is made. All statements are properly sourced, so it's not WP:OR. Still this "article" is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, which we don't want here. But the purpose of this policy isn't to prohibit such nonsensical article in here; there's another policy for that, which I've just linked to. So, the proposed change in wording separates the concerns, i.e. makes the policies more orthogonal. Pcap ping  17:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh... perhaps it is to early in the morning for me. I will re-read this section later. Chillum  16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the comparison, I do find the original version much easier to understand. Is it perfect, no... but I think it does a better job of explaining what the issue is than the proposal. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Blueboar, the current (original) version is better at explaining the issue and is easier to understand. Dreadstar  ☥  22:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I prefer the original too. The proposal doesn't clearly address the idea that each part is sourced correctly, but that the combination is OR. Marc: what is it about the current introduction to SYN that you find problematic? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin asks what I find problematic with the current introduction. I see that it needs extremely careful reading, pretty much at the wikilawyer level to understand it.


 * I believe it is beneficial to have a section of NOR that reinforces that the editor must not introduce unpublished arguments, conclusions, ideas, etc. in an article. It does not matter if those arguments/conclusions are constructed via analysis (or analysis), synthesis, fallacy, insanity, or some other method. I believe the first WP:SYN example is a good one as it shows how a factual statement from a source was modified into an argument.


 * I also believe it would be beneficial to remind editors to not include they see as logical conclusions... conclusions based upon reliable sources, but not actually made by any of the sources they cite. (this is from Blueboar 17:24, 3 September 2009 above)


 * I'm now starting to see that we should not use words like synthesis, analysis, fallacy, etc. in core policy. Policy should be accessible to a wide audience and needs to be as readable as possible. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * May I add to Marc's important remark about readability, when policy is discussed extensively here on this talk page, the terminology and concepts become familiar to the editors here. We should recognize that the typical reader of WP:NOR doesn't have that advantage. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Prefer the original version, per Blueboar. -- JN 466  12:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * May I also add, in the original version the explanation of the concept of synth is split up. There's most of the explanation, then the examples, then the short remaining part of the explanation at the end, where it can get lost. Marc's version puts all of the explanation at the beginning before the examples. Even if you disagree with other aspects of Marc's proposal, surely you can at least agree with this simple improvement, which is the Alternate proposal  in a previous section above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the current version. Given the choices, it is clearer and more to the point. When running into WP:SYN situations, which is all too common, I find it useful to be able to point to the basic "if A and B are individually well sourced, it doesn't mean you can juxtapose them to advance a conclusion C from them, unless C is also well sourced, and all sources must refer to the specific subject." I would also add that conclusion C needs specific sourcing whether it is directly stated or just implied by juxtaposition. Crum375 (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Crum375, What do you think about the part of Marc's proposal that has the examples following the explanation of SYNTH? Would that simple change be acceptable to you, i.e. the change mentioned in my previous message and suggested in the Alternate proposal  in a previous section above? It seems better than the current version because a small important part of the explanation doesn't get lost by being alone at the end of the WP:SYNTH section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current version, with the point about "summarizing existing sources is not OR" at the end is fine, but I don't see that order as crucial. I think the current UN example is too confusing as presented. Crum375 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Crum375, I personally had the experience awhile back of not noticing the "summarizing existing sources is not OR" paragraph because of its position alone after the complex example. So it can go unnoticed in its current position. The way it's positioned, it looks like part of the explanation of the second example and can make the reading less smooth too. In what I experienced, I was checking WP:SYNTH for some info. I looked at the first paragraph and since the example was next, I figured only the example remained in the section and I stopped reading, since I wasn't interested in the example at that time.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can live with it being higher up, though perhaps it could be shortened. This entire section is very wordy and confusing as it stands. Crum375 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "This entire section is very wordy and confusing as it stands." - Ain't that the truth. I think it's due to the examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The original version is superior, precisely because it provides these critical examples. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, people invariably say "but it's all sourced from reliable sources". I can't tell you how many times I've run into this problem; reliably sourced material being used to advance a position not found in any of the sources, or to make arguments on topics not actually addressed in the sources. If anything, we need more examples in the policy, not fewer. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that this section is probably the most difficult piece of Wiki-policy for the average editor to understand... not because we do a poor job of trying to explain it, but because the underlying concept is very complex. The line between source based research and sythesis is often blurred and hard for the average editor to figure out.  I think the examples help. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, you've said a true word there.  JN 466  21:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was playing with some new wording, read WP:SYN again, and now it makes sense to me... The wording I was working on was "Any arguments, conclusions, ideas, etc. in an article must be explicitly stated in reliable sources. Developing a new position in an article, even if it is based on reliable sources, is original research. ¶Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." That will also cover OR ideas developed by methods other than synthesis such as what's used in the first example. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Best practice?

 * As long as we are discussing the wording... I would like us to take a look at the "Best practice" line... Experienced editors know what the line means, but to a novice editor it may not be at all clear where the line between "best practice editing" and "synthesis" lies. The problem is that it is quite possible to take "material from different reliable sources on the topic, and put those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim" and still form an improper synthesis.
 * Thinking about this... I think the problem might be resolved if we swap paragraphs... put the one about good editing and best practice first... and then warn editors about forming a synthetic statement. Using the current language (with a minimum of tweeking) it would look like this:
 * Original research is often introduced to articles through synthesis. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
 * Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
 * Then give the examples. I think this clarifies the distinction. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that this can still be misinterpreted. Remember the (real-life) example presented some weeks ago (included as the first example in WP:ORIGINALSYN) about the activist who had called for a boycott of a company. An editor then added material to the effect that the sales figures and share price of the company dropped after the activist's boycott call. Crucially, neither of these sources mentioned the activist, or linked the drop in sales and share price to the activist's actions.
 * I am concerned that the above wording does not explain clearly enough what was wrong about what the editor did, as its leading statement seems to describe just what he did. We have heard editors defending SYN in this manner before, using the same phrasing: "But I took material from different reliable sources on the topic and put those claims on the page in my own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim, just like you say. And I did not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Because I did not explicitly say it was the activist's actions that caused the drop in sales, I just presented the attested facts and left it to the reader to draw their own conclusions."
 * That "not guilty" argument is precisely wrong, and I fear this reversal of the wording may encourage editors to use it. -- JN 466  23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I suggested that we reverse the paragraph order in part because I saw the current order encouraging exactly the same sort of error ... Perhaps the problem isn't the order... but that there is a flaw in our statement about best practice? Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably so. We need a way to define the point at which a juxtaposition of unrelated material becomes, or suggests, a novel conclusion. Basically, editors combine such material because they have come to a conclusion in their own minds. The editor in the boycott example felt, at the very least, that it was "interesting" that the company's sales and share price dropped after the boycott call. But the point is no source had said it was "interesting". The boycott call had no significance in secondary sources commenting about sales that year. Even if it were true that the activist's boycott call had something to do with the company's poor performance, Wikipedia should not be the first place where people can read about this.
 * In the past, we had addressed this by requiring that editors only cite sources that "directly refer to" or "directly mention" the article topic. That would have taken care of the boycott call example. We then changed this to sources that "are directly related to" the article topic. I remember Jayjg pointing out at the time that this opened a huge loophole – because in the editor's mind, there was a "direct relationship" between the boycott call and the drop in sales, even though the sources documenting the drop in sales did not mention the boycott call.
 * Perhaps a way to address this is that in all cases involving explicit or implicit conclusions that might be in any way contentious, the sources cited must directly mention the article topic, to ensure that Wikipedia is not the first place where a significant novel conclusion is published.  JN 466  12:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this concern covered by a saying not to state a "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't, because the editor never stated the conclusion that the boycott call had anything to do with the poor sales. They just said there was a boycott call, and then said that the company's sales were poor that year, citing a source that did not mention the boycott call.  JN 466  12:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example I discussed with SlimVirgin a while back was where a person widely accused of having lied about his achievements claimed to have commandeered a particular ship during their military career. An editor reported the claim in an article and added a sentence reporting the "interesting fact" that there was no ship of that name listed in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Obviously, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships did not mention the article subject. I felt adding this sentence was OR, because no RS could be found that had reported the discrepancy before Wikipedia, but SlimVirgin felt it was alright. It's these sorts of issues that are at stake here.
 * If we allow sources that do not mention the article topic, we have to find some way of clarifying which types of "interesting facts" are okay to mention and which ones are not.  JN 466  12:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I like your suggested wording. I think it makes things clearer.


 * Jayen, I agree with you in principle, but I wouldn't want to see SYN tightened even more. Although the example you gave above was arguably OR, it was also an interesting and relevant point that was added. The danger with tightening things even more is that we risk strangling an editor's ability to communicate his understanding of a topic. We do that a little anyway, and we have to do it somewhat, but we also need to allow some leeway. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the fundamental principle of Wikipedia was that we should communicate the understandings expressed in reliable sources, rather than the understanding of our editors. I'm wary that editors with limited subject matter expertise often come across facts that strike them as interesting and relevant, where an expert might readily recognise a fallacy, or have more detailed background knowledge that puts things in a different light. Surely we have all learned, if we are old enough, that some of the things which appeared quite logical to us and which we passionately believed in 10 or 25 years ago were based on partial information.
 * Taking the boycott case as an example, an expert might know that other retail companies had a bad pre-Christmas season as well that year -- there was a global economic crisis and share prices generally tumbled. That would explain why no sources linked the company's poor performance to the boycott call: it was unremarkable, conforming to the general market trend at the time. I think editors should resist the temptation to communicate their own hunches, findings and understandings, especially where these are based on "inspired" cross-connections drawn from extraneous sources, as in the boycott case, and concentrate instead on reviewing the best published sources that are focused directly on the specific article topic. On average, this will raise rather than lower the quality level of Wikipedia articles.
 * Looking at Blueboar's proposed wording, how about saying, "Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Make sure that you do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated ..." etc.  JN 466  16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, I'm not seeing a substantive difference in your proposal. For example, Blueboar says, "Do not, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." And you say, "Make sure that you do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Is there a real difference between "reach a conclusion" and "reach or suggest a conclusion"? I can see "suggest" is maybe a little weaker, but what would a real example of that difference be, in a WP context? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(This is my first, and maybe only, post in this thread.) I think Jayen's proposal is very nice. It fixes something that I have always thought was unfortunate about the present language here, which does not say that best practice actually includes doing any broad research of sources or even reading significant parts of them. Instead, the present language suggests cherry-picking facts out of numerous sources without regard for the topic as a whole. Jayen's version restores the proper order of events: first, do some general reading on the topic, taking note of what you see. Second, write the article, making sure it agrees with the things you read. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Carl, what do you see as the difference between Jayen's and Blueboar's? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase "researching the most reliable published sources focusing on the article topic"; that activity is not mentioned in Blueboar's version. If you asked me what the best practice is when writing articles, I would say: find the best sources on the topic, read them carefully to see what they say about it, and then write an article to accurately summarize what they say. This is true both in Wikipedia and in general life. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what I meant, and Carl said it very well: (1) the present language suggests cherry-picking facts out of numerous sources without regard for the topic as a whole; (2) best practice [is to] find the best sources on the topic, read them carefully to see what they say about it, and then write an article to accurately summarize what they say. We have articles on important topics – see e.g. our article on Nobel-Prize winner Doris Lessing (permalink) – where no one has done that research. As a result, the articles are just collections of cherry-picked facts, many of them of peripheral importance, while the real meat is missing. -- JN 466  22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What if we combined my proposal with Jayen's Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's good, though I'm a little worried about "suggest." I'd like to hear how broad the scope of that is intended to be. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point... we are talking about implied conclusions here (ie stating A and B in such a way that conclusion C is clearly implied, even if it is not actually stated)... So let's use the word we mean... "reach or imply a conclusion" would be a better way to phrase it (or "reach or clearly imply a conclusion" if we want some leeway). Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the combined version and that it use imply rather than suggest. Clearly imply has merit but but I can't see how it would help prevent or cause future battles over if something is implied in an article any more or less than just imply. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Imply" is fine with me. Also, personally I prefer it without the bold. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, –
 * What I proposed was meant to be combined with Blueboar's version in just the way Blueboar has done above.
 * The bold font was only meant to mark the differences between my version and Blueboar's.
 * I am fine with "imply". What I had in mind are cases like the boycott. Mentioning that (1) there was a boycott call in the run-up to Christmas and (2) the company experienced poor pre-Christmas sales avoids the charge of "reaching a conclusion", but it clearly implies such a conclusion. Unless such a connection is stated or implied in reliable sources, an editor should not change the article in this way either.
 * However, I do fear Bob below has a point about our using the word synthesis in the first sentence without explaining it.
 *  JN 466  22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you folks are performing organ transplants when the patient only needs minor surgery, and you're harming the patient. Yikes! You are using a term "synthesis" in the first paragraph without explaining what it is until the second paragraph and you didn't address the issue of synthesis of material from the same source. (Didn't SlimVirgin bring up the "same source" issue originally?) The following version modifies just the first sentence, addressing the "same source" issue, and moves the last paragraph to after the first paragraph. Note that we still have "synthesis" described before the term is used, which is the way of this and the current version.

== Synthesis of published material that advances a position ==

Do not combine material to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis&mdash;it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

(Examples) --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the basic rules here?
Hi Everyone. I've been lurking here for a while, trying to make sense of what the OR rule actually says. In the above discussions, I've noticed the disagreement over how restrictive or loose this rule should be, and over the best way to state the rule. I'd like to make a suggestion. (Although I know expertise holds no sway in Wikiland, I will mention that I am a professor who studies the law and behavior, specializing in how people deal with rules.)

I wondered how the law (at least in the US) would deal with the OR problem. After thinking about it a bit, I think I am able to boil this whole thing down into two simple rules (and one exception):

RULE 1: Any assertion of fact must be verifiable by a reliable source.

This rule basically overlaps with WP:V (as does much of the existing OR rule), and simply says that all fact are to be verifiable. No exceptions. (The law would also take the time to define what a "fact" is, which, in our case, would be a statement that explicitly or implicitly presents "true" information.)

RULE 2: Any inferences derived from facts must be attributable to a reliable source.

This second rule basically means that any commentary, explanation, insight, or other inference must not be that of the editor, but rather of some other entity that can be verified. The rule also implies the inference should be attributed to it's source, and not stated plainly so as to suggest that the inference is a fact (e.g., According to _____....).

EXCEPTION: Inferences derived through formal logic (e.g., mathematical transformation) are acceptable.

This exception is likely to cause some worry among some of you. In my impression of what the OR rule is supposed to do (as someone else put it "to keep crackpot theories off of WP"), some information may be perfectly acceptable, but would be excluded by the above rules. I propose that the inference "Alice Walton is 5th on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, and if numbers 1-4 are all males, and if Alice Walton is a female, then Alice Walton is the wealthiest female in America" is acceptable. In cases where formal logic leads to one and only one possible conclusion (which, for the most part involves math equations), I suggest that WP allow the info to be stated. (Perhaps with a footnote.)

Anyway, I thought I'd just throw out my version for your consideration. -Nick<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#FF9900;">talk 04:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd trim rule 2 to "Any inferences must be attributable to a reliable source." That removes wiggle room for secondary inferences and may be a good nutshell summary of the NOR page. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, rule 3 ("exception") is not right. The original and fundamental goal of the NOR policy is to prevent people from adding unpublished/crank/crackpot theories to Wikipedia (for example, new theories of physics and mathematics). It is too time-consuming to read the often-poor exposition of these theories to find the errors, and the most persistent authors will not accept the flaws in their reasoning if those flaws are pointed out. So we adopted a different policy: it makes no difference if a new theory is correct or incorrect, if it has not appeared in the literature.


 * So if we added an exception that all "logically-correct" deductions are acceptable, it would nullify the purpose of the NOR policy. What is more accurate is that deductions that do not go beyond the spirit of the published literature are OK. Your example about wealthy women is fine, for example, as long as you attribute it to Forbes ("Jane Doe is the wealthiest woman on Forbes' list [3]"). Deductions that do not materially extend or change the literature, but merely explain what it says, are common and accepted. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the only reason for NOR is to keep crackpot ideas out... it is to keep all original deduction, analisis and conclusions out... even the ones that are sane and perfectly logical. The excpetion for numerical computation was included to allow for BASIC things like converting kilometers into miles. The exception is not based on the fact that such calculations are logical, but because they are BASIC and will be helpful for our readers.  Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "only" and "crackpot"; I said "original and fundamental" and "unpublished/crank/crackpot",. See e.g. the version from December 21, 2003, which relies on the text on "primary research" that was in WP:NOT about the time. The reason that "whether it's true or not" is in bold there is because the point of the then-new policy was to avoid the need to disprove crackpot theories in order to remove them (disproving them is hard if they are written in a poor way and the creator is tendentious). The mailing list post from which Jimbo's famous quote was taken is part of a longer thread about minority views in the article on special relativity.


 * Since the page was created, the actual text of WP:NOR has drifted quite a bit, to the point that by 2005 WP:NOR was already a rephrasing of WP:V in more complicated language . But we still have little difficulty, in practice, with "original" deductions that don't materially extend the published literature nor advocate a controversial position. The difficulty is entirely with things that either attempt to materially extend the literature (e.g. by introducing materially new theories) or advocate controversial positions for which there is not support in the literature. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of my interest in OR came from the fact that there are instances in which a piece of information might be verifiable, neutral, notable, and generally useful to our readers, yet be prohibited under OR. The "exception" I wrote above was my attempt to create a rule the allowed both basic math and the sort of examples I gave above (and the ones in my now archived question from a few weeks ago). As Carl says above, these are things that "do not materially extend the published literature" (which is a very good way to put it). Perhaps in these instances it might be best to cite WP:Ignore All Rules. And, Marc, I agree that the second rule should be trimmed. -Nick<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#FF9900;">talk 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had this discussion before, but I find the use of the word "fact" to be dangerous. WP does not publish facts, it only publishes information that is attributable to a reliable source. Angryapathy (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a common maxim, but of course it is not the entire story. Our mission is to create an encyclopedia, and that carries with it a certain burden of correctness. We cannot blindly write whatever we want while ignoring sources, but we also cannot ignore what we already know and trust sources blindly. Fortunately, there is no reason that we have to do either of those things. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I had thought of the "fact" issue brought up by angryapathy, which is why I was careful to state "assertion of fact" instead of just "fact". I would assume that WP would only be interested in items that are believed to be true, and I also assume that most WP readers take it on good faith that we at least try to present only truthful information. -Nick<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#FF9900;">talk 20:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick... please be careful with termiology... If you have not done so, read WP:V, which states: "The threshold for inclusion is Verifiablility not Truth." We don't actually care whether information is considered "True" or "False" (because different sources often disagree on that point), we instead focus on whether it is "Verifiable"... which on Wikipedia means "Reliably published somewhere other than Wikipedia"... so, if a piece of information is verifiable, that means it has been published somewhere other than Wikipedia... and if this is the case, the piece of information can't be OR. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What I think Nick was saying, if we ignore the loaded word "true", is that it is inherent in being an "encyclopedia" that our articles are correct in the sense normally associated with that word. What we really want is for our articles to be both correct and verifiable; either alone is insufficient. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the word you are reaching for is word is "accurate"... rather than "true" or even "correct" (which can also be a loaded word). If you are saying that information in our articles needs to be both "verifiable" and "presented accurately", I would agree. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.
No matter how many sources or citations one includes in adding to content, the converse of the subject/headline is always true. (That is "Wikipedia does publish original research or original thought.") At some point there was original research and original thought. It is humanly impossible to publish otherwise. So the entire premise of "no original research" is a lie. And non-truth is currently supported by the verifiability policy. Then, neutral point of view is automatically violated as policy, due to human error in writing an outright lie and allowing its support. Is there any concensus here to correct the error of policy? Edward Palamar (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Original" applies only to the person adding text to Wikipedia; as long as the originality of thought is removed one step from WP (and of course considered reliable) then there's no violation. --M ASEM (t) 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One step, two steps - the actual publishing contains original thought. Why are the two uses of the word "original" not either placed in quotes and redefined, or have citations of their own, to make the sentence as printed a non-lie? Edward Palamar (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify... What we mean is that information appearing in Wikipedia should not be the original thought of the editor who adds it. To put it another way: Wikipedia should not be the original venue of publication for information (this last statement, or something similar, used to be in the policy, we should probably re-add it).  If information is previously published elsewhere, it did not originate with the Wikipedian who added it; Wikipedia is not the original venue of publication. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your second point is correct, but not necessarily the first. We do allow an editor to publish his original thought on Wikipedia if it has already been published in a reliable source elsewhere. So the point of originality, as you say, is that Wikipedia should not be the original publisher of the material. Crum375 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK... I stand corrected. Information appearing in Wikipedia should not be the original thought of the edtior who adds it UNLESS it has been previously published elsewhere (in a reliable source).  The rest stands.
 * What do people think about adding: Wikipedia should not be the original venue of publication for information? Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we do allow some types of original information, such as self-made drawings, diagrams, photos, audio or video recordings, etc. So it's not quite that strict. Crum375 (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true. But let's face it. The term "original research" is a misnomer. What is meant is unpublished research or facts.


 * It's interesting that if it was properly named in the beginning, we would just as easily be talking about UR instead of OR, and there would be less confusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: self-made drawings, diagrams, photos etc. Not quite... read the section on user-created images again... if the information presented in the drawing constitutes OR, we don't allow it.  What we do allow is a user-created image that visually depicts information that has been reliably published elsewhere.  It is a visual equivalent of an editor summarizing information from a reliable source into their own words.  The image may be original... but the information is not. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That may sound good in theory, but is not what happens in practice. Photos depict tons of new information not in any published text, and diagrams and drawings, or Wikipedian-made "computer renderings", have lots of unsourced details. You could start arguing about major issues, but the more minor ones are not worth the debating time and energy. As bottom line, all those allowed things introduce new material. Crum375 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a problem. We've discussed maps of genetic distribution, where an editor may cherrypick from published source from different times, even using the sources incorrectly, and it's really hard to disentangle such maps. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, identifying OR can sometimes be a problem. But the difficulty in identifying OR is not (and should not be) a license to violate NOR. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this flaw in Wikipedia policy, that is the stated lie "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." is conducive to violations of which I have been accused falsely (i.e. - what goes around, comes around), the actuality of what the rest of you seem to imply is - "An editor can only copy and paste another's writing." This statement uses 52 characters compared to 65 found in the lie. With all due respect to Wikipedia's efforts to have a comprehensive encyclopedia inclusive to contributions by anyone, there should be a similar practice of ethics in valueing anyone who may read it. None of you have seriously looked at the statement to the point of seeing how damaging it already is, else you wouldn't be trying to defend it. Edward Palamar (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Edward, I think you fail to see that while the wording of "No original research" may not reach your standards, editors are aware of the practical implications of the rule itself. You are defining "original research" to mean "research that originated somewhere," which yes, the wording can be taken that way.  But your interpretation makes "original research" redundant; if something is "unoriginal research," what does that mean?  That it is research copied from other research?  However, the vast majority of editors see "original research" to be unpublished or otherwise unverified research.  And that is the consensus, and thus is the rule for WP.  Wiki-lawyering the wording of a specific rule of guideline isn't going to turn over a long line of history of editting under the guideline.  WP is not like legislation; just because a word or phrase can be taken in two different directions does not overturn or change a rule.

In sum, the consensus definition for original research/thought is different than yours. While you may dislike the wording, the importance is the spirit of the guideline and the consensus behind it. Angryapathy (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Original research" is a confusing term that we're stuck with. As I mentioned, it should have been called "Unpublished research".


 * As to Edward's other point, the last paragraph of WP:SYNTH helps avoid the misapplication of NOR, but unfortunately, it is located in a place where it can easily be overlooked. I had a hard time finding it when I needed to refer to it, and perhaps some of you had similar experiences. There is a proposal to improve its location. Please see Alternate proposal  in a previous section above and add your comments there. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Analysis:

Wikipedia has written a sentence including the statement that it does not publish original thought, that is, what one would normally assume to be mental activity within the mind of a man.

In order for any words formulated from the mental activity to be verbalized, orally or in writing, there needs to be Grace, a source of strength, to overcome the inability of man to control his tongue. Man, without Grace, in the basic condition of a being doomed to die, is incapable of survival on his own, hence he has lost the ability to control his tongue, including thought. The enlightenment of the mind with Grace permits both the ability to think and to verbalize those thoughts. Any editor inside or outside of Wikipedia was under these bounds, the enlightenment due to Christ's Redemption being the release from original sin (inclusive to said bounds). If we take the use of 'original' as in 'original thought' to be thought before being enlightened, we would have to be alive before the time of Christ's Redemption, or we would have to reject Him willfully. In terms of free thought, to reject Him willfully would be a violation of neutral point of view. And as we who are alive are not alive before the time of Christ, the use of 'original' must refer to something else after Christ's Salvific work. As it is humanly impossible to verbalize without thought, 'original thought' can only refer to thought originating in a specific person or persons after Christ's coming. The thought is necessary to verbalize, so in this it remains intact as a consistent whole to the end of an auditory (oral) verbalization or of a written (published) message. For whatever reason one chooses to advocate the cutting off of the necessary thought to the end of publication does not change the fact that the thought is still present in the publication. Hence, it is not an issue of the wording of the sentence, it is the content and its implications.

There is not enough data to make the statement concerning consensus definition, Angryapathy. There are billions of people, with only eight showing. Also, I haven't failed in seeing anything as regards the sentence as quoted. Even if one only copies and pastes from another's writing, one has to think while doing it, original thought. Anything with more effort requires more thought, more original thought. When one selects "Save Page" one is publishing, even more original thought. And one has had to do original research to "Save Page". And unless one becomes brain dead while saving the page, there still is original research being put into publishing. But most importantly, there is no spirit in a lie. "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." is much better as it allows, if necessary, some positive group interaction. Edward Palamar (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Edward, we don't need to consult with billions, we have eight here, and now nine when I press [Save Page]. The consensus reached is among the nine of us. Hundreds may be lurking but WP:SILENCE applies. Also, consensus can change at any time. You have commented on the issues surrounding the words "no original research." What words do you recommend be used instead of "no original research?" --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In place of "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." This would allow for a prophet/prophetess to prove him/herself rather than striking the prophet/prophetess with a lie. Edward Palamar (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that but as it's very close to the previous wording I took a look to see why it was added and then removed. Here's the previous wording at the time it was added 13 September 2007 (talk page) and removed 17 Dec 2007 (talk page). The talk page links are the section in the talk page related to the change at the instant the change was made.
 * Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. no original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
 * Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
 * It looks like both the addition and removal were for clarity rather than to deal with specific issues. I prefer the 2007 wording (final version) over the new proposal as it seems easier to understand. It'll be the very first sentence in NOR. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of clarity, it is best not to repeat the word(s) which one is trying to define in the definition. "Wikipedia should not be the original venue for publication." is not close to the lie as exposed in this : the putting of a sword into man between mind and work in "original thought" carries over as the same for "original research". And in both occurences, "original thought" and "original research", it constitutes assault. It is better to define "No original research" as a policy without the absolute, i.e., the use of "should", to allow for editors to place material they feel is correct and of benefit to everyone else, not in defiance, but to improve Wikipedia. There is always the discussion page to iron out things. Edward Palamar (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe, based on the edits that Edward had been blocked for, that this argument mainly focuses around Edward trying to get around the policy of only including information that can be cited from reliable sources. This is one of the cores of WP, as people often wish to publish their ideas straight to Wikipedia without having any sort of fact-checking; Wikipedia is an appealing venue as it can be editted by anyone and is extremely popular. However, I highly doubt that this policy will ever change to allow anyone to post their unchecked thoughts and opinions on WP. This would destroy the reference ability and credibility of this site. Also, while Edward seems to be focusing on the title of, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought," any sort of confusion that may arise from that statement is explained by reading the rest of the article, which clarifies what those two terms mean. Angryapathy (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AH... Edward has been blocked for repeatedly adding OR? That explains his insistance that the policy is "a lie" and "flawed".  And don't worry Angryapathy... this policy may get tweeked and even majorly re-worked from time to time, but the fundamental principle behind it isn't going to change... it is (as you say) a core policy. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the good reasons to refute a lie, is to counter the damage it may have already done. Angryapathy, you tried to give spirit to a lie, yet in your belief, as stated, you reject a reliable source. You have also stated elsewhere here that WP does not publish facts. Now that statement is correct only under the assumption that everyone else enjoys the placing of a sword between a man's mind and a man's work. The lie you support seems to me to continue to wreak havoc with more lies. Edward Palamar (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, you don't have to agree with the policy... but you do have to follow it if you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, Blueboar. As to introducing the block issue here, there is already a place for addressing that. The meaning of "no original research" has been defined in licit terms. Edward Palamar (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

While I would love to continue this disucssion, I think it is a moot point since the policy is explicit in that information must come from a reliable source and be verifiable. The sentence that Edward is questioning is basically a "header", where further explanation of the guideline/rule follows. If Edward has information that fits this criteria, he can add it. Angryapathy (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The boundaries of OR?
If I claim that 777 &times; 286 = 222222 without citing a source, is that "OR"? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it isn't, if presented merely as a claim about arithmetic. We have a relatively well-established practice regarding the use of calculations such as that, and more complex ones as well. Did some more specific situation come up? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, what if it's merely an algebraic identity that anyone can easily check in a few seconds, such as the following?
 * $$\begin{align}

\left(a^2 + b^2\right)\left(c^2 + d^2\right) & {}= \left(ac-bd\right)^2 + \left(ad+bc\right)^2 \ \qquad\qquad(1) \\ & {} = \left(ac+bd\right)^2 + \left(ad-bc\right)^2.\qquad\qquad(2) \end{align}$$ Or a trigonmetric identity, such as this?:
 * $$ \sec(\theta_1 + \cdots + \theta_n) = \frac{\sec\theta_1 \cdots \sec\theta_n}{e_0 - e_2 + e_4 - \cdots} $$
 * where ek is the kth-degree elementary symmetric polynomial in the n variables xi = tan &theta;i, i = 1, ..., n, and the number of terms in the denominator depends on n.
 * where ek is the kth-degree elementary symmetric polynomial in the n variables xi = tan &theta;i, i = 1, ..., n, and the number of terms in the denominator depends on n.

That one might take more than a minute, but it's just a secondary-school exercise. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think OR using BASIC (grade school level) math... simple multiplication, division, addition and subtraction of numbers is OK. But I would draw the line there.  If you have to use algebraic or trigonometric calculation (even if fairly simple) you need a source. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No and yes. See WP:NOR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The algebraic identity shown above is just a routine calculation of which there are too many to count in Wikipedia; we do not have any problem with such calculations in practice, and they do not violate the OR policy. The secant example is more questionable, especially without any context to help. I would be more concerned about its accessibility and clarity than its originality.


 * In the end, the spirit of the OR policy is to keep crackpot theories off Wikipedia, not to stop people from writing clear explanations of standard material. The more obvious it is that something is just a neutral explanation of standard material, the less problem anyone can have with it. For example, if multiple textbooks make the same sort of calculation, including it on WP does not violate any policy, even if the form used here is not identical to the form used elsewhere. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If something is just a routine textbook calculation, then it should be easy to cite a source, and citing a source is better for article stability. Problems arise if an editor says, "But this is the same as so-and-so," and they can't cite a reliable published source that says so.
 * To be honest, I don't care if it can be shown on the talk page that mathematically some A equates to B. If no source has bothered to point that out before, then we'd be the first to do so, and that is original research, whether it's correct or not. That's not our business; our business is summarising what reliable sources have said about a topic, presenting viewpoints and statements in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources.  JN 466  11:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't equate originality of presentation with originality of content. Of course, whenever there are serious objections to something, we remove it. But "it wasn't written exactly that way in any book" is not an objection about original research. Unless we are going to make articles consisting of entirely direct quotes, paraphrasing and original writing will always be necessary. In the context of mathematics, that may include rephrasing algebraic deductions as well as rephrasing prose, because algebraic deductions are part of the language that is used to communicate mathematics. I am speaking here with a great deal of experience with both good and bad mathematics articles on WP, experience cleaning up mathematical OR and experience with articles that have original content that is not OR. There is actually a relatively clear line between unacceptable and acceptable content in mathematics articles, but that line will not be easily found by exploring the text of the page WP:NOR as it is currently written, because the present language is written with a very different set of articles in mind. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with the with the above the above paragraph of CBM. Pcap ping  16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to be losing the point of having OR in the first place. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Obviously we want it to be of high quality, and to do so we require contents to be supported by reliable sources with the hope that the quality of the sources translates to that of Wikipedia. In other words, OR is only "the means to the end". If some math examples didn't appear in exactly the same way in any source, it could be, strictly speaking, considered "synthetic". But what is the harm? What is wrong with OR isn't because it is "original" but because OR materials tend to be unverifiable or are incredible claims. Simply saying "synthesis" is wrong is very wrong: it has to take this context into account. Otherwise we get a silly situation that many math examples are judged synthetic and are subject to deletion. -- Taku (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone objects to an editor making up an example, as long as equivalent examples (same structure, but different figures for example) are used in reliable sources.  JN 466  13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are usually issues other than originality that are more compelling. Examples that are written in a way that does not make them obviously right are probably not written well, and probably will not help the intended audience of the article. Once the examples are clarified and simplified to be appropriate for the average reader, it is usually very clear which ones are "standard" and which ones are not. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. This was a problem I tried to point to & start a conversation about with my draft of Wikipedia:These are not original research, specifically:

My intent was to close off points of contention whose only purpose was to wikilawyer over statements otherwise perfectly acceptable to an average reader -- tendentious editing. For example, no one needs to provide a source for the statement "X is a town in the country of Y" if all of the population statistics is taken from the government statistical office of Y -- an intelligent reader will be able to deduce that fact. Responding directly to Michael Hardy's example above, we assume readers can perform basic mathematical calculations -- or have a calculator at hand. However, we do not expect them to perform integral calculus because most Wikipedia users do not know how to do this. (Where we should draw the line in this discipline -- & others -- has never been discussed to my knowledge.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your province example ... we know Biarritz is in the Basque Country, and we know that the Basque Country is an autonomous region of Spain; ergo, Biarritz is in Spain, right? ;) The point remains, if there is any contention, as there often is in geography, an editor needs a source that makes the direct statement "Biarritz is a city in Spain". Failing that, it goes.  JN 466  21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing from a patent
Is a patent considered a primary source? I notice it is NOT listed in the examples of primary sources as of 10 Sep 2009: "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples 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; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." I would like to develop a consensus on whether is it okay to add the word "patent" to the "Other examples..." list in the page. My PROPOSAL is to add patent to the list. What do others think? N2e (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is safe enough to treat patents as primary sources, but they are used so rarely as sources overall that I don't think it is worth adding them as an example. That same would be true, for example, for product packaging. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that patents are primary sources (being written by the creator of the item patented)... but I see no need to add them to the list. The items on the list are mearly examples, and the list is not exhaustive.
 * Note... If you are trying to omit a reference to a patent, thinking that this policy says Primary sources can not be used... please re-read the policy. It actually says Primary sources MAY be used... as long as we do so with caution. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer the OP - Patents are generally primary sources though I've seem some evaluative explanations of prior art that would qualify as a secondary source for the prior art. As for adding it to the list of primary sources, I'd say "no" as the primary source nature of patents is fairly intuitive. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, got it. CONSENSUS (at least to this point):  Patents are generally primary sources, may be used (with caution), and 'No, we should not add patents to the list of examples in the WP:NOR article. Thanks everone for weighing in. N2e (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that an important characteristic of primary sources is that they tend not to have been checked for accuracy. Haven't patents been checked for accuracy by at least a patent examiner, and perhaps others at the patent office? That seems to have aspects similar to refereeing by a peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps patents are more like journal articles, rather than primary sources, with respect to reliability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope... I can invent a machine that I claim turns lead into gold, the patent office will ask about how it works to determine if the process is a) too commonly known to warrent a pattent, b) clearly based on a process or machine that is already under patent by someone else... but the one thing they don't do is check to see if my machine actually does what I claim it does...ie they don't check to see if it actually turns lead into gold. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless it's perpetual motion. But yeah, a patent is raw information and data, so it is very much primary source. Angryapathy (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is an even better example than my "turn lead into gold" one... there are any number of perpetual motion machines that have been patented over the years. So far, none actually work as claimed. Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you're not aware of an important requirement for an invention to be patentable: usefulness.
 * "The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be 'useful.' The term 'useful' in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent."
 * I agree that some useless patents do get patented since the system is not perfect. I suppose one can say the same for some refereed journal articles. But both journal articles and patent applications are checked. There is an effort to check the patent for usefulness by the patent office by looking at the explanation of the invention and seeing if it makes sense. They don't try to build the invention and test it, but then scientific journals don't try to set up an experiment and take data  to verify the data in a scientific paper. But the patent application and submitted scientific paper  are both checked  as to whether they are reasonable.  Whereas primary sources are "raw" and unchecked.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That's not quite true. Primary sources are not necessarily raw and unchecked. A reporter on the scene of an accident can have her article published, and we will consider it a primary source, because she was close to the event she's describing. At the newspaper, prior to publishing, the article would have undergone a copy edit and perhaps a legal review, and maybe other types of scrutiny. It's still primary, due to closeness. In other words, 'primary' on WP does not equate to crude, unchecked or raw information, just information which is close to the source. In the case of a patent, it does undergo quite a bit of scrutiny. Typically, after the inventor there may be the patent lawyer reviewing and possibly modifying, then the patent examiner, and sometimes others. There may be some give and take, and the final version would be a result of input from several sources (sometimes even courts if there is subsequent litigation). Often the review of the prior art is fairly broad and well sourced, and can be considered 'secondary' (due to distance plus multiple independent reliable sources reviewing it), while the specific invention would generally be primary (due to distance). In summary, primary vs. secondary hinges on distance, not 'crudeness', and patents (in general) would be primary for the specific invention, and possibly secondary for the prior art review. Crum375 (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I suppose we really have to say "It depends"... if a Patent is checked for some types of information but not for for other information, they are one of those things that stradle the line between Primary and Secondary. For OR purposes, we are probably better off treating them as if they were solidly Primary... ie, yeah, they can be used ... but use caution because they can be misused. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should steer clear of interpreting the primary material, such as the claims, or the disclosure of the invention, unless they are clear and non-controversial. In general, they are not as a reliable a source as an article in a reputable mainstream publication. But they are scrutinized by independent parties, so they are better than someone's web page or blog. Like any primary source (which the bulk of a patent typically is), they have to be used sparingly (if at all) and with great care. Ideally, they should be added on top of other secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Crum375, But couldn't the same criteria of "closeness" apply to a scientist who submits the results of his experiment to a peer-reviewed journal? The journal checks the paper and the patent office checks the patent.   So, just as a journal article isn't considered a primary source,  a patent wouldn't be considered a primary source either.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of a scientific paper, it typically consists of two distinct components: the observed data, which is primary, and the background, analysis and conclusions, which are secondary. The scientist takes herself farther from the raw data when she analyzes the results, compares them to the history, the theory and other people's published results, etc. If it's purely a description of the raw experiment, with no background, analysis, comparisons, perspectives, conclusions, then it would be primary, but that rarely gets published in a scientific journal. Crum375 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again its similar with a patent. The applicant has to give background that describes the state of art of the field, compare the invention to existing devices, etc. The applicant doesn't just give the diagram of the invention, just like the scientist doesn't give just the raw data. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some limited similarities between a scientific paper and a published patent. But a patent does not describe a scientific experiment; it claims a novel device or method to accomplish something, with no scientific proof. So there is (generally) no "raw data", nor analysis thereof. There is normally a review of the background of the invention, which can be used (carefully) as a secondary source for that general topic. But when it comes to the invention proper, it's essentially all primary material, all we can use it for is to repeat what it says, with no interpretation. So overall, scientific papers and patents are very different animals. Crum375 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me add that my own main use of patents on Wikipedia is as a useful research tool to discover more sources and to get more perspective on the topic. Using this information it's often possible to find more valid scientific sources which can serve as the main sources for the article. Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * re "But a patent does not describe a scientific experiment; it claims a novel device or method to accomplish something, with no scientific proof." - That's the case for many secondary sources that don't furnish proof, scientific or otherwise. Isn't the important characteristic of secondary sources that someone, other than the person who originates the information, has determined that the info is worth publishing?    That's the case for patents.    So they are secondary sources, submitted by the inventor, checked by the patent office and published. As I mentioned, the system isn't perfect, but neither are the systems for publishing info in other secondary sources.
 * I think you may be conflating unrelated issues. The "furnishing of proof" is not a criterion for a reliable and verifiable source on WP. That someone has determined that something is worthy of publication, is not a distinguishing feature between primary, secondary or tertiary sources. You can have a tertiary source which is me summarizing my knowledge about a topic on my website, referring to multiple secondary sources, yet nobody has vetted my article and thus it would fail WP:V, despite its being a tertiary source. Conversely, many primary sources can be well vetted and published by highly respected organizations and still only be primary. Again, primary, secondary and tertiary WP sources are distinguished by their distance from the raw data, not necessarily their quality or accuracy, or degree of vetting. Patents are vetted in a very limited fashion, with the focus on whether the invention is novel enough to merit a patent, not whether it "works", although there is a minimal sanity check for reasonableness (e.g. no perpetual motion patents allowed). Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Out of chronological order) Actually, it was you that brought up the aspect of "proof". I was only trying to respond to your point. Seems like the discussion is getting a bit chaotic. Maybe it's time to end it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "Let me add that my own main use of patents on Wikipedia is as a useful research tool to discover more sources and to get more perspective on the topic." - Then perhaps it would be helpful if you chose one of those patents as an example to show the type of problem that you are concerned with and how that misinformation might be adversely used in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is general: we may not interpret or analyze primary source material as Wikipedians, and must have someone else (i.e. a reliable verifiable source) do that for us. So we may be able to use the patent's background section to source the fact that prior to that invention, nobody else had done it, but we should avoid analyzing the specific invention based on the disclosure or claims (except in very general terms) because it would inevitably lead to interpreting primary material. Overall, dealing with primary material is tricky and should be avoided wherever possible, except when supplementing secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want you disappointed (as you mentioned in your removed comment), so here is a recent article I wrote which has a key patent which I tried to avoid as a source (but ended up using carefully). And here is a much older article, very contentious, which ended up in a big ArbCom case, which had a key patent described as an "example of high weirdness". I prefer not to delve into these specifics, however, because I think the key points in this discussion are very general. Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Crum... you said something that I think needs clarifying... that "we may not interpret or analyze primary source material as Wikipedians"... what you say is true, but it is true for ALL sources, not just Primary source material. We can not interpret or analyze secondary or tertiary source material either.  Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have three secondary sources, for example, addressing an issue, you may summarize or explain them in your own words, and provide the reference to the sources. If you have three primary sources for a topic, however, you should generally not summarize or explain them in your own words, unless the issue is very straight-forward and non-controversial. In other words, you have more leeway summarizing and explaining secondary (and tertiary) sources than primary sources, which should generally be reported verbatim. Adding profound analysis or interpretation, which is not specifically mentioned in any of the sources, even secondary or tertiary, would violate WP:NOR or WP:SYN, and should always be avoided. One crucial problem with primary sources is the easy way to abuse them by cherry-picking parts to enhance one POV and ignoring others, which would violate WP:NPOV. This problem would be reduced (but not eliminated) by using a secondary or tertiary source, which does the selection for us. Crum375 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

After the first three comments to my question which started this section, it appeared that we might have a consensus on the matter of whether or not we should add "patents" to the list of examples in the WP:NOR policy as it exists today; tentative consensus was looking to be "No". After that point however, there has been a great deal of discussion and debate about the nature of using patents as sources at all. However that debate ends, I do believe the strong opinions expressed probably argue FOR addressing the issue of patents explicitly in the NOR article -- whether we choose to add them to the list of examples of sources that are (generally) primary sources, or address them some other way. So I am withdrawing my earlier attempt at summarizing the consensus. I now think that we should work to develop a consensus such that we can explicitly address patents in the NOR policy. N2e (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that raises the question... Why do we need to explicitly address patents in the NOR policy? Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)