Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 5

Original research or novel idea
Someone should point out that the theory of no original research, here displayed, is unpublished or, that is, is synthetic original research or a novel idea. However, what I just wrote was such as well, and thus should be by this law removed. It's just funny; I'm not being a dick.--Tyler Nash 08:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Making a phone call?
This policy is extremely text-oriented. Am I to understand that calling Boston City Hall to get the current population or names of the current city council members, etc., is not allowed as it this would not be a "published" source? It is arguably verifiable, whether or not WP:V thought to include anything besides print. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith, that's original research; anything they told you over the phone would not be useable, because readers couldn't check what had been said. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I find that illogical. A city government office, as a source, is far more verifiable in the long term than over half the web pages in existence, seeing as how so many seem to disappear over time. Likewise, a TV show (presuming this counts as a published medium) is difficult to verify unless you happen to have it taped or can find someone who does. Why is WP tied to print and TV as material? How is making a phone call to an authoritative source any different from reading a book by an authoritative source? - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 19:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's hearsay, but it's not original research and this isn't a legal court. A reader wishing to check could call the city and get the same information.  This is, presumably, the same kind of information you could get from the research desk at any decent library. For a cite, you wouldn't want to cite the library or city clerk.  The research librarian or city clerk looked it up somewhere, ask for THAT information as well, and cite it.  Now, if an editor decided to conduct their own census of Boston and use Wikipedia to publish the results: that is original research.  SchmuckyTheCat 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's original research because by making the phone call, you're making yourself a source that only you yourself can be sure of. If you were to get the results of the phone call professionally published, then it could be included as a vetted source.  Coyoty 03:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Making a phone call and regurgitating the contents of the discussion doesn't make you a source any more than reading a book and regurgitating the contents of its pages. You're not the source, the book is. Likewise, you're not the source, the person on the other end of the phone is. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And how would anyone wanting to look up this information do so? What would you tell them the source is? If it's not printed anywhere but in your head or what you write, then you are the source, and unless you are professionally published, you cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. We can't just take your word that something is so. It has to be professionally published and cited.  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And how would anyone wanting to look up this information do so? Pick up the phone? Start with the phone book? What would you tell them the source is? "City Clerk's Office, Townsville City Hall." This argument is ridiculous. A contact with an official authority is at least as verifiable and reliable as something printed or produced, even from an esteemed origin. No definition of "source" requires that it be written or otherwise packaged. Sources are also live. Why is talking to an official human any different than talking to an official web page or an official book? - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In an article or book published by someone, citing to a conversation they had or a letter or e-mail they received is possible (the date and "on file with the author" or "on file with (the publication)" usually appears). It's more problematic for an encyclopedia, particularly I think for Wikipedia given the anonymity of the contributors.  If Wikipedia does have a way to make such citations, it should be identified in policy.  If there's a way to do it in a responsible manner (e.g. other encyclopedias do it and Wikipedia's constributors' anonymity is not a factor) and it can be written into policy, I've no objection. Esquizombi 02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am not anonymous, but it's irrelevant. If I say I called Townsville City Hall and got information, anyone else in the world can call Townsville City Hall and verify the information within at most 2-3 days if not right away. This is a damn sight better than the average printed or broadcast media in terms of practical verifiability. I could say I saw the number on a documentary about Townsville, which may not even exist. It'll be hard to prove me wrong unless one can definitively prove that such a documentary does not exist. But the existence of Townsville City Hall can be reliably determined. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * what? there is no "research" involved in asking something from a reference desk.  and, as I said, whoever you ask probably has something they are looking up in something that IS ALREADY PUBLISHED, and you can ask them what that was.  Even without that information, if you cite and say "the city clerk of Podunk, MA says the population is 523" then that isn't original research, you're reporting what someone else said.  a government official should be reliable, and anyone else can call the same number and ask the same question.  It's preposterous to call this original research.  unless you went and personally compiled this information yourself, it can not be original research. SchmuckyTheCat 05:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Schmucky, it clearly fits within our definition of OR. If you ask the clerk something and he refers you to a published source, and you use that published source, your edit isn't OR. But if he simply tells you something over the phone (that there are X number of residents in a certain area) and you use the contents of that conversation as your sole source, it's OR, by definition. Your sources have to be in the public domain so that anyone can check them. The content of your telephone conversation is not in the public domain. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You can keep saying that but if that's the case then what people now consider OR is so far off-base from the way this policy was intended that it's meaningless. By making the call does teh editor create new information?  No.  Is it a novel interpretation of the existing information?  No.  So then it rests on verifiability.  We can agree to disagree about a verifiability problem, but it's not "research".  In the meantime, I continue to do this exact thing.  SchmuckyTheCat 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you took the initiative to make a phone call to get information that is not set down in a publication that you can point to and say, "I got it there," and not "This guy told me so," then it's original research. [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can point to a person, and say "I got it there". And I can point to a book and say "This book told me so". You chose different wordings, but that doesn't make the concepts as different as you'd like to impress upon me. I'm still unconvinced, and am surprised this wasn't a major point of controversy when this policy was formed. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Coyoty, you miss the point. In principle, one could give the coordinate of the governmental office, address, phone number, etc. as the source. The question is only whether or not a governemental office can be a source. If yes, then the coordinate (address, phone number, etc.) ofthis office can be cited. In principle, the policy could accept that, but it doesn't. -Lumière 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The terminology "original research" can be misleading. I do not propose to change it, but it is useful to realize that it can be misleading. The point of possible confusion is that some material might not require any research at all and yet be "original research" in accordance with the policy. Yes, it is true that the original intention of the policy was to exclude original research (with its usual meaning), but it has evolved into something more general. For example, if without any research at all I come up with a strange idea and try to include it in an article without having any source to provide, even though no research at all was involved, it is "original reseach".  So, the informatiom obtained through a phone call might not be a research, but yet if I include this information in a WP article, it is original research if no published source is provided.  It maybe that it is very different from the original intention, but I do not think it is so wrong. Certainly, it is the policy. I do agree with SlimVirgin here.


 * I think we must distinguish between what the policy says and what we think it should say. I do understand the point of view of others who feel that a city government office is a reputable source. However, this is not what the policy says. The policy does not accept organisations per se as sources. Governmental organizations, even though we feel they are reliable, are simply not considered sources. A governmental organisation can be a publisher, but not a source. The source is what is published by the governmental organisation, not the organisation itself. This is my understanding of the policy, and I think it is not so ambiguous on that regard. I am not against that we change the policy, but I would be very careful before we do that. -Lumière 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't all this (or shouldn't it be?) a matter of "verifiability" and not "original research"? Thincat 09:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What if someone e-mailed the government office, rather than calling? E-mail is acceptable for requesting permission to use images, Successful_requests_for_permission, and there is a procedure for archiving these e-mails, Boilerplate request for permission.  Could we archive e-mail responses to queries in a similar manner, and allow them to be used as sources? --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think some are missing the point: it doesn't matter how you find out the particular information, what matters is that it can be cited. A telephone call can not be cited, but if that telephone call to a research library yields a page in a book/journal/magazine (i.e. "published") then that can be used as a source. Likewise email, which is principally for communication, not documentation: unless the message is sourceable to a reliable Web site (such as, for example, a list group archive) or printed in some sort of a publication, then no, a personal email you received can not be used. If a government office has a document it can point you to, then that is what would be used for citation. It just doesn't work to say, "Department of Obfuscation bureaucrat X emailed me that the sky is actually green."

The idea of "No Original Research" really isn't that complicated to get one's head around: if you "originate" the "research"— rather than finding it from some other resource— then it isn't appropriate to Wikipedia. WP should not be the first place some bit of information shows up, particularly if that info falls into the realm of theory/speculation/imaginative flight of fancy. Get it peer reviewed/published first, and then it would qualify as something that might be referenced. — LeflymanTalk 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A telephone call can not be cited... Fallacious. A telephone call can be cited. Both MLA and CMOS for example have citation styles for it, as well as for presentations, interviews and public speeches. Citing such sources is not only possible, but accepted and common.


 * This is highly inaccurate; citing a personal conversation in an article would create a primary source which is the core of what is inadmissable on Wikipedia. The NOR policy states it clearly: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed." (see also, "Reliable sources".) Please try to understand, If one is a primary or secondary source generator, such as a publisher/journalist, then a conversation can be the basis of one's research or article; but that is exactly what is anathema to Wikipedia: creating your own data. A telephone call is not a verifiable source-- it can only be a method by which you get to a source. Wikipedia editors do not hold interviews. If you wish to do so, use Wikinews instead. — LeflymanTalk 21:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Department of Obfuscation bureaucrat X emailed me that the sky is actually green. If the Dept of Obfuscation would tell you that over the phone, there's no reason they wouldn't tell you that in a document, either. Likewise, if you can presume the validity of a book from a source, there's no reason not to presume the validity of a phone call from a source. This new straw man is a fallacy as well, failing to prove that a phone call to an authority is somehow less reliable or verifiable than a book from an authority.
 * if you "originate" the "research"— rather than finding it from some other resource Where does this come from? I don't originate the research. I ask someone else for it. Originating the research would be to drive to the place in question and start doing measurements and then write them down. I certainly couldn't cite that research outside myself. But when I ask someone else for the information, I haven't done any more research then I do when I take a handful of books and web pages and take information from them. There's no demonstrable difference. I get information from somewhere else, whether I search Google, a card catalog, or an information office. I originate nothing except for a search for information from outside sources. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are apparently confusing my explanation of No Original Research with your insistence on being able to use telephone conversations as a source. — LeflymanTalk 21:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that the policy interpreted that way is unfounded and supported by complete fallacies. I'm pointing these fallacies out, and they are conveniently being ignored, because WP policy has become a religion, not a matter for consensual and sensible discussion.
 * What is really unfortunate about the insistence that seeking out alternative sources is invalid for WP is that branching away from "blessed" sources can make the encyclopedia much richer, and more than just a mashup of what is already available (mostly) on the Internet. I fear it leads WP into being just a reference source for those who are poor at Googling.
 * I'm sure that before this became policy, or well-known policy, that plenty of people have gone above and beyond to make direct contacts to uncover facts and answers that are simply not available in blessed sources. (I know I did.) All of this material is invalidated. Arguably they improved the encyclopedia, but they are now subject to removal.
 * This increases the steepness of slope for honest fact-finding. If I make a direct contact, I can no longer simply ask the contact, even if the contact is official and reasonably sound. Instead, I have to ask the contact for a published source, instead of just taking it from them, who are arguably just as reliable as a publication put out by them. This is asking more of the source (and also probably discouraging and insulting).
 * Eventually there will just be far too many barriers to contribution in this project. I start to see what people mean by Instruction creep. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 18:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I had a problem with someone deleting a note that I made in an article that a particular scientist was a member of Sigma Xi --an honorary scientific society. There is no published record of who belongs to the society. The only way you can verify it is by calling them up and asking them if the person is a member --which I did. According to Wikipedia policy, that's not good enough and the information should be censored. (And I won't be surprised if I'm banned for that now for just admitting that I conducted "original research.")RJII 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Paper vs web
It's not just a matter of phone calls vs text, but of paper vs electonics. Many things have been around for years on the Internet, and are well-known within certain communities of experts, but have no paper version. There are theorems in mathematics called "folk theorems" since they are known but not actually written down anywhere.

Jimbo said this: '''The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.'''

It seems to me that the Instruction Creep has gone way beyond this. Experts in a field, by no means self-selected cranks, are not allowed to discuss what they know. Gene Ward Smith 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Overstretched definition of “original research”?
Longest Streets in London was a list of named roads, sorted by length by Wikipedians into a ranked list. It had no references. It survived Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London and was then reduced to its present form: only two roads with length references. Clearly the sorting (and more particularly the implied claim of longest, second longest) constituted “original research” if anyone wanted to be picky (and some people were picky!). I tried to set a good example by adding a long road with a length reference.


 * * 11 - 12 miles: Western Avenue (part of the A40 trunk road). Multimap travel directions from Old Oak Common Lane Acton W3 to Denham Roundabout Denham UB9

This was twice deleted in good faith and with discussion Talk:Longest_streets_in_London

Now, I’d be delighted to discuss over a pint of beer whether my reference was satisfactorily verifiable: I think it was. However, I find the “NOR” argument very difficult. I looked at a street atlas to see where the road went; I looked in a reference book to see it was constructed as a whole; I looked it up on Multimap (which confirmed the starting and finishing points); and I used Multimap to work out its length. Certainly this was a synthesis of published information but it was Multimap doing the length synthesis (at my request and in a way verifiable by Wikipedians).


 * 1) Was what I did “original research” by the (non-Wikipedian) standards of a reasonable, thoughtful and informed person?
 * 2) Was it a breach of WP:NOR?
 * 3) Should it be a breach of NOR?
 * 4) Could I have improved the reference to make it acceptable?
 * 5) Should NOR be changed?
 * 6) If my edit was indeed unacceptable in Wikipedia, should it have been caught by Verifiability rather than NOR?

As a footnote: I failed to find the length of Western Avenue either by using Google for a non-dynamic text reference or by using reference books. Could this be the “undisputed fact for which no reliable source could be found” which SlimVirgin has been seeking all this time :-) Thincat 13:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this one has been hashed out over and over and reasonable people have come down on both sides of the issue. I strongly feel that without some difficult to obtain information there are too many elements of decision involved for this to not violate WP:NOR and/or WP:V (keep in mind it has to meet both). What constitutes the same road? What are it's endpoints? You'd need a source that clearly answers both of those first. I think you're getting closer by using a mapping system and just reporting their numbers, but you need to answer the other questions too. Additionally what has been pointed out as another major problem is reporting a list of the 100 longest. Unless a source specifically lists "here are the 100 longest streets in London", then ranking them involves original research. How do you know you haven't missed some? But if you're just listing some long streets in London and you have a source for the end points and you report a number from a mapping system, then that seems to meet the OR and V requirements. - Taxman Talk 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thincat, if you can't find a source for the length, it doesn't have the status of an "undisputed fact," and therefore can't be one "for which no reliable source could be found," so no, you haven't found the Holy Grail. Nice try, though. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is utter insanity. Print publication does not imbue data with truthfulness or absolve it from dispute. To suggest that it does is nonsense. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why you need to focus on higher quality sources and cite the source. Higher quality sources are reviewed more heavily by more talented people. So while they don't guarantee truth, they are more likely to be closer to it. So even though it's not guaranteed to be correct, as a rule it is one of the most important we can apply as a gatekeeper of what information we include. Truth is impossible, so the fact that this method doesn't guarantee truth is irrelevant. We apply it anyway. - Taxman Talk 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A practical approach (but making the point mute) would be to simply change the title into "Long Streets in London"... Harald88 21:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Parasite
Doesn't this rule of no original research make wikipedia a parasite on published material? And doesn't it also mean that wikipedia can only cantian knowledge worthy of commodification, that is, capable of 'making money'? And doesn't wikipedia claim to trust its editors, in a manner similar to Rabelais' retreat, where the only rule is do what you will ("Good Faith") assuming that the participants will naturally make the right choice? What if an argument can be supported in and of itself, that is, an argument that is not factual but theoretical? Do concepts not stand on their own logical power and not on the name of their author, or, rather, can they not be verified by being read?--Tyler Nash 07:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that encyclopedias are in principle parasites on published material; but they are benign parasites.
 * If you want to publish original material, there are other outlets for that. And it's not necessarily so that all published material is "capable of making money", IMO that's a misleading suggestion. Note also that obvious, undisputed but sourceless facts can be mentioned with little risk that someone jumps at you and shouts "NOR", as exampled with the information in apple pie which may well contain some information that is not found in the references (e.g. where is the primary source for "This affects the final texture"?). Harald88 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are these actual questions, or just meaningless rhetoric? If you wish to create an encyclopedia based on your own theories of life, the universe and everything, please feel free to do so, but not here. — LeflymanTalk 17:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you speculate about Tyler Nash's motives? He seems just to be a sincere contributor to Wikipedia that came here to question the policy. If you don't want to reply, just don't reply. Why do we have to suppress any challenging question about the policy? He does not seem to disrupt anything. You can proceed ahead with the discussions that you believe are important. He does not seem to intend to interfer. What exactly is your problem? -Lumière 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Kinda ironic, since I just argued that you should be allowed to discuss policy above. There's no speculation: it's clear that Tyler's "questions" are not questions at all, but rhetoric diametrically opposed to the core of the NOR principal. Now, if that's something you support, I may just have to re-evaluate my thinking on your own "contributions" here. — LeflymanTalk 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but it is perfectly fine that he challenges the policy. Especially since he is a newcomer who might have met some difficulties. Hello! What is the difference between a totalitarian organisation and an organisation where free thinking and free speech is valued? We have not even tried to discuss with him. Where is the problem?  Maybe you are right, but we will only know that if we try to join a discussion with him. If he is not really interested, but only complains, then you are right. If instead it was a way to start a real discussion, I have no problem with that. Being afraid of editors that challenge the policy is very bad. -Lumière 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You may be correct, that I reacted hastily in responding to someone who posted what appears to be a purely moot paragraph made up of non-questions. I'm not a fan of editorialising hidden in the form of a rhetorical question. — LeflymanTalk 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct too. Certainly, the questions were a way to challenge the policy. This was obvious. In my situation, it is natural that I do not like any repression of opinions. -Lumière 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories
This section uses the popular vague meaning of "theory" which commonly leads to misunderstandings about the status and meaning of scientific theories. I propose that the first paragraph should be expanded along these lines:
 * In plain English, the word theory can mean "speculation", "opinion" or untested hypothesis, as well as the rigourous definition of an established scientific theory which has been tested in accordance with scientific method and published for peer review, It is common for proponents of pseudoscience to claim that theirs is a scientific theory without meeting these standards standards which proponents of pseudoscience commonly fail to meet.
 * For theories:

The second paragraph seems fine. ...dave souza, talk 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Revised by dave souza, talk 13:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) state the key concepts;
 * 2) state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included.
 * 3) Make clear the status of the "theory", citing supporting publication.
 * 4) If it is presented as a scientific theory, look for confirmation in recognised publications. Where such confirmation is not available, state that it is "claimed to be a scientific theory". While it should be shown if a concept is represented as a scientific theory, the evaluation of the scientific community should also be indicated.


 * I disagree with "claimed to be a scientific theory". In particular, the term "claimed" is not neutral, and might be innapropriate. The general principle should be stated instead. How to respect this principle may depend on the specific situation. In general, I don't think the policy should propose a specific wording. So, what is the principle here? I think the following excerpt of the original formulation of the policy says it well:
 * Unbiased writing says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, unbiased writing also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful, here, not to word the statement so as to imply that popularity implies correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.
 * Maybe the proponent (the p-ists, say) of the theory will be happy to clarify who they are and from where they come from and why they differ from the current paradigm in science. It is much better this way. -Lumière 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks better than the present vague guidance, but lacks the clarification of the different meanings of theory. At the absolute minimum there should be a link to that article. I've modified the above proposal in response to your concerns. ..dave souza, talk 13:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning the proposed Fringe theories here... though it would need work too. Esquizombi 13:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that that paragraph can be improved; especially "fail the test of confirmability" I find weird, as I know of no such description in or out of Wikipedia. To me it appears to mean that a theory that can't be tested (which generally implies not "confirmability" but disprovability) should not be included; but then that's a pseudo-theory and not really "original research"... In the above proposal that phrase seems to be understood differently; but if a claimed scientific theory can't be found in scientific literature, should we really suggest that it deserves being mentioned? Harald88 23:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points. The problem is firstly that the guidance at present uses the term "theory" very loosely, implying concept, and secondly that there are purported scientific theories such as intelligent design which merit an article, but their claims have to be considered against scientific assessments. ...dave souza, talk 13:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A turning point in national history
I wrote an article on this book, and included a synopsis. Then someone wrote comments on that, so I told him that was original research. Upon which he said that my writing a synopsis also constitutes original research. But as I understand it that is called 'source-based research'. Not sure though. Could an 'expert' (whatever constitutes that :) ) comment on this?

And while you have a look, could you give your input on whether in a synopsis (in a section with a header that identifies it as such) one should include in almost every sentence that that is 'according to the book' (or something similar)? DirkvdM 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Synopsizing is not OR, AFAIK: see a previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive4. Per No_original_research "where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." it can be done. Esquizombi 15:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems to solve the synopsis bit. But what about the criticism-section by StuRat? Without references that is OR, right? He claims to give criticisms of the book, but at best they're more general criticisms that might be applicable to the book. StuRat has read neither any specific criticisms, nor the book itself. A clear case of OR, I'd say. DirkvdM 09:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it fails the test of being "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge", because the book, and all sources provided by DirkvdM, are in Dutch, with apparently no English translations available. Thus, a working knowledge of the Dutch language is required to review the book.  DirkvdM has used the fact that he knows Dutch to provide a rather one-sided article (no criticisms included) which can't be either verified or altered, according to him, by the majority of English Wikipedia editors, since they don't speak Dutch.  I have therefore placed a "no sources" tag on the article (meaning no sources verifiable by the majority of English Wikipedia editors). StuRat 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is simple: are the criticisms StuRat's, or are they criticisms made by others in published sources, that StuRat is reporting or summarizing? If the former, yhen it is definitely a violation of NOR; if the latter, then StuRat will be able to provide verifiable sources and it is NOT a violation of NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tag the section with  or move it to the talk page and ask for sources there, I think are acceptable options. Esquizombi 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Source Definitions?
1. Is this a primary or secondary source?

Oral History Interview with E. Allan Lightner, Jr. Assistant Chief, 1945-47, and Associate Chief, 1947-48, of the Central European Affairs Division, Department of State

May one use reference to his conclusions or quote what he says?

2. Is this a primary or secondary source?

|Draft, The President's Economic Mission to Germany and Austria, Report 3, March, 1947

May one use the text just as if it were an ordinary book?

3. Is this a primary or secondary source? Obviously primary I would assume? http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box32/t301h06.html

May one use reference to possible conclusions or quote what is said from such a letter? May one collect a bunch of such letters and present them with a conclusion?

4. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_3_transcript.pdf

I assume whatever applies to no.3 also applies to this (no.4)?

All four examples come from "reputable" sources, and are published so everyone has access to them.Stor stark7 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They appear to be primary sources. Since they are verifiable they can be used in articles, but you cannot add your own interpretation or analysis of them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but does that imply that on can interpret or analyse secondary sources? And, supose I have used text from a secondary book that states an opinion, can I then also add a quote from one of these primary sources to corroborate that opinion? Stor stark7 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, allowed analysis comes from verifiable secondary (and tertiary) sources. Adding any interpretation that is novel ourselves violates No original research, a peer policy to this one. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 00:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

When is a theory?
I couldn't help but notice the comment in the project page on theories. Given that Wikipedia has a good deal of scientific content, it is worth keeping in mind that scientists mean something very different by 'theory' than common use of the word. Hence 'its only a theory' would to most folks mean that an idea lacks veracity. But scientists speak still of the theory of gravity, and we should think twice about jumping from windows if we doubt the veracity of that theory. In short: 'theory' in science implies consensus. Cheers!Dmccabe 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. ..dave souza, talk 13:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Limited Access Publications
In the age of pay per use or restricted access internet a source may be available to many but not all. For example lots of 16th Century books are available to students and scholars at most major universities via Early English Books Online ('EEBO). However, the price of this service and its limited interest means that it is not open to everyone. If I cite a 16th century book available from EEBO is this original research. 1) The book quoted has been published (if only in the 1500s) and 2) the source is available to anyone with a University pass. They are therefore verifiable but not by everyone.


 * Hell no it's not original research. Nor is it a verifiability problem, nobody says verification has to be easy. SchmuckyTheCat 18:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

End run
Let's say, I make a call to an authority, record the conversation, and then upload the .ogg (maybe to WP, maybe to Wikisource). Does that satisfy the need for verifiability? - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not. You are creating the information, not getting it from impartial third party sources.  You want it in Wikipedia so badly, get it published first.  Why do you want it so badly, anyway?  You'd get more prestige by getting published than by just editing Wikipedia.  Don't make Wikipedia an obsession.  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The question has nothing to do with prestige! It has to do with providing as much information as possible to increase the wealth of knowledge in WP. If a factoid isn't published, it's verboten, despite its easy availability.
 * I am not talking about real original research here. I am talking about simple legwork. No one's going to get much prestige from a phone call to get a simple fact. Neither is it likely to be published by anyone. (Maybe Harper's' back page, but that's about it.) - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent example of what this policy is saying not to do &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe the policy says that if it is your research, it is OK to add if it was published, because published sources are verifiable. I'm arguing that a recording is just as verifiable, or even more so, as much of what is published (newspapers, etc.) - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keith, you couldn't even be sure of who you were talking to in some instances. We rely on book publishers, newspapers, and peer-reviewed journals to do this kind of work for us. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The reporter at a newspaper isn't likely in most cases to have any more certainty of who they are talking to than you or I would by looking up the same number and calling it.
 * What's interesting here is that we end up with walls like those that exist with the GFDL (not that I'm criticizing those). Can we then say that, under NOR, we can cite Wikinews? Wikinews allows (in fact proudly displays) original research. Can we consider Wikinews, as an open collaborative project equivalent in editorial process to Wikipedia, a reviewed publication? It seems to me that I can do OR, (this sort of "third-party OR" of making an information request), squeeze it into a Wikinews story, and then presumably cite that WN story in WP. Either that, or we can't use WN as sources for WP, which seems awkward considering the relationship of the projects. Or, even worse, we have to vet any WN source for OR before using it. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The reporter at a newspaper isn't likely in most cases to have any more certainty of who they are talking to than you or I would by looking up the same number and calling it. Sorry, but as a working reporter, I have to tell you this is patently ludicrous. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 14:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, of course we can't cite any wikis. Wikipedia never cites itself, for example. Jayjg (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to bypass WP:V and WP:NOR
A discussion at Requests for comment/Archival materials is attempting to make an exception to WP:V and WP:NOR for material held in an institutional archive. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, I was in fact doing nothing of the sort. First off, RFC has absolutely no power currently to change anything, I was merely trying to get some community thoughts, so the suggestion that it is an attempt to bypass these pages is insulting to me (please see WP:CIVIL). Second, I already did note the discussion on the policy talk page, I simply did it on WP:RS because that was the policy discussed in the RFA that spawned the discussion in the first place. Please do not assume something sinister from a simple discussion in the future. I would also ask that any and all readers of this talk page contribute however they see fit to the public discussion as it is just that. Staxringold 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Confounding NOR and NPOV
JA: Re: [policy in a nutshell|Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any novel synthesis thereof that is designed to advance a position.] JA: That last mutation by SlimVirgin, I imagine soon to be reverted, has the effect of confounding NOR with NPOV. My brief experience in WikioPolis already tells me to be very wary of doing any more of that. Jon Awbrey 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This mutation is the result of this edit.

I personally find the addition "that is designed to advance a position" very useful in the context of no original research. It will help editors in distinguishing the case of a synthesis that respects the position of the sources that it reports, which is not original research, and a synthesis that is really original research. To clarify, I would add "new" in front of position. What I mean is that organising the content of sources requires some kind of synthesis, some kind of research, it is a valuable new contribution to the literature, but yet it is not original research. -Lumière 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

After this other edit, I had a second thought about the value of SlimVirgin's proposed mutation. I think there is still a problem with the proposed version because it says that a novel synthesis of the sources is not allowed, which is nonsense because we have to provide such a novel synthesis to report on these sources in a well organised manner. I really think that the criteria should be that the novel synthesis does not advance any new points. Also, the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" without the "new" in front of position is useless because any synthesis advance a position. It looks ackward. -Lumière 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right: NOR is a protection against rubbish as well as a protection that editors don't need to verify research. But that last phrase seems to turn it into something that it wasn't meant to be; almost an interdiction to assemble information in such a way that we obtain the goal of a great new encyclopedia. Thus it sounds rather counterproductive. Harald88 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, the "In a nutshell" version ends with, "...that is designed to advance a position." This clause is unnecessary and doesn't appear to have a basis in the policy itself: advancing a position is not a requirement for an addition to be considered Original Research. Thus, I have removed it; if someone has a strong reasoning for it to remain, please revert with explanation. — LeflymanTalk 19:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Leflyman, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. What is not allowed under NOR is a novel synthesis that is designed to advance a position. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That is, "A and B and C" is allowed. "A and B, therefore C" is not (unless already published). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In your A and B and C example, consider that A, B and C are sourced material and advance the same position in different ways. If I design a synthesis of A, B and C, my objective is to advance this same position. This is not original research, but yet your wording considers that it is original research. It is wrong. -Lumière 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. There can be no plagiarism of cited facts. It's a fundamental principle. Please note that there are tons of 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica articles that are copied exactly. The key is the citation, not the original synthesis. Plagiarism is also an academic standard that is not part of Wikipedia policy (i.e. plagiarism is not forbidden). Wikipedia is concerned with copyright violations but that is not the same as plagiarism. All wikipedia entries should be cited (therefore not plagiarized) and factual (therefore not plagiarizable). --Tbeatty 05:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell wording: continuing
I agree with SlimVirgin on the proposed principle, but not on the proposed wording. The proposed wording does not convey the proposed principle. As a proof, three editors failed to understand the proposed principle from the wording, and two of them were already totally in agreement with this principle, but yet failed to see it in the proposed wording. -Lumière 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In your example, A and B and C advances the positions that are advanced in A and B and C. If A and B and C are sourced, this is not original research. So, something can advance a position and yet not be original research. In your example, A and B therefore C is original research if it is a new position that is not contained in the sources. Otherwise, if this logic is contained in the sources (i.e. if it is not new), it is not original research. -Lumière 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that, somewhere in the policy, not in the nutshell statement, I would add an exception to the above rule: if the logic A and B therefore C is very natural, so natural that no one could attribute C to himself given that A and B are known without making a fool of himself for trying to get credit for the obvious, then C should not count as original research as long as A and B are sourced. Otherwise, the rules are too rigid and will prevent reasonable synthesis. It is only if A and B therefore C is significant or controversial that it counts as original research. This is the same logic that makes us accept articles such as apple pie and current events that are a synthesis of primary sources. -Lumière 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Lumiere, and must point out there's no need to include "designed to advance a position" in the nutshell version, as it is prone to cause confusion, rather than simplify the explanation. Likewise, the basis for the clause appears to be the final What is excluded item: "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source" -- which I would suggest is likewise a convoluted way of saying "it synthesizes facts without providing a published source for the synthesis."


 * The "builds a particular case favored by the editor" is unnecessary here, as it is already verbotten under NPOV. Inverse reasoning would allow one to claim that an unverified synthesis is not Original Research if it doesn't 1) build a particular case; or 2) is not favored by the editor. In logic terms as used above: If A AND B therefore C; where A is "builds a particular" case, B is "favored by the editor" and C is "original research." The inverse of which is: If NOT A AND NOT B therefore NOT C. -- LeflymanTalk 00:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't follow. "If not-A and not-B, therefore not-C" follows only from "if and only if A and B, therefore C". SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In re-reading SV's reasoning, I'd suggest that a replacement alternative to "designed to advance a position" in the nutshell would be "without a verifiable source"-- which is what appears to be missing in the summation of NOR.--<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As hinted at in multiple places below, the important issue in the NOR policy is verifiability of sources, not pushing a particular agenda (which is covered under NPOV); hence, I've made the change to refocus the nutshell version towards that end. —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material is not in itself original research
I just realised that my problem with the proposed wording of the policy in a nutshell is that I consider that a synthesis of published material, even if this synthesis is unpublished, is not original research as long as it does not include any unpublished analysis, evaluation or interpretation of this material. Therefore, my proposal would be
 * Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any synthesis of published material that includes an unpublished evaluation or interpretation of this material.

or even simpler:
 * Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any unpublished evaluation or interpretation thereof.

There is not even a need to mention "synthesis" because it is not where the problem lies. -Lumière 03:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Synthesis might not be NOR per se, but the interpretation of material may indeed be combined in such a way that is totally novel or original. If material is to be synthesised, it must be in accordance with a neutral point of view too. --Knucmo2 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitiely! You are right. I never meant to say that all syntheses are fine, but only that we should not imply that all syntheses are original research. Moreover, though I do not mind that we refer to NPOV in the NOR policy, we should emphasize what is not acceptable in a synthesis from a NOR angle. In particular "to advance a position" sounds more like a NPOV issue, whereas to create new unpublished connections or new unpublished interpretations or new unpublished evaluations, etc. (of material considered in a synthesis) are NOR issues. We should emphasize the latter kind of issues, not the former. -Lumière 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If we don't qualify synthesis and thus exclude all syntheses, we exclude even simple combination of material that is not OR, which is non sense. If we only qualify synthesis with "designed to advance a position" (i.e. that violate NPOV), then we allow syntheses that violate NOR, which is also non sense. I propose that we qualify synthesis with all aspects that violates NOR as well. I will qualify synthesis with "advance a position, create new unpublished connections, new unpublished interpretations, etc.". The exact wording does not matter to me. The main point is that we should not just exclude syntheses that advance a position (i.e. that violate NPOV), but also the syntheses that violate NOR by creating new connections, etc. -Lumière 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Lumiere, I'm confused as to why you are continuing to insist on involvement in a month-old policy discussion, while you are currently under an RfC for user conduct? It doesn't appear to me that you are taking seriously why the RfC was called, or what the consensus there appears to saying. Rather than continuing to provide examples for those who are pushing to have you banned, perhaps you might better spend your time demonstrating that you understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is to actually edit articles, and not belabor policy minutiae. In fact, since you started this new account on March 14, you haven't made a single substantive edit to any article-- only reverting a disputed link and twice reinserting an NPOV tag to the same article.—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 00:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfc = Request for comments, and I don't think it means request for my comments. I will help to see if we can get more outside comments. Thanks -Lumière 02:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually it does mean that you should comment there, where it says Response: "This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed..." Further, to demonstrate you respect and understand the process of the RfC, until it's concluded, you should consider refraining from the very thing the RfC is about: editing policy pages like this one. Otherwise, it makes it appear that you're ignoring the discussion and consensus there, which is precisely what is at the heart of the RfC. —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute about the policy in a nutshell
The original version of the policy in a nutshell before the dispute was:
 * Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.

One problem with this original version is that it implies that every WP article is original research because a WP article is a new synthesis of the material that is contained in its sources. This modification, which is mainly the work of SlimVirgin, was an attempt to simplify the sentence, but it also had to deal with this problem. The solution proposed by SlimVirgin to solve this problem was to add the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" after "synthesis (of published material)". The reaction of other editors was not favorable (see ), but SlimVirging explained his point in the following way:
 * Hi Leflyman, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. What is not allowed under NOR is a novel synthesis that is designed to advance a position. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

However, the addition of the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" did not really solve the problem because all WP articles are syntheses, and these syntheses or articles are, of course, all designed to advance a position. I checked carefully the policy and asked myself what kind of syntheses are not allowed. The first phrase in the policy that answers this question is:
 * synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

My interpretation of this phrase is that a synthesis should not advance anything new. Note that, as pointed out by SlimVirgin, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. Therefore, it is fine to have a novel synthesis. The requirement is that this (novel) synthesis should not contain any new narrative or historical interpretation. More simply, it should not advance any new position. Therefore, I proposed this small modification, which just added "new" in front of "position". It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this revert. I also tried this other edit. It was not as good as my previous solution, which only added "new" in front of "position". It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this other revert.

However, I maintain that my first proposal (expressed in this small modification) is perfectly in accord with the policy, as described in the words of Jimbo Wales. Can someone explain to me why SlimVirgin insists to revert a wording that is in accord with the view of Jimbo Wells? The "new" (meaning "non verifiable") that I proposed to add in front of "postion" is important. For example, there is no problem if the synthesis advances an historical interpretation, as long as this interpretation is verifiable (not new). -Lumière 06:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that, IMO, when we say that a synthesis advances a new (unpublished) position, we mean that it includes new unpublished material. Here "material" includes theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments or ideas, or any evaluation or interpretation thereof. Therefore, the part "novel synthesis (of published material) that advances a new position" is redundant (but perhaps useful for clarity) because it is already taken care of in "unpublished material". -Lumière 07:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks OK to me. Harald88 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This edit reverted SlimVirgin. The result after this edit is:
 * Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas; nor may they promote any novel synthesis of published material, without a verifiable source.

However, it does not solve the problem. What needs to be considered is the fact that every WP article promotes a novel (unsourced) synthesis of published material. Is it so hard to understand that it makes no sense to require a source for the synthesis as a whole? It is not the synthesis (the WP article) as a whole that must be sourced because, of course, unless it is a copy of another encyclopedia article, such a source does not exist. We need to specify what exactly must be sourced in the synthesis. The answer is simple: whether it is part of a synthesis or not, we must always provide a source for any theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas, or any interpretations or evaluations thereof. -Lumière 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "nutshell" does not deal with specifications as to what must be sourced; it attempts to be a short description of what should not be included in articles. For sourcing, we refer people to Verifiability policy.—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of consensus on policy editing privilege
NOTE: As this appears to have become a nongermane referendum on (in effect) whether Lumiere should be allowed to edit here, I suggest that the following discussion, as well as the pertinent parts of the archived "Authority is not a concept in..." be moved to a sub-page, rather than cluttering a policy page.—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have no objection to that so long as we leave a link to it at the top of the page, and also so long as Lumiere is aware of it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, perhaps the more appropriate/formal place to handle this would be Request for Comment on "User Conduct." —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 01:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've asked Lumiere to consider his position here, so it may be possible to reach a compromise without having to go through dispute resolution. See his talk page for more details. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lumiere, as quite a few editors have already stated, unless we specifically agree with something you have said, you must assume that we disagree with it. It would really make more sense for you to stop trying to re-write policy to your own unique vision of what it should be, or your own unique understandings of how the English language works. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd say that's the one clear consensus that has been established in the last months. Everyone's tired of his rambling and nothing is getting done. No one even bothers to keep objecting to his proposals because he'll just keep bringing more. His edit history contains virtually no useful article contributions. Consider this my standing objection to any of his proposals. Lumiere, if you don't start contributing to articles and stop the useless jabbering about policies you don't understand you're eventually not going to be able to contribute here at all. - Taxman Talk 14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, stating my agreement with Jay and Taxman. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye! Aye! &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now hold on; such a "default position" is contrary to the notion of Assume Good Faith and smacks of "guilty until proven innocent"; I fail to see in Lumiere's postings here an indication that he is trying to subvert Wikipedia by questioning the policies— even if his questions are confused/confusing. Some people may be more interested in discussing theoretical approaches to organising content than actually creating that content. Perhaps due to his admirably fluent, but apparently non-native understanding of the language, he has difficulty getting his head around some of the policy verbiage, and doesn't always make his own points clear; however, it's blatantly uncivil to tell someone, "if no one agrees with you, then everyone disagrees"— no matter how annoying that someone might be. If we are to support pluralistic, consensus-based decision making, then we have to accept that some people are going to stake out positions contrary to the given majority and are going to say things we don't agree with. They might even say things that we really wish they'd stop saying altogether, and just go away... but until Wikipedia has a requirement that (e.g.) only those editors who make X number of edits in content-space are allowed to discuss policy, then every newbie is allowed input.  Lumiere may be demonstrating one of the weaknesses in the system. Perhaps if you believe he should not be editing policy, then the matter should be brought up on his talk page (as I see SlimVirgin has done) and escalated to ArbCom if he doesn't comply. —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk  18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "his admirably fluent, but apparently non-native understanding of the language" - Well said. I considered pointing this out when I last stepped into this article, but I couldn't think of a way to do it that didn't sound insulting.  It appeared to me that Lumiere appeared to read the meaning of things differently than I did, and that misunderstanding made it quite difficult to have a meaningful discourse. - O^O
 * Be that as it may, it's been necessary to take such a stand. In the past, Lumiere has essentially talked endlessly about some point of rhetoric, and when nobody says anything (because everybody is tired of following his text dumps), he says "Well, since there's no opposition I'll just make this change.")  This has been going on for months, Leflyman, and we're all pretty tired of reading through the reams of rhetorical text he's inserted here.  So it seemed sensible, given his past actions, to state outright that I'm not likely to agree with his rhetoric, even though I don't respond to all (or most) of it. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I say above, I'm not opposed to having the matter brought up in ArbCom, if there are editors who feel that a single individual is being disruptive, or appears insulated from consensual decision-making. I'm likewise (as unfortunately shown below) not immune to coming off as hostile towards those who appear to be—intentionally or not— trolling for reactions (and yes, I believe there can be unintentional trolls). However, to those outside of the limited regular Wikipedia participants, a statement that "we disagree with everything" a particular individual says is a most pernicious form of incivility. It sounds like cliquish form of junior high peer pressure: "we are ignoring what you say because we don't like you and hope you'll just go away, but assume we disagree with you, anyway". SV's already taken the appropriate measured response which is to ask Lumiere to refrain from posting on policy pages. I'd say that's the place to start, and show that there's a consensus who believe the discussion here in not helpful. Thereafter, if no "understanding" is reached, Mediation or Arbitration would be an appropriate next step.<BR><BR>As an FYI, for reference: the initial "thread" of this, has been archived under "Authority is not a concept in..."—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I strenuously disagree. It's far more uncivil to announce that because noone is listening to you talk to yourself anymore that that means there's tacit consensus for making changes to Wikipedia's bedrock policy. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Read this. I am always open to join a discussion! Even though my english is not perfect, I do not think that it is an obstacle here. You simply confuse the real challenge, which is a difference in opinions, with a small problem of communication due to the language. -Lumière 19:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're wrong. My disagreements don't stem from a language barrier, they stem from your actions and quirky opinions. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Leflyman, if you don't see the problem here, you haven't looked into what's been going on enough. It's been here and on other policy pages under different user names for quite some time. It's not that we've assumed bad faith, we've all assumed good faith and Lumiere has actively removed the reasons to continue to do so. The problem is people have been too patient, not the other way. We've tried ignoring him, and that does not work. - Taxman Talk 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Taxman, may be you haven't looked into what's been going on with a sufficiently good pair of glasses. What we see depends on what kind of glasses we use.  -Lumière 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do see the problem: there's one very active (and to many, annoyingly so) person who takes a frequently contrary position to those of the "establishment" on policy pages. It's an unavoidable outcome of having policy/discussion be just another editable page. There are some who make a habit of being contrarian, just as there are others who always ditto what the majority says. I don't necessarily see this is a Bad Thing, except where it paralyses an organisation from making any decisions. In this case, I also believe that there is a slight linguistic disconnection— from both sides. Perhaps our policies aren't as clear as they could be; and likewise his issues with them aren't as understandable to us as he'd like them to be. —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Lumiere doesn't have much editing experience, and so his understanding of how policy works in practice is flawed, added to which he simply posts too often. The language barrier is only a small part of the issue. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

For Leflyman
Hi Leflyman, your edit slightly changed the meaning of the policy. You wrote: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas; nor may they promote any novel synthesis of published material, without a verifiable source."

If it had a source, it wouldn't be novel. Also, articles may not contain any novel synthesis, whether or not it's promoted. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that this may be a semantic distinction: "novel" does not necessarily mean "never seen before" but generally means "new" (from which the word is etymologically derived). It also has the nuanced meaning of "unusual or different" (as per the American Heritage Dictionary). A novel synthesis can certainly have a verifiable source; and likewise, articles may contain new syntheses so long as they can be verified. However, the reason for my including "promote" is in reference to your previous addition "that is designed to advance a position." Promoting is by definition advancing a position. I would be fine with replacing "promote" with simply "include" or "contain", as I am of the opinion (stated well above) that the NOR nutshell doesn't need to be mixed with NPOV.—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But it's not the article promoting the synthesis that's the problem as such; it's if the synthesis itself advances a position. The wording that was there was accurate. This seems to be playing around with words with no discernible benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs)


 * Not to embarrass you, but earlier on this page, you wrote: "all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized". :) The point I'm making is that "designed to advance a position" has no place in the nutshell about No Original Research. NOR is not about advancing any position; its about not including unverifiable or self-originated information. Whether a synthesis advances a position and is inappropriate is an issue for NPOV, not here. —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert: please reach consensus before making changes
I notice that an edit war is taking place on an official policy page. Instead: before making changes, consensus should be reached! Thus I revert the body of the article to the last version by KillerChihuahua (3 March). If this continues, the article will need to be protected. Please make sure to reach consensus about improvements before editing. Harald88 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the original discussion for the policy in a nutshell?
Apparently, the policy in a nutshell was added on february 10, 2006. (See this edit.) Only four editors, SlimVirgin, Leflyman, Jossi and myself, edited this important addition on the main policy page. I cannot find any discussion in the talk page, except the recent one, which resulted in no consensus at all. I imagine that it has been intensively discussed somewhere and a consensus was obtained before it was added, but I don't know where. -Lumière 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seen the long silence, apparently there was none; and the added word "synthesis"is obviously wrong, as Wikipedia itself is a new synthesis of information, by the fact that it has its own information selection policies such as NPOV. Thus I'll remove that word; and in case of disagreement, I'll move that whole passage to the Talk page (note that in the body of the text the word synthesis is used but in combination with the qualifier "new narrative"). Harald88 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Harald, don't remove vital material from policy pages, please. The word synthesis is far from "obviously wrong"; on the contrary, it's an extremely important part of the policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Slimvirgin, the word "synthesis" without qualifyer is both obviously wrong and non-consensual. Moreover, a new summary can't be essential; if it is, that means that there is disagreement between that and the body of the text - indeed that is the case!


 * Here is the disputed passage:
 * Harald88 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Harald88 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article now qualifies that that applies insofar as "that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". But I remember that that has been subject of recent debate as well; I'll now check if this hasn't been meddled with, as "advance a position" doesn't appear to originate with Jimbo. Harald88 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Advance a position" isn't a quote from Jimbo, but it's what the policy means. What do you mean by "meddled with"? The policy-in-a-nutshell lacks qualification because that's what "in a nutshell" means. If you can think of a succinct and accurate description, by all means propose it here, but don't remove "synthesis" from the summary. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * until now I had overlooked it but Lumiere put my attention to it: the word "synthesis" without qualifier is at best misleading, in any case it's not conform the contents of the article. With "meddling" I mean subtle changes to policy to advance one's own position (opinion) about Wikipedia. Harald88 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you might argue that "synthesis" doesn't belong in the nutshell; it's referred to multiple times in the body of the policy. See:
 * What is original research?: "...any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments...";
 * Primary_and_secondary_sources: "...it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication...";
 * What is excluded?: "...it introduces an analysis or synthesis... without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source..."
 * If the problem is with an understanding of the word "synthesis", then that's a different issue. My previous discussion centered on what I viewed as the unnecessary conbination of NOR with NPOV by including references to "advances a position" or "builds a particular case" in this policy.—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is indeed that in this context the word "synthesis" on its own is erroneous; I now focussed on it under a new header below, to make it clearer. Thus some kind of qualifyer is required, if we want to keep that word. About your point, probably a better qualifyer in this context would be "new synthesis accompanied by a new conclusion". Harald88 20:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You've given a rather narrow definition of synthesis; removing the term would introduce huge loopholes which would be exploited. As it is, even using this wording people often insist on creating novel arguments, insisting that what they are doing is not "original research", but rather "stating simple facts".  The policy in a nutshell is clear as it is, given its brevity, and the subsequent article explains exactly what it meant by synthesis. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[copied from personal pages to here where it belongs]:

[To Katefano:] Hi, I saw that you undid my removal of an erroneous addition on a policy page without commenting. Likely you didn't understand what happened. Anyway, please use the Talk page instead of edit-warring, thanks! Harald88 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I saw exactly what happened. I chose to undo it because I disagree with what you're trying to do.  Will you tut-tut yourself on your own talk page if you edit war to undo it? Just curious. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree with your undoing of removal of errors; now please have a look at the last change where Slimvirgin himself removed another erroneous comment (I tend to agree with such removals!), and see if you don't want to revert that too. Anyway, I'll move this discussion to the corresponding Talk page, where it belongs (as I pointed out to you). Harald88 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But it isn't an error; it's an essential part of the policy. And I'm a she. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Synopses of film/video/etc
There are many articles on Wikipedia which consist primarily of a synopsis of a work of fiction, or contain as a major component a synopsis of such a work. These articles then proceed to use that work as a primary source to state a variety of conclusions about the work in question. This raises questions such as: I would argue that almost any plot synopsis that goes on for more than a paragraph or two falls into the category of synthesis, and that direct observation of a fictional work should not be sufficient sourcing for Wikipedia, as it is not source-based research, but (in the case of a fictional work), original research. -- Gnetwerker 23:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) When does a plot synopsis become a (prohibited) "synthesis"?
 * 2) What level of detail can be plucked from a fictional primary source without becoming synthesis?
 * 3) When (if at all) can direct observation of a film/novel/videogame/etc be a valid source for a synthetic opinion or "fact" statement about the work in question?


 * Good question. I'd say that if other published synopses are available, Wikipedians shouldn't write their own, except in a very perfunctory sense to give a general overview. Any level of detail that is contentious or analytical would be original research. We had this situation when some of the hostages in Iraq were killed. The murders were taped and Wikipedians were watching the videos and describing what they saw. On the pages I edited, I requested that only published descriptions be used, and even though some editors felt they were inadequate (newspaper accounts didn't give much detail for obvious reasons of taste), the NOR policy did hold up in the end. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I allowed to ask a question? Your example seems so good. Were the videos published primary sources? By "published", I mean were are copies available to anyone that request ed them? -Lumière 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were posted on the Web by the group that killed the men. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I rephrased my question because I think that to count as a publication it must be relatively stable. -Lumière 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They're probably still available, sadly. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between describing what can be seen and descibing what can be read? IMO there is for this subject no fundamental difference between paraphrasing and description. Harald88 18:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is still quite a problem here. If a small, unreviewed film comes out, we can say: "the film appears to take place in New York", or "the film depicts the life and times of a journalist", but in the absence of a WP:V source, can we say "the film is a condemnation of pickle-eating"? I would think that the last statement (chosen in example for its absurdity) would be a clear violation, even if the film quotes a character as saying "I hate pickle-eaters!". To place this in a less-absurd context, this comes up in Wikipedia pages about fiction, where someone will write "Bingo's sword was crafted in elventimes by the Goofoffindor, and has the properties ...", and in WP pages on non-fiction opinion pieces, where someone will write "Maynard's film exposes the dark conspiracy linking pickles and elven swords". I would think that all classes of such statements deducing facts or opinions from a larger fictional or opinion-based context would be impermissible. -- Gnetwerker 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous use of "synthesis" in summary
This is a detailed follow-up of the discussion a little higher on this page.

Synthesis, Dictionary.com: ''1a. The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole.''

The recently added "nutshell" states that "Articles may not contain [...] any new [...] synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas."

Obviously this is what any Wikipedia article does and should do; and I now see that already Lumiere had pointed this out.

Despite that both of us pointed this out, Slimvirgin (with unmotivied support from Katefan0) insists on keeping it in the policy... What now? Harald88 20:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not really an erroneous usage: what's needed is to add (as per the body of the policy), "...without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." The point that should be clarified is that the policy prohibits unverified synthesis.—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 20:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said above, you've given a rather narrow definition of synthesis; removing the term would introduce huge loopholes which would be exploited. As it is, even using this wording people often insist on creating novel arguments, insisting that what they are doing is not "original research", but rather "stating simple facts".  The policy in a nutshell is clear as it is, given its brevity, and the subsequent article explains exactly what it meant by synthesis. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis can also mean deductive reasoning: from Webster's New World Dictionary: ''4. in philosophy, deductive reasoning, from the simple elements of thought into the complex whole, from cause to effect, from a principle to its application, etc''. I assumed that this was the sense in which the word was used. I would think that the policy would prohibit all forms of deductive reasoning. Lumiere is using a much too narrow definition, and probably not the one intended by the policy author. -- Gnetwerker 20:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure - and does Webster's meaning (1) or (2) differ from the more general meaning (1a) that I cited above ? Point is that that word in general is misleading as it's against the purpose of both an encyclopdia as well as NPOV policy (which demands that different POV's are synthesized into one article) - NPOV is non-negotiable,, but could be undermined by this subtle change. Any new conclusions and obvious suggestions are OR and not for Wikipedia - that's what Jimbo tried to explain, but it's slowly becoming less and less visible. Harald88 21:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A few months ago this was the lead, and it's much better:

''Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.''

Happily it's still there... Harald88 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From my perspective (outlined above and elsewhere), the problem comes when people create theories about fictional and opinion-based matters, use citations to the fictional works or opinions in question, and then claim it is not WP:NOR because they are citing primary sources. The problem is not the lack of citations (that can be covered in WP:V), it is the creation of an analytical framework from a fictional source. -- Gnetwerker 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that as pointed out above. And I now undid the deletion of a few weeks ago by Leflyman, also for reasons now exhaustively explained. This doesn't mean that I disagree with him that "to advance a position" is a bit awkward; but a qualifyer is definitely needed. And I already gave some suggestions for alternatives. Harald88 21:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Harald, rather than tinkering with the nutshell version, why not propose language here and get a consensus first? Otherwise, it makes it appear you are unilaterally trying to make changes, based on your own "reasons" rather than discussing them first. Thanks. --<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 01:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Leflyman, you are right that I could have made clearer that I wasn't tinkering with an established version without discussion. For sure my above clarification is helped by the following quote from higher up on this page:
 * "Thus, I have removed it; if someone has a strong reasoning for it to remain, please revert with explanation. —LeflymanTalk 19:10, 19 March 2006 "
 * Thus I stated here, and I repeat: "I now undid the deletion of a few weeks ago by Leflyman, also for reasons now exhaustively explained. This doesn't mean that I disagree with him that "to advance a position" is a bit awkward; but a qualifyer is definitely needed. And I already gave some suggestions for alternatives." Harald88 21:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"to advance a position"
Although recently introduced with some reason, the expression "to advance a position" seems to overlap with NPOV, and is IMO a bit awkward; see also earlier discussions. I think to have found an improved phrasing, more to-the-point and easier to understand: Replace it by "to advance a new idea". Harald88 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The phrase "to advance a position" is similar to the phrase "to push a viewpoint", and this is the subject of NPOV. It is true that NPOV says that we should describe all point of views without ascerting their truth, etc., which perhaps could be interpreted to mean that we should not "advance a position", but this is the NOR policy in a nutshell, not the NPOV policy in a nutshell. The right qualifier here is to advance a new idea, a new interpretation, etc. -Lumière 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what about it? As this phrasing appears to be the "child" of Slimvirgin (please correct if I'm wrong), it would be especially helpful to hear her comment before improving it. Harald88 21:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny, nobody commented on it, eventhough it relates to the problems of "synthesis" as well as "to advance a position" as again discussed below. And currently a summary is back in place on the protected page that effectively forbids to correctly (obeying NPOV) synthesize information from different sources... Harald88 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Designed to advance a position
It's almost correct, but any unpublished analysis is OR, whether or not it advances a position. It's only the synthesis the phrase is meant to refer back to. Also, it shouldn't be "designed to" because it's not the intention that matters. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. Still, we need to qualify synthesis. How do you suggest we do that? I still think that we should focus on NOR issues such as "advance a new idea", not on NPOV issues such as "advance a position".  -Lumière 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I have sprotected this article (not the talk page) because of edits by an AOL anon. I have no idea exactly what the edit conflict consists of here, but the anon is simply doing a blanket revert of everything, including various minor formatting and the Greek interwiki link. It's not acceptable to revert all users' prior contributions in order to, in effect, assert unilateral ownership of an article, see Ownership. Leaving a message on this user's talk page is not possible because AOL anon IPs specifically don't have one. -- Curps 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The AOL anon refers to and seems familiar with talk page discussion, but there are no talk page contributions from that IP range. Is this a case of registered user dropping down to an anon IP in order to circumvent 3RR? -- Curps 07:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Example of new synthesis of published material
Because this part of the policy confuses some editors, I've put up an example that hopefully clarifies it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."


 * Not necessarily true. If point A and point B agree, then combining them would not make point C, but rather serve to reinforce both points A and B. On the other hand if point A indicates a different topic than point B and they are fused to form point C, then that would be original research if no other published source indicates the fused point C as well. Hence it is entirely logical and good editing for an editor to provide point A and B if they are about the same topic and agree. This is source-based research, not original research. - Therefore the sentence above is wrong and faulty which may lead to edit wars over nonsense and for political or revenge purposes to make a point - leading to endless disputes over points A and B being a new point C when all they do is agree and therefore can not be a new point but rather reinforcement of A to B or B to A because of common agreement. This would be sourced-based research. Only when one uses sources that are diverse in nature such as in a dialectic (thesis combines with antithesis to form new truth) can one be considered to form a new synthesis; that if not so combined by other published sources that are credible in nature would constitute original research. --Northmeister 17:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but even if A and B are opposed, reporting on both is not original research. On the contrary, this is what we should do in accordance with NPOV. -Lumière 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Using point A and B even when opposed in a manner that relates to the topic of the article (which indicates a need to cover opposing views) to show contrast so long as this is done in NPOV with sources is appropriate as long as it is not an attempt to arrive at some form of new truth or definition by its author. That is why the above sentence and the whole new synthesis material added should be redone to indicate our points.  Otherwise the user who is adding them is just creating a whole new mess that will cause endless disputes across Wikipedia because it is a faulty definition. --Northmeister 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following paragraph change to reflect the statements made above and to bring clearity to the issue of synthesis: --Northmeister 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes POV expression of editors': personal views, political opinions, and personal analysis or interpretation of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold against the consensus of editors working on that given article. Further, original research includes any unpublished synthesis of published material that does not directly relate to the topic at hand and is meant to support an argument that consensus of editors working on any given article does not support. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, synthesis of related sources, or arguments published by Wikipedia must hold to a consensus of editors and be verifiable through published sources both online and in print. See this example for more details."


 * I don't see a problem with the clear formulation that SlimVirgin suggested, which is much more cogent. "POV expression of editors' personal views, etc, where a synthesis... against...the consensus of editors working on that given article" would seem to make the relatively objective "no original research" into "no assertions that don't agree with the consensus." In effect, it would substantially weaken NOR and make its implementation much muddier. -Will Beback 00:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Two editors above pointed out the problem with it; which is why discussion and consensus is so important to ferret out what is best for Wikipedia. The original paragraph is faulty and would lead to endless editing wars over the definition of A and B as related to C and would nullify thousands of articles and edits within those articles. My improvement above would trys to address these issues with better clearity. - Consensus plus reliable sources related to a topic is the best approach to determining 'original research' and as pointed out above, synthesis alone is not original research, it is synthesis of unrelated concepts into a new truth that is the problem...I believe my definition leaves room for preserving Wikipedia from needless editing wars on synthesis issues (which in and of itself is the whole idea of an Encyclopedia - as the sources must relate to one another or be contrasted as such for the reader), while at the same time preventing editors from engaging in 'original research'. --Northmeister 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, synthesis is the problem, when it is not a synthesis that agrees with conventional wisdom. -Will Beback 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point; which is why 'conventional wisdom' must be determined by consensus of editors working on a project - which my rewording brings clarity to. Synthesis of related material is what an article on an Encyclopedia is about to get all the facts to a given issue from reliable published sources.  Synthesis of two contrary views that is not related to the article is the whole problem that should be addressed as my Paragraph above does. Otherwise you might as well nullify the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and Wikipedia while your at it.  Since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, consensus would determine when controversy arises over what is 'conventional wisdom' together with the sources to back this up.  The way the Paragraph is now, would allow any editor to simply engage in endless dispute over 'Conventional Wisdom' even against consensus by the community backed by the sources that that editor is wrong. --Northmeister 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The new section "Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" doesn't seem to have much support. So is there any reason it shouldn't be reverted?  I'm jumping in here because this example is drawn directly from a discussion of OR that we're having on Norman Finkelstein.  The interpretation of OR expressed by this example doesn't have much support there either. Ragout 03:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus as yet, so you are correct. In fact the majority would seem to lean against the wording. That is why proposed changes above, to address concerns of several editors.  I have asked those editors for commentary on my changes above.  I also think the following section you allude to is not done correctly either or entirely logical in its conclusion - also expressed above.  Hence, your justified to revert it, until a consensus on which version or another is to be accepted. --Northmeister 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You count "majority" in an awfully strange way. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you count it? If you wish to hold a straw poll on this, then lets let the community decide on whether to keep the original version before changed unilaterally or to go with Slimvirgins edit or my improvement to it to clarify points (as I approve but with clarity what she did)...There is no consensus right now and policy states one should not change this page without a consensus from the community...What do you propose? --Northmeister 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been no change in the policy; re-wording for clarity is perfectly acceptable. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no policy change and if you actually read through the policy, you'll see that, NM. All I did was add an example of it. Please don't turn up at policy pages you're not familiar with (like Ragout) in order to revert. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ragout, who triggered the recent series of reverts because, he says, I don't understand OR, has made 71 edits to seven articles.  At some point, we may have to consider limiting who can edit policy pages, because new editors turning up to cause disruption (and I'm including -Lumiere and some others) is getting beyond a joke. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you always resort to personal attacks on other users like Ragout to prove your case? Just rely on the facts and let the community decide whether your edit is worthy or not; this is not a political campaign for mud-slinging against other editors.  Changing words as you did changed the meaning and therefore changed policy without community consensus - to wit:


 * "However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details." (Changes made by Slimvirgin April 10th without consensus supporting her changes in policy by changing and adding words that according to other editors and myself is faulty - My proposal well above is to clarify her edits and then keep them as I support the general change in that light but only with community consensus)


 * The original policy was worded:


 * "The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat people with personal theories that very few people take seriously, such as cranks and trolls, would attempt to use Wikipedia to draw attention to these theories and to themselves. It is clear that this material does not belong at Wikipedia, but it's difficult to exclude it under other policies: often the cranks will cite their own irreputable publications, providing verifiability, and choose theories that are difficult to prove false. But precisely because the expert community does not take their work seriously, they are almost never published in a reputable peer-reviewed publication, allowing us to apply this rule."'''


 * You added synthesis and a particular definition of it that is unacceptable in its present form not only by myself but other editors. You did not ask for a consensus on this change as I have done to change your paragraph but unilaterally changed the words to change policy.  That is why I reverted your edits just now to gain a consensus one way or another on your change in words, mine, or the original version.  That is how it is done.  DO NOT LECTURE ME on this, I am perfectly capable of reading policy and discussion and therefore grasping this all quite well.  The policy states not to make an edit before consensus emerges to this article...therefore you violated this here.  Let us discuss this, or do a straw poll to monitor consensus and then emerge with the right wording - Yours, Mine, anothers, or the original.   Changing words changes policy! --Northmeister 05:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Northmeister has made 276 edits to articles. The policy already  contained the no-synthesis point. All I added was an example, and there is only a lack of consensus between editors who, with respect, are not familiar with the policy. You've violated 3RR, by the way, so you may wish to take the opportunity to revert yourself while you still can. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your "example" includes numerous statements on policy. The following paragraph is certainly not an "example."  It's a statement of policy (and it makes drastic changes to the current NOR policy):


 * "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." Ragout 05:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SLimvirgin says she only clarified policy. But she added the policy in a nutshell to begin with seen here: [Revision as of 00:23, 10 February 2006].  She then edits based on her original addition of material through the nutshell of 'synthesis'.  She does this without community consensus...so her claims of 'innocently' clarify policy are false.  She then presumes to lecture me because I made only 276 edits?  She also does this with Ragout?  I am not interested in personal attacks; but on just getting this stuff right.  The original version I posted above was fine; she changed this version in two stages in the 'nutshell' stage and then later by changing the wording as seen above.  The page officially states that changes should not be made without consensus; she violated this and according to Ragout to prove some sort of point.  All we need is civil discourse or a straw poll to indicate community support for her changes; my changes to clarify her changes; or the original version.  I think that will let us know some sort of consensus on this.  Let us have a straw poll on this proposition - what do you say Slimvirgin?  Plus, out of decency you should revert back to the original until this matter is resolved. --Northmeister 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The clarifications of the longstanding policy were obviously needed, since editors with almost no experience keep editing without any understanding of the policy, and when shown what the policy actually says, persisting in misinterpreting it. Anyway, this is a Wiki, what "original" do you insist on reverting back to, the first version of this page? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I too am frustrated by SlimVirgin's rudeness. She has told me at least five times to "read WP:NOR."  If this is calculated to irritate me, it is succeeding. Ragout 05:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I can understand her frustration; it's hard to imagine you would continue to make the same claims had you actually read the policy. This just makes it even more imperative that the policy be clarified, so that even almost completely new editors like yourself can understand it upon first reading it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of all this is to arrive at a proper definiton for the two sections in dispute...by holding some sort of poll to determine consensus for the changes...that is perfectly legitimate...without consensus Slimvirgins changes in both parts are not adding clarity as can be seen here by all the questions arising from this; but are causing disputes I said would happen not only here but across Wikipedia because her definition without my qualifiers to it is not accepted by the community and is NOT POLICY until it is; it extends the original meaning quite far and as I argued above would lead to endless disputes over definition. I out of respect for wikipedia and the community have self reverted myself, although my reverts were to uphold policy (not a violation of 3RR), I did so at Slimvirgins request on my talk page; I ask the same from her to revert to the original version before changes were made; until this can be reasoned out. If this does not occur, consensus seems to be emerging to keep the OLD VERSION...and that is perfectly justifiable to revert to keep it in tact until a consensus emerges. We are all suppose to act in good faith, all that is occuring here is personal attacks on a person or the fact they may this many edits or whatnot; instead of good discussion on the merits of the changes and on which version is best.  Where is the collaboration and discussion that needs to occur from Slimvirgin to defend her changes?  We have every right to insist that consensus support her changes or else they do not remain. --Northmeister 05:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I have seemed rude, which was not my intention. It is frustrating to have new editors get into revert wars over the synthesis/argument point that has been in the policy for a very long time (at least since we wrote the new draft about 18 months ago). The reason I added the example was precisely because editors like Northmeister, Ragout, and some others don't understand the synthesis point. The example illustrates the point, but doesn't change it in any way. It would be very much appreciated if editors could wait a few months until they're more familar with how editing the encyclopedia works in practice before trying to edit the theory pages, but of course, this is a wiki, so all I can do is make that request. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, without consensus you cannot change policy by changing the definitions, adding words to change the definitions to any section. Again, you skirt the issue here, you did not only add an example you added material to the section above it, and the nutshell section that has been disputed by others.  Consensus does not hold for any of these changes, and I have been made quite familar with wikipedia policy by the way some editors have acted here since I arrived.  Your point is moot, without consensus you cannot change the sections you did because your changes did NOT clarify but added definition to the original.  My changes clarify the definition to avoid abuse.  The original is perfectly fine however.  The original is the only policy accepted right now and official. --Northmeister 05:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The definition hasn't been changed. Which version are you calling "the original"? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVES
Following a discussion in a FAC then an RFC the following proposal has been organized. Obviously if you have an alternative proposal, please voice it, and vote no matter what if you have an opinion. Basically the proposal includes 3 slight alterations to allow archives to be used as source on Wikipedia provided that additional information is included in the citation to prove the archives existence, public accessibility, and reliability. Staxringold 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi- protection time?
As it appears, with no clear reason, that the NOR page has been undergoing some unusually high activity in the last couple of days, might I suggest it be put under semi- temp protection by an admin, to let the parties work out what their disagreements with wording might be? It seems that the flood-gates to word-tinkering got opened-- if one can make such a wacky metaphor-- and everybody's wading in with their own changes. Mea culpa: I got drawn into the policy tweaking game with my own silly alterations, but would rather see a stable policy page than the edit-fest we've got going now. So what d'ya say, gang: why not first try to figure out and come to agreement on "the big problem" (if there is such a thing here) before making lots of new mini-problems? My feeling is NOR's not really broke, so it doesn't need all that much fixing.--<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sprotection wouldn't affect the people who are reverting, Leflyman. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true-- the edit-warring is going on among those whose accounts are older than the four-day period. P'haps if it continues, a proper temporary protection might be added, as per Protection_policy--<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 05:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Look I ask that a third party uphold policy and revert to the original version until a consensus is reached...that is why I reverted in the first place as the policy suggests when one does not consult the community on policy changes that were made by the edits of the above user. When consensus emerges then we shall know what to do; otherwise keep the old accepted wording. --Northmeister 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was tiptoeing around the issue: recent/inexperienced editors— such as the one above and below, both of whose first edits were in February— should be asking questions before jumping into the fray of changing policy pages. I was on WP for two years before I dared peek my head into these pages. Such editors should be spending more time on actual articles, as opposed to discussing "theoretic" policy. (Something SlimVirgin rightly pointed out about the previous persnickety policy participant known as Lumiere.) I'd be in support of protecting the page, but based on the version by editors with experience in the application of the policy.—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the reason for the recent activity here is that SlimVirgin reverted edits on the Norman Finkelstein page, claiming they were OR. In response, what had previously been a very fractious group of editors united around the position that SlimVirgin's interpretation of OR is mistaken.  Several of us were shocked to see that SlimVirgin is now unilaterally making drastic changes. Ragout 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ragout, you inserted OR into that page because you don't understand the NOR policy, and your belief that I made a drastic change to it is also based on your misunderstanding. My edit added an example of a point that was already in there, and mentioned several times in the text. Please read the intro very carefully and you'll see it (emphasis added): "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you also made severe edits to the definiton of "Why we" and added the original 'nutshell' that are not accepted by the community. You cannot change definition of synthesis without a consensus from the community as I stated above.  Where is the consensus?  What about a straw poll? --Northmeister 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your comment. What is "why we?" And people are fine with the nutshell edits, which others have edited since. And please explain how the example changes the definition of synthesis. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin has a history of attempting to re-write Wikipedia policies as they bear upon specific edit wars she is engaged in. For example, in this edit, she attempted to water down some provisions in NOR that would constrain the tactics of her POV ally, User:Cberlet, who in real life is the putative expert, Chip Berlet. She also edited Wikipedia:Protection policy to attempt to protect herself retroactively, after she had violated that policy. These cannot be considered good faith edits, and the community should watch carefully for similar ploys. -- HK  07:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We now have Northmeister, a LaRouche sympathizer, and Herschelkrustofsky, a member of the LaRouche movement, who is banned from a number of articles and has been placed on indefinite probation by the arbcom, agitating on the talk page of one of our most important policies. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Northmeister also comes to this matter directly after arguing over material that is original research, in my opinion, at Laissez faire and American System (economics), so casting stones will not help anyone. The truth is that when people are forced to deal with a rule they begin to ponder its improvement. But SlimVirigin is right. This is a core policy. New users are very welcome to edit articles and to comment on policies. But Wikipedia is an unusual set-up and it takes time to learn how the policies work or,  in some cases, don't work properly. In this current discussion we some editors who have only a few hundred article edits over a short time, along with editors who have experience that is literally orders of magnitude greater. Let's let the folks who know best handle providing examples of this policy in action. -Will Beback 09:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You may have more Wikipedia experience, but that's hardly the only kind of experience that matters. For example, I knew what belongs in an encyclopedia long before Wikipedia ever existed.  I see no evidence that you "know best."  Shall we match resumes & CVs?
 * I would be much more willing to leave it to the more experienced, if it seemed like genuine discussion were going on. Instead, it appears to me that a few (no doubt very experienced) editors are making major changes, without discussion, and without even admitting that they are making any changes at all.  I (and others) keep trying to launch a discussion, but the experienced editors deny there is even any basis for discussion, because they deny they are making changes. Ragout 12:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To begin with, the experience that matters on Wikipedia is experience with editing Wikipedia and with Wikipedia's policies. Alleged experience on other encyclopedias is irrelevant, since Wikipedia's policies and process differ radically from other encyclopedias.  Moreover, you are not trying to launch a discussion; rather, you (like many other new editors) have discovered that Wikipedia policy forbids you from making certain edits you'd like to make, so you keep insisting that policy doesn't say what it says.  When other editors, who helped draft the policy in the first place, try to clarify policy so that even you will understand it, you then insist that they are actually "changing" policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Community can you see what has happened here? Slimvirgin has pursued a policy of now calling me a Larouche sympathizer in other words making accusations without warrant, rather than discussing this topic with civility. Will Beback who has been accused of "wiki-stalking" and "harassment" by myself and a host of other users, has also engaged in personal attack and misreprensentation of facts per his above statements. He is engaging here based soley on disrupting a legitimate discussion with matters outside of that discussion. Rather than discuss the points, both editors are resorting to name calling and personal attacks on other users bringing arguments from other pages here against Wikipedia standards. We do not need or want this. All that is needed is a consensus to emerge on definitions and on clarity issues. Civil discourse is called for and collaboration. Wikipedia is not a oligarchy, it is not an exclusive club nor a democracy...it is a collaborative effort that builds through consensus of the community...especially policy changes, that Slimvigin is attempting without consensus, thus my recent edit to clarify her edits, and to prevent abuse by such individuals as Will Beback above, who engage in abuse often. See the discussions, since he brought them up at American System page and now at Laissez-faire. --Northmeister 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Community, can you see what has happened here? HK has attempted to cast aspersions on SlimVirgin, and when SlimVirgin pointed out in turn that neither HK's nor Northmeister's hands were clean in this matter, Northmeister tried to revise history and pretend it was SlimVirgin who first attempted character assassination, and has since spread his abuse to other editors like Will Beback. SlimVirgin's extremely minor clarification of Wikipedia policy is all that should be discussed here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin made a simple ad hominem attack, nothing more. And in addition, her characterization of Northmeister as a "LaRouche sympathizer" is false; Northmeister is a supporter of Patrick Buchanan and Theodore Roosevelt, both of whom are anathema to LaRouche, who regards them as Neo-confederates. I pointed out, correctly, that SlimVirgin has a documented history of making self-serving edits to Wikipedia policy pages. This is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, unlike the personal attacks of SlimVirgin and Jayjg. -- HK  20:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why continue these insults, let us engage in proper discussion to reach consensus

 * What was the point of the above statement? The community can read what has occured and they will see the truth thankfully. They can also read everthing that has been done to myself by the above two editors since arriving here, and further 'clean hands'?  I support your last statement with the modifier that 'minor' is really 'major'...it needs consensus to change...and therefore let us get underway to ferret this matter out, and not personal insults against any editor.  I have been saying this all along...collaborate, consensus for changes, work with good faith, challenge but don't resort to attacks, be civil...let us engage in proper discussion. --Northmeister 15:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Collaborate on what? Finding or making loopholes in policy? I'm sorry, but I do agree that two editors with limited edits in mainspace concentrating on a few articles are not in a position to lecture well-established Wikipedians on how to handle policy disputes. --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  15:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Collaborate on changes made. Whether you agree or not per your statement about editors, all editors have a right to make a point and to contest changes made against the policy of reaching a consensus on policy before adding definitions which change it. Are you argueing that changes can be made without consensus, that is contrary to wikipedia policy. Her changes (see below statement) are policy changes without consensus, not mere 'clarity' and are unacceptable without consensus. --Northmeister 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's "Synthesis" point
SlimVirgin proposes: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."

As I read it, this rules out the structure: <topic-sentence, supporting-fact-1, supporting-fact-2>, since the topic sentence would be a new point C, a "synthesis". To be concrete, here's an adaption of paragraph from a recent Featured Article. "Slowly, [the runner] rose to the top. In 1938, she ran her first world record. At the European Championships in Vienna, she won the bronze. Many observers expected her to do well at the upcoming Olympics." So we have some facts about races won, collected together to make a new point: she "rose to the top." There is no citation given for the claim "rose to the top." I think this is perfect acceptable, but I understand SlimVirgin's proposal to rule out this paragraph structure, which is very common in Wikipedia.Ragout 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, it's hard to tell, since your example, as confusing at it is, doesn't seem to follow the example given by SlimVirgin. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ragout, your example has nothing to do with the synthesis point and the example I put on the page. And what I wrote isn't a proposal. The synthesis point has been in this draft since it was written, which was around November/December 2004, as I recall. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph I quoted is new. It is not an example no matter how many times you claim it is.  Further, I do not believe that it follows from anything that was in NOR a few days ago.


 * You're defining synthesis much more broadly than it has been in the past. So broadly that it would rule out even very common paragraph structures. I think I've explained clearly why the common paragraph structure <topic-sentence, supporting-fact-1, supporting-fact-2> would violate the rule laid down in your new paragraph.  Of course, I'd be happy to clarify any confusion if you have questions.  I've adapted the paragraph from Fanny Koen if that helps.Ragout 07:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How on earth would you know that SlimVirgin is "defining synthesis much more broadly than it has been in the past"? You've been editing here regularly for three weeks!  Your account is only two months old!  You have 71 article edits, on only 7 articles!  60% of your edits are on two articles about Norman Finkelstein! How could you possibly claim to have any idea how things have been done "in the past", or understand what the policies mean? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "In the past" means a few days ago, before SlimVirgin started her latest series of changes. I also looked at the policy going back several months through Wikipedia's marvelous "history" feature.


 * And once again, you have not responded to my logical argument. Your refusal (along with other editors) to discuss and defend the changes you want to make means that I will eventually have to make edits to the project page without the benefit of your wisdom.  But I would very much like to benefit from your wisdom and experience, so please explain why these changes do not result in synthesis being defined much more broadly. Ragout 15:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have responded to all logical arguments you have made. Policy pages are an expression of existing policy, they do not create policy.  Clarification of existing policy does not change it, it merely makes it explicit.  "Synthesis" has been defined this way, and your fears that it will be used more broadly relate only to the fact that you want to include a synthesis in the one article you have actually edited, and other editors have objected. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As can be seen, there is no clarity here. Furthermore, changing words to policy, like changing words to a "law" or "constitution" does alter policy, in manner it was done. I see no consensus that says the changes Slimvirigin made to define what synthesis is are right. I see no proper discussion to prevent abuse of her language by any editor, which her language would lead to.  Every editor has a right to modify policy, with consensus.  I would support Slimvirigins modifications and alterations here, with my changes for preventing abuse. That would then lead to forming a consensus among us. You could propose changes yourself, or debate my changes as well as Slimvirin as a point to start from. Together we could work out the proper definitions and wording, collaborating with civility, towards a consensus that will hold and address points of contention.  That is what we should be doing here, not this endless game of words and personal insults lodged for no good reason than to disrupt legitimate disputes about wording changes and additions that affect the entire meaning of NOR. Let us all work together on this to reach a consensus to better wikipedia - that means, yourself, Slimvirin and all the others who have had disputes about these changes in the past, including Lemieure and Harald88. Together we can reach a point of agreement and harmony. Otherwise, the original NOR article should remain before Slimvirgins drastic re-wording (you call clarifying) of the article took place on April 10th. You want to clarify, propose and discuss and let the community decide, it is not up to one editor to make such drastic changes. --Northmeister 15:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, I understand the words you write, but they do not make sense to me. You make a series of points - some valid, some not - but seem to think that they have anything to do with SlimVirgin's edits. They do not. Slimvirgin has not changed the policy at all. She has deleted nothing of substance, she has not added anything new, nor has she changed anything. What she added was nothing more than a clarification, explaining what is already in the policy.

In fact, any edit that changes the policy must take into account the many conversations that went into this policy, and must be held up for general discussion for some time. But Slim's edit is not of this sort. It is just a clarification of the existing policy. That is a whole other thing - editing for clarity without changing substance. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Reinterpretation of "Directly Related"
A few days ago, the NOR policy said "cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Nothing more was said to define "directly related." Now that a dispute has arisen over the meaning of "directly related," SlimVirgin has added extensive language to support one particular interpretation.


 * On April 11 this was added: "That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source ''in the context of the topic the article is about."


 * Also added on April 11: "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article"

These are not examples! They're new language, attempting to narrow the concept of "directly related." SlimVirgin and some others obviously think they know what "directly related" means, but I and a number of others have a different and broader interpretation. You shouldn't be making such a major change without more discussion and consensus. Ragout 07:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What difference is there between "directly related" and "related to the topic of the article"? I think you're grasping at straws now trying to show some major change has occurred. We can add "directly related" to the topic of the article if you prefer that to "related." SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Recall that the original dispute (and the subject of your example) is whether, in an article about Smith's accusation of plagiarism against Jones, it is OR to cite an authoritative definition of plagiarism from a reputable source. You claim this is not "directly related," and so it's OR.  But it seems obvious to me that it is directly related. So I see this as crux of the issue.  (Your "A,B,C" definition of synthesis doesn't seem as important; it may only be that you need to make your point clearer).


 * If you really don't think that "in the context of the topic the article is about" and "that precise argument" narrows "directly related," then we have consensus! I'll just change these sentences to:
 * * That argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source and be directly related to the article."
 * * That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication and be directly related to the article.
 * Ok with you? Ragout 08:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ludicrous. I categorically reject your changes, Ragout, and furthermore would support a policy change requiring a demonstrated level of dedication to Wikipedia's principles as a bar to pass for editing policy pages like these. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Look lets be civil here. This is discussion and an attempt by Ragout of compromise and collaboration to do the best for Wikipedia.  The changes Slimvirgin made were unilateral, without discussion. She clarified the issue, so to speak, by changing the words and adding definition to them.  I object because such a change can be used to abuse other editors and cause needless editing wars.  The changes I proposed to her editing on the other hand clarifies the issue and prevents abuse of NOR by a single editor. --Northmeister 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Katefan0, if you couldn't tell, I'll spell it out: my proposal was facetious. It was intended to demonstrate how spurous was SlimVirgin's claim that adding the new language made no difference.  And I think it succeeded! Katefan0, you sure seem to agree with me that SlimVirgin's new language does make a big difference!
 * No one has yet made a serious argument that SlimVirgin's changes are merely clarifications -- the only replies are brush-offs. Ragout 15:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin helped draft the current version of the policy; I'm pretty sure she knew what the drafters meant, and her clarifications are just that, clarifications. It is, to use Katefan0's term, "ludicrous" for a new editor with 70 article edits, mostly to one article, to imagine that he actually understands both policy and Wikipedia well enough to decided what policy is or isn't. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15::16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether she helped draft it or not does not give her the right to add definitions without consensus and new editors are perfectly in their rights to read everything and understand and to add their input...this is not an exclusive club. That is why consensus is necessary in order to prevent outright changes by anyone to policy by adding words that changes the definition accepted by the community and leaves large loopholes for abuse. --Northmeister 15:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Editors certainly aren't within their rights to completely re-write the policy to actually allow original research, as you have just done. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, your comment simply amounts to "we know better, and can't be bothered to explain." But your failure to address my criticisms at all suggests that you do not know better. Ragout 15:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your criticisms have all been addressed. Your failure to acknowledge or understand that (and policy) is not my issue. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ragout, Slimvirign is not adding anything to the policy. She is merely clarifying it so there is less room for misunderstanding. The policy makes it clear that editors cannot introduce their own synthetic claim into an article. Quoting a definition of plagiarism (for example) from a source that does not say whether or not this definition is applicable to a particular case, and then saying (in the article, explicitly or implicitly) that this definition does apply to a particular case, is a synthetic claim. It violates our policy. It violates it today, it violated it last week, it violated it last month, it violated it last year. Slimvirgin's edit does not change this, one way or the other. It merely clarifies it.

Ragout, I suggest you establih a record of valuable contributions to Wikipedia before trying to change our policies. Presumably you came here because you want to help build an encyclopedia. Why not turn your energies in that direction? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, my problem with the example is that the mock article does NOT say that the CMS definition applies to this particular case. That is, there's a definition of plagiarism, but no assertion that Smith or Jones actually plagiarised.  I certainly agree that it would be OR to state that the CMS manual proves that Smith plagiarized.  But if there's an implicit assertion of plagiarism in the example, it's deeply buried, which makes it a poor example.


 * And it's more than just a poor example. The intent seems to be to rule out (in the context of the Smith/Jones article) even statements like "According to CMS, plagiarism is copying ideas, words, or structure without attribution."  That's what we're objecting to.


 * Oh, and since y'all keep questioning my motives, I'll state them briefly: I'm interested in the topic (how to write objectively while still asserting "the Earth is not flat"); I'm bothered by the confusing mess the OR policy is becoming and I'd like to see it improved; and the rude and dismissive treatment I've received here has given me a personal stake in the outcome of the discussion. Ragout 03:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A B S U R D !

 * By that criteria every edit would be a synthetic claim, since it asserts that the source cited is relevant to the particular case being discussed.


 * SlimVirgin would have us belive that nothing, including published primary and secondary sources, can be cited in an article that hasn't already been advanced in a (reputable) secondary source


 * On April 11 this was added: "That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about."
 * Also added on April 11: "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article" [7]


 * This is absurd. It leads to an infinite regress.  Under those restrictions you can't cite the third party reports, arguments etc., you have to cite reports of reports of reports... ad infinitum.  Nonsense.


 * Take for example the "resolution" of the problem advanced by SlimVirgin in the [Norman Finkelstein] article (that's really what this is all about). Ragout had introduced the definitions of plagiarism given by the source Finkelstein cites, the Chicago Manual of Style.  No no! says SlimVirgin.  Introducing this source amounts to original research.  So instead, she cites Dershowitz quoting Freedman without citation, who in turn is quoting the Chicago Manual of Style without citation.  I think everyone will agree that that is silly, that it destroys verifiability instead of creating it, and is motivated by a misunderstanding of what original reaserch is.  It is not citing relevant verifiable source material.  It is advancing your own novel argument or data.

--1010011010 17:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are only two "absurd" things here. One is your claim that there is some sort of "infinite regression" going on here; all you have to do is cite other people who make arguments, not make up your own.  The second thing that is absurd is that an editor with all of 6 article edits thinks they understand Wikipedia policy, and can lecture others who not only helped develop that policy, but have made tens of thousands of article edits using those policies. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can't quote relevant verifiable source material directly, then you can't quote other people citing the sources, because you are then citing that secondary source directly. I know it stings that a "newbie" could be right about this, and you could be wrong despite all your nerd points, but it is just logically so.  Just look at the absurdity of SV's resolution: a citiation of one of the main partisan's uncited quotation's of an uncited quotation of the actual source document Ragout was quoting.  If you can count up all those nerd points, surely you can follow the argument.


 * You aren't right, you are painfully wrong. Furthermore, your comments about "nerd points" are unproductive and skirt the lines of both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please stop. JoshuaZ 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, JZ, I would argue that Jayjg is arguing ad hominem on the basis of number of edits (nerd points) rather than addressing the issue. In fact, about 80% of the contributions by more experienced editors (more nerd points) are along the lines of "go read the policy" or "the policy makes sense to us who wrote it, so why should we care if the rest of the world finds it coherent or helpful."  --1010011010 20:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that users who have more experience might have a better handle on policy isn't a personal attack. In general, people with more experience with something will have better understanding of it. Your persistent (and now continuing) use of the derisive term "nerd point" is a personal attack at those editors who have more experience than you. As for not addressing the issue, Jayjg and others have spent quite a bit of time trying to explain. Finally, he got sick of you not listening or not understanding and so made the comment that he has more experience. I don't see a problem with that. If the best you can do is make remarks about "nerd points" you don't have much of an argument. What are you going to do next? Threaten to take Jayjg's lunch money? JoshuaZ 20:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone who needs acknowledgement so much that they take participation in an otherwise democratic and open Wiki platform as a credential entitling them to denigrate the input of others is probably a [geek] and should take the label [nerd] as a compliment. If Jayjg doesn't want to discuss the policy, he can get off the page.  In my view, a policy should be communicative and directed at the public, not be hoarded like secret wisdom.--1010011010 20:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You really are inexperienced here if you think Wikipedia is some sort of democracy. It's explicitly not. Credibility here comes from one source only: quality and quantity of contributions to Wikipedia. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem very proud of yourself. Also very defensive.  Can you have quality and quantity together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.93.200 (talk • contribs)
 * Enough with the trolling. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone stop...
Everyone please stop messing with the policy page until a consensus is arrived at. It's not helpful, and it's arguably detrimental, to have one of the primary policy pages changing nuance every 20 minutes. Regardless of who is right or wrong here, it is especially important to follow proper consensus-building methods on the talk page; otherwise, the entire concept of "Wikipedia policy" is weakened. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. -- I'm being polite, but I won't hesitate to protect the page to stop this argument from taking place in the edit comments rather than here on the talk page. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, could you revert then to the original before the April 10th change, so we can discuss any changes and reach a consensus...that has been my point all along. Thanks. --Northmeister 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC) - and then protect that original version prior to Slimvirgins unilateral change, until we as a community reach consensus. --Northmeister 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No; for me to do so would imply I'm taking a position in this discussion, which I'm carefully not doing. I'm just observing the thrash, and the effect of the thrash. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The community has already reached a consensus on this policy. It is YOU who must win a broad consensus of editors (meaning at venues far broader than this talk page) if you'd like to change it. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 16:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is so, where is it? I reverted to original version that was changed without any discussion or consensus here. That is legitimate until this is worked out. Let us now engage to form a consensus until then policy remains as it was prior to Slimvirgins unilateral change on April 10th. I am reverting here to uphold policy per the page itself and I ask protection of the original version until discussion reaches a consensus that is verifiable. --Northmeister 16:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you will revert yourself into an indefinite block, I predict. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, just because you do not understand what the consenseus is, does not mean there is none. You should defer to all the editors who have been here for a while, when they tell you what the consensus is. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, User:Irishpunktom has decided to jump into the fray with a blind revert; he's none too keen on me, which basically explains his sudden and entirely new interest in this page. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Amazing. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection
Edit wars are bad enough on actual articles. But when it comes to a policy page, they are virtually inexcusable. I urge warring editors to do two things: first, take a few days to discuss the underlying issues and specific proposals on the talk page, and actively seek out the views of well-established long-term editors (we all know that the ideal is for people to edit articles on topics they are knowledgable about. With policy pages, the topic is Wikipedia and obviously the people who have been most active over a long period of time are the most knowledgable about Wikipedia). Second, take a break from editing this policy page altogether and focus on actual articles. Policy pages should never be as active as substantive article pages, and besides, it is the encyclopedia articles that this project is all about. I urge people who are relatively new to Wikipedia to focus on contributing to actual articles and take time to understand the Wikipedia community and its policies by working on real articles, and return to the question of policy later. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This was precipitated by SlimVirgin's attemp to write into the policy in the form of a hardy-veiled analogy, her own (mis)application of the policy to the [Norman Finkelstein] article. --1010011010 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Checkuser, anyone? &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this was precipitated by people who have no idea what Wikipedia policy is, and who have hardly ever edited Wikipedia, insisting they know policy better than others have made tens of thousands of article edits using those policies. People like you, for example, an editor with all of 6 article edits.  Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really proud of you guys and all the edits you've "achieved", but if your incapable of arguing the details and specifics of the issue, it's a sad commentary on Wiki, rather than a feather in your respective hats.--1010011010 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but it's pretty hard to take policy discussion seriously from a brand new editor who thinks Slimvirgin is a "he". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Absurd?
Speaking of absurd, let's take a look at the two sides in this debate about what policy really means: The latter group is insisting the former group doesn't understand Wikipedia article content policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One one side, we have Musical Linguist, Jayjg, Katefan0, and SlimVirgin. These editors have a comined total of 81,510 edits, including 32,792 article edits, and a combined editing experience of 72 months.  All four are Wikipedia administrators.
 * On the other side, we have Northmeister, Ragout, and 1010011010. These editors have a combined total of 1,210 edits, including 351 article edits, and a combined editing experience of 5 months.


 * Is there somewhere I can sign up to say that if Musical Linguist, Jayjg, Katefan0, and SlimVirgin, Slrubenstein, Mel Etitis, FeloniousMonk, and Jpgordon are all arguing against or reverting edits to our core policies by new editors that it is certain that I agree with those reversions, or do I need to go to each Talk page individually and write "Me too!" in order to demonstrate further support from the Wikipedia community? Jkelly 17:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that hasn't been enough. Each of us have voiced our disagreement ad nauseam and, tired of repeating ourselves, have simply let the agitators blather on between themselves.  The problem has been that after a time, they take our silence as a tacit approval and start implementing those changes. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.  Now here we are. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 17:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayig, maybe instead of arguing from nerd authority, you could address the actual merit of my argument. It would also behoove all of you to look at SlimVirgin's discussion at the Finkelstein page [] to understand the context in which SlimVirgin made the changes to the policy page.  Then you would be able to speak from knowledge about the issue instead of nerd points.  The question is not about drawing an original inference or making a judgement, it is whether you can cite source materials in context or whether you have to quote somebody else doing it.--1010011010 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "nerd authority"? "nerd points"? What the heck is that supposed to mean? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at Talk:Norman_Finkelstein. There is nothing controversial or particularly interesting there.  User:SlimVirgin was offering a straightforward explanation of policy, while some new editors were expressing some sort of confusion.  Why User:SlimVirgin's attempts to clarify policy either on that Talk page or by eliminating pootential confusion here is not being understood by all parties as helpful clarification from a senior editor is beyond me.  Jkelly 18:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's because:
 * Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
 * SlimVirgin, although originally responding to a partisan and novel argument, has extended the prohibition to include any "collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources" that isn't already accomplished by third parties in secondary sources -- an extreme and untanble position in conflict with the original understanding of OR:
 * You're not allowed to make the point at all. You have to find a source who makes it with reference to this dispute. And there is one, and I added a quote to that effect yesterday, so why do you want to add it twice? Or have I misunderstood? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * --1010011010 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 666, if you think spending several years contributing to Wikipedia articles makes on a nerd, then why do you want to contribute to Wikipedia articles? Besides, the "context" 666 speaks of is irrelevant. This is a policy page, and the policy cannot be based on specific disputes at specific articles. The only question is, was SlimVirgin's edit a substantive change in the policy, or a clarification that simply spelled out what the current policy already is. So far, it seems to me that every established editor thinks it is the latter, not the former. Be that as it may, her edit should be assessed based on this distinction, and whatever else is going on at some article is just irrelevant (unless it explains why someone would want to change the policy. But first, let's establish whether the policy is being changed or just explained more clearly or concretely). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm arguing from experience with Wikipedia and knowledge of policy. And I did look at the Talk: page; as is quite clear, some new editors don't understand policy, don't want it explained, and don't want it clarified, because it would interfere with their inserting original research into an article. In fact, it was a classic example of original research, which is why it was so valuable for the purposes of illustration on this page. I'm sure SlimVirgin cares little about its specific use on the Finkelstein page. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look closely, you'll find that SV DID precisely that: she changed the policy page based on a specific dispute. The Smith-Jones example is drawn straight from the Finke/Dersh dispute.  And while the example has merit, it suggests that the extreme no primary source position she takes DOES come from her (ideological?) view of that particular case.--1010011010 03:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm arguing from experience with Wikipedia and knowledge of policy. And I did look at the Talk: page; as is quite clear, some new editors don't understand policy, don't want it explained, and don't want it clarified, because it would interfere with their inserting original research into an article.  In fact, it was a classic example of original research, which is why it was so valuable for the purposes of illustration on this page.  I'm sure SlimVirgin cares little about its specific use on the Finkelstein page. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, let's see. A new editor with 7 edits claims that he understands policy better than the person who helped draft it. ROTFL! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

666, SlimVirgin's edit simply explains a word that has been part of the policy for a very long time: no synthetic claims. This is by no means a novel argument. A synthetic claim is one that makes a new connection between two different points, which is precisely what SV is addressing. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SLR: Virgin has gone beyond that and claimed that points A & B cannot even be cited unless by someone else in a secondary source, whether a synthesis is advanced or not. That is a too rigid application of a formal rule with absurd consequences. It is also in disharmony with other portions of the policy. --1010011010 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "New connection" is a key point. Yes, this should certainly  be avoided. However, it is possible to do a synthesis of material without creating new connections. The simplest meaning of "synthesis" is a simple combination of parts to create a coherent whole, and that does not always require new connections. The connections may already exist in the parts. The parts may already refer one to another. A typical example is a viewpoint A and a criticism B of some aspect of that view point. When you put A and B together, you do not create a new connection. -Lumière 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring my point. You just suggested that some synthetic statements can be allowed. The question is, who is proposing to change the policy. Some people accuse SlimVirgin of trying to change the policy. But it is you who are trying to change the policy. My point is simply that the policy has for a very long time stated that synthetic statements count as original research and are not allowed. SlimVirgin is simply applying this principle. Those who accuse her of trying to add a new policy are wrong. It is you and others, who are arguing that some sythetic statements should be allowed, who are proposing to change the policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, Jimbo Wales has once used the qualifier "creates a new narrative" to explain what kind of syntheses are not allowed. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the policy is definitive about the fact that all syntheses are not allowed. So, it is not a change of policy. It is only a clarification that is consistent with at the least one statement from Jimbo Wales. It is also just common sense. -Lumière 02:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are ignoring my point. SV has gone beyond disounting synthetic statements.  He has further tightened the restriction by saying that no source can be cited that hasn't already been cited in relation to the topic in a secondary source.  My argument is that this 1) is not logically coherent; it leads to an infinite regress if applied rigorously and 2) is in disharmony with other portions of the policy, which I have quoted.--1010011010 20:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your point, I am rejecting your erroneous claims. A published source is verifiable, period. It doesn't matter whether that source itself uses published sources or not, provides citations or not. These facts do not bear on whether or not the source is verifiable. A verifiable source that makes a claim about plagiarism in regards to the topic of the article is relevnt. A verifiable source that makes a claim about plagiarism but not concerning the topic is verifiable, but not relevant to the article. For an editor to use that source to make a claim about the topic of the article is to make a synthetic claim, which violates NOR. If you honestly do not understand this, then just take a break from this, make good faith efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, trust experienced editors when they tell you you are violating policy, until you have figured it out. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd congratulate myself that you are in agreement with me, but you obviously don't understand what is at stake. I say yes to all three of your points.  The only problem is that in this case the second is not satisfied.  The source was verifiable and relevant in this case. It might be hard for you to ascertain this: it would require you to examine the talk and history of the Finkelstein page in some detail.  In general, however, what is at stake is who gets to decide what is a relevant source.  Relevance and reference are not coterminous.  To me that is the sense of the definition of sourced based research and why I say that the policy as written is at war with itself:
 * All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
 * A published primary source by definition is relevant only in the judgement of the editor. SV claims that no primary source can be adduced directy, it must be introduced at remove through some secondary source.  Can you grasp the logical problem here?--1010011010 21:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What I see is that SV is trying to avoid abuse of synthetic processes by excluding all of them. This is not the way to go. There are obvious cases of synthetic processes (simple combination of material into a whole) that are not original research. Unfortunately, there will be cases that are borderline. In other words, whether a connection is new or not is not always obvious. Consider a situation where B is a direct criticism of the viewpoint A and it provides sources to identify A.  In this case, putting A and B together is not original research because no new connection is created: B is already connected to A unambiguously.  However, in other cases, some editors might dispute the fact that the criticism of B is about A. Maybe A is clearly a particular case of a more general viewpoint C that is considered in B, but still making the connection seems argumentative. IMO, the discussion above might such a case. It is hard to say before we look at the details. However, the basic point remains that not all synthetic processes are OR, and there are cases that are borderline. -Lumière 03:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lumy. I think if you took a look at SV's edits you would find a lot of OR.--1010011010 03:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume from that comment that it was you who went on the vandalism/WP:POINT spree. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  13:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current policy is somewhat problematic, or at least difficult to interpret for certain cases. I can understand that some editors might try to string together sources in an attempt to tell a story that is not implicit within them.  This would be OR.  On the other hand, sometimes one source makes a statement about a group of cases and we need to consult another source just to establish what constitutes that group.
 * This isn't all that clear, so let me give you a realistic scenario. Imagine that we run into a source that links the risk of contracting a particular infectious disease with a particular surgical procedure.  However, the source is an advocacy site against this procedure, so we're not sure how reliable and unbiased its medical claims are.
 * We'd like to see if this claim is credible, so we hunt down a reliable source that confirms that this disease is a risk for all procedures that cut or otherwise break the skin. Between the advocacy site bringing up the connection and the medical site confirming it, we have enough here to allow us to mention the connection, carefully citing the sources and stating exactly how much support there is for it.
 * Note that there is no intent by the editors to conjure up a story from scratch. Rather, one source provides the idea, another confirms its credibility, together adding up to a reliable source in support of the statement.  Despite this, some literalistic interpretations of WP:NOR would say that this is forbidden.
 * What do you think about this? Alienus 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO the policy is at risk of being seriously weakened. I stand with JKelly, above. Where do I add my name to the "As go Musical Linguist, Jayjg, Katefan0, SlimVirgin, Slrubenstein, Mel Etitis, FeloniousMonk, and Jpgordon, there go I" list? You may wish to add my over 7,000 edits to the editcountitis weighting, which in this case is warranted. Don't bounce in and try to change policy until you've been here long enough and contributed enough to ensure you fully understand the ramifications of your proposed changes, and have fully obtained community support. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * KillerChihuahua, while I've only made about 2000 article edits, I've seen a number of cases where this rule is either ambiguous or is (apparently) being abused to add POV. Now, I went to the trouble of giving an example that I consider indicative of the issue, but it hasn't been addressed. I would appreciate it very much if you would do me the courtesy of responding to the content of my post instead of simply giving me your conclusion. I already know your conclusion; it's your reasoning that I don't quite grasp as of yet. Alienus 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(For some reason, the above text was removed without comment by SlimVirgin. I'm going to guess that it was an edit error, so I've restored it.) 14:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus, I apologize. It certainly was a mistake. I can't understand how it happened because the comment I left wasn't even next to this one, but I must have somehow highlighted the text without noticing. I'm sorry. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. If anything, it's nice nice to have my assumption of good faith rewarded by confirmation. Alienus 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since KillerChihuahua hasn't been quick to respond to my question, I'd like to take some pressure off him by opening it up to the floor. If anyone else (except Jayjg) would like to respond, feel free. I'd just like a clear answer. Alienus 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to respond, Alienus. As I understand it, your example combines and perhaps confuses three sepaae issues: truth, NPOV, and NOR.  First, truth: whether it is true or false that a given surgical procedure, or any cut to the skin, is likely to cause a particular infection is simply not the concern of Wikipedia.  We can be concerned only with what different people claim.  Our task is not to read lots of different sources to try to establish what the truth is.  Our task is to provide an accurate and NPOV acount of what people claim.  That you introduce the second website as if it is "better" than the first one makes me think you are confusing NPOV for truth.  Second, NPOV.  The site that is set up by an advocacy group is no more or less neutral than the other site you hypothesize.  Let us say you refer to the first site in an article.  You should add the information that it comes from an advocacy group.  But this does not mean that the information is wrong (just as the fact that you found another site that is not set up by an advocacy group does not mean it is right).  So what is your concern?  you had added the information to the article, and you have let us know where it comes from.  you seem to think this is a problem.  you seem disatisfied.  Don't be, because it isn't.  If someone on the talk page writes "this information is suspect because it comes from an advocacy group," so what?  What is important is that the article just makes it clear who the source is.  That an editor doesn't like it - well, that is just the editor's POV and that doesn't go into the article.  NOW, let us say that someone on the talk page says, Well, I know of many sources that contradict these claims, and I also know of sources that challenge the advocacy group.  Well, as long as these sources are verifiable and relevant to the topic, the article should provice an account of them - in this case the other editor is making a good contribution.  NPOV is satisfied by providing multivple points of view, and by identifying and contextualizing distinct points of view.  NPOV is not jeopardized by excluding any reference to the second website, on skin punctures.  NPOV is jeopardized only by excluding other points of view, and by presenting any point of view (whether the first website or the second) as "truthful" or "right" or "objective and universally valid."  Finally, NOR: it is original research at best (and disingenuous at worst) to take a claim in the second website to make a claim that the second website does not make.  Period.  If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that NOR should be weakened to compensate for an NPOV problem, this is where I think you wrongly mis up NPOV and NOR.  They are two separate policies and we need to comply with both.  They do not contradict.  You seem to think that by obeying NOR you are being forced to violate NPOV. You aren't.  Including the other, advocacy, site is not a violation of NPOV, only including it as if it were the unvarnished truth is.  But your solution, using the other site, does not save NPOV.  In fact, not only does it violate NOR, it violates NOPV too because you are sugesting that it is more neutral, more truthful, more objecive than the first site.  I repeat: NPOV is achieved by presenting all the major points of view (on this topic, it should go without saying) available, and by properly identifying and contextualizing the different views.  To bring in another site as if it alone provides an NPOV is actually the classic violation of NPOV.  Anyone who does this either does not understand our NPOV policy or is not committed to it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I think I was somehow being less than entirely clear, so I'm going to try to explain better.
 * The advocacy site is generally less reliable than the medical study. It speaks in terms of conclusions and doesn't show all of its work.  It's known to have an axe to grind.  And it's not peer reviewed.  Therefore, it would be good editing to see if there are more reliable sources to confirm (or disconfirm) the statements of this one.  In the end, we could choose to cite both, allowing the reader to make an informed decision.
 * Having said this, I don't believe that the advocacy site is so unreliable that we can't cite it, especially if all we're citing is that the specified advocates have claimed a link between some disease and some surgical procedure (rather than saying that this link is genuine). It would be nice to add a relevant medical study, but not obligatory.
 * The problem is that my example was not hypothetical, and things did not work out as you might imagine they should. Instead, the text citing the advocacy group's claims was removed on the basis of supposedly not being reliable, because the editor did not agree with or trust this group.  You see, I'm talking about the attempt to mention the risk of CA-MRSA in circumcision, which were repeatedly reverted with great hostilty, an edit war and banning.  The actual text in question was:
 * Some advocates against routine circumcision have raised the issue of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, an emerging risk that they see as relevant to circumcision, though studies have not shown clear support for a link.
 * In response to the claim that DOC was not a reliable source, I found links to additional sources that were relevant, peer-reviewed, and non-advocacy, which was rejected on claims of original research. In short, even though the text was entirely verifiable, it was blocked on these pretenses for some time.  It took the efforts of multiple editors over an extended period to beat down this ostensibly rules-driven opposition and get some some version of this text accepted into Medical analysis of circumcision.
 * It would be helpful if the limits of OR were more clearly spelled out, to avoid these kinds of problems. Alienus 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus, thanks for the further clarification. I can see why some would argue that the advocacy website is not a reliable source.  Ultimately, my sense is that this is the best solution at the moment: IF there are no peer-reviewed studies clearly linking CR-MSRA and circumcision, then the article simply cannot suggest that there is a link.  If some advocates of circumcision say that there is no link, then we should say so and say why they think this.  If some other advocates argue that there is a link, then we can say this too: not that there is or even may be a link, but that a certain group of people believe that there is a link.  You are making a claim about the group of people, not about the disease or circumcision.  This should be allowable.  As to NOR, as you can see this is a risky topic.  My advice is, get some more experience here at Wikipedia, including working through these kinds of conflicts with other editors.  Then, when you have more experience and feel like you have figured out ways to reach acceptable solutions to such conflicts, then revisit this policy page and suggest ways to clarify it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, my reading of WP:RS is that an organization's web site is generally a reliable source about what that organization says (though not necessarily about anything else). Putting aside this detail for a moment, I'd like to get back to the WP:NOR question.
 * I've been thinking about the reasoning behind the WP:NOR rule and the cases it handles well and poorly. Where it succeeds best is in scenarios where the text added to the article is either made up from whole (uncited) cloth, or constitutes a genuine and risky analytical project in itself that should be published elsewhere and used as a reliable source.
 * So, for example, adding to an article on quantum mechanics (QM) based on my personal interpretations would be OR. Likewise, writing an article combining ideas from various lay books on pop-QM into a my personal religion is also very OR (and a real case!).  Citing (or even quoting from) a relevant, reliable (meaning peer-reviewed) scientific study to support an existing point is not OR; it's just a fulfillment of the WP:RS policy.  However, performing a meta-analysis of the leading studies to draw a weighted conclusion is OR, because it's trying to add original value (or spin), and this entails a risk of distortion or error that makes my contribution unreliable.
 * In short, so long as we are humble researchers faithful to our reliable sources, we cannot be guilty of OR. This remains true even if we have to dig around a bit and use multiple related sources in order to provide supporting citations, so long as we do so in an obvious and risk-free manner.  If the text reads "canine pregnancies can be aborted", it is in no way original research to cite a reliable source stating that "all mammalian pregnancies can be aborted" and another to confirm that "dogs are mammals".  The connection is obvious, unoriginal and uncontroversial.  We would not expect the author of that first study to explicitly point out that dogs fall into the category of mammals, because it's common knowledge (especially among biologists) and therefore not worth mentioning.  Therefore, we would not penalize the editor for explicating the obvious.
 * The problem is that it does not seem as if the rule clearly distinguishes between merely looking up relevant sources and using them to craft something novel (and fallible). I would think that a good test is to ask whether the writers of these source documents would consider the editor's statements anything but obvious.  If they would be surprised or skeptical, then the editor is making a novel connection, which is a type of OR.  Otherwise, the editor is just spelling out what is already there implicitly, for the benefit of those who have not done as much research in this particular field or would otherwise fail to make the obvious connection.
 * I would like to see the policy tackle this issue clearly and make a distinction that provides us with a principled basis for concluding whether something is OR or not. As it stands, the rule is subject to abuse, to the point where few articles are safe from such a tactic.  Combined with parallel abuses to WP:RS, this has shown itself to be a powerful way to spin POV into articles while silencing all opposition, and that's not what Wikipedia should be aiming for.
 * I am not suggesting a change in the WP:OR policy, just a clarification to avoid this sort of abuse. Unfortunately, the last attempt at clarification seems to have opened the door wider for abuse instead of shutting it down.
 * What do you think? Alienus 00:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (insert)I'm on attempted wikibreak and have limited time - apologies for not responding in less than 6 hours. I will give your example my attention and formulate a more extensive reply as my time permits. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can wait. Alienus 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought "don't fix what ain't broke" was the position of the newer editors: leave the NOR policy as it was on April 10th, reverting SlimVirgin's recent "clarifications." Ragout 13:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no change on or after April 10, as every experienced editor on this page has explained, except by Northmeister, who made this edit, thereby actually reversing the policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I summarize the changes you made in the "What's All the Uproar About" Section. You're denying the obvious.  Worse, you're also trying to conflate the position of most critics of your changes -- revert it back to the consensus version of a few days ago -- with the position of one vandal multiple-reverter.Ragout 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [Corrected: Ragout 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)]


 * I'm not sure who you're calling a vandal, but I assume you mean Northmeister.
 * Of course I meant Northmeister. I apologize if you think "vandal" is too harsh a term. Ragout 14:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What you fail to regard as even a possibility is that you have misunderstood the policy. I definitely believe you don't understand it from what I've seen of your edits, and your comments here. All the experienced editors who have commented keep telling you there has been no change. Slrubenstein (another of the early drafters of the policy) wrote:
 * "Slim's edit ... is just a clarification of the existing policy," and
 * "the policy has for a very long time stated that synthetic statements count as original research and are not allowed. SlimVirgin is simply applying this principle. Those who accuse her of trying to add a new policy are wrong." And of the plagiarism point, he wrote:
 * "Quoting a definition of plagiarism (for example) from a source that does not say whether or not this definition is applicable to a particular case, and then saying (in the article, explicitly or implicitly) that this definition does apply to a particular case, is a synthetic claim. It violates our policy. It violates it today, it violated it last week, it violated it last month, it violated it last year. Slimvirgin's edit does not change this, one way or the other."
 * I agree with this point, as do most (if not all) of your critics. But your additions go well beyond making this point.Ragout 14:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But Slrubenstein and the others keep telling you my edits were not additions and did not go beyond any point. I added an example of a point that the people who wrote this policy page agree was already there. It is only the new editors who can't see that. Please take the point I made above that perhaps you have simply misunderstood the policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For you to keep on insisting that we're all wrong, and you are right, means that you believe you understand the policy better than the people who wrote it, better than the people who maintain it, and better than people with hundreds of thousands of edits between them. With respect, that isn't rational.
 * As Slrubenstein also wrote, it can take several months of frequent editing before you start to see how the OR rule works in practice i.e. how the theory is applied. That you lack this experience isn't any kind of failing, because we all lacked it when we started. We're therefore asking you please to continue editing and return to this at a later date, when hopefully things make more sense to you, and then if you still feel there's problematic wording, you'll be in a much better position to help us to sort it out constructively. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that you think your extensive edits amount to mere "clarifications." However, I think it misleads those newly entering this debate to deny that they are changes.
 * Also, please stop implying that I support inserting new language. I endorse reverting to the consensus version of a few days ago, which was a version written by editors with 100s of thousands of edits. Ragout 14:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the consensus version. It is supported by Slrubenstein, Jayjg, Jpgordon, Musical Linguist, JKelly, Katefan0, Will Beback, JoshuaZ, FeloniousMonk, Dalbury, KillerChihuahua, Mel Etitis, Jossi, Leflyman, and myself, all experienced editors, most of us admins, three of whom helped to write the policy. On your "side," you have someone you yourself have called a vandal; HK, who is on indefinite probation and banned by the arbitration committee from editing a number of articles; -Lumiere, who has been asked by many editors to stay away from several policy talk pages because of trolling; and 1010011010, who when I last looked had made four edits to articles, and who went on a vandalism spree last night as an anon IP. This alone has to tell you something. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you have misleadingly described both your position and that of others, it is hard know what this alleged consensus means. For example, KillerChihuahua says "don't fix it if it isn't broken," and thinks that's your position. You say you made no changes on April 11.  If this were so, even I would support you. Ragout 15:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Slimvirgin's right; we're all in agreement. To suggest that you know someone else's position better than themselves is the height of conceit -- and your one example of who you thought in fact was not in agreement has been debunked (see below). Whether you accept that there's a consensus or not, it's there. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But this is just another distortion: I never said I knew KillerChihuahua's opinion. I said the opposite, that I didn't know his opinion; whether he was agreeing with SlimVirgin's edits, or SlimVirgin's description of her edits.
 * And, seriously, why are you telling me this? If there's overwhelming consensus, you have the power, and the right, to act on it. Go forth and edit! Why bother trying to convince me (or anyone else) that there's consensus? Ragout 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again. The people opposing you are all extremely experienced, highly respected editors. They are familiar with the policy, and they would have read the edits before commenting on them. They are telling you that you're mistaken. Please take that on board. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) Clarification of phrasing is not change to the policy. Grammar edits are not change to the policy. This which includes all edits made by SV on Apirl 11 and April 12, is not a change to the policy. It is one minor clarification, a link, and an added example to illustrate the policy. No change. Example added. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection
William Connolley has unprotected the policy page. Given that this is a policy page, and the number of reverts, I think page protection was warranted to allow for a cooling down. And I think people need more than 25 minutes. Given that this is a policy page and doesn't really need constant attention anyway (I mean, it is not like an article that people are constantly adding new information to), I see no real cost to protecting it for a couple of days. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He has stated on his talk page that he wouldn't mind if you re-protected it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry for the confusion. Yes, re-protect is fine by me, I misunderstood the reasons for the protect I think: it looked to me just like a consequence of Northmeisters 3RR block, which appeared to have been fixed, and I didn't read all the talk here first... William M. Connolley 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I reprotected it because a 3RR block only addresses one user's violation of a policy, whereas on this talk page we are confronted with a large number of editors, some well-established and some new, arguing over a point that is at the very heart of the policy. Given that policy pages should usually change at a glacial rate, I think it is reasonable to protect this page for a few days. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Are some articles exempt from this policy?
What can we do about articles that are inherently original research (such as the article on Nose picking) or articles where no regular sources exist, except empirical evidence and indivdual statements (i.e. Emo (slang)? Can they be exempt from this policy?--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/Àµ/òb ) 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) ikiroid, are you serious and sincere in your question?  If so - thn I would simply ask you to read the NOR policy as it is written, as the policy explicitly addresses the issue you raise. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What? You're not here to argue? Well...I say Nose picking is grandfathered in, since it's one of the oldest articles here (dating to 2002!). --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And even that may be remedied. mentions an article in the Journal of Psychiatry on nose-picking. Now to see if I can find the article. --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See? Necessity is the mother of, erm, verifiability. Donald, I'm proud of you. [[image:smile.png]] SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If only all those other unreferenced articles were as easy. --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  01:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Journal of Psychiatry reference, as well as three web links, was added to Nose picking on the day the artice was created, September 19, 2002. So that article was never OR. Imagine that! --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  02:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy is at war with itself. It is not self-elucidating.--1010011010 19:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, some new editors are at war with the policy, and they resist elucidation. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No more so than its critics. FeloniousMonk 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, where is the said issue expressed in the policy?--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbÇµ parlar) 21:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Look for where it says "apple pie" and "current events." Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Apple pie and current events have got to be the two most obscure and unhelpful examples ever. Can somebody either spell this out or remove it from the policy.  Again, a policy statement is for public consumption, not for "senior editors" to use as an alibi for arbitrary behaviour.--1010011010 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You have made SIX EDITS TO ONE ARTICLE. Please stop posting to this page. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the spelled out version, which I guess you missed: 'In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks JPG. Most unhelpful.  How does that tie in to "apple pie"?  How is "apple pie" an example of this?  An example should exemplify. Can you discuss apple pie using only primary sources without making synthetic claims about apple pie?  If this is so clear to you that you are impatient, why can't you just come out and give an example?  If you don't feel like discussing the matter seriously, why don't you do something else with your time?

Hmmm. If you think jpgordon is being unhelpful, perhaps you do not know what the word "helpful" means. If you do not see how the apple pie article, or current events articles, exemplify the principle, then you may want to sleep on it and read those articles again with a fresh mind. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Which still leaves Emo (slang), an article that relies on averaging out snide comments on urban dictionary with common MySpace entries by teens in the subculture. There are no legitimate articles about Emos other than this one, so it sort of falls in the grey area. This is because the contributors must decide what information is kosher and what's apocryphal out of a group of personal web pages and blogs. They have to go thru a bunch of information normally illegitimate sources in the intellectual community and figure out the facts. A lot of people consider this original research, since it's technically field work. So you see, it isn't as easy as apple pie.--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbÇµ parlar) 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree there; the Emo article does seem to be pure OR. WP:NOR pretty much excludes a lot of articles on emergent phenomena. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So then let's add a clause about recent cultural memes in the policy.--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbÇµ parlar) 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So where do articles like the hotly-debated FAC Stargate (device) fall? There exist no secondary sources, the article is based on observation, inference, and deduction from the fictional source material. It is my opinion that it fails both tests above: needing to watch ~ 100 episodes of a dreadful TV show does not qualify as "easily verifiable", and the detailed reconstruction of the operation of these mythical devices is "analytic, synthetic, interpretive", etc. Enquiring minds wish to know. -- Gnetwerker 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC) ikiroid, you are right that there are some articles that do not comply with this policy, and there are also some articles to which this policy does not easily apply. I believe that, realistically and practically, there are twu issues here. First, the fact that there maybe many articles that do not easily fit with this policy is a function of the fact that Wikipedia has such an tremendous variety of articles, far more than any other encyclopedia. As with law in the real world, policies here have to be applied with some common sense. If a topic is utterly uncontroversial and editors agree that it is relatively accurate, then there is simply no need to compare it against this policy. Policies become increasingly important as (1) the subject matter becomes increasingly controversial and (2) the gulf between popular perception and belief and views of established experts increases. With controversial topics, NOR is a crucial policy for maintaining the quality and integrity of the project. With topics about which there is a good deal of expert puplished literature that diverges from popular conception (think of the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) NOR is also a crucial policy for maintaining quality and integrity. If you have an article that is uncontroversial (i.e. there is no debate as to the accuracy or quality of the article), NOR is not at issue for the simple fact that no one makes it an issue. Policies and their proper application only come into play when there are disputes. Now, one would be wise to try to follow policies as rigorously as possible, in order to avoid or protect against potentil controversy. Even so, what is important is that people get the spirit of the policy. This brings me to the second important issue. Policies, by definition, are relatively abstract. No useful policy will ever explicitly address all possible cases. Wikipedia counts on editors in good faith trying to live up to its ideals, which are expressed (but never perfectly or completely) in our policies ... the actual words are approximations of the spirit. I think it is reasonable and understandable that as editors become more experienced writing good articles, collaborating with others, learning from mistakes (e.g. when other editors say that you are not complying with NOR or NPOV or another policy), as you become more experienced your own judgement of how to live up to the spirit of these policies will develop. It will be easier for you to avoid controversy or to intervene constructively when there is conroversy among other editors. We all expect a learning curve (in ourselves as much as in others) here. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's wankery that belongs in a fanzine (or some wiki equivalent), not in an encyclopedia, so it really doesn't matter a rat's ass where the pseudo-information comes from. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The question raised of "are some articles exempt?" seems insightful to me, from the stand-point of fan-oriented articles, because the policy is clearly unevenly applied. This isn't a fault of the "No Original Research" policy itself, but of the lack of knowledgeable editors who can apply (and disseminate) the standards of WP to all articles great and small. I'd be interested to see the Wikipedia metrics broken down to content categories; I wouldn't be surprised if the content dealing with fiction (ala "fandom") actually exceeds that based on "fact". In the little corner of Wikipedia-space that I've patrolled, in dealing with articles about the Lost (TV series), longer-term editors have taken a firm-- and occasionally seemingly harsh stance-- on following WP policy, aiming to exclude speculation, guesses and other fan-crufty content. But policy is far from clear when dealing with fictional/fan-oriented matters, as Gnetwerker points out above. Editors on Lost-related articles let many things slip by because some speculative assertions may be "interesting" and seem to "make sense" before actual verifiable sources are available for them; others consider that verifiability is fulfilled by "I read it on some other Web site". It's why (plug-time) a couple of months back I floated a trial balloon for an additional qualifier for What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a fansite". —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk  05:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why it's important that editors with four edits to the main namespace (User:1010011010), or 71 (User:Ragout) or 276 (user:Northmeister) shouldn't try to change the policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, with 660 article edits over 4 years on Wikipedia, I wouldn't dream of editing the policy, but I would like to change it -- to make it much stronger and even less equivocal, especially with regard to fictional and opinion-based articles, of which Wikipedia has many. Hopefully, reasoned discussion here and elsewhere is the appropriate way to do so. -- Gnetwerker 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, and my comment wasn't directed at you in any way. The problem on this page is that we've had the opposite of reasoned discussion for several weeks now, and it has discouraged experienced editors from responding in any detail. Hopefully as that dies down, we can get back to constructive discussion. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, do you really think you can base everything off of numbers? It's not a great idea to equate the value of someone's opinion with the number of edits they have made, because their opinion accounts for their skills in finding resolutions outside of Wikipedia too.--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbÇµ parlar) 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not just numbers, although very low numbers do indicate lack of experience. Outside experience doesn't translate very well to Wikipedia. I was a sysop for five years in a major software company's product support forums. That in no way prepared me to be a sysop here (and I'm not one yet). And it's not just high numbers, either. We get to know each other from seeing how everyone handles themselves in different situations, and we can then form judgments on the value of other users contributions. It takes time to do that. --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  01:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, Donald, but maybe I've been contributing for a long time without bothering to create a username. Maybe I want to live in the real world and not join another virtual clique like myspace (and all your experience talk shows that's exactly what this is). Instead of focusing on the in-group/out-group dynamic, why don't you address the issues.  How can anyone here say that citing a relevant primary source is OR?
 * --1010011010 03:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm! I was responding to ikiroid's claim that his experience outside Wikipedia counts just as much as others' experience in Wikipedia. Are you speaking for ikiroid? Have you in fact been contributing for a long time to Wikipedia as an anon. I notice you do not actually claim that. Could you tell us what IP address you have edited from? Have you, perhaps, been contributing under a different user name? --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  11:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus, it isn't a very good idea to say user accounts are stupid an cliquey when 1) you have one and 2) everyone here has a username. We have usernames so we can give the contributors an interactable identity, so they are not some disembodied intellectual flotsam like an IP address, whom we can't equate an identity with. Your respect on wikipedia will sink like a lead balloon if you seek to criticze the whole wikimunity.--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbÇµ parlar) 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think people need thousands of edits to have a voice here. I would be satisfied if they were over 21 and had a graduate degree :-) -- Gnetwerker 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you're in luck, because the 16 editors who support the version currently on the page not only have hundreds of thousands of edits between them, but at least seven have more than one degree and several have PhDs. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless their phD is in political science, law, or literature, I don't see how it helps here.--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbÇµ parlar) 19:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Several of the PhDs are directly relevant, as are some of the other postgraduate degrees, as are the quarter of a million edits they have between them. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What about my BA in English, MA in Speech (Communications Science), and PhD in Linguistics? I will admit that my BS in Computer Systems may not be relevant (although one does need a good grasp of practical logic to successfully write large and complex computer programs). I normally don't invoke my degrees, but it suddenly seems to be an issue. And, of course, none of those degrees gave me a leg up when I started. I had to gain experience in Wikipedia the old-fashioned way, just like everyone else. --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  03:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

But you should try to listen to everyone's opinion.--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbÇµ parlar) 02:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I (and many others) have listened, ad infinitum. The problem is that they can't accept that there is simply no broad support for what they want to do. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 02:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying you didn't. I just fear elitism based on SlimVirgin's comments. I understand what she means: those who have not invested much time in Wikipedia, and may not do much in the future, shouldn't go around flipping policies upside down. Fine. Whatever. My beef wasn't with what was being decided to go in the policy, it was the attitude that everyone had here. Slrubenstein answered my question, which was fine. Then, SlimVirgin turned the whole thing around somehow to use it against low-editcount editors. I guess I took it personally, because I only have 564 edits as of this message, thus qualifying me as a user whose opinion doesn't count because of a low edit count. Then Gnetwerker says you need a degree to change the policy, which I don't have. I've been trying to reiterate that we look at the proposal when deciding the policy, not the reputation, or age, or education, or edit counts of the users who proposed it. Should you give a damn if the user was a monkey with 4 edit counts, as long as they make an effective point? Or should you not give a damn if a horrible change was made, just because the person qualified for Mensa? Reject the changes if you want, I really don't care anymore, my one question was answered. But don't devalue ideas based on the reputation or education of the idea's creator.--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbÇµ parlar) 03:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit count is not a valid reason for rejecting edits in the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Nor should an admin be biting Newbies for being bold. It is an anethema to the basic premise of trust that Wikipedia is based on.  --Tbeatty 04:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit count is a valid concern when dealing with interpreting policy and proposing policy changes. And while one should not bite newbies for being bold, there is nothing wrong with explaining to them that they don't have the relevant experience to reasonably discuss a policy matter. I only have about 3000 edits and would completely understand if Slim or other much more experienced editors told me that they have far more experience with policy and that therefore their opinions count more. The fact is, policy is not part of the encyclopedia but rather rules and guidelines on how to build an encyclopedia. By nature, understanding of how those rules do and should function will largely come only with experience. JoshuaZ 04:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As an ignorant newbie, there are some things I don't understand about your comment, and many similar comments. Are you saying the ignorant shouldn't make comments on talk:OR?  I would think ignorant comments would be welcomed -- they might inform the wise about which points aren't understood.  At least they should be tolerated, since they can always be ignored.  Do you see ignorant comments on a talk page as so disruptive that they need to be suppressed?  Or maybe comments are acceptable, but not edits?  Or maybe comments are acceptable if they're not critical?  Perhaps you could spell out more clearly just how you'd like we ignorant folk to behave? Ragout 05:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (to reiterate what JoshuaZ just said, as I had already typed this up): The concept of "edit count" is a a material, and valid measure of one's commitment to the principals and purpose of Wikipedia. This is a meritocracy where one's standing in the "community" is based on contributions, both in terms of quality and quantity. The longer one is here, and the more one is involved, the more respect an editor gains. It's natural and reasonable to put trust in, and defer to the judgement of those who have actually been around the longest, and done the most to improve Wikipedia. An editor who complains that her/his opinion isn't being valued likely hasn't demonstrated that the community should value that opinion. It's called "putting in your time" -- and in an all-volunteer environment such as Wikipedia, it's the chief way to gain credibility and support. In short, quit your kvetching and go edit some articles :) —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 05:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Before you get to far in identifying this edit count cabal, I think everyone needs to revisit some fundamental principles from Jimbo's page:
 * 1) Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers.  Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
 * 2) "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.
 * For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.
 * 1) "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do.  We must respect this principle as sacred. Even if it means someone is editing this principle right now.

Now look at the current locks on these pages and the complaints about low edit count users contributing to wikipedia. Consensus is what the objective is, not edit count ruling class or admin ruling class. And read the third one again. Go to User:Jimbo_Wales for more information. --Tbeatty 05:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Experience in editing Wikipedia has become an issue because editors with very low edit counts are trying to ignore consensus and push their particular viewpoints into policy. The page is protected to stop an edit war. The current page represents consensus. There is not a problem with new editors participating in discussions. The problem is that a few editors with very low edit counts have become disruptive. --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  11:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While we are quoting Jimbo, I think a recent comment of his on the Wiki-en mailing list about the user-box controversy is pertinant here as well:

As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.
 * --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  13:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * More of your superiority trip. It's not like you applied for this job and beat out the other candidates.  You heard about a cool site once too.  Maybe SlimVirgin would like to clarify what counts as a "related field" to WP:NOR that would give your Ph.D. (Piled higher and deeper) any kind of relevance here.  Were not talking about Israeli settlements anymore SV.  This ain't Cambridge, neither.  My nerd point count doesn't count because I'm making a logical arguement about the wording of the policy.  Policies are for public consumption, they are not the edicts of an ego-tripping self appointed ruling class.  For all we know, all your edits could have been crummy.--1010011010 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty is throwing in a red herring. No one here has disputed, or is disputing, the fact that anyone can edit and editors should be bold. This is simply not the issue. The issue has to do with what happens when editors come into conflict. Conflicts have to do with whether a given edit is right, NOT with whether someone has a right to make an edit. When it comes to encyclopedia articles - and note, the policies and guidelines including statements about being bold and newbies are welcome refer to encyclopedia articles, many conflicts have to do with content and it is self-evident that an editor who is less knowledgable about the topic (whether partical physics or the battle of the bulge) should defer to an editor who is more knowledgable. Anyone who rejects this out of hand in my opinion is not committed to writing an encyclopedia. The openness to newbies comes from our acknowledgment that someone who starts editing the partical physics page tomorrow could very well know far more about particle physics than anyone else who has been working on that article, even people who have been working on it for years. So what about when we move to Wikipedia: pages (i.e. not encyclopedia articles, the ones that Jimbo is referring to in the passages Tbeatty quotes)? What happens when there is an edit conflict? It only makes sense that, as with particle physics, the person who knows less should defer to the person who knows more. The only difference between this and the particle physics article is that when it comes to Wikipedia: special pages, th subject matter is Wikipedia itself (thus, the "Wikipedia:" before the page name). Obviously someone who has been here for a long time and who has made a huge number of edits knows more about Wikipedia than a newbie. This is a special case, and different from the encyclopedia articles that constitute the bulk of this project and to which our policies refer, where a newbie can certainly know more than an experienced editor. Anyone who doesn't see this is clearly someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia very well. As to people who raise concerns about elitism, they are entirely misplaced. It is not elitist to say that someone who knows more about partical physics is better qualified to comment on the content of the partical physics article than someone who knows less or (like me) nothing. If you fel discriminated against because you know nothing about partical physics you can easily remedy this situation by learning a lot about partical physics. Likewise, if you do not understand Wikipedia very well, you can remedy the situation by sticking around, making a lot of different kinds of contributions, doing a lot of edits, in short, taking the time to gain experience, and giving others the opportunity to judge you, and taking the time to grow in response to other's judgements. In regular English we call this "learning." Anyone can do it, and it is not elitist. It is a sine qua non for an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to destroy the policy
Just in case it's not clear what's going on here, with all the flying back and forth, we have a bunch of new accounts and two accounts associated with the LaRouche movement trying to undermine tnis policy completely. Here is the diff to Northmeister's changes. He is trying to add that original research, including editors' personal views, may be added to articles so long it's not a "POV expression" of those views and so long as there's consensus to do so on the article talk page. His new version reads (emphasis added):

"[Original research] also excludes POV expression of editors': personal views, political opinions, and personal analysis or interpretation of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold against the consensus of editors working on that given article. Further, original research includes any unpublished synthesis of published material that does not directly relate to the topic at hand and is meant to support an argument that consensus of editors working on any given article does not support. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, synthesis of related sources, or arguments published by Wikipedia must hold to a consensus of editors and be verifiable through published sources both online and in print."

The rest of his edit barely makes sense.

The intro to WP:V and WP:NPOV says of NPOV, NOR, and V that: "The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." I suggest we add that sentence to this page too when it's unprotected. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly; what he called a "clarification" was actually a complete reversal of NOR. Northmeister's new policy would actually allow original research, so long as it was not written in a "POV way", or even if it was, so long as there was a consensus of editors on that page that it should be included.  His re-write of the examples section introduced this new policy is well.  Perhaps he should have re-named the page "Wikipedia:No original research except when we really want to do it". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No original research, unless there's a "consensus of editors" on the page to add it, and so long as it's not, in the opinion of those editors, a "POV expression" of original research, is a bit like saying you have to provide a source &mdash; unless you can't find one. Or you have to be neutral &mdash; unless you have very strong views. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, it would fix the problem of unverifiable sexcruft which can't be deleted because the subject is "notable" :-) Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And The Game would get to be back in (although they apparently just found an actual bonafied RS that is being checked out now, which will render that argument moot). What other charming oddities can we think of? JoshuaZ 20:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason he changed this was because of my above discussion, so you may want to read that too.--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli Àµ òbÇµ parlar) 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin hits the nail squarely with her comment, "Just in case it's not clear what's going on here, with all the flying back and forth, we have a bunch of new accounts and two accounts associated with the LaRouche movement trying to undermine this policy completely." Other new editors from at least one other cult (Transcendental Meditation) and other promoters of New Age mysticism are also working here to tear down barriers to publishing occult and pseudoscientific nonsense in Wikipedia. It is no coincidence that two of the more vocal Vandals at these gates (Lumiere and Keith Tyler) are also two of the most vocal Vandals at the [Natasha Demkina] article, trying to let in information from disreputable, self-published sources in support of the supernatural view. If the Vandals succeed, they will lower Wikipedia's editorial gates to the level of tabloids like the Sun, Weekly World News, Pravda RU, etc., which regularly publish stories promoting pseudoscience and superstitious nonsense. Askolnick 17:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: change Apple Pie example
1010011010 says he does not find the Apple Pie example to be helpful. I also find it a strange example of an article likely to be based solely on primary sources. I looked at the current Apple Pie page. As I expected, it's interesting, somewhat scholarly, and cites a number of sources, including secondary sources. I was puzzled, until I realized that the experienced editors were still living in the dark ages of 2003. They probably had in mind an early version of the page, when the Apple Pie article really was just a collection of well-known facts.

So my proposal is to change:
 * "(examples would include apple pie or current events)" to
 * "(examples would include this early version of the Apple Pie article or current events)"

A few more comments regarding the blind spots of the experienced editors. When 1010011010 raised this issue, SlimVirgin responded "Please stop posting to this page." Someone else (who has otherwise been civil and responsive) said "you may want to sleep on it and read those articles again with a fresh mind." I found these responses to be wrong-headed for two reasons:

1. A good way to craft a policy understandable to new editors is to listen to the reports of new editors, when they say that don't understand certain points.

2. If you have to "sleep on it," before understanding an example, it's probably not a very good example. Ragout 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ragout. By the way, everybody, Ragout and I have often taken opposing positions on the Finkelstein page.  You should all be ashamed of yourselves for letting newbies show you how to agrue rationally and with civility.--1010011010 03:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the uproar about?
The existence of a debate on an important Wikipedia policy was recently reported on the main mailing list. What is the uproar about and why is this page protected? Loom91 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On April 11, these points were added to the OR policy, along with an example in a new section, titled "Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position."
 * * That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source ''in the context of the topic the article is about.


 * * That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article


 * * Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.


 * Some say that these are merely clarifications of existing policy, written by old hands, whose views should prevail by virtue of their long experience. I, and others, think these are major changes being made with inadequate discussion or justification.


 * The protection is a response to numerous reverts. Ragout 06:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a summary of my position (and that of a number of newer editors): Revert back to the consensus version of a few days ago.  Don't fix what ain't broke. Ragout 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Examples
How about figuring out examples everyone can agree on before trying to agree on more abstract wording? (WAS 4.250) 4.250.132.93 09:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How about coming up with the right principles first, and then judging the examples strictly according to those principles, rather than the other way around?

Question
I have a question regarding the way the NOR policy is to be interpreted. Assume that the person X has written the book Y and that there is a wiki article on the person X. Is one permitted to write that "in the book Y, X writes about/discusses/claims the subject/statement Z" solely based on the actual book Y, or does one have to cite a scholarly source devoted to the person X and his/her work Y?

In other words, can the book Y be used as a primary source (even though the primary sources listed in the article don't include books) or do you have to use a secondary source that says that the book Y does indeed treat the topic / include the statement Z?

--85.187.44.131 14:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You may use the book as a source on Z so long as it's not self-published. If it is, you can only use it as a source about X himself (i.e. not about Z where Z is a person or an issue not directly related to X), and even then only with caution (which means you may use it only if it is not contradicted by published third-party sources, if it is not unduly self-aggrandizing, and so long as the material is notable). SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you are SlimVirgin, then you can use a self-published source from Alan Dershowitz to advance the uncited assertion by James O. Freedman that the uncited source the Chicago Manual of Style exonerates same Dershowitz of plagiarism. But you'd need a lot of nerd points to carry off a maneuver like that.  And don't try looking at the CMA yourself or SV will make an example of you. Literally. We want responsible source based research, but not if it's critical of Israel.   --1010011010 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Depending, to a certain extent, on the nature of Z - WP:NPOV may require careful handling of absurd claims which have never been repeated or deemed worth rebutting in reputable sources. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 20:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for the explanations. Now, my interest in the hypothetical situation that Ziz Guy mentioned is purely theoretical, but - I suppose that if it's an article about a person, living today, who has made the absurd claim that Earth is flat, then the article should include this statement even if no one has bothered to repeat or rebut it, right? --85.187.44.131 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless he has some claim to expertise I doubt it would be included in Earth. However, in an article on that person himself, if it were judged proper to have a segment of his article discussing his views on various topics, this could be included as "X believes the earth is flat." &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Now where in the policy is this distinction made between using Y as a source about X (allowed) and using Y as a source about Z (disallowed).  This sounds more like NPOV to me than OR. Where do you get "if Z...not directly related to X"?  Isn't that a judgement? That seems to be Katefan0's conclusion: she uses the word "judgment" rather than interpreting the policy based on its actual wording. The problem is that Jayjg and SlimVirgin resort to assertions based on their "authority" as "senior editors" rather than an intelligent interpretation and explication of the policy based on its actual wording.  They arbitrarily introduce convenient distinctions to rationalize their unilateral decisions. By the way, go look at SlimVirgin list of recent contributions/stubs.  They are all uncited assertions.  Where is the sourcing for these claims?  This is OR under SlimVirgin's absurd definition.--1010011010 03:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Every time you type a word into an article an editor judges whether it's relevant or not. The judgement I was referencing was whether or not it would be relevant to a biographical article about (Person X) to include a section of his or her views on various topics. Every time editors contribute to Wikipedia articles they decide what's relevant to that subject and what's not. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Right Kate. I wasn't intending to be antagonistic to your post.  Just making the point that it is precisely a matter of the editor's judgement rather than some formalistic conception of OR that can be strictly applied.  When you try to do the latter, as SlimVirgin does (in a partisan way, no less), you rule out all source-based research, which is absurd.--1010011010 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I don't want to engage in the debates you're having here, and I have no ambition to deal with this page, but I have to say that the policy as it is described now isn't very clear and that's why I needed to ask for clarifications on the talk page. Before I asked my question, I was almost 50% sure that using the book Y as a source about the person X or about the book Y itself would be original research: currently, the article doesn't mention that books can be used as primary sources, not even about themselves, and it's obvious that they are secondary sources only in relation to the facts they state (and only if they are scientific works), not in relation to themselves or the authors. Saying that "in his book 'The new military humanism', Noam Chomsky states that USA is an imperialist state .." etc. etc., "in the Kama Sutra, zoophilia is described as a - {quote}..." etc. etc.,  that "in the poem "'Evgeny Onegin', Alexander Pushkin describes life in Russia .. " or that "in the libretto of the musical 'Chess', the character Freddie is a mean-spirited grand chess-master who ..." etc. etc, based solely on these books, would seem to be original research in the fields of ... err, Chomsky-ology,.. historical sexology .. and literature, because the respective works obviously aren't secondary sources about scientific facts, but the policy page doesn't mention that they may be used as primary sources either. Generally, it seems to me that the formulations in the policy page are suited to deal with natural sciences and with permitted statements about facts, but not with permitted statements about statements. --85.187.44.131 12:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well. Seems like the above poster gets it, Jayjg. And no goofy persona with so many nerd points.  Just a regular joe with an IP address. How can that be?--1010011010 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what I've "got", and to what extent the point I have made has something to do with the debate that you are having. What I was suggesting was that perhaps somebody should add "books, essays etc." to the list of types of primary sources, for cases when the article is supposed to give info about the book/essay itself or about its author. I haven't given this much thought, it's just that it seems to me that the policy currently prohibits something that I feel is normal practice and that also you guys told me was permitted. Maybe I'm just missing something and interpreting the text of the page in a wrong way? If so, I would be glad to learn. --85.187.44.131 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with: "arguments that appears to advance a position"
The problem with this clause is that editors will use NPOV as a justification for OR. For example, doing a Google search or a Wikipedia word count on an article is clearly Original Research. Yet, if the editor claims that it is not "advancing a postiion" but is merely a NPOV presentation of generated facts, how will NOR be enforced? It seems it leaves a lot more wiggle room for editors to generate data in an attempt to provide what they perceive as neutrality. This is not the role of an encyclopedia. The example I'll give is on the Criticism of Wikipedia page where a non-published rebuttal is made to a published criticism using an internal analsyis of articles. IT is clearly OR. But if the new wording is allowed, does that mean editors are free to create their own statistics under the guise of a neutral presentation? I think it is bad and the phrase needs to be deleted or NPOV edit wars will break out over what should be NOR edit wars :). --Tbeatty 05:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that the three main policies do not stand independant, but rather as three parts to a whole. One must consider NPOV, NOR and V when editing. If an edit meets one but fails the others, it is prohibited by policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, I could have saved myself the trouble of typing that and merely referred you to this policy page:
 * "Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The policies are complementary, jointly determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from each other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."
 * KillerChihuahua?!? 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

THis is exactly why you can't give a NPOV out on Original Research. That's exactly why a POV test like "arguments that appears to advance a position" shouldn't be part of the Original Research pillar. If Original Research doesn't advance a position, it is still original research and should fail the test of inclusion. --Tbeatty 20:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that the phrase "arguments that appear to advance a position" is not meant to distinguish between OR that violates NPOV from OR that does not violate NPOV. I believe the phrase is meant to distinguish between descriptive and argumentative statements.  I think this is an important distinction. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be important if one type were allowed and the other not. Neither Original Research descriptive statements nor Original Research argumentative statements are allowed.  Descriptive statements need a source just as much as argumentative statements do and should be governed by the Citing sources policy.--Tbeatty 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Proclamation of protest against policy violation on N.O.R.
Null and void page exists now - original page before April 10th is official - to wit: The wikipedia policy page NOR which is not suppose to be edited in a manner to change policy without community consensus, which [|Slimvirgins edits on April 10th did], is now protected under an altered version. The original version can be accessed by all, and is the official version, until discussion, collaboration, and or a Straw Poll determines consensus. Hence, no editor is bound to adhere to the changes as the changes were made in violation of policy - regardless of what some editors keep writing about this - it is as clear as the State of Texas is big! :) That said, I propose an official RFC on this matter be conducted to determine consensus, and I insist any editor abused by the 'new' langauge inform Arbcom or the Mediation cabal of such abuse and of the violation made per policy changes without consensus.  The original Version is different quite so from the one now protected which is a false version not confirmed by consensus and should as I stated be considered null and void for all intent and purposes of Wikipedia - as the proper procedure was not followed to change the wording which changes policy! As the opening box states:

As it calls for consensus, thus, no one is obligated to follow reconstructed policy without editor's consensus. --Northmeister 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I make a motion for an RFC on this matter to resolve consensus; as I stated above. Once consensus is formed then we will have a better notion of how to go forward. I will post no further here for two weeks other than this official protest of following a policy that has been changed against consensus support. None of this or any of the above heated discussion would of occured if the procedure listed above was followed, just for the record. Once consensus is reached I and I am sure others will follow the community's will regardless of outcome. Thank You. --Northmeister 02:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Northmeister's original excessive capitalisation, contrary to netiquette and Wikipedia style guide, has been refactored. See: Capital letters, "Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis".—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"> LeflymanTalk 22:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * North, are you were attempting to get people to listen to you? issuing pseudo-legalistic proclamations with use of odd use of capitalization will generally make people less inclined to listen, rather than more inclined. JoshuaZ 02:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, but I think an RFC to conclude this matter is best and I don't like the way I have been insulted here by Slimvirgin on several occasions, which amounts to personal attacks. I wanted to officially in no uncerntain terms protest in the highest manner what has happened to get people to listen whether they hate me for it or not - because what was allowed to happened is just wrong. I have a right, you have a right, and all editors have a right to expect policy to be followed and not abused. If I enlighten just one Joe out there as to what has occured then I am satisfied.  I apologise about the way I did this above, but I had to respond to what was engaged in, with my inability to respond - especially the critique of my edit when I could not respond.  I have given my word not to respond here for two weeks.  I will stop here and respond no further out of respect for others.  Thanks and may the RFC commence and this matter be resolved in the right way and without personal insult and injury occuring above to users who protest the changes made without consensus building here. I fyou wish or anyone wishes to discuss this further then I am more than willing to respond on my talk page, I will do so here no further by my word. --Northmeister 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So start one. It is trivially easy. And STOP SHOUTING :-)  Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 07:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take it to RFC and no personal attacks. Posting complaints in the talk page won't really help. I think you are correct and would love to comment on it, but the rants don't help convince. Where is the RFC? can you post the link?--Tbeatty 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, please go ahead! There has been too much uncontrolled messing around with this policy page. I myself don't have the time and energy to take it to RFC, otherwise I'd have done it myself last week. Harald88 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I stated my reasons when I protected the page and I urge Northmister to read my original advice. When I protected the page, I protected it in the form I found it in.  This is following Wikipedia's page protection guidelines.  Another admin. unproteced it, but after consultation he agreed that it could be reprotected.  At that time other admins protected the version I protected.  This means that they disregarded one edit that was made at the time that the article had a banner stating it was protected.  The protected page is simply the verson I found when I arrived.  It is wikipedia to protect it in precisely that state.  To have done otherwise would have been to violate the policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In short, you protected the wrong version. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mess on WP:NOR
I see that a group of experienced editors are discussing restrictions on who can edit the policy page.

In my view, the edit-warring on WP:NOR could be most effectively dealt with if editors would take the trouble to demonstrate consensus before making changes. I know that many editors insist that clarifications and examples do not constitute "changes" and so can be made without discussion. But this undermines the legitimacy of the policy (since, at most, only those with extensive experience can know if the changes really do have consensus). Further, this view opens the door to "clarifications" contributed by anybody without discussion, again inviting edit wars. Unless editors start building and demonstrating consensus before extensive edits, I predict the edit-warring will continue, and restrictions on who can edit the policy will surely be needed (again, jeopardizing the legitimacy of the policy).

SlimVirgin's recent changes took less than 6 hours (!) to go from conception to incorporation into the policy, hardly enough time for discussion. I am quite pleased about my role in forcing editors to demonstrate consensus (even if it did have the appearance of insiders rallying together against outsiders rather than a genuine meeting of minds). I see this talk-page discussion as healthy, not a "mess," and I'm only sorry it didn't take place before SlimVirgin contributed her "clarifications." Ragout 03:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They existed in policy for months; examples aren't new policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing policy pages to bolster one's own position in an article edit war
I find it alarming that policy pages can be changed so easily to directly bolster an editor's argument in an edit war. 6 hours is not a discussion, it's a coups d'etat. SlimVirgin has been pushing a particular interpretation of NOR to disallow certain material at the Israeli settlement article. She has met with considerable disagreement with her interpretation, even by editors who did not think the material was suitable for the article, bit did not agree that it was Original Research. This particular edit war directly concerns SlimVirgin's views regarding Synthesis of published material. I urge the community not to allow WP policy pages to become a mockery where admins make changes to bolster their position every time they get into an edit war. See Talk:Israeli settlement. I certainly take this comfort: If SlimVirgin is taking the trouble to change the policy pages, perhaps she finally realized that the policy did not support her interpretation. Thank you.--AladdinSE 12:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether your basic point is valid or not, your comment ignores all the discussion on this page for the past several days. Slim Virgin, Jayjg, an a half dozen other users have argued that Slim Virgin made absolutely no changes to the policy.  If you cannot respond to their specific arguments an reasoning, it is hard to know how to respond to (indeed, even whether one should respond to) your comment.  I urge you to read what others have written and actually join the conversation, rather than make points that ignore a considerable discussion of the issue. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to Slrubenstein's cogent point, I might add that just yesterday you apologized for not understanding (and violating) the WP:3RR policy. Given the simplicity of the 3RR policy, is it possible that you have also misunderstand the rather more complex and subtle WP:NOR policy? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If there was no change to the policy, why was the text changed? The previous text was perfectly clear.  Did the people who changed the text have difficulty understanding the policy?  The new wording about "advancing a position" is less clear and more open to interpretation.  It convolutes the meaning and intent of NOR.  Already people are arguing about nuances in NOR that were never there to begin with.  There is simply no reason to have the additional text because everything must be cited.  Uncited material should be deleted out of hand and this includes synthesized arguments.  The additional text will give editors a reason for to add original research under the guise that it doesn't advance a position when in fact that was never a criteria. --Tbeatty 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The text was changed because editors like Ragout and 666 (below) kept showing up and arguing they could advance new positions without violating NOR. Jayjg <font color="DarkGreen">(talk) 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Either substantiate that accusation or desist from your disruptions and violations of WP:CIVIL. Ragout and I were largely on different sides of the plagiarism issue.  If you knew what you were talking about you'd know at least that.  It was Finkelstein who accused Dersh of violating the Chicago Manual of Style and it was Dersh who referred to it in his own defense. There was never any new position advanced.  For someone with a million nerd points you don't seem to get the picture.--1010011010 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Alladin. SlimVirgin changed the policy and then look how many times she went and referred complainants at Israeli Settlements and Norman Finkelstein to the policy.  What a cheat!--1010011010 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you do not desist from your disruptions and violations of WP:CIVIL, you will be blocked. Please take this statement seriously. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! Go read WP:CIVIL yourself and then we'll talk.--1010011010 04:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Last chance. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Get a load of yourself.--1010011010 05:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1010011010, you shouldn't assume that you can adopt Jayjg's standard of civility. He's an admin, and is apparently allowed to tread much closer to the incivility boundary than us commoners. Ragout 05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, what "disruptions"? The policy page is protected, so 1010011010 can't be disrupting that. Could you please spell out exactly how comments on a talk page can constitute disruption?  I ask this in all seriousness, and I hope I'll get a serious reply. Ragout 05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See your comment above, about me being "allowed to tread much closer to the incivility boundary than us commoners"? That's an example of a violation of WP:CIVIL.  People who do that don't get serious replies. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accusing you of incivility does not constitute incivility on my part. Nor does noting that your incivility has been at least as serious as 1010011010's.  And if you're going to charge folks with "disruption," much less threaten sanctions, I really think you should be prepared to explain what "disruption" means. Ragout 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ragout, have you suddenly been appointed to some sort of administrator overseer position on Wikipedia? I wasn't aware of that. Please re-review WP:CIVIL, and please use this page for its intended purpose, discussing article content. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, my comment about your incivility was directed at 1010011010, not you. I know how natural it is to adopt another's uncivil tone during a discussion. I was urging him not to be baited by you into rudeness, since you have a lot more power than he does.  I could have complained to you about incivility after almost comment you've made to me, but I have no interest in "overseeing" you.  Your punishment for incivility is the fact that every rude comment you make undermines your credibility. Ragout 06:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1010011010, directing rudeness and aggression against editors whose standing in the community is as high as Jayjg's probbaly says more about you than it does about them. I suggest you calm down and take things less personally.  Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 08:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But new text was not needed to argue that unsourced material should be removed. The problem isn't that NOR somehow allows synthesized views.  It doesn't.  Nor would it qualify under "source all claims".  But the new wording will give cover to those that want to have new interpretations.  In fact, I would argue that the changes have created more harm than good and should be reverted.  --Tbeatty 06:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not ignore a discussion, I introduced my own distinct concern. I pointed to an article Talk discussion I believed concerned editors should read in furtherance of the respectability and reliability of policy pages. As to the possibility that I might have misunderstood the subtle and more complex NOR policy, anything is possible. I have shown in the past that where I am convinced in rational discussion, I concede openly and give closure to the matter. I do not slink off without comment as I have seen others do. Also, when I make a mistake, I make a public apology, as you know. I do not turn Wikipedia disputes into personal contests of will, or disrespect and neglect the discussion process, again as I have seen others do. Also, I hope I have more to offer in a serious discussion that to link and re-link to policy pages and in a most condescending fashion tell my colleagues to read them again and again, as if I and my allies were the only intelligent creatures capable of such simple cognition.--AladdinSE 11:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)